#and it’s not excused or diminished it’s very much portrayed as an issue that only breeds more prejudice

[evie-doesnt-write]

Watching Dungeon Meshi

[survivalove]

hii what type of tropes do u think katara fits ?? and what type of tropes do u think her character subverts ??

Hi anon! I’m not gonna lie this is a heavy topic which has been weighing on my mind ever since my Katara rant a few days ago. Tbh, I wasn’t going to make a post about this, just cuz I feel like maybe I talk too much 😂 but you just gave me the perfect excuse so here we go:

1. Girls are Healers, not Fighters

I want to start this off with the issue of misogyny in the Northern Water Tribe and how the fandom discusses Katara’s portrayal in LoK. First of all, the NWT not allowing girls to fight is misogyny and Pakku telling Katara to “go in the healing hut with the other women” very much sounds like “go in the kitchen where you belong”. This is something everyone understands.

However, I think we start losing the plot when people only focus on this aspect and ironically parrot the same misogyny when they talk about female healers in the franchise and in media. Let’s look at Yagoda. Yagoda is a recognized master. She doesn’t teach in her house, her kitchen or her bedroom. She teaches in a school alongside other master healers and students. When the Yue was stillborn, who did her family turn to at first? Pakku? No, the healers. During the civil war, did Katara just sit at home twiddling her fingers like so many in the fandom would have you believe? No, she was single-handedly healing dozens of rebels in her White Lotus outpost. The importance of female healers in the franchise and media in general should not be diminished when speaking out against this misogynistic trope. I just had to get that out of the way.

So, how does ATLA subvert this trope with Katara? They show her developing her healing abilities alongside her fighting skills. One does not hinder the other. When Katara discovers her healing ability, she gains respect for possessing a talent so rare and revered, by a man originally from the nation that wiped out the male and female waterbenders of her tribe. When Katara saves Aang’s life, the most important moment in the entire show IMO, in the same episode, she is also shown facing off a major enemy in battle and winning. These two sides of her are constantly shown in balance to the fullest extent of her power, without one skill being diminished to highlight the other.

2. The Hero’s Girl

I think this is another trope that’s prevalent in media, particularly shonen animes which ATLA gets compared to so often. A lot of times these female love interests are never in the main story without the main male character. They seemingly have a one-sided crush, fall apart at his feet, interacts with him only when he needs her (and only him), and can sometimes be a pick-me when it comes to any competing female characters. I think a lot of people see Katara this way solely because she gets with Aang in the end, when this does not even come close to how she is portrayed.

Katara is an extremely developed character. Her arc is largely independent of Aang even though there are so many parallels between the two. Katara initially sees Aang as just a friend and even when she starts seeing him as a potential love interest, she’s not begging him to notice her or accept her affections. She gets jealous but isn’t competing with anyone for his attention for long and she has relationships with other characters that further the story whether Aang is there or not. She doesn’t exist solely to be with him, in fact she even teaches him. Katara and Aang being endgame is not integral to either one of their stories. They don’t agree with each other all the time and when he pushes their romance too far, she isn’t framed in a negative light for rebuffing his affections. No one in the narrative forces her to be with Aang because he’s the Avatar for status, or anything else. Love is not her biggest priority and she chooses to put off her romantic feelings until the war ends.

Now does she get jealous of other girls who seem to like Aang as well? Yes. Does she cry and get emotional when something happens to him? Yes. Does she spend an episode pestering the fortuneteller about her future husband and get excited at the idea of falling in love? Lol yeah. Does she blush and hug and kiss Aang often? Literally every other episode. But that’s not all there is to her or their dynamic. I think some people often overemphasize the fact that Aang and Katara do get together in the end and act like it automatically voids the rest of her development in canon when it really doesn’t. Like I said in another post, I know a lot of Katara stans that don’t ship her with anyone or can discuss her character at great length without mentioning romance. People who choose to focus on her ending up with the hero to ‘defend’ her are more doing her a disservice if you ask me.

3. One-Dimensional Female Characters

This sort of ties into everything I just said and is also something the franchise achieves with all the female characters, but even more-so with Katara. Katara has several behaviors that directly contradict her general personality traits:

In the Chase, Katara lectures Toph about the importance of doing chores and being a team player and in the same episode, insults her, picks fights with her to the point she leaves the group entirely.

Katara loves her brother and always cheers him up when he’s feeling him down, but she still will tease and pick on him, and on a darker note, lashes out at him in the Southern Raiders when he doesn’t tell her what she wants to hear.

Katara turns up her nose at the wrestling tournament they find Toph in and winces as she attacks The Earth King’s soldiers, but still partakes in fighting the war because it’s for the greater good.

Katara from a young age had to take up the societal expectations that her mother would have had in her family and in her tribe, but is still a child and often takes delight in activities children enjoy, as she should.

The point is, Katara isn’t one-dimensional. There are a lot of contradictions within her that are usually juxtaposed one after the other. Yet, most viewers can only focus on one side at a time, usually choosing to focus on the negative aspects of her character. They will complain about her being motherly as if she never has fun. They will focus on the one time she was out of line with Sokka just to attack her character. They will cry she was too hard on Zuko, after 2.5 seasons of him chasing them down.

Most annoying of all, they will compare her to other female characters who are less hypocritical in nature and, in my opinion, simply not as complex as Katara. Don’t even get me started on how community is such an integral part of Katara, Sokka and Aang’s characters and how their character development often get overlooked in favor of characters with more individualistic and straightforward narratives. But this is about Katara.

Katara is an unapologetically feminine character that is sweet and kind without serving some villainous agenda that gives her a reason to be on par with the male characters when it comes to fighting skill. Her strength gets questioned in ways that Azula, Toph, Mai and Ty Lee’s do not. She subverts a lot of misogynistic tropes that a lot of 2000s female love interests in media suffered from and still do. She’s a very difficult character for most people to wrap their heads around, simply because she doesn’t stick to the script that most fmcs who look and act like her, do.

If we pretend she’s not fictional for two seconds, Katara is a hypocrite and hello? Who isn’t. It’s human nature for people to change their minds or do things that don’t really match up with that they’re say about. People who get mad at Katara for this, are essentially saying they’re mad because she’s not a flat character and they don’t even realize it. Her contradictions aren’t just one-off moments and her grief over her mother’s death isn’t something she only brings up once or twice. These occur over and over again because she is the other main character and with that comes a lot more screentime for her to be hypocritical, grow and show development to a level that the other female characters can’t.

[maggiec70]

Antoinette Redux...

...and doubtless for far longer than I'm around.

Some time ago I replied to an earnest but largely inaccurate defense of Marie-Antoinette that bemoaned the alleged myths surrounding her. I only remembered this when someone “liked” my response, and I looked at it again. This time, I noticed the five added comments extolling Antoinette and Louis and tossing out red herrings and additional historical bloopers. More important, however, was that the original poster shut it down to any further comments. I wonder why? Disapproves of criticism? Dislikes historical accuracy when it challenges the pretty view she extolls of her historical heroine? Wants the two “fans” to have their say but no more from the nay-sayers?

I will not let this pass, petty as it may seem.  Besides, there are times that I refuse to allow crap about specific historical figures to pass unchallenged.

These are the comments posted in Antoinette’s defense. I haven’t changed a word, but I deleted the names because they are unimportant. My responses are in italics.

Commenter #1:

“There is evidence King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette gave to the poor, provided education and other needs to the poor, and that the queen took a special interest in local children in need.”

In my reblog, I described specifically how Antoinette treated the poor; this is a regurgitation but more generalized, perhaps to make this charity seem much more extensive and continuous than it was. One point here for some accuracy, though marred by clear exaggeration.

King Louis was very 'wholesome' and was the first king not to take a mistress. Yet cartoons of the time portrayed all the royals and nobles as debauched.

Louis had some well-documented physical issues—the two most critical were tight, painful phimosis, which generally inhibits erection and ejaculation, and hypogonadism, which causes diminished libido. I suppose those conditions would preclude a mistress. These conditions also meant that he did not consummate his marriage until Antoinette’s brother, Joseph II, came to Paris to explain the mechanics of sex to Louis. Nevertheless, Antoinette didn’t have a child until eight years later. The contemporary historical records, including reports from his doctors, are replete with medical details. Quite a few are on Gallica, and even more are in the various French archives. Have a look, why don’t you?

Does this low libido and physical condition make Louis “wholesome?” Absolutely not. But it does explain why he never had a mistress. And yes, the cartoons and broadsheets more often showed Louis as impotent and hopeless, watching as Antoinette frolicked with legions of men. Louis was undoubtedly sexually dysfunctional, but Antoinette was not debauched or promiscuous.  These broadsides were the late 18th century’s equivalent of X, formerly known as Twitter, where folks trashed royals and aristocrats.

“Marie apologized to the executioner for stepping on his toe.”

Excuse me, but why on earth does this matter? After almost a lifetime of indifference at best toward anyone not in her intimate circle, Antoinette’s “apology” means squat. However, if this means a great character trait, go right ahead.

Commenter #1, second comment:

“Some of the worst treatment was meted out toward their son, a helpless child, while imprisoned. It is too horrific to repeat here.”

No, this treatment is not “too horrific” to repeat here or anywhere if you want people to know what happened. However, you have to be careful here or regarding any other subject regarding what sources you use. Yes, indeed, the removal of the then eight-year-old dauphin, Louis-Charles, from his mother and sister, Marie-Therese, was harsh. His imprisonment was brutal: cold, filthy, with little water and less food, and no human contact other than his jailers who kept him under constant surveillance and who beat him almost daily, continually criticized Antoinette and Louis, as well as trying to force him to deny God, sing bawdy songs, and learn how to curse. The more gruesome allegations of sexual abuse are plentiful as well but not confirmed in the historical record. All the other types of abuse are documented in plentiful archival documents.

Commenter #2:

“…yes...and this poor child was litterally [sic] taken from his mother [sic] arms... Knowing how difficult it was for Marie Antoinette to have children in the first place ( in the Sofia Coppola movie my heart sinks every time when the young Queen runs to her private chamber to cry when her SIL gives birth) that was the worst thing her enemies could do to hurt her.”

Removing a child from its mother’s arms is a dreadful experience, but certainly not unique to Antoinette. So why is this an issue? Because it truly is not. Think of the many thousands of impoverished French mothers whose children dead from disease and starvation were removed from their arms for burial. Changes the perspective a bit, or it should.

The danger of using movies for any historical knowledge should be obvious. Coppola’s version certainly failed to explain any of the real reasons and backstory for these tears. And they are also exaggerated. You don’t read any history—real history, not Wikipedia, not historical novels, do you?

Commenter #1, third comment:

“Too horrible to imagine.”

I was tempted to omit this part of the chorus as too inane and uninformative, but, you know, truth.

I have no idea this will change anyone’s mind—it probably won’t, since breathless fangurl love for Antoinette, Anne Boleyn, and any one of the Romanov girls is generally firmly in place and generally idealistic.

However, I’m a historian, and I don’t often let misinformation unsupported by archival, primary, and even valid secondary sources go unchallenged. I also know how to evaluate those sources regarding when and by whom they were written and in what political, social, religious, and economic environment.

So here we are. I’ve said my piece—again—about Antoinette. Disagree all you like, but please state on what your disagreement is based: fact, or opinion.

[mediocreauthor]

nana komatsu: how we surpass trauma to survive

tw: rape, sexual assault 

I recently wrote the way Hachi didn’t acknowledge or deal with her rape was one of the most realistic portrayals I have ever seen, whether that was Yazawa’s intention or not. 

Now you can say how Yazawa portrayed certain issues was wrong and potentially harmful for many young girls who read NANA and saw incredibly damaging behaviors brushed over or not even portrayed as bad. And you would be correct but this post isn’t about NANA’s affect, but rather story itself. 

The morning after Hachi’s pregnancy was revealed, which I consider as a turning point of the story, Takumi raped Hachi. I really don’t want to sugar coat or be poetic about this, he raped her. Now, I have been seeing some posts excusing Takumi’s actions therefore I will explain why this is considered as rape. 

In chapter 29, we don’t see Hachi explicitly saying no or fighting back, but hesitant and reluctant because Nana is right next door. Takumi first tries to convince her and when Hachi remains hesitant, what does he tell her?  “You should worry about making me angry.” I am paraphrasing but the message was this. Hearing this, Hachi gives up and people might think she ‘lets’ Takumi do whatever she wants therefore it’s okay somehow, it’s not. 

I read this somewhere and I want all of everyone to read it as well: A ‘yes’ only has value when someone is comfortable enough to say ‘no’. Hachi’s unwilling ‘yes’ means nothing because she was just very openly threatened by Takumi. Hachi, alienated from her friends, knowing Nana sees her as a traitor, Nobu as a cheater, Hachi who had no support for her baby, was given a clear ultimatum by Takumi, the only person she had by her side: if you don’t give me what I want, I will hurt you. You will be left alone. So she does. And then she doesn’t even acknowledge it as rape. She is angry and distraught after but it’s for the strawberry glasses and she just looks slightly annoyed with Takumi. That’s all. Where is that dramatic aftermath we usually see in media, where woman cries, breaks everything within reach then stares blankly at the ceiling?

Because most rape aftermaths don’t look like that. I am BY NO MEANS saying women whose experiences was as I wrote above as invalid. Most rape cases aren’t reported, we know that. But there is also a heartbreaking amount of women who can’t even decide if they have been raped or not. Women, who are  haunted by a certain memory but always pushing it to back of their minds.  I believe Hachi is one of them.  There is a high possibility Hachi was unable to register it as rape but we -readers can observe the effects of it through her behaviour. Hachi is terrified of Takumi. Fans give her so much shit for not contacting Nobu, even Hachi called it out of selfishness and no action is done with one mere emotion, but she also avoided it out of fear of angering Takumi. 

Hachi’s fear of him is displayed plain as day during Shin and Reira’s birthday party. Hachi knew she has angered Takumi by staying at the party, she even considers divorcing him and her inner monologue was pretty brave and promising. So what changed when Takumi knocked on Nana’s door? I would like to break down what for me, is one of the most disturbing scenes in NANA.

This scene right here, is a cry for help for someone who can recognize certain patterns in abusive relationships.

Hachi was in a good mood right before this scene, Nana even pointed out she was too cheerful for someone in the brink of a break up. However, at presence of Takumi, she immediately caves and apologizes for doing things without his knowledge while at the same time, still offering a way out. This way out isn’t for Takumi, it’s for her. I am %100 sure if Takumi said ‘okay go live your own then’, even though sad, Hachi’s predominant emotion would be relief.

She is terrified of Takumi. Hachi is unable to escape this unless he gives her an out. She regretted her ‘choice’ of being with Takumi the morning after but she had no one or nowhere to go. Now, you might think ‘she could’ve gone back to her parents!’ or ‘she could’ve lived on her own’ and I want to counter with: abused people’s mind don’t function like that. Even though you are somewhat aware that you are being treated badly, taken advantage of, it’s pushed way back in your mind. Your world consists of only you and your abuser, you can’t think of options simply because you don’t see any. 

And your abuser makes you believe what they are doing isn’t a big deal. They treat you with kindness right after abusing you while not acknowledging their behavior to leave you disoriented and unsure about the weight of what you have experienced. What Takumi did to Hachi was exactly that. So what did she do? She surpassed it and moved on.

‘I didn’t allow it for the sake of our future, but because I wanted to escape the terror and anxiety of that moment’ Read this sentence over and over again and process it. If I read one more take about how ‘what Takumi did wasn’t that bad compared to other NANA characters’ I am going to fucking slap them with this panel. Hachi learned that disobeying Takumi is pointless. She allows it even when considering separation, why? She is paralyzed by fear.  Because she tried to object Takumi once and learned her lesson. Obedience is so much easier than what you might face with your abuser. You bend and cave, do everything in your power to avoid their wrath. It’s safer.  Admitting that you haven’t received the best treatment from someone who is supposed to cherish you is an act strength by itself. I do not blame any victims of abuse who don’t want to admit or process their trauma. It’s hard, it’s terrifying and frustrating. Being able to process your trauma is a luxury most women don’t have. Hachi doesn’t have it with a belly up her nose at the age of 21. She is in a vulnerable position and don’t think even for a second Takumi isn’t aware of it. 

Next day, Hachi greets Takumi by the door as usual. Their home life becomes pretty stable since she takes all his micro aggressions,  his snarky comments and belittlement with slight annoyance, still with humor. Because the other scenario is losing herself. She surpasses her trauma to maintain her sanity. 

Why do I love this? 

Because a lot of women do exactly this. A lot of housewives who stick with their husbands despite years of abuse, young girls with their boyfriends do this. Because I read NANA at the age of 14 and didn’t even understand what Hachi went through but rereading it at 23, with what I have seen made me sob. Whether Ai Yazawa’s approach was irresponsible or genius I don’t know. But I took something valuable from it and if any minors or young adults especially are following me, I want them to recognize these patterns and behaviors too. 

And what should never be done is to take this tragic coping mechanism and turn it into an excuse to diminish your favorite rat boy’s behavior. You can keep saying what Takumi did wasn’t bad based on Hachi’s reaction, be aware it’s a survival instinct, not nonchalance.   To sum it up: Hachi is a survivor and what she lived through was just as sad and tragic as other characters, and  I am fucking sick of people invalidating it because she coped with a smile.

[lordeasriel]

Would you say the characterisation of Lyra in the hdm books is sexist? Feels like she is diminished in book 2 and 3 and ends up much more constrained and trapped in the "docile woman" role (which is weird to me bc she is so bold in book 1)

Oh, hello anon, this is a tricky question because I think yes, it is and also no, it isn't and I will elaborate lmao

Yes, I definitely think Lyra's portrayal in TSK and TAS is rooted in sexism, but I don't think Philman did so deliberately. I don't think he woke up one day and decided to downgrade Lyra's character throughout the series. Her character - and that of most if not all women in the series - follows a certain pattern in how they're written and that is certainly rooted in how he was brought up, and sure he is progressive enough for a man who grew up through the 50s and 60s. For today's standards that just won't do, but when reading older authors and older books, it's important to keep this idea in your mind, especially while doing analyses. So this is why I think Lyra's portrayal is rooted in sexism, but it probably wasn't something deliberately done.

I hate that portrayal of hers in the following books and I don't think there are any excuses for that; I see some people say she changed because of trauma, but nonetheless, her docile attitude is never explained in the books, which in itself alone it's bad. It's not even addressed, she just changes overnight. I remember being super excited for TSK and then reading a few chapters and being so, so disappointed. Will was awful, Lyra was downgraded to his stupid sidekick, no Asriel, very little Marisa... It was a bad experience overall lmao

Lyra being docile and lacking assertiveness - which do not match her behavior in book 1 - is the most disappointing thing for me. Growing up, I never had female main characters that I could see (I only read HDM at 18) unless they were a girl having to choose between two dudes, which to me always felt silly. This is a recurring problem in literature, you always find female protagonists being overwhelmed by a male side-character. It's not different in HDM, it's just considerably better written and hidden behind a curtain of "this is based on Paradise Lost." It's YA at its core and like YA, it commits virtually the same sins.

But Lyra's changes in behavior shouldn't have been surprising, because Mrs Coulter also changes, and all the women are written vaguely the same. Philman has a couple of patterns he follows (intentionally or not, it doesn't matter, this is where your cultural and social upbringing takes its place in your writing) and they are somewhat similar between themselves:

1) The Mother: most women in the series either play maternal roles or are actual mothers. They all have a sense of caring, healing and nurturing that is displayed as natural to them, and they often are found caring for their offspring or in a similar role towards unrelated characters. (Such as Hannah for Malcolm, in case you read TBOD, or Mary towards Will and Lyra). Lyra already displays some nurturing skills when she helps Iorek in book 1, but as the series progresses, she becomes less independent and begins to exist solely to serve as Will's motherly guide: changing his bandages, serving his Will, the only exception being her decision to go to the land of the dead. This also happens to Mrs Coulter, as her arc ended with her realising how much she loved Lyra and how this feeling overwhelmed her and changed her. It's disgraceful, but I'm saving this for my Mrs Coulter post because I have too much to say lmao All the Gyptians we meet are women serving men and acting as mothers and the witches whole culture is about reproducing. Womanhood is haunted by motherhood, apparently.

2) The Lover: now this as trope is tricky, but it happens in HDM. Both Lyra and Marisa tame their wildness in front of their "lovers" (I hate calling Will a lover but there u go), becoming malleable and less assertive, Marisa still escaping this trope because she was a vastly better written character than half the women in HDM, but at the end of books 1 and 3, she is very much downplaying herself in favour of Asriel. For Lyra, this happens way before she considers liking Will, and this is why I hate it: I know Philman could have done a better job with this, he didn't have to hide Lyra's savagery and wildness just so she could kiss a piece of shit of a boy. The Witches are examples of women written as lovers too, in fact, like the mother trope, their whole culture is based on this. They are young-looking, beautiful, sensual women (all slender *coughs*) that seek men and become obsessed with them unless they fuck them. THAT is fucking insane; sure, on its own I wouldn't mind as much, but together with everything else, writing the women, who are supposed to be the opposite of what "good women" in Lyra's society should be, as crazy sex driven is just. Something Else. Not to mention the fact they threaten men's lives. I mean this one is pretty bad as it is.

3) The Elderly Woman: now, this one also is tricky because as a trope it is versatile, but I'll try to be quick. If you are not in the range of fuckable (of age and/or body type) you fall into this category. Crazy, I know, but when you look at it it's exactly what happens. The women portrayed as desirable or attractive, they all fall into the lover category, and occasionally the mother category, but some women aren't written as sexually desirable, so they just end up as old ladies who are helpful/unhelpful. Hannah Relf is the biggest example of that, but you have other women here too: Miss Charmichael, Sister Fenella, Sister Benedicta, Will's piano teacher. In fact, if you read La Belle Sauvage, you'll realise that not even the nuns escape the trope: the younger nuns are still sexually desirable, so they fit into the lover category, and they all tend to be motherly towards Lyra.

So there you go: sorry for derailing this, but I think this is a tricky question that I can't just answer with yes or no. It runs much deeper than that in the series; it's not just a Lyra problem, although Lyra's issue is the biggest one in my opinion; it was so disappointing to read I nearly dropped the series altogether. And I plan to write two metas that will touch on this subject, but for now, this should do. Thanks for the ask!

[thejustmaiden]

Unfortunately, if Sunrise makes Sessrin canon, it won't bring much issue to them, the japanese fans love this ship, and in Japan there's this whole lolicon culture, 10 year old idols and schoolgirl pin-ups which are also accepted there. I still can't believe Japan doesn't see any issue with child grooming and exploiting underage girls, and seeing the series that put a mark on my childhood going through the same direction, makes me sad and concerned.

Howdy, nonnie! Happy weekend. 😚

Even though there are many Japanese fans out there who are antis like you and me, I'm well aware of the fact that there's an overwhelming number of fans there who not only celebrate this ship but are quite fanatical about it, too.

Of course I acknowledge that culture plays a role in how people learn to perceive certain relationship dynamics as they grow up. Their fans appear to think we're naive on that matter, but obviously we're more than familiar with Japan's infatuation with lolicon. Why else would we be so enraged over this ship in the first place? Because of shipping wars?! How many times must we repeat that this goes beyond petty fandom squabbles. This is about real life, and this is about protecting our kids and their future. Tell me, what could be more important than that?

What some of their fans fail to realize is that culture shouldn't be the only deciding factor we take into account when determining right from wrong. Culture isn't the ultimate form of defense either, and it's unethical to use it as an excuse to justify glorifying the sexualization of underage girls. It's ridiculous to believe that culture is "above our morals" so to speak, as if past and present cultures haven't tried to pass off messed up ideologies as mere differences of opinion.

At first glance it may not appear to some like it's a serious issue because "it's just fiction," which must mean people putting this content out there can get away with it then, correct? Oh, well sure they can since they've already been doing so for the longest time! The thing is just because it's "acceptable" and has been around forever doesn't make it right.

I urge you Sessrin shippers to please reflect on that for a moment and try and imagine what the future holds for our children if we persist in normalizing these harmful tropes where girls continue to be placed in highly inappropriate sexual contexts. How do you think putting a positive and romantic spin on a relationship like that will bode for them if they were ever to encounter a situation resembling it in real life? I know it's not exactly the image any of us want to picture, but can't you at the very least admit it's a possibility that a child/teen may potentially mistake a predator's intent as romantic because of what they've been exposed to in the media? I'm not saying that's proof every single child will be susceptible. But truly consider this: isn't one child risky enough?

It's engrained in girls at an early age, especially in places like Japan, that we are but visual appreciations for men AKA what you may know as the "male gaze." It's supposedly natural for men to look upon us women so it should be expected and even sought out. Phenomena like lolicon only take it further by romanticizing it and in turn validating this kind of predatory behavior in society.

Fiction has the power to remove all the questionable and ambiguous areas and focus on the super unrealistic flowery parts instead. But guys, just because a particular culture has found a loophole to portraying a relationship synonymous to real life grooming in a positive light does not mean they can and should get away with it. And especially when we got literal children watching!

Please please please read this short meta on this subject I'm addressing now. I recommend you read the comments section too, because there you'll hear from so many people who can relate with their own personal experiences. It's quite harrowing to see how many of us are out there.

This just goes to prove that it's crucial everyone understands this because we gotta start calling out the people responsible for this content and holding them accountable. That includes the authors, the screenwriters, the animators- you name it! We can't allow these sexualized images of young or pre-pubescent girls to be the norm anymore. I don't care how much it's a part of your tradition, because bear in mind that many immoral things were once tradition.

Now that you've read this far I want you to ask yourself this: Why do you think Rin- a character we've only ever known as a young girl in this series, mind you- is automatically associated with sex right off the bat? I mean, how do we know that she'll even be married or want to be married? Or hell, that she even likes boys?? What if she grows up and likes only women or perhaps both?! Or maybe she's not attracted to either!!

The point I'm trying to make is that we have absolutely no information on adult Rin, and she does not exist as far as we know. I hope she's alive, but what I meant to say is that I don't believe it's been officially confirmed that she's in the sequel yet. (Please correct me if I'm wrong though!) So the real question we should be asking ourselves right now is why are we so concerned with her love life? Why is this ever the only subject of importance in Rin's future? It's not for Sesshomaru but why is it for Rin? Don't you think it's sad that the first thing we as an audience associate a young girl around an older male figure with is sex and romance; like that's all she's good for and as if there's no greater purpose for her to serve.

We really oughta stop perpetuating these demeaning and inaccurate beliefs of what a woman's life should amount to. This idea that Rin doesn't want anything more than to be with Sesshomaru wherever he is no matter what completely diminishes her character to nothing more than ironically enough that little girl he once traveled with. Essentially the only reason you're aging her up is so she can have sex with him, but you still expect her to have no agency and follow him around blindly. A child may do that but not a full grown woman. Nope, not even in feudal times.

What that basically tells me is that you believe her character growth is non-existent and she's only in this story to serve Sesshomaru's plot and never her own outside of him. He needed to learn to think of others besides himself? Rin did that! He needs romance now? Well, that's what Rin is there for!! To satisfy his every need. Because apparently his character development only extends to her and her character's significance doesn't go beyond him.

Wow, such an honor to be reduced to nothing more than some pretty little sex object. But as long as Sesshomaru is happy then I suppose that's all that matters, right?

I could go and on, but best I stop. Lol Thanks again for the ask, nonnie. Here's hoping one of our favorite childhood memories will be salvaged! 2020 has already been shitty enough as is. 😆

[aion-rsa]

Why Evil is the Only TV Procedural Worth Watching

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

This Evil article contains spoilers. You can read a spoiler-free review of the show here.

Who knows what evils lie at the heart of CBS’s Evil? Shadows know. We consulted a book of shadows (not the one Leland Townsend (Michael Emerson) skims, too many spoilers there) to cut into the left ventricle of the darkness feeding the network’s supernatural series, now in production for season 2. The blood of the police procedural pumps through the veins of the paranormal investigation show, but Evil transcends the statutes of those limitations. Occasionally by papal decree. The series is intelligent, filled with symbolism, and its main character, who is training to be a priest, drops acid on a semi-regular basis. And he’s not microdosing. Look at those baggies.

Evil doesn’t debunk demonic possession, which is the main thrust of the team’s investigations. It never treats it as campy. The series believes demons are real, even giving the audience a breakdown of the six different forms possession take. But it deliciously stops short of giving full commitment. The show also explores how to parse out personal responsibility when there’s a supernatural being to blame. In episode 7, “Vatican 3,” we learn “the court does not acknowledge demonic possession” in determining guilt or innocence. The series further muddies the waters when the crew has to take a hard look at a murder committed by someone who wasn’t possessed, such as when the parents of what they believed is a demonically possessed child kill him. The series further turns the screw because the kid they killed to save their other children was born evil. It was literally in his genes.

Evil shares DNA with The X-Files, and David Acosta, played with charisma and empathy by Mike Colter (Luke Cage), is the new show’s Fox “Spooky” Mulder. He is looking for answers beyond the veil, which has the same letters as evil, and he is putting the pieces together like a hidden map of old Manhattan. There’s a truth out there and he’s willing to do whatever it takes to understand it. He’s not in it to solve any crimes against venal sins. He is looking for deeper meaning, and this alone puts the series above most procedurals. David’s got a bit of the scientist Dodge from original The Planet of the Apes film in his cinematic character. One of the first astronauts to delve so deep into the outer reaches of space, “He’d walk naked into a live volcano if he thought he could learn something no other man knew.” David is the same. He was a foreign correspondent in war-ravaged Afghanistan who got to know the soldiers whose stories he reported. Truth and knowledge are the most noble of callings, and ultimately come before his religious calling.

While the basic premise of a spiritual believer teamed with a dissenting psychologist is procedural trope, Evil is out to debunk the law of its diminishing returns. First, the show teams David with not just one skeptical voice, but two. Katja Herbers’ Dr. Kristen Bouchard plays the same role Agent Dana Scully played to Mulder, and with a similar arsenal. She comes from a different perspective, though. Bouchard does indeed believe in miracles, but thinks they all have scientific explanations. She is confident the only reason something might defy natural principles is because science hasn’t been applied properly yet. Scully, who wore a cross and took her faith seriously, accepted miracles on faith. David and Kristen rarely come to the same conclusion.

Ben Shakir, played by Aasif Mandvi, brings common knowledge, and shades his skepticism with cynicism. The former Daily Show correspondent takes on the weight of all three Lone Gunmen but with more constructive skills. Before joining the paranormal team, he was a carpenter, just like Jesus. Ben knows how things work, and when everyday mechanisms like sinks or faulty wiring are the root cause of supernatural phenomena, he can turn the screws, and spot the mold. Ben, “the Magnificent,” as Kristen’s children call him, is also tech savvy, and quite capable of hacking hackers.

Evil also throws things at Ben which he can’t easily spackle over with even the best of tests. Try as he may, and he tries, he can’t explain the light of an angel in the frame of a surveillance video. There is no evidence of doctoring, even at the most expert levels. “The world is weird,” David passes off as dating advice when Ben asks about potential girlfriend Vanessa (Nicole Shalhoub), who wants to know she if she should detach from her dead sister before committing to a new relationship. Vanessa thinks she is “tethered” to her phantom sister by the right arm.

Supernatural science is bizarre, creators Robert and Michelle King (The Good Wife, Braindead) believe. They push the show to diagnose causes the external evidence of exorcisms and stigmata, the bleeding wounds which correspond to the wounds on Christ’s hands when he was nailed to the cross. Because stigmatics display their wounds as they are portrayed artistically, rather than how the Romans historically would have done the crucifixion, it proves it comes from a psychological source. Internal belief causes the phenomena, not external spiritual forces. Evil explains that, allowing ample room for skepticism, belief, and even poetic reasons for spiritual incursions. David quotes Shakespeare to enunciate his faith. The concept of free will doesn’t come up in most procedurals. Neither does the way sociopolitical issues are turned into supernatural questions and tied to the origins of evil.

Evil is almost a character in Evil, and has relatable entry points. Real demons first get to Kristen’s four young daughters through an augmented reality videogame. A little girl who never takes off her Halloween mask almost gets the sisters to bury one alive. We don’t know how much of the characters’ perceptions is the result of a demon character’s influence on them. Each character is slowly being tempted by the dark side.

Kristen joined the team as a rational thinker but has had to accommodate uncomfortable ideas and adjust her comfort zone accordingly. In her usual line of work, she’s analyzed the criminally insane, but the show has pushed her into close contact with people who are evil in the Biblical sense. She is being pushed incrementally by forces in and out of her control. Her own mother Sheryl (Christine Lahti) sides with a manipulative competitor, Leland, over her daughter, and he’s made direct threats. The first season can be seen as Kristen’s slow corruption. The second season may see Kirsten apply her skills to her own situation, which will delve further into the dichotomy between the spiritual and pragmatic.

This is because Kristen may have already fallen. The final episode includes a telltale blood stain, which she wills Ben to unsee. On any procedural this is considered a clue, but here on Evil, the evidence actually points further than a mere homicide. It is the first sign that a main character has gone to the dark side. It is confirmed when the touch of a crucifix blisters her hand. There’s no such thing as an original sin and Kristen has been flirting with temptation long before this.

Kristen is a married nonpracticing Catholic who lost her faith. She’s sexually attracted to David, a man on his way to becoming a priest. When this subject was broached on the classic 1970s cop comedy Barney Miller, a prostitute who was supposed to be a young priest’s last fling before he entered a monastery said “I break laws, not commandments.” It feels like Kristen reminds herself of this every time the two of them are on screen alone together. Their sexual chemistry is that palpable. Yes, this is very similar to the long-gesticulating romance between Mulder and Scully, but he was no priest and she wasn’t married. Not only is Kristen married, but she’s got half a brood of daughters. Annoying things, really, but at least one of them has an excuse. Another reason Evil is the only procedural worth watching is because everyone on it just might be cursed. That’s not found in the manuals.

Evil towers over contemporary procedurals in how it’s going dark. Most procedurals chase a morally compromised arc, but Evil treats it like an encroaching corruption. Kristen, who is sworn to uphold the law, may have gone more than rogue vigilante. Besides the crucifix-burning season closing, David has visions of a goat demon waiting for Kristen with a scythe. She’d been tormented by her own personal demon throughout the season but when the George, the demon-like creature who visits Kristen during sleep paralysis, falls on the knife, it changes nothing. He is just one of many demons. One of them set up practice and is taking office hours with Leland.

The Demon Therapist is an all-male Goat of Mendes, or Baphomet. The show gets into how different biblical angels look from how they’re perceived artistically and by the contemporary faithful, but won’t present a faithful representation of Baphomet. It’s as patriarchal as Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. Evil keeps it vague whether the goat demon is real or in Leland’s head. The Demon therapist appears in Kristen’s dreams as well. Lexis (Maddy Crocco) disabled the house alarm for the visiting devil therapist when he invites her to “the next level,” making it seem she is at least susceptible to underworldly influence. The kids are irritating, but they are a bargaining chip and their father, Adam, put them up for grabs when they chanted together offering an exchange of souls. Kristen was co-opted into evil through protective motherly instinct. She doesn’t see the mark of the devil as a badge of honor. When Kristen puts the cross in her palm, she doesn’t look like she expected it as much as feared it.

While the network show will never have the freedoms afforded cable series, the acting is top notch all around. Series like HBO’s Perry Mason or even Showtime’s reimagined second incarnation of Penny Dreadful: City of Angels, provide a wider range of emotion and carnality. But Evil gives us muted, for the most part believable performances, very often underplayed. As are the special effects and use of technology as a narrative device. Too many procedurals treat high tech surveillance and other investigative tools like they are all-seeing eyes which can count nostril hairs.  It has become normalized. Evil doesn’t waste intellectual space with unreasonable gadgets. The tools Ben or Leland use to their computerized ends are believable. At one point, Kristen asks Ben to record a cell phone conversation which is already halfway over. She is surprised he can’t with all his special skills.

The series incorporates real world horrors into mundane life. Even some of the most normal looking settings carry a sense of unease, to underscore the show’s thesis that the supernatural is natural but never quite normalized. Many of the scenes are shot vertically, drawing the viewers’ eyes upward and inferring something is always going on above. The series’ many wide-angle shots put a distance between characters even in close-ups.

The show isn’t afraid to wear its influences on its sleeves, and on several occasions has a lot of fun with it. For Dr. Kurt Boggs’ (Kurt Fuller) arrival at an exorcism, they recreated Father Merrin’s introductory scene in the horror classic The Exorcist, shot for shot, even getting an exact replica of the light post and the same make car, though different year, from the film. They gave nods to Rosemary’s Baby, Misery, Cabin in the Woods, and Children of the Corn.  The climbing ax which Kirsten grabs on her way out to do damage on the serial killer Orson looks like it has teeth. As did the walking stick Lon Chaney’s Larry Talbot carried in The Wolfman. The demon George looks like Freddy Krueger’s good-looking cousin. The tonality of the show is reminiscent of Charles Laughton’s immeasurably influential Night of the Hunter.

The main reason Evil shines above most procedurals is because it is scary, and those scares have been building slowly and deliberately. Commonplace settings feel off, and the world around is filled with conspiracies and coverup. The Vatican asks the team to determine whether a woman who knows the hidden history of the church is a false prophet. The fertility clinic Kristen and her husband Andy used when conceiving Lexis corrupts fetuses with satanic insemination. A witty but innocuous internet meme, Puddy’s Christmas song, is a hummably foreboding earworm. Anything can go evil on Evil.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Evil season 2 is currently in production. Read more about that here.

The post Why Evil is the Only TV Procedural Worth Watching appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3fRxopa

[twentiethcenturymoviesandtv]

A Problematic Past: Understanding vs. Erasure

So, tell me if this sounds familiar.

You’re watching a movie that you’ve seen before, that you really like.  Everything’s going well, you enjoy your favorite lines, get excited about the characters and favorite scenes…..and then you realize where you are in the movie and wince.  You keep that grimace, embarrassed as the next scene parades out the dreaded Problematic Moment, or two, or three.  Maybe you get up to leave the room for a snack at this point.  Maybe you tough it out, grimacing the whole time.  When you watch the movie with friends, you shrug your shoulders apologetically at them.

“Yeah, that part isn’t so great,” you admit sheepishly.  “But the rest is good.”

Holiday Inn.  Grease.  Dumbo.  She’s All That.  Trading Places.  Peter Pan.  Sixteen Candles.  The Aristocats.  The Breakfast Club.  Breakfast at Tiffany’s.  Any James Bond film.  

All of these movies are considered classics, enjoyable films that people love and return to again and again.  And every single one of these movies has at least one scene that makes modern audiences cringe.

I’m not talking films like Overboard, Thoroughly Modern Millie or My Fair Lady, films that (at their core) are really problematic to modern audiences, no, I’m talking about the movies that are genuinely good, except for that part.

Blackface.  A sexist comment.  Yellowface.  Excused marital rape.  Excused sexual assault.  A racial slur.  These elements, even when they’re played for humor, can sometimes color our enjoyment of an entire film, prompting us to tense in dread as the offending scene approaches in the runtime.  

After all, what else are we to do?

Well, there would seem to be another option.

In a new society that promotes ‘Cancel Culture’, the other option available to us is, of course, to boycott the offending films entirely.  And in some ways, this seems like the best choice, right?  By boycotting, we no longer partake of the ‘problematic’ material.  We have solved the problem by calling it out, and then ignoring it, by pretending it doesn’t exist and never returning to it, and sometimes, even refusing to acknowledge the media’s good points.  

We point out the racially insensitive depiction of the Siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp and The Aristocats, and we don’t watch those movies again, discounting them with a blanket ‘they’re racist’.  We talk about groundbreaking teen films like The Breakfast Club, and reluctantly admit that John Bender’s pursuit of Claire isn’t exactly healthy, and proceed to not act like the film was an absolute game changer in how teenagers were viewed, and viewed themselves.  We boycott movies like Holiday Inn because of a cringe-worthy blackface scene.

The question is, is this the right thing to do?

On one hand, congratulations, we’ve successfully avoided the Problematic Content!  On the other…..where do we draw the line?

There is no escape from ‘problematic’ content, in older films or newer ones.  Even forward-thinking shows like Star Trek, with its diverse cast, was not above episodes like Turnabout Intruder.  While we might think ‘this is a product of the 60s, and we’re beyond that now’, scenes in Star Trek Into Darkness would indicate that no, we aren’t.  Elements of 1980s classics like Ghostbusters and Working Girl are also uncomfortable to watch with modern eyes.  The culture we see now would seem to say: “Well, I’m sorry you liked those films, but they’re Bad, and so are you if you keep watching and enjoying them.”

Here’s the problem.  If we start boycotting everything with a ‘problematic’ element in them, what do you have left?

Virtually nothing.

This leaves us with a dilemma.  Do we continue watching things that we know have elements that are bad, or do we renounce them in the name of being Woke?

I’m going to quote another one of my articles (which sounds a little narcissistic, but bear with me):

“If we are set in only watching what is new, what is contemporary, what is ‘not dated’, we reduce ourselves to consuming a very tiny slice of the culture, be it film, television, books, or music.  We miss out on our society’s history as portrayed through media, and we don’t learn the sensitivities, the concerns, and the ways that people told stories and expressed their ideas.

We’re also missing out on several movies that are good except for certain problematic elements- lots of films that were ‘fair for its day’.  Some things, especially sensibilities, can make us cringe looking back on it from a modern standpoint, but that does not make the film as a whole necessarily bad.  I’d even argue that it’s important to watch older films so that we can understand where we’ve come from, and recognize the problem.”

So, where does that leave us?

Here’s the thing.  No one can tell anyone else how to watch their movies, or what to watch.  Every individual movie-watcher has a choice to make when it comes to their consumption of media: understanding, or erasure.

Erasure is the concept of ‘cancelling’, the idea of ‘removing’ things that we don’t like, that are distasteful to us now.  To ‘erase’ these problematic elements, and the movies with them, we lose a large part of our history, despite ‘keeping ourselves pure’ of these issues.

On the other hand, there’s the choice of ‘understanding’.  Contextualizing these elements, without defending them, understanding their place in the culture, accepting the bad, while appreciating the good.  Acknowledging the problems, analyzing them, learning why they are bad and how they impact a film, but also respecting the rest of it.  This approach will enable to sit through that film, still grimacing, but watching it with the knowledge and understanding that we can, we have to move beyond that.

If we are unable to stare our past wrongs in the face, seeing both the good and the bad, and realizing that our beliefs have changed, that they should have changed, then we are doomed to repeat history.  Ignoring our past, and our past problems, or hiding them away in shame, solves nothing.  In order for us to be both better movie-watchers, and better members of society, it’s important that we look back, and understand, rather than erase.

In short?

When we watch older movies, we should do so with an understanding of the culture and the context, while also knowing that the context does not justify the problematic elements of the films they are in.  By the same token, we should appreciate the genuinely good films for what they are, acknowledging that they are very much products of the time.  With this viewpoint, we allow for more informed, and more critical thinking of our films, while not diminishing important works of an era that has since become outdated.

Thank you all so much for reading.  I hope to see you in the next article.

[hideyoshineki]

V’s After End - Where the Message Fails

So I have now gone through both the Forgive and Judge ends of V’s After Ending, and throughout my playthrough, there was something that I felt just wasn’t working. Now that I’ve completed the entirety of V’s After Ending (or shall I call it Rika’s After Ending, because that’s what it felt like), I want to talk about what makes this ending unsatisfactory.

Before I start, I just want to say that I still really appreciate Cheritz. I can see how hard they have worked on this game. They have tried hard to address certain issues and discuss messages they want to send. The way they handle these issues is very debatable and done poorly in ways, but considering this game is first and foremost made in South Korea where the issue of mental health has quite a ways to go, props to them for trying at least?

Some of the messages they were going for in this After Ending are interesting and can be valid in more minor scenarios. The thing is… I strongly believe they do not work in the context of Rika and what she has done.

Basically, this game makes you either forgive Rika and be sympathetic to her, or makes you feel bad and as if you are being cruel if you do not.

In the Forgive End, the blame for Rika’s actions is essentially not placed on her. The story puts the blame on her mental illness, as well as all the traumatising circumstances throughout her life. Through Yoosung reading up in a psychology textbook, he comes to the conclusion that what Rika did was not entirely wrong and that she didn’t do bad things on purpose, as her mental illness is what caused everything.

Because of this conclusion, Rika is not held accountable for her actions. At the end of this After Ending, Rika has learned to find happiness and goodness within herself, “becoming her own sun”, and is living her life. The only consequence of everything she has done in this game is that public perception of her is bad. The severe crimes she has committed are not dealt with, and she does not even face any legal consequences.

There is also a lot of discussion throughout the After Ending that questions whether justice is really something that is needed. Zen in particular continuously raises the point that it would be better for everyone’s own mental and emotional health, as well as their individual growth, to forgive what Rika has done, and not hold onto any negative emotions in their heart.

Now I see what Cheritz were trying to do with this After Ending. They want to send the message that holding grudges and hate within yourself hurts you. They want to point out that unless you understand the other person, you can’t really judge their actions as being wholly good or bad. Who decides good and bad, and who decides whether something is just?

Now these are some interesting questions, and I actually believe that this can be valid in certain scenarios, provided the scenario is not nearly as major as the one in this game. The entire message Cheritz tries to send in the After Ending falls apart when you look at what Rika has done.

Rika’s actions, that this game wants to forgive and not concern yourself with justice over, includes:

-          Manipulating people around her to be extremely dependant on her,

-          Physically abusing her partner, including purposefully blinding him, to make him prove his devotion to her,

-          Taking many vulnerable people into a cult,

-          Drugging and brainwashing said people,

-          Raising a child to be exploited and carry out her will for her personal gain, breaking down this child and his worldview and his trust in people he loved so that he would turn against everyone else and be obedient to only her, while also forcefully drugging this child in the process,

-          Attempted murder (stabbing V, making Saeran explode Magenta)

Not to mention that throughout the Another Story routes, she repeatedly denies any of these actions as being wrong, stating that it is needed, under her delusion that she needs to release her devil and it’s the only way these people can find Paradise. She was offered help many times, but she refused it and continued to do these awful things, justifying herself as she did so.

This game wants to treat judging Rika for all of that as if it is on the same level as judging someone for cutting you off in traffic.

But how can we possibly not view any of what she has done as bad? How can the game say that the concept of justice isn’t something that needs to be applied here? In what way does understanding her mindset diminish the seriousness of what she has done?

How can all of this be forgiven so easily, with the perpetrator getting away with it all and facing hardly any consequences?

Based on the original 5 routes and Secret Endings, I do not think this game originally set out to try to excuse Rika in this way. If it did, I think they would have made her actions much less extreme to start with. But since Rika has been getting more attention lately, and thus more fans and more demand for her happy ending has emerged, Cheritz is pushing for more sympathy for her now. Rika’s newly released backstory has added a number of new circumstances to further try to absolve Rika of blame for her future actions and elicit greater audience sympathy for her in order to do so. However, while mental illnesses and a traumatic past and life can be an explanation, they are not a justification for everything that Rika has done.

In addition to all of this, forgiveness is portrayed as something that must be done in order for everyone to get the best possible outcome. The Choi Twins’ plot with their father is dealt with and resolved and they get their long awaited happy reunion, and MC and V get married and raise a child together.

The Judge End aims to create a sense of discomfort among all the characters because Rika was not forgiven. Luckily, the end wasn’t so bad that it prevented the Choi twins from reuniting or from V and MC remaining together (although they do not get married in this end). However, characters are still portrayed as being unhappy, and regretful over what has happened with Rika (who ends up in a coma) and feeling as if they did not make the right choice nor did they get closure.  

The Judge End also really tries to hammer in the idea that the player is being too harsh. They include a dream sequence consisting of Rika being beaten down by every character, stating that everything that has happened throughout her life is deserved. The ending makes it seem that since you didn’t want to forgive Rika, then you must want her to be forever suffering, being hated by everyone in the world and only existing in complete hopelessness by being a shell that lives in her own self-isolation and darkness.  You as the player are made out to be cruel for inflicting this end upon Rika for not forgiving her.

This entire After Ending would have worked better if it tried a more balanced approach between these two ends, instead of forcing a message onto the player that should not be applied to a case as extreme as Rika’s. Instead of one end resulting in Rika getting away scot-free and the other with her being dead inside, perhaps they could have allowed for Rika to face the proper consequences of what she did without everyone being made to feel bad about it? Maybe letting the player hope for Rika to be better and find inner peace, but not actually needing to forgive her in order for that to happen?

The message that victims of serious harm will only find peace if they forgive and don’t concern themselves with the idea of justice is a harmful one. The idea that mental illness and life circumstances take the blame away from an individual’s severe actions is false.

I can only hope that Saeran’s eventual After Ending does not follow the same direction as this one.

[theorynexus]

Fifty and Four sends us cresting over the hill, if we weren’t already. How long until we hit the bottom?

Oh ho? Jane’s perspective again, huh?  ‘t’s been a while.

EEEHHHH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!   Oh gosh, oh gosh, oh gosh, that is not good!

Rrrrgh, she does not need to be building up a habit like that!    The consequences of such use are far too severe and unpredictable, even if you don’t consider the potential negatives to one’s psychological health. >.< Gosh... even with her Life aspect probably protecting her a little bit from its sugary after-effects, reading that makes me feel sick.  > ~~~ <

Figures that a Cherub would be biased in favor of it. At least Alt!Calliope is willing distance herself and try to be objective, though.

***giggles uncontrollably, even though this honestly shouldn’t be funny***

Very politically-minded, but it also sortof sounds like the excuse-making that an addict would engage in, so I am not convinced that this is a legitimate argument.  Yeah, shoring up your base is important, but doing something that could strongly alienate swing voters is not necessarily wise, either.  I suspect she knows this too, but is in denial about the fact of the matter, because she enjoys the benefits of Trickster Mode too much. It is quite interesting that the human kingdom’s subjects appreciate it so much~

HAAAAA. Oh my fricking gosh, Alt!Calliope is a Cherub Supremacist! XD  

(Sortof makes sense, based on the mindsets that were described in Aranea’s [?] talk about the Cherubs’ origins, though. Might be biologically-driven, honestly.) Also, it’s quite interesting to see Jane interacting with Alt!Calliope like that, but it is hardly unique or overly-noteworthy, all things considered... at least, most likely. Quite a few other characters have responded to narration in a similar manner.

... Honestly, I was about to freak out about the Juju getting covered in dirt and grime, but the way she tossed away probably significant keepsakes, trophies, or the like for the sake of honoring it is... quite disturbing, and speaks to a danger in her presumably worsening compulsion/habit.  Though they might just be cookies.

Dirk displays surprising wisdom/good judgment, here, and amusingly alludes to the fact that his voice is being otherwise suppressed.   His actually talking in a scene represents a nice sort of loophole, but not one by which he can utilize such control as he would otherwise be capable.    ... And yes, her burning out is a very legitimate concern, which speaks to the fact that Dirk definitely+legitimately cares about the things that serve his purposes and/or agendas. They, he is willing to more gently guard, comparatively, it would seem.

It feels like this is a reference to something, probably from the 1980s or early 90s, but I can’t place my finger on it. Oh well.

This is very amusing, honestly.

Deeeeeerp.      (Yet another example of why it is difficult to take his attempt at super-godhood seriously... or at least find it anything better than dreadful.  Dirk is great at juggling many things at once, but not as great as he’d need to be. )

Oh, and I appreciate Jane’s concern for Dirk.  She is indeed correct in saying that he is usually much better at it than my previous comment might have suggested. But I am not entirely being unfair, insofar as this is true: the greater the responsibility one wields, the greater the level of competence one must have in order to pass proper muster.  He was failing in his attempt. I didn’t really give him all that much of a chance to sway me, honestly, but my own demeanor in dealing with him had nothing to do with the actual quality of his work.

This must be really concerning to Jane.  And... honestly, yes he is. They are very, very similar. Dirk is just more obvious with his intelligence, more controlled, and more mature. They are both highly ambitious, crave challenges, enjoy art, have quite a bit of masculine pride, and have a shared appreciation for irony, riddles, and absurdist humor.     Caliborn was likely very, very influenced by Dirk in particular, both of them received Yaldabaoth as their Denizen due to their personality and prowess, and both of them are highly manipulative men of questionable morality.   Also, their sexual interests seem to be somewhat similar, but that is a debatable matter. Lord English has Lil’ Hal integrated as part of his soul, Lil’ Cal has played a profound part in both of their (multiple) life cycles.  Finally:  as of the Epilogue and his attempted control of the narrative seen therein, Dirk essentially has pursued the same goal that LE did: domination of Paradox Space through his will controlling the natural flow of events. Dirk and Caliborn are in truth extremely alike.

I do so very much like where this is going. It would seem that we will soon find out precisely what Dirk is planning. “Diminishes and ascends” has an interesting ring to it, as well.  That red rifle:  Is it the one that launches portals? Honestly, Dirk is indeed quite clever, by the way. He has the seeds of great potential.  It’s simply that it has not fully bloomed, yet, and he is a little bit overly full of himself, and arrogant in what he believes he can do.  And yes, he is indeed temperamental when people interfere with his plans, it seems.

There’s the scheming politician we’ve all been waiting for. Way to go, thinking in such calculated manners and considering backstabbing ones you care about, Jane. Somewhat petty, and certainly rather dangerous, all things considered (things are a bit more explosive, where gods are involved), but closer to the political ideal which I would hope for if she were to be portrayed as competent. (Of course, I am actually disgusted with that sort of behavior. It’s one of the things I dislike about politics. I’ll recognize that it at least paints her in a slightly better light than the previous samplings of her thought process and tactical capacity has; thus, I generally like and dislike where this is going.)

Yep. Angelic purity with sexual potency/desire. There has always been this sort of tension in Hope’s nature. Just like the fact that angels are, in Biblical texts, both symbols of terror and destruction as well as hope and salvation. All (almost all?) the important positive interactions with heavenly beings start with fear on the part of mortals, followed by a “Fear not!” to suggest they come in peace. Otherwise, they come bringing judgment and wrath, and thus don’t tend to bother much with formalities.

Is that sarcasm, Jane?  If not, there’s certainly a heavy layer of irony. Do remember what just happened with Jane when she invited Jape Jake over for a friendly visit, not too long ago, my good audience members.

...   ***twitches, and tries very hard to hold in the inappropriate laughter***

If only I had someone so dependable to tell me when I was not dwelling far enough into the land of Always Woke.   Perhaps then I would be able to avoid the inevitable scandals that would result from Foot-in-the-Mouth-itis. Oh, wait, no politician can avoid being attacked for various probably minor accidents on their part as the populace naturally over-reacts to what honestly may not actually reflect their character so much as them being accident prone or ignorant?  What’s that about manipulation of audio/video recordings for the sake of generating useful sound bites that might be used in an attempt to impugn the honor of any prospective candidate?  Oh. I see. Thank you for that important bit of knowledge that I otherwise might not have had access to, imaginary adviser.  (Note:  I do not actually believe that one should try to be as careful as possible with regards to what one says; nor that one should ignore or scorn important social issues. I am utilizing exaggeration and mockery for the sake of comedy.) ... Alt!Calliope’s description of Dirk holding the rifle is quite elegant and beautiful.

This is indeed a beautiful irony, seeing the situation with regards to Dirk and Alt!Calliope’s tendencies toward bias being reversed.  

***snickers***   Magnifique. 

It is strange to see Alt!Calliope teasing and egging him on. It may be unintentional. Hard to say.

[scripttorture]

Torture in Fiction: The Umbrella Academy: Episode 1-6

I tried to start this saying I was only going to review episode 2 which has a prominent torture scene. Several hours later I am… significantly closer to the end of the series. So I thought I may as well include what I’ve watched.

The Umbrella Academy is a Netflix original series based on an independent comic book. With great acting, excellent music and a cast of deeply flawed characters it was (I understand) quite a hit.

I’m enjoying it a lot more then I thought I would. It’s violent but it’s also ridiculous in a way few stories but superhero comics tend to commit to. There’s a 60 year old man stuck in the body of a thirteen year old after travelling to an apocalyptic future and being in a thirty year relationship with a mannequin. And I just- I love comics.

This series feels very much like a superhero comic book on screen. With all the good and the bad that goes with that concept.

But I’m not here to tell you what I think of the superhero genre and it’s relationship with violence. I’m rating the depiction and use of torture, not the series itself. I’m trying to take into account realism (regardless of fantasy or sci fi elements), presence of any apologist arguments, stereotypes and the narrative treatment of victims and torturers.

Umbrella Academy is the story about a group of very damaged people with super powers. Adopted as babies (born in extraordinary circumstances) by a millionaire ‘adventurer’ six of the Hargreeve children were raised to be superheroes. The seventh, apparently without powers, was isolated in a world of talking chimps, robots and extraordinary abilities.

The story starts with Reginald Hargreeve’s death and the five surviving children (including one who’d been living on the moon, apparently for years) meet for the funeral. In the course of this ‘Five’, teleports back from the future.

While the story overall focuses on the way an emotionally abusive and neglectful upbringing effects all of the major characters I’m going to be focusing on the clear instances of torture in and solitary confinement in some of the episodes.

Both Luther and Five are subjected to extreme solitary confinement. Luther is isolated on the moon for four years, Five is isolated as the last person alive for several decades.

Five stops up in a donut shop late at night and sits next to a tow truck driver. They have a brief conversation and the driver leaves. An armed gang then attacks Five. He kills them and two more people (Cha-Cha and Hzael) are sent after him, apparently by the same organisation.

Believing they’re looking for a man in his 50s they go after the tow driver. They torture him and while they eventually believe that he isn’t Five, they continue to torture him to get information on Five. The driver tells them everything that happened the night before.

Later Cha-Cha and Hazel mount a raid on the Hargreeves estate looking for Five. They don’t find him but they manage to capture his brother Klaus.

Klaus is an addict (what he takes is not explicitly defined) and talks to dead people. The two are linked throughout the story with the heavy implication that Klaus avoids sobriety in order to escape his powers.

Klaus is tied to a chair for about a day and a half. He’s beaten, strangled and ‘waterboarded’. (Cha-Cha calls it waterboarding but didn’t actually carry it out properly. I’ve assumed that was for the safety of the actors).

Klaus escapes and shows no mobility problems after being cut off the chair. He then spends several months in 1968 (as you do). On his return his mental health problems seem to be no worse then they were before he was tortured.

I’m giving it 0/10

The Good

The actual forms of torture shown in The Umbrella Academy are reasonably realistic. They’re not always accurate to the time period or place, but when time travel is involved I’m willing to let that slide. The electrical torture shown, with a battery and bulldog clips, could be taken directly from Alleg’s accounts of his experience at the hands of French troops in Algeria. The stress positions and strangulation are shown realistically. And while the waterboarding isn’t shown realistically I think it was done this way to protect the actor and allow him to breathe.

The Bad

I’ve covered solitary confinement before. The estimated safe period for most people is about a week. While both Luther and Five has a strong sense of purpose during their confinement (and this seems to be a protective factor) that wouldn’t help a lot when they’re confined for such an unrealistically long period. At four years Luther should be a complete mental and physical wreck. At several decades including puberty, Five shouldn’t be able to interact normally with people and should be more obviously mentally ill then Klaus. Both of them are shown without symptoms and this downplays the damage of torture that’s routinely depicted as harmless.

Umbrella Academy shows torture ‘working’ with victims giving up accurate information if only you know how to hurt them. This isn’t true. Torture can’t result in accurate information. This kind of misinformation encourages torture in real life.

Klaus’ response to torture is to thank his torturers for inflicted pain with the strong implication that he’s enjoying being tortured. It’s implied that he’s turned on by pain so ‘can’t’ be traumatised or hurt by torture. This is ridiculous and insulting to both the BDSM community and torture survivors. BDSM practitioners don’t stop feeling pain and they aren’t immune to trauma. There is a world of difference between a consensual and non-consensual encounter. Personally I think this kind of portrayal is akin to suggesting that victims can’t be raped because they’ve previous enjoyed sex. It’s unacceptable.

Klaus is held in a stress position for at least a day. This is a survivable time frame but on release he should have significant mobility issues and should have needed help escaping. Instead he’s perfectly capable of making his way out with a heavy time-travel device. He can walk and move his arms freely. This completely ignores that the way he was held is torturous.

Neither Cha-Cha nor Hazel show any of the mental health problems typical of torturers. They’re portrayed as competent and able to investigate effectively, even though they torture. Torturers are not good investigators and torture consistently undermines effective investigation. Realistically a character can be one or the other, not both.

Cha-Cha and Hazel are also depicted as good fighters and generally skilled. In reality torture produces a deskilling effect in torturers, they get worse at what they do.

Cha-Cha and Hazel are shown as obedient to their superiors, only targetting people who have information or are ordered as targets. This isn’t how torturers operate. They disobey orders, ignore superiors and target a wide array of people who usually have nothing to do with anything the torturers are supposed to investigate.

No one in the series so far has shown any long standing mental health problems as a result of torture or isolation.

No one has shown any memory problems as a result of torture or isolation.

The end result is that the series suggests torture doesn’t have any long term effects at all.

Overall

I think this series really highlights something I’ve been saying a lot on the blog: It’s very easy to find realistic depictions of how torture is carried out and it’s very hard to find realistic depictions of the effect it has on people.

These episodes, and I suspect (from what I’ve seen) the series more generally handles torture terribly. It’s unrealistic and it’s parroting a lot of tropes that either excuse torture or belittle survivors.

That didn’t get in the way of me enjoying the series outside of these scenes. There are a lot of great characters and character moments.

But none of that excuses this senseless repetition of torture apologia.  

For a series that works so hard to highlight the effect of childhood emotional abuse it downplays the effects of physical abuse at every turn.  

It uses torture as a short cut in the plot. It portrays torturers as smart and restrained badasses.

It basically does virtually everything I advise writers not to do.

And this comes about simply by repeating the same old genre tropes without bothering to look up the subjects involved.

There are other ways to have your bad guys find out the information they need to know. There are other ways to establish them as terrible people.

There are realistic ways to show people resisting torture, which don’t diminish the pain they suffered.

I think what I want to stress most of all is that this apologia is unnecessary. It doesn’t add anything to the story. The fun stuff, the super heroics, the ridiculous time travel escapades and carefully choreographed fight scenes can all happen without apologia as the background noise.

For once- I’m not really mad. I’m disappointed. That these tropes creep into genre after genre, put down roots and keep coming back up. The mainstay of this story wouldn’t be any different if they took out torture or even used it in a more realistic way.

Five’s isolation in an apocalyptic wasteland doesn’t last. He’s picked up by an agency of time travellers and offered a job. This could have happened more quickly, especially since the time he spends alone and the time he spends with the agency are both poorly defined.

Luther’s trip to the moon functions to build a wall between him and his siblings. And again, that could have happened in a much shorter time frame.

Cha-Cha and Hazel could have just interviewed the tow truck driver for their information. They’re shown conducting successful interviews later.

Klaus’ resistance could have been framed as natural and there are several points in his dialogue already that could have supported that. The story could have used the fact that Klaus genuinely does not know where Five is.

In the end The Umbrella Academy’s use of torture is a waste of narrative space. None of these torture scenes are essential to the plot and every single one of them is handled badly.

It’s an example of a narrative that wasn’t prepared to commit to showing the consequences of torture.

We can all do better.

Edit: I forgot the full title. Oops.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

[skyshipper]

Hello! So I’m new to THT fandom, because I recently watched it and only thing I’m seeing is a lot of hate on Nick. Well I don’t expect everyone to love him and that’s perfectly fine, but I guess it confuses me seeing so many excuses for Ser*na. Well I like her (she can make me crazy at times) I just don’t see how we can excuse her behavior, but Nick is the bad guy. Am i missing something? Anyways, since I’m new to the fandom can you recommend some pro June/Nick and Nick blogs?

Hello!  Welcome. ❤️

There is a lot of Nick hate out there for sure, which is frustrating. I think it comes from a view of feminism that says any focus on a man detracts from a woman’s story. Of course we want to see more women’s stories represented on screen, but those stories are made much stronger when they portray both intersectional feminism and the fact that not all men are bad.  The love and support of people around us helps to bring us up, be that friendships, maternal/paternal love or the love of a partner. The idea that romance diminishes our heroines is just a lot of ingrained misogyny telling you that love is silly or unimportant in a woman’s life.  Furthermore, women’s stories as a whole (especially on show that wants to represent feminism) are much stronger when they elevate ALL women’s voices, not just those of white women.

The arguments around complicity you see regarding Serena vs. Nick, I also find very frustrating. There are a lot of wonderful articles out there about how this show represents white feminism only that are valuable reading. I encourage you to look them up if you haven’t already. A lot of that white feminist viewpoint can be seen through how the show so desperately wants to push Serena as a victim despite the fact that she helped build Gilead and was instrumental in the overthrow of the US government. She continually makes choices to serve her own self interest while abusing and punishing those around her so I don’t feel sorry for her one bit. Nick, on the other hand, was a young man living in poverty and desperate for work. The show has sadly never bothered to address how class issues played a role in the rise of Gilead which is such an important part of Nick’s story. Part of the reason you see a lot of Nick hate comes from the fact that some viewers see him as guilty just by virtue of being male, but also because the audience has been left to infer a lot of things about him. As a low status male in this society I believe he was forced to do things to survive just like everyone else. This includes being forced to sleep with June in 1x05 so Serena could steal their baby and being forced to marry Eden in 2x05. 

Since the show has put Nick so much on the back burner this season, I will refer to Margaret’s own words in an interview regarding her novel which I think illustrates an important difference between Serena and Nick.  She refers to her novel as “a study of power, and how it operates and how it deforms or shapes the people who are living within that kind of regime.” When you look at the book and these characters in that context the differences between Nick and Serena are quite clear. Nick has continually used his limited power to help those around him. By becoming an Eye to help take down commanders and by working within Mayday and the Martha network to help June and Holly try to escape on multiple occasions.  Serena has continually used her power and privilege to help herself by raping, abusing and emotionally tormenting those within her household at every turn. To me the difference in their moral characters are quite clear.

As for some pro Nick/June and pro-Nick blogs, I’d check out @nickjunesource @teamnick @smoulderingocean @dcgal814 @zalrb @aperture @splitscreen @dystopiandramaqueen @benofie and @forthisone. And be sure to check the #nick x june and #nick blaine tags to find more Nick friendly people.  I assure you there are a lot of us out there! 

[jess-the-vampire]

1. I know we're already beating a dead horse with this, but I call bull-crap on the justification of spending unnecessary time on the love polygon between Star, Marco, and literally every character that has the misfortune of dating them. No teenager would do the mess that Star and Marco made (at least, not to that degree). The writers just assumed that's how teenagers behave which is asinine.

2. They're not the smartest and most stable group to do so, but most teenagers do have some morality and common sense in that field. Instead of wasting our time writing about how you think teenagers would act in a relationship, how about you write how they should. That way, kids would at least know that a healthy teenage relationship is possible without the cheating, the drama, and the act of selfishly hurting others to get what you want. My goodness, these writers don't know what they're doing.

that is something to think about.

Because the reason they give is “Oh, we want teens and messy teen relationships to be represented truthfully”, but there comes to be problems with doing something like that.

for one, teen drama is rarely written well, mostly because media teens to portray teens all as whiny selfish jerks and that all teen romances are complicated messes. And in return, most people teen to see all teen drama shows to be overall the same and overall....don’t take it seriously.

Which doesn’t work in a show, where they clearly want you to care about this stuff and take it seriously.

teen relationships aren’t always like this, it’s more that drama makes for more interesting and easy stories to write for and teens and kids are well....it’s easier to excuse them for being this way because that’s the media’s typical way of portraying teens.

daron sorta seems to think what she was trying to do was a new thing, but it’s...really not, most teen media tends to do the “Messy relationships” thing, sometimes less messy and sometimes WAY worse. She explains even that people don’t usually fall for the first person they meet and stay together forever.

Which is true, but i personally never felt that was a big problem....in media.

maybe this is different for some people but i’m used to seeing shows where characters date other characters before having an endgame with another character.

Even Kim Possible, which people keep comparing this show to, the main characters were in other relationships before they got together, so i don’t really think the whole “First person you met is your true love” is an established problem outside of....classic disney films?

i dunno, unless they fully establish their endgame love interest as their first and only relationship, i never got the vibes she meant personally from shows.

I think the “Main female and main male always have to get together” is a more problematic thing she could’ve dealt with, that being best friends with someone is normal and it doesn’t mean romantic interest or you always have feelings for every opposite sex member you meet. But she instead leaning full force into that stereotype then anything.

Like, I've seen exs before in shows, i rarely see shows where boys and girls who are friends....remain friends. Not to say they aren’t out there, because there are examples, but people are very used to the concept of a F/M relationship serving for a future romantic plot whether in movies or shows these days.

but being back on track to your main point, the show seems to treat teens like they’re dumb it’s normal for them to do dumb and selfish things, and while anyone at any age can do dumb and selfish things.....this is still a show meant to entertain us, it’s still meant for kids.

so i don’t know why they don’t allow star or marco to become better for their mistakes as teens, when they do bad things for the romance drama, neither really learns squat for it, they just do a bunch of kinda awful things and apparently daron’s reason is....”Teens do this?”.

I don’t care if teens do this or not, doesn’t mean it makes star and marco likable characters, heck, tom is a great example of a character in this show. He starts off having issues but he changes and gets better and actually serves to be a good example for teens.

why can’t we make star and marco be better examples for teens like he is? Learning what’s not ok to do in relationships instead of ignoring them to be “Realistic”? 

You’re writing a show here, where, intentional or not, your kids are supposed to be taking away some kinda of moral from what they’re seeing. This show clearly set out to have important messages in it about racism, and what’s fair, and what’s right.

But there’s not much of a moral to be said for the love plot other then....”Be honest”? and “Date your best friend”? and “It’s totally ok to be awful to your boyfriend and leave him for his best friend the next day, it’s valid”.

the show leans in star and marco’s favor by the end, but neither have learned anything really, they were never given time to be better partners and learn before the show kinda shoved them together. There’s no lesson here that’s strengthened by them getting together.

“They’re finally being honest about their feelings!”.

They’ve been honest several times already, and none of that diminishes either getting away with how they treated their partners.

They establish star is a bad partner to tom, but they never have her apologize for any of her actions, and then say it’s perfectly ok because it’s apparently not her fault at all that she treated tom like a third wheel and gave him serious anxiety issues.....that’s all completely valid and tom doesn’t deserve an apology at all.

Nor does he deserve an happy end with someone when the show closess, because clearly, star and marco....who have barely improved at all in relationships and have made very little effort to be good or caring partners....are the ones who deserve it.

And what’s the excuse?

“Teens are messy”, so that means star and marco can get away with anything because it’s “Accurate”.

Stop writing teen relationships in these messy ways that make characters look bad for the sake of being “relatable”, focus more on writing a good show with good characters who be better and be good examples for kids.

Less “Star and Marco’s” in media who are allowed happy romantic ends because they’re the main characters and nothing else about how they handle relationships or even if they’re willing to do better.

And more “Tom’s” who have gone through pain but have earned their way to being a successful role model that kids should take away from because they’re improving and wanting to better themselves for them and the people they love.

Stop treating teens like idiots in cartoons and excusing their actions “Because they’re teens”, and start treating them more like actual characters who evolve and earn the end for their characters.

This show tried to be a “Coming of age” story for star after all, and yet, somehow...in some way...they managed to both make her grow....and not make her grow...at the same time.

[angelinuhh]

how would you combat the krp issue properly? i'm not korean, but i am asian, and i have contacted some 'krp's' currently in the tags that seem intent on justifying their use of the tag and the exclusivity of asian fc's only despite how damaging it may be.

tldr; you’re probably doing everything right. 

i wish i were some sort of ... judgment god. and that what i have said and will say is both absolutely right and absolutely convincing.  and that i could do anything that would immediately obliterate the krp community and also end racism. but alas... 

below the cut is an explanation of my perspective and points that i hope will open up a conversation about this. also a bulleted list of things that you can do to be an ally. 

the sad truth is... i don’t know how to ‘combat’ krp’s properly. i don’t even think there is a proper way. 

the only thing i know is how i feel about them.  and i make the choice to be vocal about that--- not because i want minds to change or for there to be a call to action bc someone feels offended on my or anyone else’s behalf, but rather because i believe that people should be aware of the consequences and interpretations of their actions and i want to be a part of the dialogue on how people who look like me are portrayed and viewed in society.  (also bc i love the sound of my own voice and typing apparently)

if someone chooses to not be a part of the krp community, i really do hope it is not because i or anyone else was outraged about it. i hope it is because they genuinely do not support it and what it stands for and that they want to be an ally in the quest for diverse rp communities and ending racist/fetishistic behaviors, especially as targeting the asian community. 

i don’t think that i can force someone to change their mind about krps. there are plenty (i can literally name one whose behavior... continues to boggle my mind) of people who ‘have reformed’ and no longer use the krp tag or title that continue to write and portray asians as SHITTY uwu stereotypes. as an anon in my inbox is telling me, there are even krps that after addressing rps “surrounding the [tag] they use. they use the 'we're korean, so sorry you're offended!' excuse”. (as if people can’t have internalized racism or be of a community and still harm that community) 

some of these people will never change their mind at all. no matter what you say or tell them. like it won’t matter. that sucks and makes me so angry. and it can feel really personal and SO INCREDIBLYdiminishing. but i maintain that--- i can’t and don’t want to tell anyone how to feel or what to do (especially not another korean/asian person who disagrees with the stance i have taken, bc look... what makes me more or less valid than them. nothing.)

in my opinion, the only way things are going to change is by opening the conversation to the people we disagree with. show them the way we feel and the consequences of their actions. we can elevate voices and perspectivesto them. and stand our ground and promote the things we believe are important. 

this is all. very. like. basic. and self-explanatory. i’m not like coming up with a new idea. but that’s the only way i know how to “combat the krp issue.”

look, i don’t give a shit about apologies or take-backs. i don’t even really give a shit about the krp tag tbh. i think it’s inherently racist and it’s very frustrating, but what i care most about is how society sees people of color. and, in this case, i care about how asians in particular are viewed. and portrayed. and written. 

and the change i want to see is about more than “stop promoing/using/tagging krp”. its about-- realizing the prejudices that exist in that community, the consequences that come from the proliferation of the community and much... much more.

SO... WELL THEN, WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP?

i’m sure this needs to be said, because i get messages about it every time i say something about racism, but you can help regardless if you are asian or not asian, a poc or white. if you feel strongly about this topic or if you agree with me and the other people who have been uncomfortable by the existence of this genre, then please help if you feel like you can. 

here are a few examples of things that i am going to try to do in the future. you are welcome to join me. 

NOT join any rp that labels itself as a krp or rp with anyone who identifies as a krper

loudly NOT recommend krps (maybe even... not do shoutouts/promos/help for them).

if you’re going to take this stance, then make it clear. you can post it on your wid, if you receive an ask-- you can let them know, privately or publicly (pls do not dox anyone or ), where you stand and why. it will raise awareness about the topic. 

attempt to spot people and rps who are furthering stereotypes and often harmful misconceptions and do the same things. this includes anons. do not give awful people a platform in the names of letting everyone ‘state their opinion.’

this could be tricky, because they might not even call themself a krp--- but this is solely based on their actions.

approach these people and rps. message them. tell them how i feel about their actions. i personally find that these conversations are ten times better when not on anon. 

if i don’t feel comfortable doing this or i’m not sure if the rp/person is doing something wrong. approach someone else who does have more agency and authority in topic and ask for their perspective. talk it over with them. if you can, gather and provide evidence (screenshots...etc.), reasoning and more. 

when i am in a conversation with someone who disagrees with me and does not believe that krps are bad-- try to use reasoning that looks less like racism = bad! and more like these actions -> racist consequences. explain to them what exactly i view is wrong and why. once they know that their actions are racist, they can decide what to do with that information. 

elevate the voices of people who i believe have something good to say.

I DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING OR EVEN JUST... ANYTHING. i’ve started a tag about krp issues HERE so i can reblog/gather posts that i think are important and showcase good perspectives. hopefully, they will become more visible and have more of a platform with my help. 

i hope to involve koreans/other asians in the discussion as much as possible. in general, i believe we should not have a conversation about something/someone, without involving that thing/person. (even if they disagree with me.)

realize that i might be wrong about things. 

and this is a KICKER. bc... i do feel strongly about this issue. and many others.  but, while i can voice my own opinion, i also know that it is important that everyone in this conversation (on both sides of the debate) examine both the voices we are elevating and our place in the conversation. i am always making mistakes. i am not an absolute authority. as i get older, i’ve learned that my perspectives change and adapt ALL THE TIME. and that, while i want to stand up for what i believe in, everyone is similarly impassioned and arguments can quickly become unproductive. HOWEVER that still means that i’m going to...

STAND UP FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IN. 

don’t say sorry for doing something you believe wholeheartedly in. don’t do things halfway. hold people accountable. don’t let people say “i don’t rp in krps” and do everything that a krp does but just call it a different name-- and escape criticism. know that this isn’t going to easy fight or that this is ever going to end. but be vocal. and be visible. they can’t silence us. 

[ncfan-1]

Gotham 05X01, ‘Year Zero’

[Tumblr is giving me issues regarding secure connections right now. I will let you know when I’m not having these issues anymore, but for right now, please direct any comments you have to the version of this post on my Dreamwidth account, or at least cross-post your comments to there. I have temporarily changed my settings to allow anyone to post comments, rather than just registered users.]

So, first episode of Season 5, which will most likely be the last season. The last time we were here, Gotham City underwent having its bridges blown up, which while a big problem, should not have been nearly as big a problem as the show made it out to be. Yeah, things are gonna be bad for the first couple of weeks, but if a proactive government takes charge, the city can get back on its feet eventually.

A bunch of criminals decided to carve up isolated, electricity-deprived, and largely depopulated Gotham City into their own personal fiefdoms for reasons that don’t make any sense upon slight scrutiny. Only with Oswald did this make sense, since Oswald has a strong emotional attachment to Gotham City, wouldn’t want to abandon it, and would want to establish his own rule to bring things under control (Things are probably fairly stable in his fiefdom. It’s the peace of the gun, obviously, but I assure you that the peace of the gun is worlds better than whatever the hell is going on in Jonathan’s neck of the woods.). With Barbara, it sort of makes sense, until you remember that this is a woman who likes her amenities like, oh, running water and air conditioning, and she wouldn’t want to be anywhere that doesn’t have these things. With the rest, they have no real attachment to this place and would definitely want to seek greener pastures. Especially Victor Fries, whose life literally depends on having working electricity, and who probably has his goons making constant runs looking for generators and ever-diminishing supplies of fuel for those generators.

Bruce Wayne decided that he could better serve Gotham City by trying to hunt down Jeremiah Valeska than, say, using his wealth and the clout of his family name to secure desperately needed resources for Gotham like getting the bridges repaired and repairing infrastructure enough to get the power turned back on.

I expect Season 5 to be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. I’m hoping that it will veer solidly into So Bad, It’s Good territory and stay there, though I’m not entirely optimistic. I just hope the apparent Jim x Babs tryst doesn’t happen in the first episode. I can’t handle that sort of brain-breaking badness in the first episode.

This? Is Gotham.

[CN/TW: Suicide, suicide ideation, suicide attempt]

- The recap automatically loses points with me by reminding me of Lee x Ed.

- No Man’s Land, Day 391. So, just to establish, this has been going on for over a year.

- We start with Ed, because of course he’s who everyone wants to see first. (Not.) Here’s someone else who really should have headed off seeking greener pastures first thing, because it’s not like he has an emotional attachment to the city.

- Seeing Oswald and Harvey was welcome, though. I love that Oswald has makeup staff, even in these dark times.

- Jim does not deserve the hero shot.

- Why is Ed teaming up with Jim, Harvey, and Oswald? Oswald, I can understand teaming up with the cops, because he’s all about order, but Ed knows no loyalty.

- And apparently Gotham is a full-blown warzone.

- We go back to Day 87, where Jim explains why people need to

- So Oswald repurposed a factory into a working manufacturer of ammunition. So someone’s gotten power up and running.

- And so has Barbara. And it turns out that her “No Men Allowed” policy isn’t nearly as strict as last season led us to believe. What a surprise. (The fact that she deals primarily in information does at least make sense for her character; she always makes the most sense to me as an information broker.)

- Where the fuck did Jonathan find an army of followers? Isn’t he a complete loner with no real charisma?

- This is the kind of situation where you bring in the national guard, not where you just declare the city off-limits and stick your head in the sand. Given how hawkish certain people in the highest level of government are, the men among these people would probably see advisement to stick their heads in the sand while criminal elements take over a city as an assault on their masculinity or something, given their personality types.

- Oh, god, poor Selina, they couldn’t even get her out of town. (At least Alfred seems to have stuck around to look after her while Bruce goes off on his revenge quests.) She looks so completely crushed by everything. She looks like she’s been crying off and on constantly for days; her eyes are so swollen. Poor kid.

- …Of course they couldn’t even go a full ten minutes before showing us the Greedy, Ungrateful Poor. Jesus.

- We find Ed sleeping on a rooftop couch, thoroughly disheveled. Apparently waking up somewhere with no idea how he got there has become a regular thing for him.

- More Bad Ed? Really? Can we just be done with this?

- Jim is right on the money when he says it’s easy for the government to ignore people suffering, though. They have a very easy time doing that.

- So Oswald wants a thousand pounds of steak from Babs in exchange for a thousand pounds of ammo. And Tabby is hung up on revenge for Butch (ugh) while Babs is actually thinking about needing to protect the women who come to her territory. What a surprise. (Well, Babs actually thinking about the need to protect people is a bit of a surprise. But Tabby not giving a damn about anyone but herself? That’s not a shock.)

- Jonathan’s… Yeah, this makes no sense. The fact that he was able to make himself into a power who could actually do anything in Gotham makes no sense. What would make more sense would be if he was (comparatively) small-fry who survived and made a name for himself by loaning out his services to the actual powers in the city.

- The power goes out at the hospital while Selina’s surgery is going on. Bad. The power comes back on, but there are people downstairs stealing the medicine. Worse.

- Jonathan confronts Jim. In a fight between these two, I’m always gonna be on Jonathan’s side, so… yeah, I kinda wanted to see him get dosed with fear toxin again. Not sorry.

- The Greedy, Ungrateful Poor are pissed that Scarecrow’s gang stole most of their food.

- As for the food situation: Bruce has a Plan. I really hope this plan actually works, and that it doesn’t backfire for grimdarkness.

- “After all the things I’ve done, what did me in was being your friend. I just wish Jeremiah killed me.” I’ll… leave this here. (I had suspected that Selina might be portrayed as suicidal. I’d hoped I’d be wrong.)

- And a nurse says Selina needs “the witch.” (Ivy, probably.)

- Oswald’s got a new leg brace, it looks like.

- Why is Oswald being portrayed like a Caligula knockoff (Or maybe a Nero knockoff, playing his fiddle—eating steak—while Rome burns)? This makes no sense. The man is practical enough to know that his workers need proper amounts of food in order to work.

- The dog’s named Edward. I don’t know whether or not to laugh.

- It’s so nice to have confirmation that Barbara will always be second-best in comparison with the man who threatened to rape her to Tabitha. And this after Barbara gave up godlike powers to save Tabitha’s life.

- The helicopter’s here. How much do you want to bet it’ll be shot down or hijacked?

- Shot down; wow, that took… all of five seconds. My bet right now is on Jeremiah as being responsible. He’s enough of a chaos agent to do something like that; Oswald or Barbara probably would have “confiscated” the contents instead.

- What’s Alfred’s game? (What’s Bruce’s game?)

- It was actually some two-bit thugs we’ve never heard of who shot down the helicopter. Of course.

- And Oswald has shown up to confiscate the contents of the helicopter. Only to be intercepted by Jim and his buddies.

- Or maybe it wasn’t the two-bit thugs, and maybe it was Jeremiah, after all.

- And someone with a bow and arrow is killing Oswald’s goons. It’s Tabitha. Of course.

- And Tabitha’s gun had bad bullets in it. And Oswald gets real revenge for his mother, and Barbara…

- Tragic Lesbians. Fuck you fuck you fuck you the first fucking episode fuck you fuck you fuck you

- Oswald has enough sense to run like hell once Barbara’s initial shock wears off.

- …Barbara was presumably there to try to talk Tabitha out of pursuing ruinous revenge. Jim? I really don’t want to see that hook up in the first episode, but could you at least pretend to be a decent human being and extend Barbara some sympathy?

(I suppose Bruce might extend her some sympathy, since he also has experience with the “watching people you love be murdered in front of you” thing. And because he puts more effort into being a decent person.)

- And poor Barbara gets shot while being a one-woman army.

- And Oswald, interestingly, doesn’t actually want to kill Barbara. Again, proving that he is not indiscriminately violent or vengeance-driven. And he doesn’t want to kill Jim either. Well, at least they remember part of Oswald’s personality.

- And Jim didn’t want to kill Oswald. Gobblepot revival?

- Please tell me they didn’t just leave Barbara unconscious and bleeding on the warehouse floor.

- Oh, look, it’s Ecco.

- There’s someone on the other side who got in contact with Jim to let him know there are people outside of Gotham who want to help. Meanwhile, Ecco has drawn a scary smile on the map. I am underwhelmed.

- Ed woke up in a dumpster this time. I laughed. Truly, a dumpster is his natural habitat.

- Barbara and Tabitha at the morgue. Excuse me, at Barbara’s club. Barbara’s ready to raise hell. She healed very quickly from that gunshot wound.

- Once Oswald’s calmed down a bit, he’ll probably decide he doesn’t want Jim dead after all.

- Selina���s looking at the scalpel. Selina, no. Her screams are heartbreaking. (Serious question, and I know this doesn’t always help—sometimes it just makes the suicide ideation worse—but is she on anti-depressants?)

- Please don’t start a round of applause for Jim Gordon.

- And a child has showed up wanting to talk to Jim. He walked all the way across town with this message: “They’re killing us.”

[itspatsy]

Part of me thinks JJS2 didn't want to acknowledge they'd majorly dropped the ball on race in S1, so in S2 they amped up the "Jessica is a part of a minority group" aspect, had a black woman say "you people," to turn the narrative even further away from Jessica's own white privilege, and destroyed Trish, who was a viable target because she wasn't a traumatized white woman like Jessica - she was a RICH white woman. And they were desperate to avoid their fuck-ups so they made Patsy a patsy.

okay, so this turned into a long, generally incoherent rant that starts with “this show absolutely fails at dealing with race” and ends with “wtf were they even trying to do with trish’s story,” and it should probably be separate posts or better yet just not posted at all, but it’s all generally related to this ask, so whatever. it’s a mess, i have a lot of confusing thoughts, ignore me.

rather than acknowledging the mistakes of s1 regarding race and trying to course correct, the show definitely seemed like it decided to double down. before the season started, as it was becoming clear they were going to do this “prejudice against powered people” thing, i was really weary about how they would handle it, and apparently my instinct was right. 

to start with, it felt kind of pulled out of nowhere. realistically, sure, people would be weary of powered individuals, but it hasn’t really been fully built into the fabric of the mcu or the netflix mcu as a realized form of bigotry. it was also really only a thematic element in the first half of the season, and they made no effort to really explore it and its implications before they tossed it out and changed gears. it was just there to be used as a device for conflict and drama. 

and it’s such a ridiculous thing when you only have one powered person in the show that’s experiencing that bigotry and she’s a skinny white heterosexual cis woman? like, the most direct parallel for this wasn’t misogyny or homophobia, but racism, and they didn’t try to tell multiple perspectives about it. having a black woman say “you people” at jessica was the most tone deaf bullshit, like, i could not fucking believe it (and then they later killed her off in the most disposable way, which is a whole other issue, and something this show has done repeatedly). they had oscar, a moc that had been in prison (of course), start out the same way, seemingly expressing bigotry and getting “righteously” called out for it by jessica. then there was pryce, another moc, aggressively going after jessica, trying to steal her business, calling her an animal because of her anger and powers, and he “never takes no for an answer” and jessica gets to be like “how rape-y of you” in what was supposed to be a moment of #femaleempowerment. but it just feels like white lady empowerment at the expense of poc. 

but hey, gotta pile on to show how very oppressed jessica is in every aspect of her life, right? which, yes, she has absolutely been oppressed and violated and traumatized, and that is so important and real and should never be diminished, but the show didn’t attempt to contend with the ways she’s also privileged and the ways she’s been able to use it to her advantage and having her acknowledge it (including the fact that having powers, being able to protect herself, is an incredible privilege instead of only the awful burden it’s been portrayed as and she’s always interpreted it as). i probably wouldn’t have even said they’d need to explicitly deal with this under other circumstances, if they were focused on telling a different story, but they’re the ones that decided to make analogies to racist prejudice and have poc express it towards a white woman, so they put the expectation on themselves to tell a nuanced story about oppression and privilege and intersectionality, and they didn’t do that at all. they clearly weren’t actually interested in talking about prejudice in a serious, meaningful way. 

but here’s the even bigger issue: the show tries to present itself as being feminist, but it can’t be feminist when there are no women of color in main roles or even supporting roles. it makes no effort to tell the stories and perspectives and experiences of woc, and that is an absolute failure. it’s inexcusable that they made no effort to fix this. it absolutely doesn’t help that the woc that are actually present in small roles keep getting killed off unceremoniously. i had some hopes when i saw that they had females directors that actually included some woc, but i don’t think they have any in the writing room, and that matters SO MUCH. it makes such a difference, and they could’ve probably avoided so many of these missteps if they just had other voices represented in the creative process. i just saw a headline with melissa rosenberg where she says, “oh yeah, i totally agree with the criticism we don’t have enough women of color,” okay, except this is not a new criticism, people were saying the same thing after s1, so if she agrees with it and cares about it, why didn’t she do anything about it while they were making s2?

the show has sort of attempted with men of color, in that they actually exist in the cast, but it doesn’t handle them well at all, some of which i mentioned before. then you’ve got malcolm. the only lead character of color in s2. he was set up to be the moral center of the show, but there was no real follow through. he was ultimately treated like an afterthought in most situations. he just? disappeared? constantly? when shit went down? i lost count of the number of times i was like, “umm, where the fuck did malcolm go? is he all right?” and the characters around him were pretty consistently awful to him. jessica almost always treated him like shit. his relationship with trish was a train wreck they both kind of contributed to, but trish turned on him pretty epically, and the emotional fallout for him wasn’t really dealt with. and the writers told his “proxy addiction” story in the laziest, grossest way possible (sex? really? that’s all they could think up? and then to use it as excuse to have him treat women like they’re disposable and faceless?). they just clearly have no respect for him. 

it’s such a mess, and s2 was probably worse than s1 in this regard, and there’s no reason it needed to be. this isn’t an impossible thing. when people tell you, “hey, you fucked up. this is how,” you don’t double down or pretend it didn’t happen, you listen and you do better. this should be a show for everyone, not just white women. 

turning to trish, since you mentioned her: i’ve mostly tried to avoid post-s2 reviews, but one of the few i read described her character arc as a critique of the white savior mindset. i highly doubt that’s what the show had in mind. as we established above, careful thoughtful commentary about race is not this show’s strong suit, and writing a critique of the white savior mold wouldn’t even occur to them. i could kind of see where the reviewer was coming from, there were some flavors of white savior-ism in trish’s behavior, but they had to pretend she had never experienced an ounce of hardship in order to make it fit. this was basically the conclusion: “trish is rich and has a family and could never under poor traumatized orphaned jessica’s life.” nevermind that money doesn’t stop you from being abused and traumatized, that a family member was her primary abuser, and that living in poverty and wanting money was the motivation for her abuser to sell her out. this take also ignores the thing driving trish the most. it wasn’t “i want to help people, and they should listen to me because i know best” or even “i want to be special, i want to matter.” it was “nobody touches me anymore unless i want them to.” she was tired of being the victim, of never feeling safe. that’s why she wanted powers. it was muddied by the writing, but it really is as straight-forward as that.

i think trish being rich has likely had some influence in the audience diminishing how she was violated and abused in most every kind of way (physically, emotionally, sexually, financially), but i definitely don’t think the show went after her for being a rich famous white lady as a cover for its various racial fuck-ups. i don’t think the show even really tried to contend with or acknowledge her rich white privilege anymore than it tried to contend with jessica’s privilege. if anything, it tried to do the opposite by showing her to be belittled and demeaned and disrespected by everyone around her, similar to how they were upping the ante on jessica’s oppression by having her face bigotry about her powers. granted, it’s clear the audience had an easier time relating to jessica (probably partly due to the money and fame aspect again; also partly because the narrative backed her up more: for instance, the dynamic of having trish envy the privilege of jessica’s power, but the show seeming to say “oh, gosh, trish just doesn’t understand it’s not a privilege at all, it’s a terrible burden” even though that’s kind of ridiculous, as i mentioned earlier). the execution was shitty, but they were definitely still trying to show that trish’s life was not good and people treated her like she was nothing and worthless in a way that paralleled jessica’s treatment.

tbh, rather than punishing trish for being rich or whatever, i sometimes got the vibe they were actually punishing her for daring to have ambition, but that probably wasn’t on purpose, just an unfortunate implication of the way they treated her in general. at first, i’d assumed they were trying to tell a story about addiction and the ways it can destroy your life, and they just sucked at handling it with any kind of thoughtfulness, but now i think that’s being too generous. they didn’t even really try to grapple with the reality of her addiction and mental illness, so much as use it as an excuse to make her more unstable and put her in a position where she’d keep escalating things. 

i read an interview before the season dropped where melissa rosenberg talked about female anger (or, as the reality of the show is, white female anger), and anger definitely was a theme for all the female characters. if you recognize trish’s main motivator as mentioned above (protecting herself from further abuses), you can see where it fits into this theme, and that it wasn’t just senseless anger and was driven by vulnerabilities and never feeling safe. so, i don’t know, i guess trish’s story was maybe intended to be about an abused woman finally being so goddamn fed up with victimhood and disrespect and belittlement that she decided to take what she needed instead of quietly waiting for other people to acknowledge her humanity and treat her accordingly. that she finally said “fuck it” and tried to find her own power and become her own hero. except, if that was the story, the way it was executed was, wow… exceptionally awful and not remotely clear and not at all done in a positive way. a storyline like that could’ve had the potential to be powerful and affirming and perhaps empowering (once again, for white women at least), but that’s not the story they ended up telling. 

like, i honestly don’t get what i’m supposed to take away from it. they seemingly gave her what she was after, but they spent the entirety of the season shitting on her and had her destroy everything good in her life to get what she believed she needed, which was really just to feel safe. what’s the point here exactly? you do you boo and fuck everybody else because it’ll pay off? don’t have dreams and ambitions for yourself because they’ll make you heartless and selfish and you’ll hurt other people? the desire for power always corrupts even when you’ve been a victim and just want the power to protect yourself? trauma doesn’t go away and can make you do terrible self-destructive shit that you think is helping you but actually isn’t? drug addicts are awful, amirite? what. are. they. trying. to. say?