#and this statement has both negative and positive connotations

[hyper-alice]

Every time I watch a Starkid show there’s always one character/scene that makes me say “[they’re] so ridiculous” and that statement can have either positive or negative connotations depending on the context

[huginsmemory]

Ford's Dreams; Attraction and Asexuality

In Bill's quips in TBOB on what the characters dream about, the quip he had on Ford caught my eye: "Sixer dreams about a pop quiz that asks him "what are you attracted to?" He usually writes "I'm attracted to logic and preparation." Not sure what to call that! Plansexual?". Immediately upon reading it, it made me question the implicit meanings of that small blurb, on Ford's sexuality (as someone whose aroace) and on the potential reason why such a dream was reoccurring, which I've explored below:

Extra addition added (Jan 6 2025)!

The first of two pages in TBOB on Bill's quips on characters dreams; this page includes Ford's, Dippers, Mabel's and Wendy's dream comments.

First of all, there are two types of quips Bill makes about the characters dreams. First, and the main type of comment, are negatively connotated, generally close to or even are nightmares. Dipper, about over hearing his parents fight about divorce, Mabel who has nightmares about waddles dying, Wendy who dreams about her Mom, who died, Stan's about Ford getting stuck in his science fair experiment, and Pacifica about the lumberjack ghost and blood that doesn't wash off her hands. Most of these are things that play off subconscious or conscious fears or grief (or memories in relation to fear or grief). The second type of quip, are goofs; such as Robbie's real hair colour, or Blubs and Durland only dreaming about each other (both on the other page, not depicted). So where does Ford's comment for in? At first glance, Ford's dream quip somewhat comes out as a goof (especially considering the horrible things he's gone through and seen). But for a central, serious character, and considering the context of the book, I really don't think this is a goof, but more of the first type of quip, on darker/nightmare sort of dreams.

But if it's is a nightmare, then why would a pop quiz about what he's attracted to be nightmare material?

First of all, regarding the set up of the dream, a quiz explicitly implies that you are being judged on your answer. There is a rubric for right or wrong answers, and someone, in a higher position of power, often in an academic institution, judges you by this. Ford is a character that's been clearly driven for the good first half of his life by excellency in academic achievement, and this implies that it's very important to him to get the quiz correct, to have the right answer, and that he fears being wrong.

Now on the subject matter of what the quiz entails; the subject of romance and attraction. Regarding canon, romance isn't one we get particularly clear images on with Ford, compared to Stan who flirts and literally goes out on a date during the series. We only really ever get two direct human interactions that could be implied to be considered romantic in nature (sorry fiddauthor's, there isn't anything from Ford's side of things that imply any extra feelings beyond cherished friend; Fiddleford in the other hand...). These are when he speaks to a girl at a dance and gets juice thrown on him, and in Journal 3 on the page that decodes on the page about himself to "LITTLE CATHY WHAT A DREAM HELD HER HAND AND MADE HER SCREAM". (There is also technically the one throw away line about Ford dating a siren in one of the Lost Legends comics, which would be the only time we know of Ford actually being in a romantic relationship; but that's something that never gets elaborated on, and when Dipper says that he's literally reading from the Bill page from Journal 3, so I'm unsure on the weight of such a statement). Compulsory heteronormativity aside as demanded by censors, both the implied attempts don't go well, and in the second one it directly implies Ford's six fingers are directly part of the reason why he's undesirable. Ford clearly deeply struggles with belonging around his 'weirdness'; case in point with the whole page about it in Journal 3. In this case, his bad luck in romance as a teen, possibly as a result of his 'wierdness', continues to alienate him from other people. As a result, a quiz focusing on romance may further remind Ford about his 'wrongness' as he doesn't have the socially expected romantic relationship.

Stanford's author pages in journal 3. The cipher on the right page decodes to what is described in the paragraph above. Note his emphasis on feeling alienated.

However, what's perhaps more telling about it is that the quiz asks what are you attracted too?, which is more sexual than really romantic in nature. And it's telling because what Ford puts down is logic and preparation. These aren't physical attributes as one may assume to answer these questions; neither is it gendered, or even really based on a person, but rather left open as the concepts (ie, he doesn't say someone who is logical and well-prepared). This Bill even jokes about, with 'plan-sexual'. And Ford's answer is not a typical 'male' answer (in the toxic sense, but also, just generally, since people experience sexual attraction) which Bill also notes with the joke. This 'incorrect' answer could be construed as another thing that's wrong with him, especially back in the day; emphasizing again Ford's wrong-ness and alienation.

Not to mention, beyond those two instances described above (interestingly, these occur previous to Ford's falling out with Stan, in which after he highly prioritizes academic achievement) Ford shows no interest in romantic relationships. This disinterest in pursuing romance is contrary to a lot of people who are still workaholics who have significant others/hook-up on the weekend in their meager time off. Ford's general disinterest in romance is also something that others him, with how our society puts so much emphasis on romantic and sexual relationships. And this is something that IMMEDIATELY caught my eye as someone whose within the general ballpark of aroace; there is a huge amount of alienation from society when you are disinterested in sexual/romantic relationships. Especially when toxic masculinity expects you to constantly be horny. So having someone ask you that question of what you are attracted too is awkward, and depending on the audience, socially difficult question to field. And often an answer to that comes out sounding exactly like Ford's, based on personality rather than physical attributes, if you don't decide to come out (not that Ford would know queer jargon anyways). So this question, posed in a quiz, with Ford being quite Ace-coded, would bring up these feelings of alienation, along with those about failure on not having the right 'answer' regarding attractiveness and the failure of not having a girlfriend.

The infamous Billford page in TBOB, of 'one thing led to another'. Also note Ford saying that Bill's "really got it all figured out".

Now, beyond that, we're also reading this in the context of TBOB. Even before the new info in TBOB, Ford openly worshipped Bill; and in TBOB it becomes clear that they certainly had something going on between them (cough, one thing lead to another, cough). This suggests that Ford found Bill attractive in some form of attraction, whether romantic, sexual or queer-platonic-ish. This especially so, considering the answer Ford puts down; logic and preparation. Bill, who corrected and furthered Ford's knowledge, who came to him as a being of pure knowledge (logic), and who helped him plan the portal, who ironically also had other plans of world domination beyond that (preparation). Bill fits the description, even if he's not human, but Ford's not bothered by that, Ford's a freak himself and it's clear in finding that acceptance he's ecstatic (freak4freak). And that attraction, that care Ford had/has for Bill? Now that's something that's horrifying, something that's filled with guilt, terror, and also embarrassment and fear of how others will react; case in point with Ford literally ripping those journal pages out so the others don't know about the extent of his and Bill's relationship, and in TBOB he acknowledges that. And that's not to mention the potential additives of negative emotions from failing to have attraction for the right person, from failing to meet toxic masculinity standards, and the emphasis of being a freak that made him fall for Bill. Now that's emotionally negatively charged for a fucking nightmare.

Like. Fuck. What are you attracted too? The being that I thought was a god of pure knowledge and thought that strung me along like a fish on line with bait of knowledge and companionship, and I ate that bait, hook, line, and sinker, so deep within my belly I fell in love with him; the being that betrayed me, that wants to destroy my world and used me to do it. The being I shouldn't even love in the first place, because you're supposed to love what's normal, but I've never been able to do that as a freak show. The being I've spent half my life hunting down to kill. And now here I am, with this fucking mess of my own making, after threats and torture and the world ending, and some small fucking part of me still loves him.

So, yeah. I don't think that's just a comedy line. I think that's a line that potentially has way more about Ford's feelings of alienation, of his failure to be attracted to the right person, of guilt and fear around his relationship with Bill, and especially so of others perceiving it.

EDIT (05/01/2025): Also for your consideration, as mentioned in the tags by @vespertin-y and @5p4ced-0ut, these DIRECT QUOTES BY FORD IN TBOB. ABOUT WHY ONE WOULD MAKE A DEAL WITH BILL.

All the scenarios listed by Ford apply to himself;

You're at a desperate low? Failing to find, or prove the universal weirdness theorum; but really, truly beneath that, being basically completely alone for all the years since college, and being desperately lonely and seeking affection and acceptance.

Lost something dear to you? A bit more abstract, but Ford's alone, and he's alone because he chose to lose Stan, to seek acceptance through academic achievement. And it's his loneliness that truly drives him to Bill; not academic achievement, even if that's part of the reason. He's trying to fill that void of love and acceptance thats been there since Stan left. That's something that's dear to him that he's lost. Although it could also just be a nod to Bill's magic, in that he can use it to fulfill things.

Throes of all-consuming monomaniacal ambition? Do I need to say anything about this? Ford caused the apocalypse (partly) out of his ambition.

Now of course these all lead up to the very last one: or perhaps you're just attracted to things that hurt you? This heavily implies Ford's felt, as I outlined above, some sort of attraction to Bill.

It's also a strong thing to say about their relationship. What's interesting about this one, is that at the beginning, their relationship wasn't a painful relationship for Ford; codependent as fuck, sure, but no one was actively hurting the other. It wasn't until they began to become jealous and petty with each other when Fiddleford began working that there is resentment and emotional pain, and then there's the big reveal, and all there is of their relationship for Ford is emotional pain and betrayal. In that manner, he wasn't originally attracted to Bill because of masochism in the literal sense; but rather due to rather an attraction built on genuine connection and companionship that ultimately ended horribly.

So basically, the 'attracted to someone that hurts you', is another line that falls under the heavy implication that Ford felt some sort of attraction to Bill; and that Ford struggles with shame and guilt around his attraction to Bill, especially as the comment is actually a lie (a common abuse victim lie) that minimizes their relationship, especially from Bill's side.

But he still says the sentence. So why is he lying/believing he's telling the truth? That comes down to what he's trying to diminish, and the guilt he has around attraction. The sentence, written of course post series when Ford is deeply jaded about Bill and his relationship, is written in a deeply bitter way. And it's a very self-directedly bitter way! Of course the being I fall in love with ends up betraying and hurting me; I never can do anything correctly. By saying that 'he's attracted to pain', he implicitly within the statement blames himself for the abuse, construing it as some way inevitable that this would occur due to his 'wrong' nature, especially around attraction as evident above. This self-blame and 'inevitability' is actually common to those who have low self-esteem and are victims of abuse, which Ford is. Ford already is shown to feel guilt and shame around his attraction to Bill for various reasons, such as the failure to be attracted to the right being, and doubly so with it ending up being an abusive relationship. This self-blame of 'i'm attracted to pain' denies that Ford was seeking genuine connection, and found it in Bill; it construes Bill as always having hurt Ford. Which is untrue! But this does function as a way to suppresses Ford's possible remaining positive emotions he has around Bill (by demonizing him as something horrible, understandable as he's been trying to kill him for 30 years) and also provides Ford an illusion of power over the situation; of course I had and remained in a relationship with Bill because I enjoy pain. It's easier to say (and delude yourself you like it, and you abuser may even encourage that, to avoid the pain) then admit you don't know how to escape, or fear escaping. And I think Ford did just that.

(Also, side note: What's also a kicker is that we are creatures of habit. So relationship dynamics we grow up in, are often ones we tend re-create later in life, because those are dynamics we are comfortable in, even if they are terrible dynamics. But that doesn't mean that it will always, nor have to be recreated. In some way, Ford did this; he recreated a dynamic from his father, in always looking up to Bill, and requiring praise from him to support his self esteem.)

Also, contextually, this negative recount of Bill makes sense as it's functioning as a warning for the reader within the page; informing the reader that no matter what, Bill will hurt you if you make a deal. This embarrassment and shame about Bill is contrary to some readings, in which Ford confesses to having cared about Bill; but this page is early in TBOB! It's before the pages all the rest of the family put in; it's possible this page was added 'before' the rest of the family read TBOB and Ford comes to acceptance with his feelings around Bill.

[potato-lord-but-not]

Around 8 months ago (I can't believe its been that long either) you answered an ask about what Arthur Lester and his 3 bf's ideal positions were (top/bottom/switch), and, just out of curiosity, have you changed your mind at all about your answers? Or is John still a top, Oscar still a bottom, and Noel & Arthur both switches?

ITS BEEN THAT LONG ?!?!!?! good god oufghc anyway anyway- I think that has changed a bit and I’ll put my ramblings under cut bc well. there’s probably a bit more detail than you want out on your tumblr dash

okay Arthur hasn’t changed, he’s still a switch in my heart. I think John is still mainly a top, but he dabbles in switching positions. Like if someone realllllyyyy wants to top he’ll be like “okay :)”

Noel is definitely just a top, and he tried being the bottom once and was content to not try it again (even if Oscar was patient and gentle). Although he does top, he’s not much for penetrative sex. He has some problems getting like, physically aroused (also aforementioned preferences- he’s a bit of a voyeur, he’s got those monsterfucker tendencies, whatever the fuck he and the butcher had going on) and therefore likes to get creative with it. He definitely likes to have a bit of control during sex, not being possessive but just being in the lead.

Oscar is mainly still a bottom but I think he can switch it up if he wants because he’s hot like that. Im pretty sure this might directly contradict my earlier statements, b u t- it took him a while to be comfortable being the top, because he’s had very negative connotations with that position. He didn’t like the idea of the power imbalance during sex it could make, and that he’d be the one creating it. With enough patience tho he was willing to give it go with someone he trusted (Noel probably, and although that didn’t do much for Noel he was still great at giving pointers). Annddd I think that’s why I like bottom John and top Oscar together bc they’re going against their usual preferences and trusting the other to give them something they don’t usually get.

I feel bad for writing whole paragraphs for Noel and Oscar and jarthur just gets to share a single sentence um OOPS- uhhh o k a y

John! a switch with top preferences! he gets really aggressive with Arthur but that’s just because Arthur matches his energy. I think he also talks a lot during sex, mainly giving affirmations and praise. With Noel tho- if he’s still human then they’re just having a teasing match. Noel likes to bring out the flirt and get under John’s skin, and John is trying so hard to keep up without just being an ass. Monster John and Noel tho? all bets are off and they’re getting real freaky with it. John still makes sure to be careful and check in often incase he does something that might hurt Noel. And Noel’s like sweetheart I don’t caarrrrreeee pleaassseeee get those tendrils around me. And with Oscar he’s verrrryyyyy careful. Like he could most definitely get more rough with him, but he doesn’t want to do something wrong and have Oscar never want to be near him again. So he’s real gentle, placing more emphasis on foreplay and closeness than actual sex.

and Arthur! the guy I think about the least somehow! sorry king! a switch that is a horny little freak at heart. He’s up for a lot of things and will be down to try anything if his partner thinks they’ll like it. He’s definitely got more of a dominant personality, and I think that’s verryyy evident with, surprise surprise, Parker! Those two had some wweiirrdddd dynamics going on and thought of flirting and sex like some kinda secret game they both wanted to win. Arthur gets manipulative sometimes, but only if he knows the other person would enjoy it. I think since he’s aro, he’s got less romantic attachment to sex, and thus just really likes having sex to unwind or have some fun.

OUG I RAMBLED TOO HARD SORRY I’ll leave

[akanemnon]

Quick question. Looking back at the comic, how do you manage to subtly shirt into sadder scenes of the story (e.x. Page 26-27 where Frisk and Kris talk about soul possession, something Frisk was oblivious to, or page 45-46 where Frisk realizes they no nothing about themselves. Not even their own age) without it looking too depressing or out of character?

Just wondering as a writer to has a bad tendency to go from lighthearted to disturbing in a matter of seconds. It probably depends on the formatting/genre, but I’m kinda curious to know what you have to say :)

That is a really good question.

I generally try to work with non-verbal communication, i.e. expressions for these kinda transitions and scenes. Characters may say something, but their faces are what really convey how they are feeling.

It often starts with a throwaway line that then snowballs into something bigger. Something generally perceived as harmless but has a huge impact on an individual character.

For example, this part right here

For Undyne and Susie, these statements don't have any negative connotations to them. They are simply stating the obvious. But for Kris, the information held within has huge implications. That is when they realize that the Player is not only gone, but also that Frisk has been going through the same thing they have.

This then snowballs into them talking things over, and Frisk starting to grapple with the fact that it has not ONLY been them doing all these feats and doing the resets. This marks a change in their character, going from over-confident and pushy towards Kris to becoming a little more self-aware.

The same is the case for the later comic parts you mentioned. It all starts with a harmless line, that has personal meaning to a character (Susie asking Frisk how old they are, because of the whole love letter business). In most cases, this would be played for laughs (which it is later on again), but in this moment it is something that triggers a reaction, or rather a realization.

What does help while you're writing these moments, is when the characters can at least get a small positive thing out of them. In both of these cases, it is for character development and a moment of bonding.

[slugtranslation-hypmic]

A Reflection on Translation's Role in R. F. Kuang's Babel or the Necessity of Violence

I don't think I've ever encountered a work that pairs messages I so completely agree with and an execution that I so profoundly dislike. What a frustrating combination.

I'd had this book hyped up to me by colleagues in the Jp -> En media translation field, and I went into it with the impression that it was an adult fantasy/dark academia novel. I don't read much dark academia--the genre doesn't tend to do much for me--but due to a stroke of unfortunate timing had read dark academia's posterchild, Donna Tartt's The Secret History, just before this, leading me to draw unfavorable comparisons between the two. Furthermore, despite its marketing, Babel strikes me as much more of a YA novel--or at the very least pure pop fiction--and inherits many subjectively negative traits from this classification. Too high expectations, a dislike for the book's genres, and a greater understanding of translation theory than the lay audience--I was never a part of Babel's target audience and had little chance of being perfectly satisfied with it.

Nevertheless, I do think the book has tremendous value to those who aren't translators/translation studies academics or who enjoy dark academia pop fiction. While I don't read much English pop fiction, my subjective lack of enjoyment is not a statement of objective lack of value in this type of literature. I would highly recommend this book to anyone with even the slightest interest in language's effect on the world, and I commend R. F. Kuang's ability to deliver Babel's important messages to a wide audience.

At the same time, the book's status as a translation of 18th century events to a modern audience is fascinating and bears looking at, particularly in how this framework serves to undermine the characterizations and, consequently, the novel's core messages.

The Basics of Babel (Beware of Spoilers!)

Babel is, first and foremost, a medium to deliver certain key messages. The pursuit of empire is inherently evil; when the ones in positions of power will never listen, violence is one of multiple necessary tools; together we stand, divided we fall; spheres of oppression overlap in intersecting patterns; revolutions disproportionately affect the already disenfranchised; even so, structural change is necessary to alleviate structural ills; academia appears to be disconnected from the real world but has real, lasting impact. And so on. I agree (as would, I assume most of this audience--I don't think any of these ideas are especially challenging) with all of these; I'm also not trained in these fields and don't have much to comment on here.

Of secondary importance and primary prevalence in the novel are messages about language. Translation is both a tool of violence and liberation. There is inherently a degree of "betrayal" (the book's term) or "transformation" (mine) in all translation. Language and translation have real effect on the world and its individuals. It is impossible to translate with absolute fidelity and yet an absolute necessity to try. Translation--and by extension, all communication and all human contact--is the necessary violence expressed in the subtitle.

And again, I agree! I agree so completely I struggle to remember a time these themes weren't so self-evident to the point of being part of my self. Where my disagreements begin to creep in occur at the level of the characterization where, by virtue of being flattened in the "translation" process, the characters are inadvertently dehumanized to the degree of undermining these core concepts.

Babel consists of two distinct segments, the former being a 400-page sprawl of the four protagonists' upbringings and undergrad experiences in 19th-century fantasy Oxford as translation students. In this universe, magic is performed by matching a pair of words with the same denotative meaning in two different languages. The unshared secondary meanings or connotations are then manifested into the real world, thus implementing the spell. As a simple example, an English watermelon is not an English vegetable, but a Japanese スイカ is a Japanese 野菜. Therefore, if 野菜 and vegetable were matched, this spell might latch onto the notion of a watermelon/スイカ--something that exists in the Japanese definition but not the English definition--and make the melons grow faster. The protagonists thus spend the bulk of the novel learning translation theory, spell crafting, and the ways in which the British Empire is built upon the back of these spells and global exploitation.

Tensions slowly ramp up until one protagonist ultimately murders another, at which point the somewhat doddering pace revives and proceeds at a brisk clip for the last 130 pages while the surviving pair of "good" protagonists stage a revolution out of Oxford's translation magic hub. While the revolution ends in death for all but two of the "good" characters, it is implied that the revolution's aims are largely successful, with the bulk of the British Empire's spellcasting abilities destroyed. This latter segment of the story has some of the same juvenile, almost fairytale-esque simplification of the rest of the book (it's a tempting fiction to believe the destruction of a single building by a small handful of elites could bring an empire to its knees; this book ultimately reads as an academic's power fantasy), but I actually quite like it compared to the rest of the book. The narrative finally grants the main character some much-needed agency, the characterization improves by leaps and bounds, and the protagonists' views are at long last explored with contrasting and three-dimensional opinions. It's a welcome breath of fresh air and complexity.

The problem, as I see it, is that because Babel tackles such critical and multi-faceted ideas as the ethics of revolution and translation, complexity is a necessity that Babel too often forsakes. Babel flits between the competing notions of an educational call for action spoken by real, imperfect people and a cozy, somewhat twee fantasy of paper dolls coming together across racial, gender, and class lines for justice. If the work wants to discuss dehumanization via language, it can't afford to dehumanize its own characters with its language.

Babel as Translation

Kuang's narrator and narrative work hand-in-hand to produce this uncomfortable and clumsy effect.

The book is framed as a historical text written by a minor participant in the revolution in an effort to humanize the characters, "a record that doesn't make us out to be the villains." (504) This aim is achieved as Kuang's narrator follows the internal life of Robin Swift and, to a lesser degree, the three other members of his Oxford cohort in dramatic fictional prose. The text is peppered with footnotes providing extra context, much like a translator's gloss, generally about historical injustices but with occasional dips into the protagonists' private thoughts. The narrator themself, while content to remain in third-person, injects their personality heavily with didactic commentary on oppression and translation theory. I don't knock this as a storytelling technique in and of itself; a brutal hammer of a narrator could be an interesting parallel to the brutal hammer of systemic oppression. It does, however, create the impression that the narrator is hovering just over the story's shoulder at all times, unwilling to trust that the characters will perform their allotted roles once the narrator's back is turned.

Furthermore, the narrator's voice is firmly grounded in its time and place--the time being 2022 and the place being the leftist internet. The prose is undeniably the rhythmic, somewhat dramatic style presently in vogue in the English fiction market, and arguments are formed in the thinking patterns and vocabularies of modern day English internet discourse. When the work itself is set in the 1800s, this creates a slightly jarring effect--language supplanted into a setting where we wouldn't expect to see it.

This suggests the narrator is, effectively, translating a series of events written in an older English into the English of our day and age.

We must assume the narrator is taking their fair share of liberties. Apart from the inclusion of vocabulary that's wildly anachronistic (the word "narcostate" would not materialize in English until long after the 1830s), we also see the narrator's presence in the similar speech styles of all English-speakers across place of origin, class, and upbringing. Compare the college-educated Robin:

But how do you know? ... You didn't see what I saw, you don't know what the new match-pairs are-- ... It's just... It just feels like--I mean, I'm the only one who's always at risk, while you're just-- (182, quotation picked somewhat at random)

to the working-class laborer Abel:

"Is it really as bad as all that?" Robin asked Abel. "The factories, I mean." "Worse," said Abel. "Those are just the freak accidents they're reporting on. But they don't say what it's like to work day after day on those cramped floors. Rising before dawn and working until nine with a few breaks in between. And those are the conditions we covet. The jobs we wish we could get back. I imagine they don't make you work half as hard at university, do they?" (493)

Similarly, most characters retain the same vocal quirks as the narrator and Robin. See also on page 493, a third character starting and stopping herself in an identical fashion to Robin, "It's just... it's a side of the story we don't often think about, is it?" or on page 529 the same character copying Robin's habit of amending her comments with I mean, "Possibly the younger students... The ones who don't know any silverworking, I mean."

This produces a muted, washed-out effect wherein characters struggle to differentiate themselves on the basis of their personalities. But, in terms of translation, is this necessarily a bad thing? Is it wrong to familiarize the unfamiliar with the vernacular of the target audience?

Fortunately for us, Kuang's narrator has their own opinion on this very subject, delivered to us through the mouth of Ramy, Robin's love interest and generally all-around "good" character. In fact, one of the very first things we learn from Ramy is his dislike for a certain style of translation:

That's a terrible translation. Throw it away. ...and for another, it's not remotely like the original. What's more, Galland -- Antoine Galland, the French translator -- did his very best to Frenchify the dialogue and to erase all cultural details he thought would confuse the reader. ... And he entirely cuts out some of the more erotic passages, and injects cultural explanations whenever he feels like it -- tell me, how would you like to read an epic with a doddering Frenchman breathing down your neck at all the raunchy bits? (52)

Blessedly, we are spared that specific experience--if any raunchy bits existed, Kuang's narrator has trimmed them accordingly.

The reader, at this point, is expected to know little of translation theory on their own and should accept Ramy's opinion as that of fact. Ramy is the first character with purely positive associations in Robin's life, and the narrative swiftly propels us through the process of Robin and Ramy falling in love within a handful of pages. ("Robin felt a strange, bursting feeling in his chest then. He'd never met someone else in this situation, or anything like it..." (50) "...they sat cross-legged on the floor of Ramy's room, blinking like shy children as they regarded each other, unsure what to do with their hands." (50) "And [Robin] wanted so badly to impress Ramy. [Ramy] was so witty, so well-read and funny. He had sharp, scathing opinions on everything..." (51))

The reader is therefore expected to associate a liberal or heavy-handed translation style with bad practices--that is, until we learn that Ramy himself "was always ready to abandon technical accuracy for rhetorical flourishes he insisted would better deliver the point, even when this meant insertion of completely novel clauses." (224) (We must also note that this is the "polar opposite" of a "bad" character's style, which we will touch upon shortly.) Ramy, it seems, is allowed his liberties because he has "an uncanny ear for rhythm and sound. He did not merely repeat the phrases he absorbed; he uttered them in such precise imitation of the original speaker, investing his words with all intended emotion, it was like he momentarily became them." (269) Meanwhile, on page 383, we are told "Non-European texts [translated into English by Europeans]...tended to be loaded down with an astonishing amount of explanatory content, to the effect that the text was never read as a work on its own, but always through the guided lens of the (white, European) translator." This information might have been better received were it not in an explanatory footnote that takes up the half page.

I would like nothing more to give Kuang the benefit of the doubt and assume these hypocrisies are intentional, but writing a heavy-handed 500-page book just to poke fun at heavy-handed translation in a single footnote is either a Modernist masterpiece or simply not happening.

I also understand and acknowledge that there is plenty more nuance to these arguments. The Galland translation of One Thousand and One Nights bears a strong moral impetus toward exact fidelity as an introduction of a work of enormous cultural value to a society largely ignorant of that culture; Ramy's translation is a college writing assignment. Elisions for cultural sensitivity are not the same as additions for aesthetic sensibilities or contextual glosses/footnotes. Kuang's narrator is translating concepts from an academic environment to a general audience, where the balance of power is relatively equal, whereas Galland is translating across a broader power gap between cultures. Etc etc. I don't take umbrage with any of that--I also think Galland's translation practices were unacceptable, and I'd be a fool to pretend I don't take translation liberties when appropriate. My concern is that the general audience lacks this background and, when asked to reconcile these hypocrisies, will draw the conclusion that Kuang's narrator is espousing "white, European = bad / non-white, non-European = good."

Which, in the broadest brushstrokes of this colonial environment, is true! The British Empire--and empire in general--is cartoonishly evil, and I don't care much that most of the white English cast is flattened into 2D caricatures as a consequence. It's the reverse that's far more troubling.

Unfortunately, for the first 400-some pages of the book, the narrator plants all intelligent, kindhearted, or otherwise pleasant thoughts in the heads of non-English characters. (Here, non-English refers to any PoC character born outside of Britain, any half-white characters, and the one "good" Irish character. "Non-English" is a terrible classification system, but as all the "good" characters don't self-identify as British or English anyway, this will have to do for now.) Arguments between non-English characters are astoundingly minor; worse, they have little to no bearing on the overarching plot--it takes the murder of a white man to turn the story from academia romp to goodnatured revolutionary conspiracy. (And this only boils over into full revolution because a white English girl takes negative action!) Non-English characters' worst traits are annoying at best to the point where one, their repeated inability to understand intersectionality, comes across as bizarrely out of character and inappropriately dim-witted. Even then, such comments are set up to be angled at "less oppressed" characters. Robin and Ramy frequently fail to conceptualize the struggles of their female classmates or, at times, have rude thoughts about women. However, when their black female classmate Victoire is having anxiety attacks and white female classmate Letty is suffering nervous breakdowns, Robin ignores Victoire to say Letty is "not helping the general feminist case that women were not nervous, pea-brained hysterics." (368) Victoire simply cannot allowed to be "bad" in any way.

The constant need to be "good" strips characters of any ability to develop personality, deep character flaws, or culpability for their actions. For 4/5 of the book, Robin, Ramy, and Victoire are so caught in the narrator's stranglehold that they appear only little more three-dimensional than the paper-thin villains. This, while unintentional, is nevertheless a tragedy.

The Translated Narrative

Similarly, the narrative suffers from being a modern day experience transplanted onto the 19th century setting.

Protagonist Robin and the other members of his cohort are introduced as linguistic geniuses, all of whom have studied from a young age--and not always willingly--to be part of an elite class of undergraduate translators at Oxford. From the age of eleven, Robin spends hours every day studying Greek and Latin, both of which have historically been taught and to this day are taught with copious amounts of translation work. We are shown Robin translating Latin into English as a child (31)--amusingly, the author he works on will be complained about later as very difficult to translate when taught in the later years of undergrad, an inconsistency I can only assume is unintentional--and have every reason to believe it is done competently. Furthermore, Robin continues to retain his native fluency in Mandarin, meaning he should be intimately familiar with basic translation theory and the differences in language by the time he reaches university.

However, the modern day reader is not expected to share this same linguistic background, and the narrative must quickly bring them up to speed. Thus, upon arriving at Oxford, the narrative takes the audience on a ride through a series of bare-bones basic translation theory lectures.

The first lecture opens on the professor "try[ing] to impress upon [the protagonists] the unique difficulty of translation," (104) an absurdity when presented to characters who have been translating for years. Suddenly, characters are catapulted out of their 19th century elite backgrounds and into the bodies of 21st century freshman.

"I don't understand," says trained classicist Letty. "Shouldn't a faithful translation of individual words produce an equally faithful text?" (105) (Later, we discover that Letty's translation style leans strictly literal in opposition to Ramy's. This is posited as a bad choice--which is broadly speaking true--but becomes an uncomfortable parallel between Letty's unyielding, "bad" personality and her "bad" translation choices. Ramy also equates being a good listener and with being a good translator (535), leading to one of the few places where I openly disagree with the narrator. In an ideal universe, truly good translation could only be unlocked with great care; unfortunately, technical skill does not equal strength of character.)

"Is faithful translation impossible, then?" a professor later "challenges." "Can we never communicate with integrity across time, across space?"

"I suppose not," reluctantly (153) says Victoire, who is "raised to read and compose and interpret." (541)

The notion that these characters can have drilled in languages and translation for years on end without having ever considered these basic concepts is laughably absurd. It is like an engineering student receiving a full-ride scholarship to MIT, walking into class on the first day, and saying, "What are all those letters doing on the board next to the numbers?"

And yet the narrator would have us believe this because, fundamentally, the narrative is that of a 21st century university undergraduate's experience. Someone with an interest in languages but little formal training in translation--we certainly don't teach that in American high school--could, conceivably, walk into these lectures and be charmed by "this dramatic mysticism, these monologues that must have been rehearsed and perfected over years of teaching. But no one complained. They loved it too." (107)

Our imaginary 21st century undergrad takes Robin by the hand and leads him along four years of lectures, luncheons, exams, rowing club, and endless giggle sessions with friends. It's cozy and cute. Everything is magical and ready-made for a Pinterest board.

Meanwhile, the bloody cogs of the British Empire churn relentlessly in the background. Robin is invited to participate in a largely low-stakes revolutionary operation and, for about 200 pages, most of his inner turmoil centers around the conflicting desires to lean into the revolutionary movement and the desire to cement himself in a cushy life at Oxford.

Here, the lighthearted atmosphere is by design; for the modern-day reader to feel shock at the abrupt turn in tone, the luxuries and conveniences of an idyllic modern-day academic experience must be shown. However, it must be stressed that this tonal shift occurs over 400 pages in. The slow pace hinders the narrative's ability to be considered in its full 19th century ramifications. We spend so long in Robin's 21st century head that the core struggle, for a sizable chunk of the novel, is coming to terms with one's position of privilege in society and how that affects one as a translator. These are valuable things to consider, and it is something the audience--most of whom are closer to Lettys than Victoires in terms of societal position--should devote time and attention to, but I cannot help thinking there could've been more efficient use of space in this book. It is difficult to examine more of the hard-hitting topics when so much of the book is devoted to the author's nostalgia for their college experience.

The narrative's other core issue interweaves with something I touched upon earlier, the lack of agency in its core characters. For most of the book, Robin is largely shepherded along by forces outside of him, giving him an (intentional) learned helplessness under the oppressive colonial system. However, likely unintentional narrative choices contribute to this problem and give Robin the impression of being even less empowered than he is meant to be. Robin's first two decisive actions of any note are triggered when another character forces him to make an "It's us or them" style choice. In both cases, Robin chooses to side against the revolutionaries for self-motivated reasons, and the narrative later rewards him with a third "It's us or them" choice motivated by purely selfless desires. These could be great character-establishing moments--if any of those choices mattered. But they don't! After choice 1, Robin winds up in contact with the revolutionaries again due to complete coincidence. After choice 2, Robin faces the personal fall-out of turning in the revolutionaries...until a more pressing issue turns up, only partially of Robin's doing (the question of whether this was intentional or accidental is discussed heavily throughout the rest of the book), at which point the personal issues dissolve and vanish. Oh, and the revolutionaries suffered no consequences after Robin ratted out their safe house. Everything is fine and dandy!

And also deeply frustrating. If Robin's actions don't matter, then why have Robin act at all? Is Robin a person or a cardboard cutout doll?

Similarly, the narrative is littered with deus ex machinas to an unfortunate degree. The reader quickly becomes accustomed to a common narrative structure: A problem presents itself, the protagonists panic and make an attempt to fix the problem, that solution fails, tension heightens--and a side character (often a revolutionary) steps in and resolves the problem. So, too, are the major turning points orchestrated by other people. Robin's father instigates his own murder by approaching Robin. Robin is radicalized by Letty setting the police on the revolutionaries.

Robin, then, has no more control over his person than a puppet until the final 1/5 of the book. This is partially intentional as a means to demonstrate Robin's unconscious conforming to racial stereotypes of passivity as a means to be "accepted," even partially, in colonial British society. Had this vanished entirely upon Robin's dramatic turn to agency in the final hundred pages, I wouldn't have been the slightest bit concerned--but it doesn't. Once Robin seizes control of the magical translation tower on page 448, he sits and waits for outside forces to act. And waits. And waits. And waits. The army arrives, but that's all right, because here come the townspeople, who've made a miraculous turn of heart and are ready to be good revolutionaries alongside the Oxford elites. Oh no, they're running out of food--oh, whew, the problem solved itself by virtue of the townsfolk showing up. Uh-oh, Robin has to make the decision of breaking the siege under flagging moral--oh never mind, here comes Letty to take that problem away. I can't wait for Parliament to respond and end the siege for us, but until then, we just all have to wait. And wait. And wait.

It is 84 pages before Robin takes another action.

Translation as Necessity

I don't fault Kuang for the ideas she presents, nor the means she chooses to employ, but I do think it's a tragedy that her own writing skills are inadvertently undercutting her work. Babel is, at heart, a heavy translation of a fictional 19th century event that accidentally does the very thing it criticizes--making people less than people through the act of translation.

And yet still we must translate.

Kuang is correct and expresses herself elegantly when her narrator says:

Language was just difference. A thousand different ways of seeing, of moving through the world. No; a thousand worlds within one. And translation -- a necessary endeavor, however futile, to move between them. (535)

Communication is an attempt to link two agents to one another, and communication is informed by its medium. The conventions and limitations of e-mail shape a message differently than does a phone. A translation, then, is an act of communication wherein the medium plays a dual role of conveyance device and additional agent. The translator, be they human or machine, must always make choices. There is no chance a message can passage from agent to agent to agent perfectly intact.

But then, can a message ever be perfectly communicated? If languages are only another medium, then so too will the language inform the delivery of the message. The words I've chosen in this essay are not the same as my thoughts, nor is your impression of this text the same as my words. Language itself, of course, has no inherent meaning. Even single words--let's take "vegetable" again--conjure different images and different associations with different people. There is no Platonic ideal of "vegetable" we can point to and say this, and only this, is "vegetable."

And if it's that hard to communicate with individuals who share the same language, what about individuals in other languages? Or how about when languages overlap? My command of English is informed by the facts of my life, both the demographic--white, American, Latino, male, born in the 90s, asexual, multilingual, middle-class, blah blah blah--and the experienced--listened to this life-changing song, read those books, played those games, loved and cherished those other people. Your English, too, is informed by all the millions and millions of things that make up you--some of which may be other languages. If, being as you also speak Japanese, you consider a "watermelon" to be a "vegetable," who am I to tell your concept is lesser?

In the way English is no monolith, Japanese is no monolith. So are Spanish, French, Mandarin, Swahili--every individual uses their language or languages in a different way in an imperfect attempt to express their unique thoughts. It's daunting, then, to be the medium with which someone else reaches out and attempts to convey a message.

But that's no excuse not to try. Rather than not convey anything at all, we all have to try, and try our best, to convey ourselves. The fact that it's impossible to translate--to communicate--should not be the deterrent it so often is. Without conveyance, we are nothing to one another. It is communication that allows us to shape ourselves and shape the world around us.

I think a lot about translation as an act of betrayal or violence. I agree that it can be, and often is, but underlying that I think it's even more simple--translation is an act of transformation. Transformation, or change, can be influenced by malice or sheer clumsiness. We are betrayed by and violated by those who would seek to change us against our will; on a broader scale, it's remiss for anyone working with different languages to ignore the power dynamics between their source and target cultures.

At the same time, is it always such a bad thing to be changed? I'm reminded of all the vocal tics I've picked up from friends or favorite books. It's an honor to see colleagues integrate phrases I often use in translation in their translations; in turn, I'm constantly writing down words I see in their works and adding them to mine. I'm molded by everything I've ever cared for and that's cared for me, and so are you. So is everyone on the planet Earth.

When we communicate, then, it's vital that we do so with care. We must try to be conscious of our changing, even if doing so will not guarantee success. We have everything to lose by not trying at all.

While the nature of today's Japan-Anglosphere relations are nothing like the relationship between the early 19th century British Empire and its colonies, there are undeniable power balances and cultural considerations to be made. I'm always cognizant of the freedom my US salary gives me versus that of my JP counterparts, the skewed relationship of American vs Japanese global power, the US's continued military presence in Japan, and so on. I don't let it bother me on a daily basis--guilt with no outlet isn't productive--and I recognize how very lucky I am to be able to dismiss that at all. I'd prefer to continue to listen to others and, when possible, use what powers I have for assisting.

At the same time, I don't deny that differences of race affect many core tenets of my work. Japan occupies an odd position in the Anglosphere cultural world of possessing both immense soft power and a strong perception of negative alterity. Besides the overtly offensive opinions, we see so often notions of Japanese stories--and by extension, their Japanese authors--as excessively exciting or alienatingly weird by virtue of being Japanese. Japanese society is so polite! Or, on the flip side, Japanese society is so racist! People draw conclusions--sometimes containing a kernel of truth, sometimes not--from the whole and apply it to the individual.

Even talking about it too much leaves a funny feeling in my mouth. When I speak in broad strokes about what applies to how most people use Japanese, will that be taken as a statement about every individual person's command of the language? If I constantly compare Japanese, English, Japanese, English, Japanese, English, won't that serve to make them seem like two irreconcilable things? What about all the many people who make their home in both languages? And third, fourth, fifth languages too? When I talk about English with the unconscious expectation that this is where the lack of alterity is found, am I driving away those who approach English in another fashion? And so on.

It's especially difficult working in media, unlike interpretation or other related fields with small target audiences, when the target audience is so big. I change the way I talk when I address my friends vs my coworkers--but what about when I address a vast sea of people, an audience I can't control? How do I know what English phrases resonate with them? How do I tailor my communications and the communications I've been entrusted with so the messages land home, as close as they possibly can?

What I do, then, is try to translate in such a way that always considers the person first. When a line shines, I want it to shine in English. I want authors to appear clever and goofy and banal, because people--Japanese-speakers, English-speakers, both, and neither--are way, way more similar than we give ourselves credit for. I want my one weird author to sound weird in all the right places, because he's not weird by virtue of being Japanese, he's weird by virtue of being a feral goblin of a man. I want my one socially sensitive author to sound caring and clever, even if the words she uses don't align with English discourse. I want the sexy scenes to sound sexy, the funny scenes to be funny, the kinda stupid to be kinda stupid--because people are dumb. And amazing. And so very, very good.

I think a lot about a beginning Japanese learner saying "I'm sorry!" (which came across as "Because it's my fault!") when hearing her instructor had a cold. I think a lot about the man who spoke very little English and still went "D: Fall!" to alert me when I dropped a bag. I think a lot about how, no matter how imperfect, we all want to express care for our fellow human beings. I love all the many things that make us different, and I love all the many ways in which we're exactly the same.

Betrayal, violence, and care bubble out of us no matter how much we try to stop them. It's on us to channel the ways in which we change the world and it is, of course, a necessity.

This book drove me up the wall. Go read it.

[bucksdaffy]

today i'm thinking about how tim minear saved the henrentommy scene from the cutting room floor and sent it over to abc so that they could release it. when you think about it on its own, it's not really that special. tptb do that fairly often with their movies and shows: they save some extra content and include it alongside the official cut on dvds as a bonus feature. it's nothing out of the ordinary.

but this is tim minear we are talking about.

the same tim minear who, after 7x06 aired without the extended version of the buck and eddie karaoke scene (which angered a lot of buddie shippers to the point of sending him death threats), went on record to say that although he isn't really hesitant to share deleted scenes, it is something that has negative connotations for him. because last year, when he finished and released some 911 lone star scenes that were excluded from the finale, the fandom was furious that they were cut in the first place instead of enjoying the extra content. in the same statement, he mentioned that the reaction had left a bad taste in his mouth and so he wouldn't be doing that again.

given the context in which he said that, it's really hard to blame him. after all, he's human too, and it must suck ass when you release something you took your precious time to finish, thinking the fans would appreciate it, only for them to react negatively. he wasn't willing to go through that again. end of story.

except, he did do it again.

tim experienced backlash from both tarlos fans and buddie fans for not doing things their way. nobody would blame him if he didn't want to make the same mistake with bucktommy fans. but tim is sanguine. he is optimistic. he took a chance on us. he saved the scene from the cutting room floor, finished it, and sent it over to abc, knowing full well there was a chance that bucktommy fans would lash out as well. i like to think he was fairly certain this time would be different, though, due to all the positive interactions he has had with us. but at the end of the day, this is something only tim knows. the point is, he decided to risk it one more time. and i have to say, it makes me incredibly happy, and for once, i am really proud to be a part of something like the bucktommy nation. we may have a few bad apples, as all fandoms do, but as a whole, it is such a positive community. we appreciate all the content we get. we don't harass people for not giving us enough. we understand why the story goes the way it goes. we see how certain scenes don't necessarily fit with the narrative flow of a given episode. we are able to think critically. and all these traits are something that creators really do appreciate. i can only hope this continues until the end.

[ivy-the-kraken]

The Importance of "He lives rent free in each of our hearts"

No, I am not exaggerating when I am saying this joke has layers of subtext. What Cyno says in the Parade of Providence is not only a joke about the nature of Alhaitham in their friend group, but also a hint towards the evolution of Cyno and Alhaitham’s relationship. 

1- The Context

The first thing to note is the conversation that surrounds this joke. Previously, the conversation was:

Collei: That’s a good thing… It means you have integrity.

Kaveh: Thank you, oh my god, thank you… See, you get me Collei!

Kaveh: It’s a good thing Alhaitham isn’t here right now… He’d be quick to explain why you’re wrong.

Collei: Seems you always include him in the conversation, even when he isn’t here…

Tighnari: Yep. No dinner with Kaveh is complete without a few words about Alhaitham.

Now, the easy thing to latch onto is the fact that Kaveh apparently talks extensively about Alhaitham. However, let’s consider what else is said. Kaveh’s statement is certainly an insight into the nature of his and Alhaitham’s relationship- that being one of opposing forces, people who fundamentally do not mesh due to differences in experiences and worldview. 

Tighnari’s following statement is sarcastic, and is an obvious indication of the familiarity of this. Because of Kaveh and Alhaitham’s opposing natures, it is only natural that they clash. 

But how does this tie into what Cyno says? Well, Kaveh’s statement is antagonistic, meant to express his negative feelings towards Alhaitham by assuming that he’d say the worst about him. Tighnari’s is not positive either, but not exactly negative- simply, it’s exasperation towards the entire situation. However, what Cyno has to say is more positive, both that it’s a lighthearted joke, and that offers a glimpse at the much more friendly feelings that Cyno holds towards Alhaitham.

2- The Joke

Cyno: I sense that Alhaitham has in fact been here with us all along…

Kaveh: He’s here? Where!? Why didn’t you tell me?

Cyno: …He lives rent free in each of our hearts.

There’s a lot to unpack here. First to note, is that this is all too easy to brush off as a friendly joke. And on some level it is, which is in of itself, really telling. When Cyno and Alhaitham first fought in Aaru Village, neither… liked each other, let’s put it that way. But throughout the Sumeru Archon Quest, they clearly grew to respect one another’s characters and grew to form a partnership. The fact that Cyno can joke so easily about Alhaitham speaks to a major change in dynamic.

Now, the punchline. This is by far the most fascinating part to me. Saying someone or something “lives rent free in [your] head” is a common term on the internet now, and put in simplest terms, means you think about it a lot. But then, why heart? 

Well, the brain tends to symbolize rationality, thinking, and planning. If something lives rent free in your head, you think about it a lot. While the term is usually connected to a positive connotation, that what you are thinking of is something that makes you happy, it can easily dip into negativity. However, the heart is different. It tends to symbolize emotionality, love, and sometimes life. Cyno saying Alhaitham lives rent free in their hearts and not their heads creates deeper intimacy, making the statement very clearly personal. And tying back into the previous section, neither Kaveh nor Tighnari were expressing positive emotions about Alhaitham, making the statement seem out of place. But it makes much more sense when it is not taken as a mere joke; rather, it is an expression Cyno’s connection to Alhaitham. 

3- Conclusion

One final thing to note is that Alhaitham is not present when Cyno makes this joke. So, one, this could mean that this is an expression of emotionality that Cyno is comfortable making about Alhaitham, just not towards him, implying that he has come to terms with his feelings about Alhaitham but has not deciphered what Alhaitham feels about him. Two, the Traveler is unaware of their relationship, hence why the player doesn't pick up on anything, but everyone else is, and Cyno just wants to express that he loves his boyfriend very much.

In short, Cyno loves Alhaitham, even if no one else has anything good to say about him. 

[mikethebrave]

there's a difference between crying a lot and being a "crybaby." The accusation "crybaby" is something Will antis throw at Will a lot, but the difference between you and me is that you seem to say, "Hell yeah, he is!" whereas we say, "No, that's not true. Crying doesn't make you a crybaby."

crybaby typically has a negative connotation within culture. And I definitely disagree with the idea that will is powerless (not any more powerless than anyone else, pretty much everyone other than El is powerless... Mike is often powerless too) or "delicate" (he certainly doesn't want to be treated in that way, as he's made clear).

Is he liable to break? Maybe. Sometimes. But so are most of the other characters? I don't think he's more liable to break than others, and even if he is, party of his bravery is pushing through that hell.

perseverance IS a form of bravery. You can even argue that Will's internal struggles are a sign of his bravery precisely because he doesn't want to burden others with his pain. Mike is brave too, and I fully agree that he has more traditional knight in shining armor traits, and so the question of, "Who is braver?" then comes down to what kind of bravery you value more. Mike is also going through a lot too.

I wholeheartedly agree that Will is sensitive, but I think we disagree on what that means. I don't see Will's sensitivity as a limitation, so I don't think it should be combined with other terms that actually are seen as negative in one poison pill package.

And I don't think will's sensitive traits are a weakness at all. In fact, I actually think Will being unapologetically himself is one of the things that make him brave, and it's why I voted for him. He made an Alan Turing poster! But I think distilling him down to those traits and placing him in a stereotypical gendered box is misguided, and IMO it twists Will's positive traits into a weakness by exaggerating them/Flanderizing them. And when that happens, the people who DO see them as weaknesses pounce. And for good reason.

Because it's not Will! And Will is gonna be the hero in S5!

I do believe in nuance. My position is very nuanced. But when it comes to these polls it really does seem like people take sides, and there are two very different ways of seeing these characters. And the usual suspects tend to chime in for your "side" of the debate.

So in conclusion?

Will sensitive? Yes.

Will crybaby? Well, he certainly cries, but I wouldn't use that term.

Will powerless? Sometimes, but it's not a core trait.

Will "delicate?" Not a fan of that term. Nor is Will lol.

Will cowardly? Not a fan of that term either.

Will damsel in distress? Sometimes. Situationally. But again, it's not something he's defined by, nor is it something he wants to be.

Mike brave? Absolutely. He's the paladin!

Will brave? Hell yes!

Who is braver? Well, that's up for debate.

one thing you'll notice if you live in and interact with others in the world is that people will often take a pejorative word that is being thrown at them and reclaim it in order to render it powerless. will does cry a lot. because he's a sensitive gay boy, misogynistic people will opt for the low hanging fruit that is calling him a crybaby. by saying "yes, and? what's so wrong about a boy crying? especially when his life is shit and he has a million reasons to cry?" you're doing much more for him and everyone else that's faced similar bullying than you are doing whatever this is. turn that statement back on them. make them explain to everyone in the class why that's such a bad thing.

if will isn't powerless against those that attack him, then why doesn't he fight back? if he does hold power, why doesn't he wield it? is it because he's a coward then? or...? like, lol. he is powerless. the odds are stacked against him in every single way, both in a supernatural and sociopolitical way. it's also just not who he is. if he wasn't meant to be powerless, i don't think the duffers would've written him in such a way repeatedly in multiple seasons. he can't fight back against his bullies and he can't fight back against monsters. if his loved ones hadn't worked together against unimaginable horrors to save him, he would've died.

will does not have the ability (couldn't fire the gun; doesn't fight back), resources (hasn't used any superpowers to fight), influence (he was overtaken by the shadow monster; he is lower on the totem pole among his peers and sociopolitically), power (couldn't fire the gun; no powers like el), authority (lower on the totem pole; his father has more power over him; has a gentler, more passive personality), or capacity (again, gentler, more passive personality; couldn't fire gun; not a fighter) to fight back and win against the antagonists.

he's a character in a show. he was written and shown to be powerless against all that hunted him. he literally died in season one and was close to being lost again in season two. like... huh? and i never said he was more powerless than anyone else. stop jumping to conclusions and arguing with a made up version of me that exists only in your head.

will doesn't want to be treated like a baby that can't handle himself. he wants understanding, empathy, and support. not to be smothered or wrapped in bubble wrap. the only characters that manage to do this are mike and then jonathan after will shares this with him. still, will is sensitive. characters don't treat him the way they do other characters (and this is called having tact). lucas even tells max not to talk to him about anything that happened when he disappeared, because "he is really sensitive about it". will gets ptsd flashbacks. he freezes up and experiences a bodily reaction. he gets panic (?) attacks. he is susceptible to triggers, he requires careful handling, etc. he's tough! and he doesn't want to be babied! but he's treated sensitively because he is sensitive and this is unique to him. they don't roughhouse or bro out with him the way they do with other male characters. like. even the party has to go through mike to get to will when it comes to the more sensitive stuff lol.

when you say "but not more than the other characters" you're still agreeing with me. you're wasting time saying. again, you're making assumptions. fucking quit it. lord knows i'm saying enough as is! you don't gotta make up more shit!

the question of who is more brave comes down to what you define as bravery, not your values.

you'll find that a lot of definitions of bravery and brave mention courage. a lot of these definitions suit mike more than they suit will.

we both agree that perseverance is a form of bravery, that's what i meant by strength to survive all that he's survived lol, so idk why you wanna capitalize and act like i don't. i just think mike fits more of the definitions, the most popular and standard definition. this poll asks who's bravER not who's brave point blank.

…….. why would you ever think i view his sensitivity as a limitation? especially after i just said it's his strength and spoke extremely clearly? like. what the fuck are you talking about? and people absolutely do see his sensitivity as a negative. both in canon and in real life. why do you think they use crybaby as an insult? why do you think he gets bullied both by his peers and his dad? for the love of god, think about the shit you say and these points you're making instead of just trying to fight with me for no fucking reason.

he's not being placed in any stereotypical gendered box. i'm sorry for you and the people you'll meet if you really think that just listing his traits and things that have happened in the show is placing him in some box. it doesn't make him a girl to be sensitive or a former damsel in distress. it also doesn't make him a stereotype. which btw. you do realize people like that exist right? like. you don't even realize how homophobic you're being. people like that exist. stereotypes do not arise out of thin air. people will see those things and consider it a weakness and pounce BECAUSE THEY'RE HOMOPHOBIC AND MISOGYNISTIC. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD USE YOUR BRAIN AND READ THEORY AND HISTORY AND JUST FUCKING THINK.

will is sensitive, a crybaby, a former damsel, and so on and so forth and still he's going to be the hero. these are not contradictory statements. you say you understand nuance, and yet you spew all of this black and white lonnie bullshit. will is not a perfect mary sue cardboard cutout kind of character. he has strengths, weaknesses, positive traits, neutral traits, negative traits, he's been right, he's been wrong, etc etc. he's a fully-fledged character.

the only person trying to shove him into a box is YOU. the only person being homophobic is YOU. the only person assuming shit is YOU.

the question was who's braver. i looked up the definitions, thought back to canon, made my choice, and explained why. my argument that mike is more brave does not mean that will is not brave. it does not mean that he has never been brave and never will be brave. stop. being. willfully. obtuse.

[louisegrommeardn632]

Assignment Two: Final Images

Hidden Intimacies

I went with these three composite images for my series titled 'Hidden Intimacies'. I think the name encapsulated my idea of forming a relationship with oneself through solitude.

Positioning Statement

The idea of solitude is something that I have always resonated with, through both my consumption of art and my personal experiences. The concept of my project titled ‘Hidden Intimacies’ explores the relationship with the self, and the melancholic peace that comes with solitude. My goal for this assignment was to use photo manipulation in service of encouraging self-connection and reflection in a state of seclusion. I have done this through portraits of my flat mate Ruby, that intend to tell not a story about her but rather present her as a state of being.  

In a capitalist world that is becoming so digitally connected, it is hard to escape the constant pressures to perform; whether that is at work or to uphold a social status. Forming relationships with others is an integral part of our existence, and many of these relationships are ruled over by conventions that require us to behave in a certain way that may not be true to oneself. Even when we are physically alone, cultivating a relationship with oneself has become less important to us than scrolling through social media, or messaging other people 1. The reason why I wanted the concept for this project to be about the relationship with the self, is because I find that in a state of solitude, the pressures of everyday life and the desire to perform evaporate. Through cultivating a relationship with myself, I have found peace in self-reflection, despite a sense of loneliness. I think it is important to appreciate solitude in such a fast-paced society, which is why I have chosen it as my concept for this project. Whilst it can have negative connotations and is a complex idea, “I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude” 2 

I found that I could best express my idea by photographing my flat mate Ruby in the bathroom of our flat. The setting of a bathroom itself is one of privacy and intimacy, and I found that using a subject that I had a personal connection with made the process of shooting easier e.g. she was comfortable showing her skin on camera. This was especially important, as I wanted to make these images as intimate as possible, as if the viewer is peering into moments that are only visible to the person experiencing them. Using skin as a site of vulnerability is a technique I used to help give this effect. Joyce Tenneson’s Illuminations3 was a large inspiration for this project, particularly with the way that I manipulated my photos in post. Her use of double exposures is something I tried to replicate by layering multiple images, in slightly different poses. Her images also have a soft focus, which I took inspiration from by using the blur tool and motion blur in my images. I found that these techniques in my images suggested movement and communication with oneself, leaning into the idea of the relationship with the self. This is also a stylistic component that is present in all three photographs in this series.  

After learning about photo manipulation over the semester, my position on it is that it must have an intention, and it is a positive thing if it is used to support a statement or idea. Even to go so far as to ‘trick’ viewers can be justified if the trickery is done for a productive reason. Reading about Jonas Bendiksen’s The Book of Veles4 helped me to form this opinion, and I applied this to my project. Particularly with my center image, it is ambiguous whether the photo has been manipulated or not, and multiple readings could be gained from the image. According to feedback from my peers, it looks like a composite image of one person’s movement layered, and to others, it looks like one photo of two people in an embrace. I decided to lean into this ambiguity, as I think it serves the purpose of exploring the intimate relationships we can form with ourselves, despite it only being one person. Each of my images has cold, blue tones, which is something I added through colour balance and adding a gradient in photo shop. In a way, this is also a form of ‘trickery’, as it fools the audience into experiencing an emotion – my intention being one of both peace and melancholy. I have learned that manipulation and trickery is inherent to the process of an artist conveying a concept, and I have embraced it in this assignment. 

I really enjoyed exploring a concept that felt personal to me and is something that I believe other people could resonate with. I hope it makes an impact on viewers and encourages people to recognise the importance of being in touch with oneself. I believe a passage from Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse5 best sums up my concept for this project, “To be silent; to be alone. All the being and the doing, expansive, glittering, vocal, evaporated; and one shrunk, with a sense of solemnity, to being oneself, a wedge-shaped core of darkness, something invisible to others... it was thus that she felt herself; and this self having shed its attachments was free for the strangest adventures.”  

Bibliography 

Aesif, Aena., and Mahajan, Isha. “Mapping Solitude: An Exploratory Study of the Concept of Solitude in a Hyper-connected Modern World.” Confluence: Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 5, (2019): https://cjids.in/volume-v-2021/mapping-solitude-an-exploratory-study-of-the-concept-of-solitude-in-a-hyper-connected-modern-world-2/mapping-solitude-an-exploratory-study-of-the-concept-of-solitude-in-a-hyper-connected-modern-world/ 

J. Koch, Philip. “Solitude.” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 4, no. 3 (1990): 181-210. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25669958?seq=2 

Miller, Jessica. “Fake news: how Jonas Bendiksen hoodwinked the photographic community with The Book of Veles.” Amateur Photographer. February 14, 2022. https://amateurphotographer.com/book_reviews/fake-news-how-jonas-bendiksen-hoodwinked-the-photographic-community-with-the-book-of-veles/ 

Tenneson, Joyce. Illuminations. Bulfinch, 1998.  

Woolf, Virginia. To the Lighthouse. London: Hogarth, 1927.  

[deswatchedit]

Wattstax (1973)

Mel Stuart's Wattstax is more than a concert film—it’s a celebration of Black pride and culture, rooted in the aftermath of the 1965 Watts Rebellion in Los Angeles. The film documents the 1972 Wattstax music festival, a gathering of over 100,000 mostly Black attendees who came together to reflect on the ongoing struggles for civil rights, police reform, and cultural empowerment. Combining music, interviews, and sharp social commentary, Wattstax serves as a vital piece of Black cinema that explores identity, resilience, and the power of art in challenging systemic oppression.

Music as Resistance

While the film centers on performances from Stax Records’ top artists, like Isaac Hayes, The Staple Singers, and Rufus Thomas, it goes beyond a simple concert documentary. The music, much of which carries themes of social justice and empowerment, becomes a vehicle for navigating the struggles and joys of Black life. Songs like "Respect Yourself" and "Theme from Shaft" embody themes of self-respect and defiance against societal pressures. These performances are infused with both pride and pain, serving as a reminder of the enduring fight for equality in the wake of the Watts Rebellion.

However, Wattstax isn’t just about the music. The interwoven interviews with Black residents of Watts offer a glimpse into the daily lives of those living with the aftermath of racial violence, economic disparity, and systemic racism. Their candid reflections ground the film in a very real struggle, reminding viewers that the rebellion was not just a moment in time but a continuous fight against injustice.

Language and Interpretation

A major theme in Wattstax is the power of language, specifically the complex meanings behind words like "nigga," and "bitch." In the interviews, Black residents of Watts discuss how these terms are used within their community to build solidarity or express pain, despite the negative connotations they often carry. The reclamation of these words is seen as an act of empowerment—an assertion of control over language that has historically been used to degrade Black people.

The film doesn't shy away from the complexity of these terms. In one segment, a man speaks about how the word "brother" became a way to express solidarity during the Civil Rights Movement. Similarly, while "nigga" is used casually between friends in the film, it carries a heavy history of racial violence. Wattstax presents these words as layered, with both negative and positive associations depending on context, illustrating the fluidity of language in Black culture.

By focusing on the Watts community and the ongoing legacy of the rebellion, Wattstax also connects music with the broader political struggles of the time. It’s not just a celebration of Black music—it’s a reflection on how that music became a form of resistance and survival in a country that continued to marginalize Black people.

Wattstax is more than a concert—it’s a statement of Black identity, pride, and resilience. Through its focus on music, language, and lived experiences, the film becomes a powerful expression of the Black community’s ongoing struggle for justice. It is a Black film because it authentically captures Black life, celebrates Black culture, and serves as a historical document of resistance in the face of systemic oppression.

[sideprince]

OK let me clarify, because I'm not talking about others perceiving everything about Snape that we as readers only know from canon, but that the factors I listed ("a traumatized 21 year old who's both brilliant and not only saw a lot of shit as a Death Eater but survived betraying and spying against Voldemort") make up a personality that others will react to in the same ways as we see students in the books react. I'm not saying Snape is functional, I'm saying that functionally he's like a 900 year old - he has way more life experience than he should at the age of 21, and has aged in numerous ways because of what those experiences were. "Functional" as I'm using it here doesn't mean that Snape is a functional person, it means that for all intents and purposes he had qualities far beyond his years, and I deliberately did not qualify that in any positive or negative way. This is documented in soldiers who survive war and people who survive severe trauma, not only emotionally, but sometimes even physically - early age lines and/or a sudden onset of gray hair, for example.

I'm also going to significantly restrain myself from giving a triggered response here, take a deep breath, and ask that you consider whether the complete stranger on the internet you're interacting with might also have trauma as well as knowledge about its various effects and workings before educating them on the assumption that they don't know what they're talking about. If that wasn't your intention then I've misinterpreted your words, but it certainly was the impression they gave and I'm not going to dredge up my own baggage just to prove a point but my opinion is, in fact, informed, based not only on personal experience but a lot of working through it including with professional support.

My perspective may differ from yours, but that doesn't make it invalid and I didn't even come close to saying "trauma makes you stronger." I do think that it does make you more resilient and less tolerant of bullshit, however, or rather that it does have that effect for some people - not everyone, because you can't make broad statements about nuanced experiences, and we're specifically talking about Snape as a character, not the wide spectrum of potential trauma responses. I also say this without qualifying what being "resilient" might mean and any positive or negative connotations you have with that language is your own, so please consider as such, and try not to put intentions to my words that aren't there.

War trauma absolutely ages a person, and anxiety comes in many forms, not just panic attacks, breakdowns, or paranoia. PTSD is specific to the experiences that trigger it - a soldier with PTSD from the Gulf War has different symptoms than a soldier did after, say, the Napoleonic Wars or the Revolutionary War, because the conditions and stimuli are different. Traum hardens a person, and as Snape's character is described, we see him as a twitchy, awkward boy before the war, and a closed off, controlled, intimidating figure after it. We see him in the classroom throughout the series and he doesn't get triggered easily or display traumatized behavior. That only happens in the Shrieking Shack in PoA (and subsequently the Hospital Wing). after he finds Harry in the Pensive in OoTP, and after he kills Dumbledore in HBP. Most of the time he's controlled, his body language and tone hard to read, and whatever coping mechanisms and dysfunctions he has, they're mostly left out of canon (shoutout to @said-snape-softly 's brilliant analysis of Snape's descriptions and language).

As far as canon goes, Snape actually didn't stand trial, and it's specified in the books he didn't because Dumbledore vouched for him to the Ministry. I'm not just being pedantic, it's relevant to the point I made. I'm sure there were rumors about him at the time, seeing as he was involved enough with the Death Eaters for Dumbledore to need to intervene on his behalf.

‘Not yet!’ cried Karkaroff, looking quite desperate. ‘Wait, I have more!’ Harry could see him sweating in the torchlight, his white skin contrasting strongly with the black of his hair and beard. ‘Snape!’ he shouted. ‘Severus Snape!’ ‘Snape has been cleared by this council,’ said Crouch coldly. ‘He has been vouched for by Albus Dumbledore.’ ‘No!’ shouted Karkaroff, straining at the chains which bound him to the chair. ‘I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death Eater!’ Dumbledore had got to his feet. ‘I have given evidence already on this matter,’ he said calmly. ‘Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort’s downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am.’

-Goblet of Fire, Ch. 30

Two things to note here:

Dumbledore states factually that Snape was a Death Eater and turned spy, therefore this is public information - regardless of what does or doesn't get published in the press, you can't contain information like this in a crowded courtroom, especially once a trial is over.

This statement is a small detail compared to the rest of the trials that were happening at the time, and was probably a footnote in the press coverage, if it was included at all, once Barty Crouch's son was tried and convicted. Small details don't get talked about by the masses, but they will be relevant to people connected to the person they're about. They're the kind of thing people who went to school with the person in question will gossip about, or their co-workers/students.

So what do I conclude from this? Well, for one, it's not relevant that neither Harry nor Sirius knew Snape was a Death Eater in the sense that it doesn't serve as any kind of indicator of what was public knowledge at the time, or of interest enough to be discussed. Sirius was in Azkaban, shut off from the world. We know that he was alone in his cell, and that he had limited access to news and knowledge while in there. According to his own retelling of his experiences, it took him time to work out that he bore the horrors of Azkaban better as a dog, so he likely was in no state to overhear anything about the trials if anyone passed through the prison discussing them right after the war ended, let alone process and retain that information. As for Harry, he has no way of knowing about Snape's past as no one tells him of it - he doesn't talk about Snape with Ron's parents, and the Hogwarts staff don't discuss each other's histories and personal lives with students. Hagrid may have known, but he's very reverent of all Hogwarts professors and has faith even in Quirrell, who was a new hire at the time and turned out to have Voldemort squatting on his occipital lobe.

What's even more relevant, however, is that whatever rumors were flying around immediately post-war, they would have been long forgotten a decade later when Harry entered Hogwarts. Of course this is all supposition, meta, even headcanon. But it's based on how rumors usually work, because they have a limited lifespan related to how relevant they are to the people discussing them. Snape's first students, who knew him a few years earlier before he finished school, some of whom would have parents who work in the Ministry, would have some kind of vague idea that he was connected to Death Eaters, which would have garnered him some measure of respect, even if out of fear. Again, this is because while the wizarding world at large probably didn't care about a guy who, to most of them, was a no-name nobody and a blip in the larger catastrophy of the war, the students who remembered Snape (if any of them even did, he seems to have kept to himself mostly) and those who were now his students might have been interested. I mean, think about it - if you found out your new teacher had done some sketchy stuff before he got hired and you heard from a guy two years above you whose mom works in the Ministry and heard him mentioned as a spy in a trial, wouldn't you be curious and talk about it with other students? Wouldn't there be students whose parents would say, looking at their school list, "oh Snape is teaching now? Hmmmm. He was a spy you know, I heard Dumbledore say so."

Once the war and its aftermath were over and people settled into peaceful times, the rumors related to the war would have faded and stopped being relevant. After a few years, based on how these social trends usually go, Snape would have been seen as an intimidating teacher with a vaguely scary past, and after a few more years (ie. by the time Harry gets to school) all the students who had any concept of Snape's past would have finished school and left only a general impression of Snape as a strict teacher who doesn't tolerate nonsense and can be imposing if you cross him (more in the vein of McGonagall than a DE). Students may not be terrified of him like Neville is (who's also terrified of McGonagall and basically of his own shadow), but they also know better than to talk back to Snape or cause trouble in front of him. But that's not relevant as to whether Sirius or Harry know about it.

But even if that wasn't the case and there were no rumors, the ways in which Snape was hardened by his experiences, which we see signs of a decade later when Harry's story takes place, would have made him an imposing figure. You don't need height or age to be intimidating, you need composure and you need to not care what others think of you. On my way to a funeral once there was a mixup with my flight and even though I was very young and am not very tall, I scared the living shit out of everyone working at the airline's help desk without even raising my voice because I was so angry and tired and full of grief. Confidence, or it's close sibling "giving zero fucks" is an incredibly powerful and influential quality, and it's also something that Snape's trauma seems to imbue him with. My point in the original addition above was basically that given all of Snape's experiences in the war - his trauma, the serious nature of everything he was confronted with, all the things that aged him beyond his years - he wouldn't have cared much what a bunch of schoolchildren thought of him, even if he hadn't been mired in his own grief, and even if he'd ever been the kind of person to care what others thought of him, which is pretty clearly shown in canon that he never was, not even as a student. He didn't try to impress or be accepted by the Marauders for a moment, where a lot of other people might have faltered in their self assurance around them, especially at a young age like we see on the Hogwarts Express when they're first years. But Snape has a sharp tongue and shows no concern that these cared for, impressive boys don't seem to like him.

When trauma makes you resilient it's because it hardens you. It does this most often to people whose fight/flight/freeze response is to fight, which we see in Snape. And we see that he's hardened by his trauma. He's highly intelligent, both intellectually and emotionally, and I have no doubt whatsoever that his experiences in the first war gave him a wealth of knowledge, insight, and skills that would have otherwise taken many more years to acquire. So yes, for all intents and purposes, I don't think he walked into his first lesson as a professor with the air of an awkward 21 year old teaching his peers, I think he would have walked in with the imposing and intimidating air of someone who doesn't care if his students pass or fail because he's seen far too much hardship to put much stock in trivial things like grades - especially given that he didn't choose to teach, he just ended up in that job. When you've lied to Voldemort's face and watched people die and risked your life numerous times, you're not going to be nervous about teaching a bunch of kids stuff that you knew better than the textbook at their age, even if they're only 4 years younger than you.

I absolutely can't get over the fact Albus brought a fucking 21yo traumatised child to teach a dangerous obligatory subject and be a head of House. With some of his students being 18. He was a 21yo responsible for teaching and managing 18yo people. And Snape totally did it. He actually nailed it. Snape's house (that kinda just lost the war, in fact) started to win the house cup when Snape was 24 and kept the streak going for 7 (8 if we are fair and don't give Harry and Co points for breaking the rules) years.

I am so proud of him, you don't even understand.

[badpostureart]

Message in a Bottle II

For anon, who asked my thoughts about the character arcs of the primary characters in Free!

My first impression of Rin was not good. I remember thinking, “Who the hell does this guy think he is?” But by the end of the first season, I found out exactly who he is, and I adored him (and still do). Much like how he swims, Rin tends to strike out boldly but loses steam the longer he goes. This is to say that the guy has a hard time pacing himself—he expects too much too soon and becomes disappointed when his abilities fall short of his ambition. Rin’s skill is mostly the result of hard work and dedication as opposed to natural talent, and as he got older, he became increasingly aware of his own shortcomings despite always giving his best. This dampened his carefree spirit and left bitterness and anger in its place—anger at himself for failing to meet his own expectations, followed by anger for being so angry in the first place. I think that Rin internalized the notion that he had to do it all alone, lest he prove himself unworthy of sharing a dream with his father. If his childhood rival could still beat him despite not training and despite being away from him, then he thought he must just not be good enough. The turning point for Rin was being reminded by Haru that they’re stronger together—a truth Rin imparted to Haru back in middle school.

I believe that anger and passion are sisters—the difference between them is their connotation. Anger denotes negativity while passion denotes positivity, but both are indicative of strong feelings either way. Rin is made up entirely of strong feelings. They manifest in the form of goading words, toothy grins, volatile outbursts, and hot tears—all marvellous and all quintessentially Rin. At the end of the day, his biggest hurdle is himself. In his own words, “In competitions, my weakness comes out. I have to win against myself first.” He tends to bite off more than he can chew, and he ends up choking. And yet, the same desire to want to bite down in the first place is what compels him to keep trying and what pushes him to achieve his ambitions. Rin is as dynamic as they come, contradictions abound. It’s contagious.

~~~~

Out of everyone, I’ve taken perhaps the most care and consideration when writing about Haru. Maybe because he’s unconventional and a bit odd, it felt especially important to try to understand him on his own terms. While Haru gives the impression that he’s unfeeling and uninterested, he has a complex inner world that he struggles to articulate to others. He understands the weight of a statement like “I only swim free,” and isn’t the type to say more than he needs to. The problem is that the whole meaning of what he says, while obvious to him, is often lost on others. As a result, Haru often feels misunderstood because he assumes the people around him know how he feels without explicitly being told, when, in reality, they don’t and can’t.

Throughout the entire series, Haru has grappled with being vulnerable, both to the people around him and privately to himself. He’s never said so aloud, but I think Haru spent a good part of his adolescence feeling really lonely. His sense of normalcy involved being unsure that the people who exited his life would actually come back. Maybe admitting to loneliness aloud would just make his feelings all the more real, and he prides himself on being strong and self-sufficient, so acknowledging that feeling wasn’t something he could afford to do. By the time he was a teenager, Haru looked largely numb to the world around him. He went through the motions simply so that he could go home and wish his life away from the bathtub. Once bitten, twice shy, Haru was afraid to let people in because he knew it could hurt both ways. He wasn’t aloof because he didn’t care, it was because he cared so much that it scared him.

Why does he swim and what is it that he swims for? The short answer is love. Haru comes alive when he swims. He’s fully present. It’s the place he goes to hide from himself and it’s the place he’s laid bare and exposed completely. I can’t think of little Haru crying without tearing up myself. He’s got all this love in him, but he doesn’t know how to name it, let alone how to convey it to other people.

It’s incredibly hard not to feel proud of Haru and how he’s grown up. The moments where he’s brave and he vocalizes his gratitude, his fears, and his desires are some of the best moments of the series. The simplest way to plot Haruka’s growth is his willingness to swim in different roles—from soloing in free to being the anchor in the medley to doing all the strokes in university. Throughout it all, Haru is Haru—and he’s pretty damn special.  

~~~~

It’s hard to explain why I like Makoto the least out of the main five. His arc centres around his own cowardice or a general lack of self-confidence, but many of his fears are so circumstantial that they won’t follow him around everywhere. He has a fear of bugs, ghosts, the ocean…big deal. Those aren’t things he has to confront on a daily basis. The big one was the fear of water, or of some unknown evil lurking within. This fear never really stopped Makoto from doing anything though, it just meant Haru had to come along too. In the second volume of the Starting Days light novel, there’s a poignant scene where Makoto leaves the house and goes to a place “where Haru isn’t”—the beach. When Haru finds him and asks what he’s doing there, Makoto says, “I wanted to make sure that I would be alright, even if you weren’t here… Would you be alright even if I weren’t here?” In this instance, Makoto is asking whether or not he can stand on his own two feet because he wonders, without Haru, would all he be is fear?

The answer, of course, is no—fear is not Makoto’s defining characteristic. Although he may be unsure of himself at times, the proof is in the proverbial pudding. He can cope with Haru being away and he has the chops to coach others. Makoto’s self-doubt has never held him back from achieving success—save for being unable to be the one to save Rei from drowning out in the ocean, I guess? Still, he was supportive of others while he was afraid, and he was supportive of others when he wasn’t.      

Perhaps because I never saw much fight in Makoto (as there was no internal conflict that caused him external grief or affected his relationships), I don’t feel like he developed as a character at all. You know exactly what you’re gonna get when it comes to Makoto. That predictability, while comfortable to some, is boring and frustrating to others. The only glimpse of a different side of Makoto I saw that wasn’t his usual upturned eyebrows was during the water gun fight at Samezuka’s cultural festival. Only for a moment did Makoto seem competitive and unnerving…but it was only for a game.

~~~~

Although he seemed quite cold at the outset, Rei revealed himself to be highly emotive and flamboyant. Rationality and the sublime are usually treated as polar opposites, but Rei embodies both simultaneously. Indeed, he employs theory and calculation explicitly in the pursuit of beauty. His arc deals with self-acceptance and celebrating the things that others perceive as a deficit—his neuroticism, his need to check and double check, and to overprepare. In learning to swim the butterfly, Rei came into his own. Not even he can articulate why, but it was initially the only stroke he could do. The closest thing to an explanation I can think of was that in being taught by the other guys, Rei was trying too hard to live up to the way they swim. Since he had no preconceptions about what the butterfly was supposed to be, he was able to claim ownership over the stroke and do it his own way. Oftentimes, the most precious things are the ones a person struggles to explain.

I think out of everyone, Rei’s admiration of Haru is the purest, because he doesn’t admire his ability to swim, per se. The thing he admires is Haru’s authenticity. Rei knows what it’s worth to live in a way that’s true to oneself because that’s the thing he’s been apprehensive to do since he was a little kid. Essentially, Rei is a spectacled dork. He’s theatrics as much as he is analytical, and the coalescence of these things is beautiful.

~~~

Nagisa’s problems lived in the background where nobody else could really see them. He’s cheeky and his positivity is infallible, but he struggled with finding a (school) work/life balance and preferred to run away from it, hoping that the issue would resolve itself naturally. This wasn’t to be. The short of it was that academics made him miserable. He scored fine in middle school, but all he did was study and so he developed an aversion to it by the time he got to high school. This is to say that Nagisa’s problem is excess, or an inability to do things in moderation. Since he was the one to promote a “come as you are” attitude to Rei before he joined the swim club, it was only natural he return the favour and remind Nagisa that his weaknesses can also be his strengths. The same dedication and tenacity Nagisa applied to the swim club’s recruitment can be applied to standing up for himself to his parents and for finding a way to make schoolwork manageable without sacrificing his happiness in the process.

Nagisa brings his dreams and schemes to life, and he has the uncanny ability to thaw the hearts of those prone to stoicism. He’s just so cute you can’t help but want to look after him!

~~~~

As for which character arc I think is my favourite…it’s hard to say. The most obvious and dramatic was the change I saw in Rin. My feelings toward him did a complete 180, making him my obvious favourite character overall. Anyone who can invoke the full range of emotions is someone really special. I think the person who grew the most, however, is Haru. Comparatively speaking, Haru’s growth was subtle and quiet—it swelled. When I think of him, I feel proud. His hesitancy to be vulnerable is going to be a lifelong struggle for him. He’s going to be misunderstood and he’s going to have to be brave in order to be heard and seen properly. I understand why Haru has so many admirers. It’s bigger than just swimming—a sentiment that governs the whole series and is precisely what has kept me invested in it after all this time. It’s all a big allegory for being true to yourself and authentic with others, I’m telling you! And maybe I’m reading too much into a sports anime and ought to drop the red string and take down the corkboard, but this is who I am, damn it!

[makingspiritualityreal]

Vedic Astrology Fashion Observation

A strong Ketu in one's chart, especially related to Venus, rules aesthetics of two types. They can be traditional, modest, flowy and uniform. They kind of form a wave on the body, blend in with natural skin and eye tone, even nature itself. Ketu is fashion as part of nature, and likes to use Earthy, muted tones. It can also manifest as Pagan Core or Witch Core, eccentric but natural.

The other type of Ketu can also go into a more sensual form, but there will still be a uniformity to the aesthetic, corsets, tight laces. Again uniformity in outfit color is common, all black, all beige etc. It's popular to have dyed bleached hair and then a unicolored outfit.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rahu's fashion statement is to break from that natural harmony by adding an accent, a sharp, angular, sticking out or shiny element. Delighting in the contrasts between colors. Catching the eye through being flashy, even in a forcible way, as if set on grabbing someone's attention regardless of their opinion. Rahu may like to pair things that may seem unnatural and clash together, just to do something new, but even negative attention is good attention for this energy. Lots of Blacks and Whites occur as a result, as these colors naturally repel or attract the light the most, so they're the most eye catching.

The trends we have right now in modern fashion are completely dominated by misplaced Rahu. Mainstream trends is Rahuvian fashion on crack shoved upon the masses. It's fashion that has enslaved humanity, as opposed to serving it, encouraging rapid consumption and flamboyant overly sexualised displays as the norm.

A good aesthetic includes one's individual horoscope and is a blend of both Lunar Nodes in one's chart. Being skillfully fashionable means adding some original or eccentric elements that express your individuality to wearing basics that are in tune with accentuating your natural beauty, not against it or despite it. Listening to your chart and dressing in accordance with the Node, that is stronger or more prominent in your chart can help a lot. Especially, if your Venus is positioned in either Rahu ruled or Ketu ruled Nakshatras. Never do something blindly or try to be somebody just to follow the mainstream current.

/edit

Months after I published this post, following additional studies, I was surprised to see more similarities between the Nodes than I expected. For instance, both nodal nakshatras were prominent in high fantasy/epoch clothing. Two main Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon actresses are Rahu influenced, both having Sun in Ardra. This relates to the fantastical, exaggerated nature of the Nodes.

I will add an extra celebrity example to show the difference and similarity between the Nodes. The similar pattern between Rahu and Ketu influencing the dress code is their tendency towards exaggeration.

Here we have a Sun conjunct Venus in Magha native, showing a typical Ketu style. Notice how she tried a more "mainstream" look earlier in her career and how she only fell into herself, when she embraced the Ketu Nakshatras in her chart. Magha natives are more prone towards red hair, Mula natives tend to wear similar outfits but be bleached blonde, as Mula has connotations with Gold in traditional Jyotish texts. Ironically enough, I have Venus conjunct Rahu in Mula myself and I used to bleach my hair quite strongly when I was younger, way before I was aware of the aesthetic or Astrology patterns. I even had a red hair and black outfit aesthetic phase, years before Dua did, cause she's younger than I am. These Ketu Nakshatras are working strong!

To move on to Rahu, here we have an Ardra Sun Swati Moon native, showing the typical Rahu Nakshatra mind game fabric pattern. Funnily enough, an actress that gained her fame wearing historical clothing on screen, but dresses so Rahu off screen.

Another Ardra Sun conjunct Ketu native. More black and white patterns.

[haleigh-sloth]

An art analysis nobody asked for:

No thoughts, just...

This picture lives in my head rent free right now. I already made a post with this picture in it but I wanted to make another and explain why this makes me so happy. 

As an artist, my favorite thing about reading manga is that you get the narration along with the VISUAL representation of the narration. To me, manga, comics, stories told in this format are the most enjoyable because there isn’t much left to the imagination as far as visuals, but there is a lot left up to interpretation. You can interpret the facial expressions, statements, shading, body poses, everything in a manga panel the way you feel fits the story, but you don’t have to struggle to imagine what a character looks like or what action they are making like you would with a book. (Reading is great don’t get me wrong, I’m just expressing my reasons for loving manga so much)

All manga series come with art pieces that don’t occur within the story. This can include separate prints, official merch, and even volume covers!. These pictures don’t exist within the actual story, but instead exist to give off impressions, get fans hyped up, and sometimes foreshadow future events. But official art pieces very rarely, if ever, spoil major events for the story. 

Now seeing this picture makes me SO HAPPY because it’s truly the start of a turning point in the story. Last chapter was a big deal. Midoriya has a new goal to work toward. And while I did think it would take a little longer to reach the story’s final arc/act/whatever you wanna call it, I’m not dissatisfied with the fact that it’s being dove straight into. I am an impatient woman, so I am pleased (Although I am worried about story-telling quality suffering a bit? But I think Hori knows what he is doing for the most part-I believe in him). Anyway, I just want to examine some past official art pieces/volume covers that have corresponded with certain points in the story as it came out, so as not to spoil anything.

If saving Shigaraki was Horikoshi’s plan all along, he could have been putting out art to indicate as much, but spoilers! Instead, we got pieces like this:

This is a DVD cover I believe. But it corresponds with a big moment in the story. Reminding us of a terrible crime he and the league committed (kidnapping), emphasizing his villainy (and our other two important villains). 

We have several volume covers that don’t paint him in the best light, but instead emphasize negative characteristics:

These emphasize him as an enemy. We don’t even see his whole face, just his red eye. (red is usually associated with evil!)

Then we get a little more personal with Shigaraki, and by personal I mean we see his face:

In this one he’s underneath. Still framed as “bad”, “evil”, “lurking beneath, plotting something”.

This one, in my opinion, is very light hearted in a way. It shows the LOV, together just...hanging out, being themselves. But The events that take place in this volume aren’t light hearted...at all...lol This cover corresponds with a turning point in the story. A dark turning point at that.

This has got to be my favorite. Yum. Seriously though, this is clearly a depiction of him mentally spiraling. It corresponds with him uncovering his traumatic memories. This cover doesn’t have a positive connotation to it. But again, we’re getting more personal with our main antagonist. 

In my opinion, this is where I saw a bit of hope in the art:

Look, Shigaraki clearly looks like an enemy here. I get that. But there are a couple of things here to be noted:

The coloring style for this picture is different for a reason. Both are painted in different color palettes than we’re used to. Orange and pink don’t indicate good OR bad, for either side. Deku’s hand being held out is very telling. Now I remember when this piece came out, I don’t remember exactly which chapter it was released with, but it gave me ominous vibes. I’m sure to most, it was a typical “hero vs. villain” image. To me, it was the beginning of the change in dynamic. Standing back to back is a pose you usually see with partnerships--positive ones. Two characters standing back to back to show solidarity. That, coupled with Deku reaching out, gave me a positive feeling for the story, even if the chapter at the time wasn’t OBVIOUSLY reflecting it, like it was last week. 

But now we have this new piece. There’s no facing off against each other, there’s no fighting, they’re not even looking at each other, but they’re still connected because of what they’re holding in their hands, and their matching positions. (NO--THIS IS NOT ME CONDONING THE DFO THEORY DON’T EVEN START). Deku’s future is going to involve AFO. He’s going to have to fight him (I assume right now with aid from Shigaraki). I’m not looking into Deku holding his picture any further than that. Now Shigaraki holding a picture of All Might is painful and sad, but also sweet, and hopeful. 

It’s so sad because...well..All Might should have saved Shigaraki, a long time ago. But he didn’t. Shigaraki HATES All Might, we know this. Before he found his TRUE conviction (destroying everything and starting over) his initial goal was to just straight up kill him. However, the sad part about this is I believe Shigaraki hates All Might because deep down, this whole time, he was subconsciously hoping and wishing All Might would come save him. I’ve been thinking about that for a long time now, because on more than one occasion, EARLY in the manga, Shigaraki had taken notice of Midoriya also:

I mean at first glance this can be taken as villainous. “I need to learn more about him so I can defeat him”. But to me, from the GET GO, this was always just sad. His first encounter with Midoriya he immediately got All Might vibes from him, which brings me back to Shigaraki truly wishing AM had saved him long ago. To me in this panel looking at baby All Might, he’s still wishing and hoping that he’ll somehow get saved-deep, DEEP down (like so deep down he isn’t even aware of this desire to be helped).

Bringing it back to the color spread...it’s sweet and hopeful because even though it isn’t AM doing the saving, Shigaraki has been noticed by All Might’s legacy, finally, and help is on the way. **also peep how Shigaraki’s pinky is lifted, so as not to crumble the picture :,)** I really REALLY love this new piece because it’s the first one of Midoriya and Shigaraki (my favorite character) where there isn’t violence or fighting, but a taste of the hopeful ending we’re heading toward.

[kendrixtermina]

I swear a lot of these people seem to have Rei mixed up with Anthy from Utena & just never paid any attention to her character or statements that were made about her by the staff (I have a thinkpiece written about it about that here and here) aside from heavy cherrypicking to support their fanwank. (For starters, Rei's problem/flaw isn't mindless obedience, it's resigned fatalism, and she was very much supposed to come across as someone who's gloomy & difficult to approach, not whatever the haters chose to plaster on her. Though that is an issue that you see with ppl with less expressive personality types that ppl will just project stuff on them. Even regardless of any ship stuff that's just quite unjust to Rei.)

To the extent that Rei can be said to be a fantasy of any sort, Asuka is also a fantasy. She's literally a genius with model looks, basically the anime version of that guy who became a harvard doctor a navy seal and an astronaut, and a "hot foreigner" trope to boot.

They're representing contradictory appeals (and on a deeper level, various conflicting psychological drives & needs), like emotional safety & excitement, sadism & masochism... both are asignd both negatively & positively connotated concepts.

Not to mention, she's right there with Misato & Asuka in the "people are complex and have different sides to them that can be challenging" dialogue in EoE (the one where all three are shown in the train and/or naked), indeed she gets the dialogue explaining it to Shinji - & she's a good example here because he's been avoiding her ever since finding out all that complicated stuff about her origins.

He'd go to her if he wasn't scared, so Asuka's rightfully pissed to be his last choice & he's probably also going to the person who always puts him down & rejects him because when you hate youself being bashed feels like being told the truth & everything else can't be trusted or brings up insecure feelings. So the two represent a "crab bucket".(though in the end he shies away even from Asuka)

This is also kinda reflected in the ep 26 where he wishes Rei was just a regular classmate with no connection to any mad science stuff, so he can have a normal classroom romance with her. (meanwhile Asuka becomes a childhood friend, bond comradery without any lust or competition complicating it, though it's ego flattering if she still shows a bit of interest...) but that's of course not the reality he lives in.

This is definitely a point where Shinji dropped the ball when Rei needed him (although one might wonder how much he could even do on his own, similar as with Misato.) - he's totally overwhelmed, has lost everything at this point & has no reliable adult figures left to talk to.

& then the last Rebuild basically ask what if that was different. What if he had more processing time & positive adult role models (the grownup classmates) - it's very much bringing up the catharsis that was tragically thwarted in the OG where Rei blows up "before she could convey her heart"(as per the EoE booklet) & Shinji just keeps avoiding her.

Here Rei gets to figure out & express her feelings, & we see that given more processing time, Shini was, in fact, capable of accepting her just as she is ("Ayanami is Ayanami"), & afterwards this is the catalyst that leads him to confront Gendo (along with the help he got from everyone else but this is defs a big one, seeing how he carries the player sh gave him like a talisman)

- and he learns to get used to/ tolerate positive treatment more broadly. ("why would you all be so nice to me!" "...because we care about you?")

(It also shows Rei getting the parental love she never got/ futilely longed for from Gendo from Grownup!Hikari instead.)

Just look at the scene where Mari & Shinji have followed Gendo into minus space and she's like, "it's going to be difficult to catch him..." but Shinji just shakes his head & calls for Rei, with total faith that she's going to let him take EVA 01 from right under Gendo's nose

Quite some stretch from the Shinji who doubted any gesture of goodwill & frantically feared that ppl would stop wanting him the moment they're out of earshot

Additional Reishin Thoughts

I’ve been thinking about my OTP again and why it’s so hated by the fandom. One misconception I think a lot of people have is that it’s the “easy” ship compared to Asushin and that it would be a submissive tradwife marriage. Rei still challenges Shinji to not just run away, grow up and learn to love himself and challenges his worldview of demanding validation from others by calling him out for never trying to understand anyone else.

People who claim it’s incest ignore that in 3.33, Shinji wasn’t really upset about Rei’s origins, just that he failed to save the Rei he knew. Rei is sort of a metaphor for acceptance. Shinji accepts that Rei Q is still Rei even if she doesn’t have all her memories and him learning about her origins is less to squick people out and more a lesson about how you can’t have the good without the bad when it comes to people you care for.

I think some people are projecting their issues with traditional families onto this pairing and their feminist critiques are actually quite demeaning to Rei. Her whole arc is about breaking free and proving she’s not just Gendo’s replacement goldfish. I don’t think she’d be a submissive tradwife and is perfectly capable of holding her own. Shinji has his flaws but he respects her and wouldn’t treat her like a 50s housewife. I think a lot of people let their disgust towards this ship get in the way of understanding what it is and ignore the beauty of it.

What makes it appealing to me is that it’s the story of two lonely kids helping each other grow and face both internal and external challenges and gaining a deep emotional understanding. I respect people who prefer Asushin or Kawoshin for whatever reasons they have. I just wish that same respect could be afforded back.

[synonymroll648]

What should fitz’s hair color in my band au

hmmmmm, this is an excellent question. we have basis in shannon's word for multiple hair colors:

-brown (natural hair color, duh)

-green (keefe and dex dyed his shampoo green which somehow made all of his hair neon green and spiky, if i recall correctly, in book 4)

-pink (shannon said, at one point, that if fitz could dye his hair, he'd dye it pink)

so if it were me, i'd pick one of those. depending on how much time the band au covers, you could have fitz's hair be different colors. gonna put me nerding out about colors and narrative stuff under the cut real quick. remember that this is just my thought process on approaching colors - if you're like, 'uh that's unnecessarily complicated,' then don't do it! no worries! pick and choose what you like.

the vibe of the fic in general plays a role in deciding which color you wanna go for.

green has an association with death, since elves wear that to funerals. that doesn't have to apply to your fic, but bringing that mindset in one way or another could be a nice tie-back to canon. green is also the color of life. the emotional connotation of green, in the books, is very complex. it's bittersweet. different hues of green also say different things. neon green, like it was in book 4, is electric. it's loud and bright and it screams, look at me. look at the energy i have. look at all the ways i could shock you. on the other hand, if you went for a more chill shade - like shamrock green - it'd be a lot closer to canon's emotional connotation of green. you could potentially do mint green as well without going way off from canon basis, since fitz likes the flavor of mint, and it'd be kinda funny for him to be like 'yeahhhh so the reason i dyed my hair this color is because it's color of my favorite dessert flavor. biana shut up and stop laughing or i'll drop you into a trash can.' the environment fitz is in could also affect how people (including himself) view the different shades of green. younger generations tend to think of dyed hair as sick af, but older generations usually think dyed hair is weird (/neg).

also, a little bit of storytime - once upon a time, i wanted to dye my hair green, and the shade i wanted wasn't mint green. both my grandma and mom both went 'if you go with any other shade than mint, you're gonna look like a stoner with mental health issues.' (paraphrased.) so uh. yeah.

i said a while back that i'd write an essay on the symbolism of pink haired!fitz, but i haven't done it yet, so i'm not gonna spoil everything i wanna say there. but keep in mind that pink is a color that has a feminine connotation with the general populace, whereas green has a gender neutral connotation with the general populace. obviously, colors don't have gender, but your band au might have fitz in a position of fame, so i thought you might wanna keep it in mind. anyway. back to pink. fitz choosing pink feels more like a statement than him picking green. in canon, green was an accident that he looked at and went 'oh hey, this actually doesn't suck too bad? i kinda like this?'. pink isn't canon canon (yet, i hope) but it feels more like a choice. it feels like him going, 'this is a color that i'm not supposed to like, but i do. so i'm gonna make it a part of me, and you can't stop me.' like with green, and every other color ever, different hues of pink have different vibes. baby pink is gentle. hot pink has the same vibe as neon green, except a bit more feminine. darker pink is a little less jarring than the other two shades, compared to his natural hair color. a bit more chill. a warmer vibe than shamrock. a little more welcoming.

and then, of course, you could just keep it brown the whole fic. that's understandable.

see, now this is probably where i'm supposed to go, 'yeahhh this is really long so i'm just gonna stop now. hope this helps!' but nah bro. nah. i have a bit more to say and i'm making it your problem :)

what i have in mind that i'd like to talk about is timelines. i have no idea how long your band au is stretching out, in terms of word count and time placement. i have no idea if there are any flashbacks or memories or non-linear narrative things going on. and so i am bringing timelines to the table.

let's start with thinking about the timeline we might have in canon, when it comes to fitz's hair. we have brown, green very briefly, back to brown, and maybe if shannon lets fitz dye his hair a color he chooses, pink at the end. if you want to have fitz's hair be different colors at different times in this universe, you could use a template similar to that. or you could do something entirely different, depending on the events you have in mind! maybe fitz never gets green hair, and goes straight to pink. maybe fitz gets green hair, and decides to keep it and never goes to pink. maybe fitz never dyes it at all, because he's comfortable with brown. it's up to you!

ok. now i'm gonna shut up. after a few more sentences. 1. hope that wasn't a waste of your time and 2. if you need ideas and second opinions on how your band au plot affects fitz's hair color, lmk and 3. finally shutting up, have a great rest of your day