#fiction and reality are separate but affect each other >___< which is why i hate both extreme ends of pr*shippers and an*tis ^^;

[astrxealis]

big fan of zenos tbh

[evalolxo]

Fiction Turned Reality

Randy Orton X OC

Part 2

summary - two wrestlers are put into a storyline that quickly becomes real.

warnings - slowly turning into kat x trish, swearing

word count - 1.2k

kat's pov

evolution's segment was over and i was pissed.

as soon as we got up the ramp i stormed away from everyone angrily, unknown to me they had sent randy after me.

"jesus christ, kat slow down" i heard but didn't even though i knew it was randy, i was on the look out for trish.

"she's probably in vince's fucking office sucking him off, i'll go there and fucking beat her in front of her fucking boy toy" i spoke angrily to myself but before i could move randy had picked me up making me gasp.

"put me down randal!" i shouted as he threw me over his shoulder, i began to hit him in the back but he didn't seem to be affected.

i scowled at everyone who gave me weird looks and eventually we were back with evolution.

"turn around i don't like my ass being in everyone's faces" i stated making the rest of evolution laugh and i crossed my arms annoyed.

"i certainly enjoy it" randy spoke before slapping my ass making me try to kick him in the chest while everyone laughed at me, he put me down and i shoved him while chuckling and he just held onto my elbows.

"you're all dickheads" i stated still giggling as i pointed at them all and then crossed my arms.

"that arguement was so good kat" batista brought up and i smirked and flicked my hair dramatically making it hit randy's chest.

"i'm going to fucking destroy her, i don't care that she's going to be set to win because of vince i'm going to fucking kill her" i stated smirking and randy threw an arm around me.

"that's my- our girl!" he cheered and the rest of evolution cheered while ric gave randy a smirk which i didn't notice.

time skip

"following your moment with trish stratus in the ring, we want to put you and randy orton in a romance storyline where you two clearly like each other and trish gets involved with that and that fuels your hate for each other" vince explained to me as trish sat in the other chair beside me.

trish and i had spoken and we had actually become quite friendly with each other, she wasn't even too bad.

i stared at vince with confusion.

"what do you mean a romance storyline?" i asked him and he stood up and walked round his desk to sit in front of trish and i on his desk.

"you two will have little moments in the ring and during promos that show the fans there's something going on, then one day, trish will come in during one of randy's matches that he will win and kiss him, then you will come in and you guys will have an arguement of some sort that leads to a big main event match also if you see randy tell him to come to my office" vince explained and the thought of being in a main event match swayed me.

"yes, i'm in" i stated clearly and vince smiled widely and looked at trish who also agreed, we shook hands with him and walked out his office.

"can't wait to beat your ass in a main event match" i told trish smiling and she scoffed playfully and we both chuckled before going our separate ways.

i noticed randy standing with ric and walked over.

"hey guys, randy you've to go talk to vince in his office" i told him and he nodded before kissing my cheek walking off making me freeze.

"you two are so adorable" ric stated taking me out my frozen state as i shook my head.

"vince just put me in a love triangle with him and trish, that's why vince wanted to see him, so we're about to get even more adorable" i joked and ric looked suprised.

"i can't wait to see this storyline turn into something real" he told me and i shook my head scoffing before we walked to catering for food.

time skip

i was currently doing a promo talking about how i was going to beat up trish when randy walked up behind me making the crowd cheer loudly.

"listen, my girl has got this she's going to best trish easily" randy stated into the mic putting his arm around me before we walked off smiling at each other for the cameras too see.

when we were out of sight we high fived with both hands.

"take it you're happy about this storyline then?" i giggled as randy nodded smiling down at me, randy was an absolute prick to everyone but he was never that way with me.

a lot of people disliked randy or even hated him for the way he was but with me he's different, but i'm not special he's different with everyone in evolution.

"get to hang out with you all the time, of course i'm happy" he told me smiling down at me, not his signature orton cocky smirk, a smile.

"count yourself lucky orton because i'm happy too" i told him poking his chest before i started to walk as he followed me like a lost puppy.

we finally found the rest of evolution and hunter smiled upon the sight of us and put his hands on our shoulders.

"you two better not fuck this up!" he spoke in a happy tone but randy and i visibly gulped as we knew there was a different meaning behind it.

ric and batista snickered from behind him making randy glare at them and i just smiled, this were going so well.

time skip

i stepped into the ring alone with no one at ringside as i stared down trish.

she held up a mic and i rolled my eyes making me scoff into the mic.

"i'm suprised you actually did come along without orton at your side, didnt think you existed without him, oh wait, i'm getting him confused with triple H since yknow, he made you" trish spoke into the mic, i couldn't exactly disagree so i just took the leather jacket i was wearing off and threw it to the side.

she threw the mic to the and i got into a fighting stance as she laughed and also got into a fighting stance.

the bell rang.

the fight went well with both of us shining in moments but ultimately, it ended the way it was supposed too, with me winning.

i used my finisher deathly quiet on trish and she lay on the ring gasping for breath as i quickly rushed to pin her snd the offical started slamming the mat.

1.

2.

3.

i stood up victorious and threw my hand in the air punching the air while shouting happily, i looked back down at trish and she was subtly smiling up at me which made me feel even better.

i noticed randy and batista coming down the ramp and as they came into the ring they put me on both their shoulders and i held my arms up as the crowd cheered loudly for me.

time skip

"that was amazing kat!" trish cheered as she held her back in pain and i hugged her to which she also returned.

"you were amazing too what the fuck, half the time i was like i'm going to give up i cant do this, you're so storng!" i praised her and she flipped her hair dramatically as we both laughed.

"congrats darling" hunter cheered collapsing onto me wrapping an arm around my shoulder making me wince in pain but smile brightly.

"that was some match" the undertaker.

[maxwell-grant]

Is it weird that your article on the Grand Guignol (sp?) made me think of that Peter Chushing quote about how, he doesn't think of the films he's famous for as horror, but rather as fantasy, and that he tends to see crime and war movies as more deserving of the moniker?

Strangely, I wasn't aware of this before, so I'm pasting some of the quotes he's had to say on this below so others can read them in full as well:

“It isn’t that I object to it. I just feel it’s the wrong adjective as applied to the films I do. Because horror to me is, say, a film like The Godfather. Or anything to do with war, which is real and can happen, and unfortunately, no doubt, will happen again some time. But the films that dear Christopher Lee and I do are really fantasy. And I think fantasy is a better adjective to use. I don’t object to the term horror, it’s just the wrong adjective!”

“I don’t really care for the adjective “horror”. I think the films are fantasy as much as anything. Horror is concentration camps, war, murder, real things. It’s car accidents and plane crashes.”

[regarding the fan mail he was getting] “What they say in their letters is that the horror films of today, they repel you and you’re sickened. And the Hammer ones that we did make you shiver and shake and cuddle each other to feel comforted, but they never repelled.

And that is, I think, frightfully interesting coming from young people who must be so immune now to seeing these terrible things on the news – football fights and Ireland and South Africa – it’s just dreadful, isn’t it. One has become so used to that as part of everyday life that I think watching a Dracula picture made 25 years ago must be rather like watching Noddy in Toyland.”

I think this is an interesting example of how sometimes opposite truths can exist at the same time. I have questioned myself quite a bit on just how much "horror" does a fantasy narrative need to have before it changes it's genre label from "fantasy" to "horror". And I've come to learn a lot recently just how fluid, ambiguous and debatable the very concept of "genre" is and how it's hardly even consistent within itself globally or historically.

On one hand, obviously the films Mr Cushing's been a part of are called horror films because they are part of the horror genre as it's been defined, and I don't think anyone's going to stop calling Dracula a horror story anytime soon, and of course horror and fantasy are not mutually exclusives. A horror story doesn't stop being a horror story just because you are not affected by what it's depicting, just as a comedy doesn't stop being a comedy because you don't find it funny. Mary and Max and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are two incredibly different movies that both shook me deeply on a first watch, and Mary and Max's material affected me much more deeply, but that doesn't mean I'm going to call it a horror film even if it did horrify me much more than Texas Chainsaw (Mary and Max is a genuinely incredible film, to be clear, but I never want to see it again)

But on the other hand, horror is a catch-all label that frays and tears at the seams the more you look at it, and he's right that the label in itself is just an adjective often tacked to pretty straightforward fantasy stories that happen to revolve around monsters and murderers and whatnot. And he's absolutely right that there's a world of difference between horror in fiction through fantasy, and horror in fiction through depictions of real, stark things we can call "horrors", and that this separation is incredibly important.

I'm thinking back to Bogleech's review of It: Chapter Two where he briefly touched on why the film's usage of homophobia for a scare was crude and misguided and tonally at odds with what the rest of the film, and the horror genre, strives for:

Some people with innocent enough intention will say that the shock and horror of the sequence is a good thing; that the audience should be disgusted by what they see happen here, which is certainly true. They might also point out that being horrified is exactly what you pay for when you go to see a horror movie, and that the scene gives context to the nature of a town possessed by pure evil.

There is, however, a very big difference between a spooky, imaginary boogiemonster and a regular, realistic hate crime. The boogiemonster is an entertaining, exciting kind of horror because it isn't real. The hate crime is something that could really happen to someone walking in and out of that same movie theater that same night, which is not the fun, entertaining or cool kind of scary. Killing off gay people is also nothing new to the horror genre at all, and there's a point at which it stops feeling like a social message and starts feeling more like a cheap prop, like the dog or cat you know is only present so we'll get to see how mean the villain really is.

Don't get me wrong, there have been horror narratives that explored the subject of hatred quite well, but it ISN'T ever explored any further here. In fact, it's never mentioned again and leaves no impact on the storyline other than the fact that it is how Mike discovers that IT has returned. Almost anything could have served this purpose, and the scene is even stripped of additional context and relevance it had in the novel. Ultimately, it just feels poorly handled, overshadows the rest of the film's horror, and didn't do much to really move the narrative forward.

And I can speak from experience that I've definitely seen and met way too often people who don't quite know how to tell the difference and it shows, it really shows in a way that doesn't just cheapens the works they are making but also makes them more, I guess the word I'd use is "childish", like it's coming from a deep lack of understanding or reference point or even a desire to further understand what exactly the things being depicted are or why they are terrible or why they affect people so deeply, the kind of stuff that, if you've lived through or seen or bonded with people who've been through them, kinda bleeds through your art even when you don't intentionally set out to portray them.

And to an extent I think that's where Peter Cushing's coming from, as someone who did indeed experience great horror and tragedy, who lived through the Great Depression and both World Wars and the Korean War and lost the love of his life when he was 48, and made a career playing villains, of course he's gonna look at the word "horror" applied to what he's doing and think that it's not at all horror, that's not what horror looks like to him.

But, to an extent, that's also a big part of what horror is supposed to do in the first place, as a distraction from the horrors of reality, a mirror upon said horrors, and an outlet for the experiencing of emotions attached to tragedy and horror, but nobody's getting hurt and you can get something out of it without having to live through it. It's a deeply, deeply important thing regardless of what you call it.

And I'm starting to wonder if, in the future, labels like "horror", "fantasy", "pulp" and "superhero" aren't going to fray and lose meaning further and further until we have to start coming up with new ones to retroactively define history through, something we already do, and even myself am guilty of.

So I guess it's not impossible that Cushing's going to have been ultimately right in his assessment.

[ignitification]

LoV Colour Analysis Part I: Shigaraki Tomura.

As this analysis would be quite too long to read in one go, I decided to split it into three parts, each covering one of the Three Main Villains of BNHA (Shigaraki Tomura, Himiko Toga and Dabi).

All three do denote a precise and powerful colour scheme, but on today’s episode I am going to focus on the Leader of the League of Villains aka Shigaraki Tomura or Shimura Tenko.

Shigaraki’s colour pattern variates from Red (shoes and eyes), Black (his usual outfits, his hair when younger) to Light Blue, Grey and White (colour of his hair, skin and hands).

The interesting fact is how Shimura’s colour evolve with his persona and Quirk. The third paragraph is dedicated to the colour Yellow, which is not part of the palette associated with Tenko, but I included it because it adds to the detailing of Shigaraki’s character.

(Spoilers ahead! & tw/: mentions of canon-compliant violence; death)

I.) From Black to Light Blue to White 

During his growth, evolution as a villain and person, not considering the one spurred from his Quirk, Tenko’s hair undergo a quite big development. While the colour of his clothes stays more or less stable (being black throughout the entire series), what differentiates his eras is the colour of his hair. In his childhood, before manifesting his Quirk, Tomura’s hair was dark (strikingly similar to the one both Touya and Izuku sported). This changed to light blue/grey in his years until last arc, where after being himself an experiment under the hands of Doctor Death (Kyudai Garaki is a very creepy man) to inherit the original AfO’s Quirk, his hair becomes snow white (as a result of the transformation, I would believe - but it might as well mean another thing which I will talk about later). 

Beginning with maybe the easiest association: the colour black. 

A little note of the fear association: in this case, I would like to interpret it as Shigaraki being aware of his decaying Quirk and freak people out because of that, and because of his external looks, which do look like the one of a decaying child.

Power refers definitely to both his position and his Quirk, in this case - which make him stand out even more. However, the strength in this case, in my opinion, is more a smoke screen: black is also worn as a protection from external damage, as in stress and emotional backlash. This creates a barrier between the subject and the world, protecting internal emotions, and hiding its vulnerabilities, insecurities and lack of self confidence. The emotional trauma, the ‘hands shield’ Shigaraki derived, in a way, from his trauma and from being confronted with something, has shaken him to the core since childhood, and in this case the clothes serve to protect him from himself and his ‘actions’. In this aspect, him wearing black as a child might also stand for him trying to shield himself away from his parent’s judgement and stare, while protecting his will to want to be a hero, despite their negative reaction to any hint of that. These meaning are, in conclusion a full circle: one calls for the other, especially in Shigaraki’s case.

Black is also associated with mystery, evil and aggression. Shigaraki is written as an enigmatic villain, cold-hearted, devoid of any humanity and the will to full front destroy everything in its path. And while the meaning perfectly fit to how Shigaraki should be, I do believe that this is a very superficial and banal description of such a complex character. 

One thing which I found particularly interesting about this colour and its relation to Shigaraki, it’s the rocky tie that appears between black and its meaning as in rebellion. This aspect might refer to two different conditions: it might suppose a certain degree of refusal and hate for authority (The society at large), and at the same time the rebellion from his own family/persona/mentor, which could entail a fundamental foreshadow for Tenko’s destiny.

The color black affects the mind and body by producing feelings of emptiness, gloom, or sadness.

 I think here again, this might just an extermination of the feeling that have been torturing Shigaraki from the inside since he was a child, and that he himself has not acknowledged, which also stands to explain how he tries to feel that void or to ‘eliminate the scratch’ that has been tormenting him, and that knows no peace.

Furthermore, In Japanese culture, the colour black mainly denotes non-being (apart from mourning) and evil-heartedness in a person. This meaning is consistent with the personality described to us by Horikoshi: Shigaraki Tomura ceases to be a person at one point, when his consciousness gets subdued by AfO for a while. It is important to note here, how White (on the other side of the spectrum) is also the colour of death and mourning.

Not entirely worth mentioning, is that black is the stereotypical colour worn by villains and bad guys in different fictional environments.

(Light) Blue/Grey.

Just a reminder: neither grey nor blue are explicit colour in Tenko’s palette as a character, but I think they are still important and since greyish blue (the precise colour oh his hair) has not its own meaning, I took the freedom to actually associate the two separate colour in association to describe this period of transition between black and white.

The phase in which Tomura has Greyish-Blue hair is the longest one (in terms of years), but also the phase of passage (which consequently is the phase he is exploring, and is in the ‘grey zone’, where things are just getting defined and there are no absolutes). Grey, in this sense, sports both characteristics from White and Black (depending on the shade used), and even if not explicitly used for Tenko, it still represents a landmine in his development.

The colour grey is an ‘unemotional’ colour. It is detached, neutral, impartial and indecisive - all traits that can be reconnected at Shigaraki. Indeed, it is after his encounter with Izuku at the mall where he recognises why exactly (or so he thinks) he rages and wants to bring destruction to the world as known. This indicates how he has been striving for a real purpose, like the one Stain has, in order to actually understand what he is doing and evolve from the child the Heroes define him as, to a Villain with the capital V. He does relate to reality in partial ways, while he tries to define his identity as something that has died inside of him, Shimura Tenko, and at the same time the part that has lived on through the memories he removed and the hands which accompany him. He does not know which part is stronger, and trying to figure it out he tries and fails, only to try again.  To confirm the shaping of Shigaraki, indeed grey is a conforming colour and most of all it struggles with identity, which is arguably the most prominent trait Shigaraki presents during the first arcs of the story.

On the other hand, Blue symbolises coolness, passivity, fidelity. Somehow it reverberates the meaning of grey, while at the same time enhancing its other effects (it being emotionless and calm, undecided but also flowing). Blue is also indicator of depth, wisdom, confidence, and intelligence (among others). This also confirms the precedent meanings (of especially white) and it adds another dimension to Tenko’s character. It is clear how he feels deeply, and is still very clever in its own way. Still, this development and phase serves for him to obtain the other characteristics proposed by blue, especially wisdom and confidence (refer to Black where I said how sometimes the clothes are a screen to hide his true feelings). 

Blue is a colour that’s constant and unchanging, which contrasts with grey and brings forwconstant struggle in Tenko. Blue is also nostalgic. Curious is how blue lives in the past, relating everything in the present and the future to experiences in the past. I think that this is what blue is about with Tenko: he struggles to look forward, to forgive and let go because he never forgot his dad, his grandma or even society for when they had brought upon him as an innocent child. His bringing up has been focused, after all, on his developing his constant feeling of sadness, rage and gloom and the necessary power to express them in confident ways, which could bring destruction forward. Tenko is a puppet in AfO’s hands since he has ‘saved’ him, so I think this is why the sentence in which Shigaraki tries to break free from AfO’s will is a break point for the story, and for Shigaraki as well. 

Blue is also known for being deceitful and spiteful, depressed and sad, passive, self-righteous, emotionally unstable, weak, unforgiving. It can also indicate manipulation, unfaithfulness and being untrustworthy.

Indeed, it is after that Izuku sees Tenko being kneeled over by AfO and his presence that he understands that Shigaraki too, is human and that maybe the reasons for his rage and absolute hate for everything he comes across have deep roots, which is why even if he cannot forgive him for all the pain he has brought, he wants to save him.  

Finally, the paler the blue the more freedom we feel - which brings me to my theory on what, throughout the years Tenko’s hair have been ‘decaying’ and bleaching out. I think that as a child, Tenko is caged and tries to break free of his cage, of his ‘itch’ but he cannot because he does not realise what it is, and there is no freedom for him to actually understand. The first time he uses his Quirk, he feels finally satisfied for the first time. He tasted freedom for the first time, and now he wants to do it again and again. Growing up, however his ideals become blurry and he does not understand what he actually wants. He does know that the hands on his body represent what he has lost and what is actually still there with him, giving him strength and will, but at the same time he does not know what is beyond there. Which is why, after he goes through the transformation by Garaki, his hair becomes white: he gets rid of the insecurities, of the shackles that have stopped him from actually achieving his goal, or rather to pursue it freely. His ultimate goal, after all, is to get rid of his ‘itch’, which, in its own way, it’s his language to say that Shimura Tenko wants freedom.

As a note, Blue is also the colour of the Throat chakra. It is located in the throat, but it is linked to the throat, neck, hands, and arms. This Chakra is linked to speech. 

Final remark on blue: this colour is one of the most important lucky colors in Japan ( together with yellow, white, purple, green and, red) - and all the colour associated with Tomura, except for black, is indeed considered lucky.

White 

White, is an inherently positive colour, is usually associated with purity, innocence, light, goodness, beginnings, possibility and perfection. However it is also described an dperceived as cold, impersonal and bland. Shigaraki after his ‘transformation’ is the perfect soldier: he is very powerful, to a fault, and represents a new chapter in not only his own life but as well in the one which has been conducted by AfO, as he sees him as his vessel. The fact is that the beginning of a new Shigaraki which is flawless, in appearance, is a very well constructed lie. While he should represent perfection, first of all his transformation has not been entirely completed and furthermore, while it does represent a clean slate in his check, is also the possibility, reality coming through for AfO to take advantage of the body new, which Tomura must preserve. As the new Shigaraki however, has his ideals very present and wants to fight for them, to protect his feelings and his ideas, it is anyway a struggle for both him and AfO to juggle through everything going on Tenko’s mind, and emerge victorious. This is also the most interesting aspect of this colour: the goodness and inherent purity which comes from this colour implies a purification process in Shigaraki’s character, who instead gets fixed even more on him not wanting to forgive society and insisting on going on his rampage, because at the same time he cannot let go of these feelings, because now they are the only thing which make him go forward.

White is usually used in contrast to black, and represents the dichotomy of good and bad.

The psychological meaning of white is wholeness and completion. This also refers to the meaning and falls into the category of ‘perfection’: it is a new beginning, but at the same time it represents the closure of a cycle and the beginning of a new one: a perfect one, which represents closure (‘The Circle’). Tomura is supposed to be the new complete weapon at AfO’s will, but as I states before this is a fought point (between the two of them).

White, in cultures that believe in reincarnation is held in high regard. Indeed, they sustain how white is a sign of rebirth. 

Technically, Shigaraki has been reborn. What I mean is that he has transformed himself into not a new person, but in a better version of himself, he upgraded - and now of course going back is not an option. He has been held in a womb, breeding his new potential and now he became an individual whose strength far surpasses normal, his quirk control is absolutely insane and as well his memories, ideas and feelings are heightened. The theme of rebirth, which I think fits both Shigaraki and Dabi, is used a few times in BNHA, but as for Shigaraki it is very literal and very clear (after all he has been asleep for a time, just to wake up and fight an entire war against the Heroes). It is clear however, how his personality has been rebirth too: while he was not insecure, but more hesitant, now he is sure of his objective and he thrives on achieving it. What distinguishes therefore the old Shigaraki from this new one is the knowledge of being powerful and therefore being able to accomplish what we wants.

Finally, white inherently denotes death and mourning too in the Japanese culture, as well as black. Here, we are mourning the old Shigaraki, and the loss of the traits that instead made him a little bit more human, and a little less like God himself.

II.) From Red Eyes to Red Shoes (in association with both Izuku and Katsuki) 

I already talked about the colour red in regard to Izuku here, but if we take the same meaning and apply it to Tomura instead, we get a different picture. It is no mystery how Izuku and Tenko are foils for each other, and that they resemble each other in different ways (starting from them sporting red shoes, to their characters, being ‘accepted’ and trained by a mentor, and so on).

Red is the colour of extremes. It appears clear how Izuku and Tenko represent the opposite extremes: where Izuku is enamoured of heroes and idolised them to an unhealthy point, even though he comes from a background where he has been discriminated by that same society because he was different, Tenko is disillusioned with the society they live in. He wants to destroy to the ground, because he cannot find it in himself to forgive anyone who could and did not extend him a hand when he needed it. At the same time, both Izuku and Tenko believe that to a certain extent what they had done has been ‘deserved’, and are not entirely focused on their own well being. 

Red is also an attention-bringer. As I already noticed for Izuku, it is very curious how both wear red shoes, as a way to try and separate themselves from the rest, trying to escape the opinions of other which have labelled them in a way, and of course at the same time trying to take control and wanting to be the best in their own ways (hero or villain, that is).  

Red is also the colour of blood, of rage, anger as well as desire, leadership and strength. I want to make a point which I do not know whether is important or not, however, a fact that struck me hard is how Shigaraki’s irises are very very small, and it somehow seems that he tries to compensate the little quantity of red of Shigaraki with wearing red shoes. This might be an indicator how Shigaraki strives to achieve these qualities, but at the same time he needs to put a lot of effort in it, and furthermore it somehow feels different from when we compare it to Izuku: even if both are charismatic leaders, Shigaraki is very dispassionate about it, while Izuku frequently denies how his influence might be fundamental when it comes to other people (Katsuki, All Might, 1A). However, Shigaraki does reflect in his personality, the venous desire to be angry, aggressive and destructive as it what his power entails, and after all what has been taught to him. I noticed as well a post (which unfortunately I cannot find) where it says that Shigaraki has a very high tolerance pain (again, the parallels with Izuku are insane), which also reconnects somehow to the colour red as we saw how Shigaraki himself even if tired (LoV vs Machia/LF) or absolutely bloody and at the brink of death is instead held up by his will to destroy (Shigaraki vs Heroes).

It relates to danger, power, determination and action. Well, Shigaraki and danger go to hand in hand as well as determination and action. After all, Shigaraki’s Modus Operandi is Trial and Error, which means he is not afraid to be wrong and to try things out, even if he is stubborn and ways things to go his way, every time (when that rarely happens in general). 

Red is indeed determined, powerful, impulsive and aggressive. It is also tied to self-preservation. Although true for the most part, the self-preservation is still a massive blank point. 

He is bloody, and even AfO is telling him to rest and preserve his energies (even if here, my counter argument would be that it would be easier for him to overtake Shigaraki’s body if he is weaker, so I do not know how reliable this is).

The color red in Japanese culture denotes strength, passion, self sacrifice and blood. It Also stands for good luck and happiness. Which is still very amusing to me, as Shigaraki feels like the farthest character away from achieving happiness, and his passions and strives are all useless unless he gets rid of his master puppeteer. However, Shigaraki embodies the self-sacrificing spirit. Even if it might sound strange, and he is not very willing to be himself in the front lines (at least not always), he does approach ReDestro himself and takes him on, while leaving the League to deal with the rest.

III.) Yellow

Surprise, surprise! Yellow, in the Japanese culture stands for Courage, while usually the Western culture associates it with Cowardice. It is a funny thing that it also stands for betrayal, sickness, egoism and madness on the negative side, however it is rather a holy colour, usually associated with deities on the other side.

Since I am not going to include yellow in the association paragraph, it is not a case that black reacts badly to yellow, and forms a very unpleasant colour, which means that the circumstances which follow either do not mix well together. However, it is also true how the most resonant contrast between yellow and another colour is given by black. 

Plus yellow is the colour of the Solar Plexus Chakra and it is the symbol of vitality and will. All these elements, however present in a very limited amount in regard to Tenko, are telling of the aspect of authority (reconfirmed and amplified by black) and somehow, the lack of bright colours of Tenko makes the little yellow details resonating of a sad picture, as it embodies more the negative sides (egoism, sickness - and in part sickness). 

Colours in Association.

Black used in contrast–particularly with white or yellow–does create energy (especially the contrast on shapes and just power that the image of waken up Shigaraki creates in the last arc is enough to send this message). It is as well true that black when used in opposition with white, symbolises the eternal struggle between day and night, good and evil, and right and wrong - a thing that for Shigaraki is somehow a metaphor and a literal representation of himself as a character. A perfect example would be the struggle he has with AfO for his body, where he struggles between his internal feelings and dreams and instead the evil will imposed by him by AfO, as well as in terms of consciousness where him being present and conscious is the day, while being subdued to AfO’s will in the Night.

Black usually represent the end, but the end always implies a new beginning. So when the light appears, and black transcends to white, it instead the colour of new beginnings. I already talked about how rebirth theme and the new beginning on new ideals and dreams is represented for Tenko by the colour white, however it is interesting also to note how his change in personality brings him from his childhood dream to being thankful to AfO who raised to him, but wanting to be even greater than AfO himself,- metaphor for Tomura’s life as being free from shackles of reality.

Bluish-Grey is also defined as ‘livid’, an adjective used to describe anger or decoloration of the skin (caused by bruising). This colour gives a sense of detachment - which also goes to review the colour grey and blue, in them being interpreted together as an entity, and how Tomura feels a detachment from his own memories, and past life, as well as his future (When Did We Ever Need A Future?) and instead seek meaning in everything that surrounds him. 

Red and white are prominent traditional colours in Japan. Both colours are used in decorations at events which represent happiness and joy.

On a non serious note, Shigaraki’s date of birth is 4th of April, and casually the colours associated with April are Burgundy (deep red) and White (according to the Japanese etiquette). 

And finally last remark for this post: it is very funny how Shigaraki’s palette is somehow almost the same as Bakugou’s (with the exception of green - which I would like to interpret as if Bakugou did not have Midoriya as his side, he could have ended in a far worse position, with no hope and no one to compare to).

Thank you for reading.

[fishylife]

Guess who caved and read all 66 chapters of Painter of the Night? I don’t normally like to read comics that are still ongoing because I don’t like losing momentum while waiting for updates but here I am 🤡🤡

Spoilers.

 I typed this while distracted so sorry for any muddled thoughts.

Story

I am glad that I read up to Chapter 66 because a huge misunderstanding was cleared up (the fact that Nakyum legitimately did not run away this time). I would’ve been pulling my hair out if the misunderstanding went on further (I HATE misunderstanding/miscommunication as a plot device).

A lot of people on the subreddit theorized that this was a huge turning point in the story. For the first time, we’re seeing Seungho show legitimate remorse and sadness over Nakyum’s suffering. Hopefully we’re going to see change his behaviour and act more reasonably towards Nakyum, and be more communicative about why he’s doing what he’s doing.

Though I think Nakyum is still a bit confused about his feelings for Seungho, he’s past the point of hating Seungho and wanting to leave. He said that he’d tried to run away before but he had nowhere to run to. He acknowledges that Seungho is a constant in his life, a protector and an indirect caregiver. But he’s still struggling with his feelings for Seungho.

In that way, Seungho and Nakyum are sort of opposite. Seungho recognized his romantic love for Nakyum first, but he couldn’t see how he was hurting him. As for Nakyum, he figured out how he could make Seungho happy early on, but he’s still struggling a bit with regards to how he feels about Seungho, likely because a part of his heart is still with Inhun. Again, he definitely recognizes Seungho as his protector (he’d instinctively called out to Seungho for help when he was kidnapped), but he’s still struggling over whether he’s in love with him.

This week we’re getting a continuation to the spinoff story so we won’t see the story pick up again until next week.

I do think the spinoff story is interesting. Currently, Seungho holds a lot of power over Nakyum, both in terms of political/administrative power, and physical power. But with Seungho as a peasant and Nakyum as a son of a noble family, Nakyum holds the social power over Seungho and it evens up their power dynamics a bit, which I do like. It feels safer for Nakyum lmao.

In terms of the style of story telling, it’s mostly angst, I’ll be honest. And it is rather melodramatic because miscommunication tends to be something the author uses quite a bit as a storytelling technique. Luckily, they’re not dragged out for too long.

Art

The art is pretty nice. It’s all in full colour, which surprised me. The art is extremely detailed. I wonder how the artist can do so much in a week lol. I hope they’re not overworked.

Seungho

Both Seungho and Nakyum have had their share of past trauma, but my thinking is that they’ve manifested in different ways.

It’s implied that Seungho’s father knew about his sexuality from a young age and tried to treat it through medical means and then by locking him up, which effectively stopped his education, despite him having been a bright student. Seungho then lived out his young adult days in debauchery. Early on, he implied that he was just living by his father’s principles, or something along those lines. My guess is that his dad left him behind so he could debauch in isolation without affecting the rest of the family.

So Seungho grew up without many close friends. He was surrounded by servants and yes men (like Jihwa) who would not call him out on his bullshit. So I think that’s how he developed his extremely bossy and abusive behaviour.

Why Nakyum was different for Seungho was that initially, he didn’t have power over Nakyum. He would tell him to do things, but Nakyum would not necessarily heed his commands, not painting, or trying to run away. His heart was still fully loyal to Inhun. So I think that was why Nakyum elicited extra violent behaviour from Seungho. Seungho had never been defied like this.

But I think Seungho was also intrigued by Nakyum. Nakyum was a contradiction because he drew smut but was always super embarrassed when faced with sexual situations irl. Seungho should've felt better when Inhun was sent away and Nakyum became submissive during sex and yet that’s when Seungho felt like something was wrong. Nakyum just kept eliciting unexpected emotions from Seungho. I definitely think Seungho saw him as a plaything at first, but came to care for him after he got to know more about him and his personal life.

Nakyum

Nakyum also came from a tough background. He was an orphan, and was raised along kisaeng ladies. Inhun was the first authority figure whom he’d had a positive impression of, and he latched on to him. He admired Inhun so much that he tried his best to listen to him when he told him not to draw erotic art anymore.

Inhun unfortunately didn’t see their relationship the same way. He showed a kind face to most of his students but he looked down on their lowly statuses. Only when he saw Nakyum as a pawn, did he give him attention. But he never hid his emotions, visibly expressing his anger when Nakyum wasn’t being a good spy, brushing off Nakyum’s confession of love.

Nakyum’s love for Inhun was so extremely pure and all-consuming. I cried when he was so swiftly rejected and condescended upon by Inhun T_T Because I knew how much courage it took for Nakyum to confess, how he wanted nothing but for Inhun to have good things, and Inhun cared not for any of that because it wasn’t want he wanted. Nakyum wasn’t helping him in the way he needed, and he cared far more for ambition than romantic love (not to mention romantic love from a lowly peasant).

After the rejection, Nakyum internalized Inhun’s words when he called him a prostitute. A part of him still loved Inhun and if he said that, Nakyum figured he must’ve been right. The other part of him decided that acting submissively to Seungho was the only way to survive.

Basically, Nakyum’s going through a huge emotional journey because his hero Inhun has kind of abandoned him (though he hasn’t forgotten him completely), but Nakyum hasn’t found a worthy person to give his heart to.

Seungho & Nakyum

I’m still thinking about their relationship and why we ship them despite the shit they’ve done (mostly the shit that Seungho’s done to Nakyum).

For Seungho, I think Nakyum was the first person he met who had a different way of expressing love. He’d never met someone like Nakyum who would stuff he despised just to help out Inhun. Even when Inhun didn’t show an inkling of appreciation. Perhaps Seungho felt that he didn’t know what love was until he met Nakyum.

As for Nakyum, he theorized that he was only desperate for affection and that was why he felt himself drawn to Seungho. I think that is technically true. But more than that, I think Seungho has arguably shown more levels of care to Nakyum than Inhun has. Yeah, Seungho has done horrendous stuff to Nakyum, but he’s also shown more affection to Nakyum. That includes physical affection, but Seungho also bought him warm clothes, called on a doctor to care for his health, etc. Again, all of the care absolutely does NOT cancel out the abusive behaviour on Seungho’s side, but that’s how I think Nakyum found himself feeling more and more comfortable with Seungho. Loving someone is about showing your bad sides as well as your good sides.

I think both Seungho and Nakyum are finding affection/care in forms that they’d never experienced before, and that’s why they are drawn to each other.

Problematic?

I had a feeling that this would be a story that a lot of people would consider problematic. It’s probably because I’m older now, but it doesn’t really bother me. I obviously know that there is toxic behaviour shown by the characters and I would never want that in real life, but it’s really not difficult for me to separate what works in fiction vs. what works in reality.

This was a different time period, when rich and powerful people could just do whatever they wanted. Not excusing problematic behaviour, just explaining the entitled behaviour of some of the elites.

Seungho for sure shows extremely toxic behaviour. I think the point is that he is a problematic man who has trouble expressing emotions the normal way, and it ends up hurting those around him and those he cares about. He’s definitely an imperfect person who’s unpleasant to be around, but I think one thing the author wanted to show is that bad people are still capable of having emotions. By no means do I excuse his toxic behaviour. But I am all for showing that flawed people are still worthy of attention. We are still interested in what Seungho does in spite of his poor behaviour because we recognize that he is still a person.

I also recognize that Nakyum is woobified a lot. He’s constantly put in situations where he is the victim and he doesn’t/can’t fight back. In the latest event with Jihwa ordering Nakyum’s kidnapping/murder, the Nameless one had threatened Nakyum’s life so that he wouldn’t reveal the fact that he’d kidnapped him, and that caused all of Seungho’s meanness in the past few chapters. I recognize that whump is a popular trope, but usually because it ends in comfort. (I specifically can’t enjoy whump if it doesn’t end in comfort) It sets up a situation in which it feels reasonable for the victim to receive comfort. Again, this is stuff that I only enjoy in fiction. I recognize that in real life, people shouldn’t have to get hurt to be worthy of love and care. But I can see why people may say that Nakyum being the victim might be a problem.

Other

I thought Jihwa & the Nameless one were going to be a side pairing from the moment I saw the Nameless one’s jaw lmao. It was angular and I was like, that’s a handsome man’s jaw. I’m glad that Jihwa realized before hurting Nakyum that he couldn’t possibly fix his relationship with Seungho anymore. He recognized that even with Nakyum out of the picture, Seungho wouldn’t want to come to him. Seungho’s mind would always be filled with Nakyum, and if Seungho had found out that he was behind the murder, he’d hate Jihwa even more. Like Nameless one, despite the despicable things that Jihwa had done, I did pity him. He was in love with Seungho for a long time, and thought that giving him everything he wanted (including letting him have sexual relations with others) would endear himself to Seungho. But they were just not meant to be.

But Min implied that Jihwa had crossed the line already this time by kidnapping Nakyum. After the happenings of Chapter 66, Seungho’s going to have a field day with Jihwa and I’m not sure how he’s going to get out of that one. Not sure if Nameless one can do anything to help.

I don’t know how long this manhwa is supposed to be, but there are several story lines other than Seungho x Nakyum that haven’t been addressed yet. Like I said, I think we’re going to see Jihwa x Nameless one expanded upon a bit. There’s some stuff going on with the Yoon family, since Seungho’s brother keeps coming over. I wonder if Seungho’s going to try starting a career (this isn’t based on anything, I’m just wondering). And I also have a feeling that Inhun might return, which will likely force Nakyum to choose between Inhun or Seungho once and for all.

To be completely honest, I don’t want this manhwa to drag out for too long. For selfish reasons because again I don’t like waiting for ongoing comic chapters. I don’t know how long the manhwa is intended to be, but based on my paragraph above, it’d still take a lot of time for all of those loose ends to be wrapped up. But considering the fact that Seungho and Nakyum’s relationship is probably finally going to get better, hopefully we’re over half way through? Just me being hopeful.

Final

I didn’t write a full review for this on my Dreamwidth because, like, this comic isn’t even done yet. But as you can see, I enjoyed reading it. I feel like I’m missing a hundred things that crossed my mind while reading this. And there are a lot of interesting analysis posts on Tumblr and Reddit that are opening my mind to other interpretations too.

I had a BL manga phase when I was a teenager and now I’m like “...is it time to get back into it?” Lol. In any case, it’s interesting reading BL as an adult now because like I said, it’s so much easier to separate the fiction from the reality now. I can read BL purely as fiction while recognizing what tropes are not healthy, and they don’t diminish the story. It’s melodramatic because it’s exactly that: melodrama.

[battlestar-royco]

let’s talk about tropes

here’s a little (little?!) post on tropes, as promised!

some tropes i hate and why i hate them

love triangles: this one’s pretty simple and obvious. love triangles are unrealistic and toxic. they romanticize emotional cheating, and they cause nasty ship wars in fandoms, especially when two of the points in the triangle are women. often, the “losing” point of the triangle is a one-dimensional throwaway character who either gets killed off or accepts their fate and steps back for the “winner” to take over. this dynamic can get especially problematic when the “loser” is a woc and the “winner” is white, when the “loser” is an lgbtq+ character, and/or when the “loser” has no purpose other than to create drama for two other fleshed out characters. the character often ends up being hated for bad writing and “getting in the way” of the endgame ship. yikes. the only valid resolution to love triangles, imo, is a polyamorous relationship!!!

girl hate: it’s rare to see nice friendships and romances between women, and often this trope is used to drive an unnecessary wedge between two female characters who would have otherwise been great friends. i don’t mind when two women/girls are in conflict with one another for an interesting reason, but i absolutely hate when the conflict is based on something stereotypical and boring. the “girl hate” conflict is always based on something misogynistic, unrealistic, and/or stupid--like a man, looks, sexual practices, or a contrived competition. this is especially gross when the men in the story act as the voices of reason in the conflict, patronizing the women and teaching them how to be nice and use logic.

“strong female characters”: many writers mistake “strong” characters for characters who employ violence, sassiness, and masculine attributes to get what they want. I’m so over it. all I want is nuanced representation of women that doesn’t reduce them to a love interest or a sex object who looks down on other women. strength comes in many forms, and everyone defines it and identifies with it differently.

miscommunication: this has to be one of the laziest forms of prolonging drama, when two characters are fighting because of something that could easily be solved if they were locked in a room together for five minutes.

incest/incest-adjacent romances: this should go without saying, but we’re for some god-awful reason going through a period where incestuous relationships/fake-outs (ie, you’re in love with him? too bad he’s your brother. oh wait, it’s revealed that he’s not!/you two are blood related but you either never met or you went through a period of separation, so that means you can fall in love) are heavily romanticized or used to create extra drama, and it’s just unnecessary and not cute. i think authors use this to add some sort of edge or uniqueness to their writing, but it’s just so toxic and a complete turn-off for me.

aesthetic oppression: (term inspired by and similar to “aesthetic conflict,” thanks kat) when an author throws in some sort of oppression that is experienced by people in real life, but they either don’t address the oppression thoroughly or they only use it to add some sort of edge to their story and further a character’s romance, death, redemption arc, etc. for example, the homophobia in GOT season 6, which reduced loras to a walking stereotype of a gay man before he was subjugated by the church sept and blown up, and the patriarchy in ACOTAR that only exists to show how feminist rhysand is.

boys/men fighting, having tantrums, or expressing themselves through violence: it’s fine for male characters to fight every once in a while, but i just hate that this seems to be exclusively employed with male characters and it is used as a solution or reaction to problems when realistically, men are much more nuanced. men cry. they might be alone or in front of others. they might cry into their pillow or on a friend’s shoulder. fictional men add violence and anger to their sadness because the authors don’t want to emasculate them, but that’s a stupid goal and crying doesn’t affect someone’s gender. smashing your belongings when you are upset is unhealthy and potentially dangerous, and so is physically fighting others over trivial or patriarchal issues (ie a woman) when conversation could be/is probably much more compelling and effective. it’s important to show men that anger isn’t always the first emotion to feel under duress and that they don’t have to express their feelings by punching walls or throwing their belongings across the room. (also?! practically? YOU’RE RUINING YOUR OWN FUCKING STUFF AND/OR YOUR ROOMMATE/FRIEND/PARTNER’S STUFF, YOU ASSHOLE.)

sexy immortals: immortality can be used in clever and entertaining ways, but i feel like a lot of the immortals i’ve been seeing lately run in the same vein as the twilight vampires, which is to say: unearthly beautiful (aka conventionally attractive), overly sexy (aka stalking a love interest for the sake of “attraction”), apparently 16-25 years old (aka accessible to grown women who read/write ya).

uninvolved parents or non-existent guardian figures: sometimes young characters don’t have parents and that’s fine; some of my favorite books are about characters with one parent or no parents. but i still feel like we’re coming out of a period where it was very popular to kill off the parents (especially moms) at the beginning or before the story starts. i really want to see more exploration of characters with parents, or at least see the characters without parents make significant relationships with adults or react appropriately to the loss of their parents.

one-off character deaths: when a character enters one chapter or episode of a book/show just to immediately die for cheap emotional manipulation. this character is also sooooo often a marginalized person, and it’s super predictable and tired. try harder, author/screenwriter!

some tropes i love and why i love them

special snowflake/chosen one: I can’t explain it. I know it’s so cliche and one of the most hated ones out there, but I love when this trope is done right. I’m not a big fan of the chosen ones who have a special destiny, especially if the mc is a white boy, because that’s been done a million times before. but I’m a sucker for that one character who comes upon an unexpected special ability/object/creature or connection to a force of good/evil/nature and has to contend with that. They’ve been Chosen and they’re completely unprepared, and it’s gonna change their life trajectory and relationships and maybe even political climate.

woobies!!!: I feel like this trope is so underrated and it’s one of my favorites of all time. I absolutely love rooting for that one character who’s too good for any of the shit they’ve been through and Deserves Better^TM, but they manage to survive and grow against all odds.

found family: i love that authors are expanding the concept of family and unconventional narratives about love. the found family trope is so charming and relatable to many readers, and it’s great to see seemingly contrary characters come together to find a loving home together that isn’t necessarily romantic.

soft characters: it’s rare (though increasingly less rare, fortunately) to find soft boys, aka male characters who are compassionate, funny, kind, pensive, and/or quiet instead of brash, loud, violent, and angry. i know so many boys and men who fall all along the spectrum of masculinity, and it would be great to see more characters who represent that, especially because male characters are typically forced to express their masculinity in one way. i also absolutely love seeing women being equally as soft and kind--with the exception of ASOIAF!sansa, i feel like this kind of character has been cast aside for the sassy, rebellious, empowered^TM female character who isn’t like other girls and wields a bunch of weapons. i’d really like to see more female characters whose strengths come from empathy, intelligence, and emotion.

unique relationships within a friend group/ensemble: this one is marginally related to my love of found families. not only do i really like tight, strong friend groups, but i also like when each of the friends within that group has a different and compelling dynamic (hostile, romantic, friendly, tragic, whatever may have you) that can carry a scene or an arc. unique relationships between all the characters in an ensemble adds so much dimensionality to a story.

complex guardian figures: this mostly applies to ya, but i think it can also be said for many adult books and tv shows. adult characters often get flattened or sidelined for romance or action plots when in reality almost everyone has parent/guardian relationships, and these relationships are the source of so much complexity. that complexity may mean love, found family, anger, patronization, manipulation, and more, and all these things will be expressed differently based on the characters in question. for example, look at the difference between eleven and hopper from stranger things and harry and dumbledore from harry potter. hopper and dumbledore are so different and each of them carry darkness and baggage that comes out on the kids for better and worse. bonus points if the guardian is a woman, because these types of relationships between girls and women are relatively rare to the ones between boys and men.

anti-heroes/anti-villains: i think this is another one that goes without explaining. we’re all the hero of our own story, after all. if an author can successfully convince me to root for a character who i know is wrong but believes they’re in the right, or for a character who does the wrong things for the right reasons, there’s a good chance that i think very highly of that author.

stoic, bitter, angry characters: if there’s one character in the ensemble who has any of these traits, there’s a good chance they’ll be my favorite, especially if that character is a woman. usually this character’s journey is about what makes them vulnerable and how they become close with the most unlikely companions or form a special relationship with a foil character. it makes the audience feel like we’re being let in on a secret, specifically about that character.

and that’s about it! my inbox is always open to talk more in depth about any of these and more, so let me know. thanks so much for 700, you all are great :D

[holywankenobi]

SW fandom rant

To be honest, I don't really know how or where can I start talking about this. If you aren't interested in any of the Star Wars drama that is going on then skip this post, cause its gonna be long... these goes for the SW fans we are concerned about the whole situation itself. I barely have the strength to do this and exposing my opinion about certain things makes me uncomfortable but it's been a long while since I'm keeping things to myself. There's much information I have to process so please be patient with me since I barely know how to express my emotions in the right way (that's why I'm holding myself back a lot here: it will seem I'm calm... but I'm not. I'm angry and tired at the same time).

DISNEY CANON

We all know where it all started. The Force Awakens premiere in 2015. We will start from there.

As ANY star wars movie, there will be people who liked it, people who loved it and people who hated it. And there is where some fans clash with the others. Fans who enjoy practically every movie or SW related things and those fans who demonize every movie (specially the ones from the new Disney canon) and the only thing that matters for them are the episodes IV, V, VI and the Legends canon (some of them also defend the prequel episodes I, II and III, fact which I'll talk about it later). And they bash against everyone who likes the Disney sequels.

BOI IM SCARED OF TELLING PEOPLE THIS WAS MY FAVOURITE SAGA SO FAR. And I already had problems with Legends hardcore fans.

Let me tell this straightaway... Star Wars are movies for kids. They've always been. George Lucas said it. They seem to be thirsty for feeling again what they felt when they were kids whenever a SW movie comes out but they always exit the cinema with a feeling of extreme disappointment.

I was talking about the last movie with my co workers at the beginning of the year and they complaint it was "too Disney". And that's precisely what I'm trying to explain! It's ok whether you like the sequels or not like them. Everyone has his own taste. I just find funny complaining for a whole saga originally made for kids for being "too Disney". I dont know if you get my point here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEsOqEpNF0k&list=PL8SlwcJuVWR2FNtL-6Wo5QUP6LMjpNJUA

LEGENDS CANON

Then there's those who hated the prequels, that said there was nothing worse than the phantom menace, those who hated on George Lucas for doing such a crap, but now praise the prequels because Disney is satan for them and they want the old canon back. George Lucas ended up selling SW to Disney because, he ain't no fool, he knows this fanbase is one of the most toxic and ungrateful that has ever existed. And he saw it with the prequels feedback... Then they now have the guts to demand him to continue the old canon? Smells like hypocrite-crying fanboys to me.

My whole point is....It's ok if you are a new/Disney sequels fan, it's ok if you are a prequels fan, it's ok if you are a SW original movies fan, Legends canon fan, OG fan, casual fan, hardcore fan... as always you understand that not everyone will agree with your point of view, not everyone will like or think the same way as you do, or live SW the same way as you do. There's a difference between respecting and agreeing with, concepts which sometimes get mixed and taken as the same thing, which is not. Respect other fans mean "I don't agree with you but I know how much this means for you, so I won't intentionally mock you" WHICH THING LEADS US TO THE NEXT TOPIC:

JOHN BOYEGA

*takes a deep breath*

Man. I dont know. He's a full grown up man and he's behaving like a 5 yo on his social media...... John is the actor who gives life to Finn (the ex stormtrooper). It all started with this sexist comment he responded to a fan in his IG. 

Then people (naturally) got offended, specially reylos. But instead of apologizing he kept on going, remarked what he said and also did a video to mock the reylo community.

You think I'm only defending a ship here but no. Its bigger than that. He has the right to feel left out in this saga because I agree with him IN THAT FACT. He is probably the actor which is more into the SW world, he was always a big fan (of the whole cast I mean). Thats why fans love him do much. And I did love him too. And he (naturally) wanted to have more spotlight on this saga ( I think Finn was one of the most wasted characters of these movies tbh) But instead of taking it the mature way he's having a tantrum on his IG because Finnrey did not become a real thing, he's trolling reylos and encouraging SW haters and antis to bully them whose are already having a hard time with TROS end (which I'll talk about later because I dont like their attitude about it either).

And it's not just raise the hate on shippers thing dude you could just apologize because you said something sexist and offended a lot of people who ship reylo and really means a thing for them. The whole thing that the greatest achievement a man can have with a woman is sex is just DISGUSTING. Rey kissed Ben but now he's gone Finn has the road clear and can fuck her? BRUH.

This is all so wrong and he was the one who started it.

ADAM DRIVER

I'm really relieved Adam does not have any social media because omg I would be suffering so much rn...

I honestly have never emotionally connected with an actor so much as I did with him. His whole acting is so good and I could really notice on this last movie. I'm starting to watch his other movies. And not just his acting, he's so professional off camera too.

I'm really happy and proud of him for his Oscar nomination, he really deserves it TT

But I'm worried this whole John Boyega thing affects him. Idk how I would feel if I were in his shoes, if my coworker was saying those things on social media and then smile at me like nothing is happening. But honestly what hurts me the most is he's having a worse time with "reylos".. I think the rumors of him having an affair with Daisy Ridley was what messed things up. I honestly dont know if its true, I've got some info but it's hard to believe. Because there are so many haters manipulating fake info that I dont trust anything and anyone anymore.

And this is where I talk about:

REYLOS AND DAIVERS

BOI OH BOI

This is gonna be hard....

First of all, I don't consider Daivers (Daisy x Adam shippers) as part of the reylo community. I'm sorry. But its fucking disgusting you going to demand Adam to divorce from his wife, abandon his son and then start dating Daisy because of this rumor or because you can't separate fiction from reality.... I read he even recieved death threats ARE WE NUTS??? They (Adam and Daisy) having a good chemistry working together doesn't mean they are in love, kids...

Driver has an awesome wife and a lovely son. Daisy is currently dating someone.

Infidelity is gross. No more. And I would be so disappointed at them if this turns out to be true. But seeing all what's happening around the actors and specially having all this haters out there... I'll say this was all false information.

Daiver is not real and won't be. So stick only to the fictional ship.....

About Reylo itself. I find REALLY funny how people who dont know shit about what this ship means say it's an abusive relationship. Bullshit. I wouldn't be shipping them if so.

Also the people still stating it's not real/canon hiding themselves behind the "Ben solo is dead lol" argument. Do you stop loving someone when they die?

Yes, they love each other. No, it wasn't always reciprocated love. They started being enemies in the force awakens, friends who understood and cared for each other through force dyad in the last jedi and ended up being lovers at the end of the rise of Skywalker. Rey wants to revenge her family (her falling to the dark side) but also wants Ben Solo back, and he wants to be the most powerful leader on the galaxy and still being kylo ren. But they eventually meet in the middle between light and dark and Leia finally reaches out to him to make him turn to the light.That's their fight. That's the angst. That's the tea. "No one is ever really gone" there's always hope. Star Wars is centered in HOPE. And their story represents it at its finest.

NOW. The reylo community.

Despite you liked it or not the end they gave to the saga... I think JJ Abrams doesn't deserve all the hate he's receiving... he probably did a lot of things wrong but seriously... just stop. Not only from reylos but the whole fandom.

Sending hate won't lead to anything now...

I enjoyed The rise of Skywalker. Indeed I spent half of the movie crying and I loved it.

You can cry as much as you want the loss of Ben (although I have hope for him still being alive in a way, there are plenty of theories) but that doesn't give you the right to death threat JJ. And I think I'll stop here cause I'm already tired.

Everyone has their own taste, preferences, favourite characters, ships, whatever. I pray for people stop judging others for their tastes, specially in this cursed fanbase. Sorry if I ever misbehaved trying to defend what I think or like. I just want this place to be supportive and safe for everyone and everything what's happening is not helping... We are all SW fans and that's our connection point. Dont discredit others for having another point of view...

I'll leave it here, but I'm open to debate or talk about anything I said in a respectful way.

[pplowden]

PRE FMP Exaggeration and storytelling

Exaggeration and storytelling are inherent in human society. What I really find interesting is the structure of how humans live their lives. People find a comfort in routine and success in repetition. There is a unanimous decision in how we should form our days; at what times we brush our teeth, eat, get dressed, go to bed etc. Not only does this satisfy people, it makes them feel secure and entertained, we even try to recreate this artificially, for example the game ‘Sims’ is all about building your own society, it is like playing with your own life, only with slightly more control.

I decided to take this even further, living by a strict manifesto of only eating orange food in my orange room. While there was a sense of comfort in the limitations this provided, it felt ridiculous and inevitably, made me physically sick. There are many artists who decide to live with such extreme routines - the most famous probably being Gilbert and George. People are infatuated with the mystery around their commitment to structure. Real or not they provoke the idea that structure provides something for humans, even if it is just people's interest in it.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gilbert-george-day-routine-life-453958

Perhaps this obsession with routine is about allowing us time to search for what is really important; our purpose in life. Often people long to turn the mundane into the interesting, which seems both an act of desperation and a form of existential crisis. The thought that there is something beyond us is scary, exciting and somehow important. The artist David Huggins is a 74 year old man who has spent his life painting the extraterrestrial woman who took his virginity and the hybrid human alien-babies this produced. What interests me about him is that he refuses to sell the works of his (fantasy) wife - his paintings are personal objects which form a part of his life, not mere pieces of work.

https://www.theartblog.org/2011/08/david-huggins-an-uncommon-life/

Furthermore, although he has lived his life in what we assume to be half fantasy, he has embedded these alien figures into an ordinary, human life. He is in a monogamous relationship and fathering a family. As much desperation there is to find something beyond humanity, there is still an urge to bring it  back round to what we have created. This led me to draw a series of imagined scenes of aliens performing the daily acts of humans, such as eating dinner.

This is why I am interested in exaggeration; people want to find something new and exciting, but only so they can share it with what human experience we already have. There is an absurdity in how dramatic humans are often tempted to be, it is humorous.

https://www.siff.net/festival/dj-nicfit-presents-fantastic-planet

Inspired by Roland Topor's ‘La Planète Sauvage’, which explores the relationship between human and alien, and his costumes for a production of the ‘Magic Flute’, I decided to knit alien costumes and perform a ballet, green screening it onto a background of the face on Mars.

I decided performance is a good way to dramatise what I am trying to explore, as it relies on amplification and being extravagant. The use of a green screen allows importance to be placed on the movement of the performer and any connections with setting to be removed. By replacing it with the the face on Mars, it represents perfectly what I am interested in, how humans have grasped a familiar figure and celebrated it, in a place full of the unknown.

It is this balance between truth and fiction which really holds my attention. Ultimately, fact and fiction is merely what people claim them to be. If stories are about perspective, how can we deem one version true and another false?

https://www.henson.com/storyteller.php

Folk tales, fables, and legends are interesting here, as the oldest and most famous forms of stories historically. The kids tv programme ‘The Storyteller’ by Jim Henson tells such tales, emphasising the importance of dramatics in storytelling through voice, setting and humour. The opening lines of each episode being;

“When people told themselves their past with stories, explain their present with stories, foretold the stories with stories, the best place by the fire, was kept with for storyteller”.

The act of a story is presented almost like a ritual which affects everyones everyday life, but also something which has a skill to it. As often seen in literature and art, this programme is a story about stories. It is not simply a retelling, there is importance in its own characters and their narrative.

Inspired by my own experiences and stories about being attacked/attacking birds, I researched the greek myths of Icarus, Prometheus and Leda and the Swan. Once again I found myself interested in the dramatic nature of such myths; the dramatic monologues and inevitable rise and fall of characters, the shifting perspectives and interpretations and mostly, the tendency to fabricate something unimportant to transform it into the important. To reflect on this idea, I wrote an essay;

Reflections on swans (and seagulls)

The swan is often considered to be the most beautiful and powerful creature. As described in Yeats’ poem ‘The Wild Swans at Coole’, they are “mysterious, beautiful” and “unwearied”, traits all humans aspire to have. We are in awe of them; as we are tempted by materialism and infidelity, grow cynical and die, their symbolic beauty doesn’t fade: the swan remains monogamous and elegant, living a simple, pure life.

Swans carry a purity in their graceful paddle and colouring as well as symbolising a sort of British greatness. They are believed to be silent until singing a final “swan song” – the pinnacle of their greatness - at their death. Perhaps this and the fact they are owned by the Queen, gives them a mysterious authority. We are taught to admire them from a respectful distance.

However, no matter how blinded by their beauty we are, we know never to forget their power. They are fierce, quick to feel threatened and will “breaking our legs” to protect their young.

This recognition and portrayal of their danger is not a new one. The myth of Zeus disguising himself as a swan to rape Leda has been a prominent tale explored in art for centuries. Although this story uses the swan to represent a cruel and deceiving character, Michelangelo painted it as an intimate and romantic scene, supposedly causing it to be destroyed in the seventeenth century due to its ‘lasciviousness’.

I find Stephen Pearsons’ ‘Wings of Love’, famously known for illustrating the divide between Laurence and Beverly in Mike Lees ‘Abigail’s Party’, reminiscent of this. While ‘Wings of love’ symbolises the progression and divide between romanticism and realism, exposing people for being over consumed with nature while also applauding nature for holding such power, ‘Leda and the Swan’, symbolises the relationship between cruelty and power.

Yeats has also written a poem on this, emphasising a much cruel explanation: “A sudden blow”, “He holds her helpless breast upon his breast”. Immediately we feel the brute force of Zeus raping Leda. However, what becomes surprising as you read on is the threatening softness in which he continues to describe it; “feathered glory”, “thighs caressed”. This seems to perfectly sum up the character of a swan - silent but deadly.

I find this imbalance of opinions peculiar and recurring with swans - perhaps it is only superficial beauty and the fact that the Queen owns them which makes us feel so proud and protective of them? In reality, they are dangerous and cruel.

I once ate a swan after it died flying into an electrical wire on my grandparents’ farm. Its flesh was dark, forbidding and fishy. It was unpleasant and I felt as if I was being let down, as if it was meant to be something life changing when in fact it was vulgar and sickening. I wonder if the pride of national ownership only added to this feeling? It was meant to be an honour to be eat something usually untouchable, admirable and wild; free but royal; yet it was disgusting.

Do we misunderstand all animals, all birds, all nature? We, like the Queen, assert ownership over animals with our pets. Yet we keep them in cages and on leads. We have a hierarchy – swans above seagulls, seagulls above caged budgies. What does it mean and is it more about ourselves than the animals we portray?

I am interested in this and in our relationship to other birds. I wonder if it is the status of Royal ownership which separates swans from the common bird, which we often fear or diminish. We fear birds trapped in houses. In a recent news story, we fear a seagull that stole a woman’s pet chihuahua. Why underestimate the seagull? It is an enemy because it steals our chips and our chihauhuas. But what has changed since the lesson of Prometheus, which warned humans not to be arrogant or misunderstand the natural order of the world? Why are we now taught to hate and disrespect the common bird?

I think we often use nature in art to try to understand and illustrate power complexes and ourselves - there is a craving to understand our place in the world. The conflicting views on swans is an example. In a way, swans are irrelevant to humans, they are in our art because there is a deeper craving to understand something much larger about ourselves. Thinking about this prompted me to make a film about the neglected and maligned seagull; to draw comparisons between the survivalist impulse which exists in these lonely, maligned birds and in lonely, maligned people.

What writing this essay and the script for my film really taught me is that it is the absurdity in the obsession of trying to understand something bigger than us which interests me, whether its natural order or power complexes, the need to exaggerate human importance until we understand such topics seems unavoidable. David Lynch’s new film ‘WHAT DID JACK DO?’ I find represents what I mean here: the nonsensical, circling script of cliches eventually defeats the storyline. Instead, what becomes entertaining and successful is the humorous journey of the dialogue.

netflix.com

In some ways, it seems a critique of stories as they are meant to be, instead suggesting it is the ludicrous way in which we tell them through exaggeration is what becomes the story.

Since realising this, I think what I am really interested in is not just the stories people are telling, but how they tell them that I am attracted to. For example, at my aunt and uncles house there are three stone sculptures of heads on their mantle piece which my uncle found in a skip. He says that in the medieval times they believed murderers all had the same anatomy, and these heads are in fact death masks of murderers used to figure out the bone structure that would possess every murderer. While sat at a candle lit dinner, the heads glowing and watching over us, I was told the story of the severed head. Our family friend had gone to open day for a boarding school and while playing football had kicked the ball into a nearby bush. Going to retrieve it and continue the game, he kicked it out into the playing field. What landed was not the football, but a severed head. The school sent out a small apology letter, but covered up the story and it was never heard about again, except through word of mouth. Becoming its own kind of myth, I hear and retell this story often, surprisingly regularly receiving a similar story in reaction.

I am interested in how to turn such accounts into their own visual stories or pieces of work. I believe one way to do this is to learn what is so interesting in each individual story and focus on this, whether it as obscure as the fact it is so dramatic and making an installation full of shadows and mystery, or as specific as a particular description of an object and recreating it.

I am interested in interactive works; I believe giving a role to the audience to be immersed is very powerful in its effect, especially when exploring storytelling, where the audience and the memories they are left with is half of the experience. Saying that, I believe it should be a memory they are left with only. Often people are interested in taking a physical object away from an artwork, as well as a memory.

https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/yoko-ono-cut-piece-1964/

For example in Yoko Ono’s ‘Cut Piece’, the audience members were invited to come and cut off a piece of her clothing. What is powerful about this performance is not the fact they walk away with a piece of her cloth -  an artefact of such a famous artwork - but the fact they committed the act. The fabric has become the documentation, the intimate act the work. Therefore, I find it more exciting to leave the room empty handed. If there is nothing to tell except for the story of the experience - we are left with a series of interesting experiences and accounts, becoming a story and artwork in itself.

Another way in which we can dramatise is through physical size and dominance. Working on a large scale excites me. Phyllida Barlows' work at the 2017 Venice Biennale felt almost like a stage design. The construction and emphasis on under cladding became the artwork, it was compromised of monumental structures of various, large heights filling the gallery.

https://www.designboom.com/art/phyllida-barlow-british-pavilion-venice-biennale-05-28-2017/

I hope to continue researching storytelling and exaggeration through an interesting, dramatic aesthetic.

[autumndiesirae]

1/ It's different because certain ships (not sure if you mean something like incest ships or pedo ships) are gross to most people and they dont want other gross people to see themselves in it and enjoy it, or feel like they are encouraged by it. It's like how nazi's glorify Warhammer characters that "cleanse the xeno scum" for disturbing and troubling reasons, or seeing pedo's get off to loli or cub stuff. It's a yikes.

2/ It’s different from school shooters + video games because those argue that games actually *create* disturbing behavior or train the mind to do so. It implies that someone who is already on that path wouldn’t have any changed behavior or feel validated by seeing something that already reflects their thoughts, as opposed to what these “dont ship because XYZ” people usually claim

3/ It’s different from women who were called Satanists because those claims came from a culture of oppression against women who were seen as mysterious and less than men, mixed in with byzantine superstitions. I doubt you’re implying that these shippers are oppressed or mean to imply, as a side note, but that’s why.

4/4 Though it may be similar to how certain books are banned, though that parts a bit vague. Did you mean “Catcher in the Rye” kind of banned or “Quran” kind of banned or even “Diary of Anne Frank” banned? Could mean a lot of things. I know of one book that was banned from my library because it had a few characters sneak back into their house via the second floor, and explained that most older houses were unlocked on the second floor and up. That was because that fiction could affect reality.

Like first and foremost who is the judge of what’s a ‘gross’ ship? Because I’ve seen something like the label of ‘gross incest ship’ thrown at both Shimadacest, where it’s a valid label because it’s actual incest, and also at something like McReyes because ‘the two had a relationship that could be seen as father/son’ even when the two aren’t related and that claim is entirely a fandom interpretation of their relationship. Literally that was the entire crux of the Voltron ship debate. Literally no one is saying you should be fine and comfortable with every ship out there, including actual incestuous or pedophilic ships, but the problem is that those labels are applied to things where it doesn’t even work and saying that antis only ever address ‘gross ships’ is entirely subjective. No one says you have to like ships with an age gap, no one says you have to like ships where the two start out as enemies, no one says you have to like ANY ship. But more often than not the labels of ‘gross’ and subsequently pedophilia/racism/abuse/etc get stuck to ships where it absolutely is not applicable. If a ship involves two consenting adults, which more often than not it does, then you really cannot censor it and someone else’s enjoyment of it just because you think it’s gross.

‘It’s different from school shooters + video games because those argue that games actually *create* disturbing behavior or train the mind to do so‘Okay but I have seen this exact claim word for word addressed towards people who ship undesirable ships. That EXACT phrase has been thrown in my face and I’ve been called an abuser, homophobic, and misogynist for shipping Meihem because the two hate each other in ‘canon’ when I myself am an LGBT female multiple-time abuse victim (not to mention the two are consenting adults with no canon sexuality, and the point of fiction is to be transformative anyway). The idea that ships that some arbitrary person decides is amoral create/train people to accept immorality is absurd and yet it’s an argument I see constantly on this website. It is not the job of fiction to teach you morality, especially at the age when most people engage in shipping (teenage years) and already have a sense of right and wrong.

Also the reason I bring up the parallel between women reading and anti-shippers is because its the same train of logic - “if you, a tender and impressionable young creature, consume this content that someone else has arbitrarily designated as undesirable, you will develop into something undesirable because your brain simply cannot comprehend that the content you are reading is presented in a fictional context”. Oppression or not, it’s the exact same message. I read Lolita, I read Clockwork Orange, I read Animal Farm, all before the age of 15 - I didn’t magically become a pedophile, a murderer-rapist, or a fascist, because I could comprehend that it was a fictional story, even at a young age. If someone is already twisted, then whether or not the story glorifies or condemns certain subjects will mean nothing to them because their base understanding of morality is already skewed. Censoring the works of normal people because of the fear that someone may take that story and use it to justify their actions is simply absurd. I’m an abuse victim who often writes about abuse - I expect my readers to understand that I am not glorifiying or romanticizing it by placing it in my story, and if they don’t, then I understand that they never had that understanding in the first place.

‘I know of one book that was banned from my library because it had a few characters sneak back into their house via the second floor, and explained that most older houses were unlocked on the second floor and up. That was because that fiction could affect reality.‘And you see absolutely no issue with this? You see no issue with books being censored because someone decided that teenagers can’t read something and not do it? By that logic, based on the amount of content I’ve read that involves cheating, I should be perfectly okay with cheating and also engage in cheating regularly. Except I don’t. Because I can separate fiction from reality, and so can most teenagers. Other examples include libraries banning Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn for mentions of the n-word, or Harry Potter for ‘witchcraft’, or Steven Universe for ‘LGBT propaganda’, etc. Where do we draw the line?

I appreciate your response, Anon, I really do, and I’m not trying to attack you, but you’ve not managed to convince me why the ‘don’t ship XYZ’ crowd’s message is anything different than any other attempt at censorship based on the arbitrary standards of someone who decided that certain groups just can’t possibly distinguish fiction from reality. That’s not even accounting for the research by psychologists of how the brain interprets fiction depending on how it is presented, and how MANY CSA/abuse/etc survivors use content as a coping mechanism. Please, have some faith in people. An arbitrary and subjective system of ‘this ship is gross and I don’t like it’ will not get us anywhere.

[cowardsanctuary]

i absolutely refuse to talk about this more than necessary but i just read. a discourse post that i find extremely Very Dumb. holy Shit.

so here is my only take. make with it what you want. steal my argument. yell. i don’t care. i’m not going to respond to anything unless it’s a question of clarification because i’m a dumbass who gets overworked by little things.

creating this w/love to @therealmephone4. i personally think opinions and kins should be respected, but there are lines to be crossed. i do not expect everyone that reads this to agree with me, but i hope that it enlightens some opinions that some of us hold to others who do not understand it/agree with it.

tl;dr bit of an analysis of object show ethics in relation to cobs, as well as a light touch on a cobs character analysis. i kind of go off at the end but eh

anywho with the logic of the show, it should be noted that any object can and often is treated as someone autonomous and capable of free thought. box is treated like his own person, despite being an entire box. however, there’s an apparent distinguishing between such—smaller devices, like Fan’s laptop and phone, are not treated like their own people. objects can accidentally be treated as non-sentient, but are often able to prove otherwise. (i.e. the trees in the 1st season of inanimate insanity.) everyone is quick to respond respectfully and accordingly.

to create such objects that are capable of fulfilling actions thoughtfully, capable of independent thought, and creating them with a resemblance of the sentient species of the world is basically creating life in inanimate insanity. cobs is not a parent in the biological sense, but he consciously and purposely created objects that fulfilled this purpose. not only that, but he already created handheld, non-living devices in the past.

creating mephones like 4 and 3gs and 4s were conscious choices. he’s continuing to make conscious choices. he knew he was creating what is essentially lifeforms, and he knowingly saw them through to completion and consciousness. he didn’t push them out of a fucking womb, but birth is birth. creation is creation. he had the choice to give them autonomy, gave it to them, and then when he decided it wasn’t convenient, he took it away from them despite them being capable of such. in inanimate insanity infinity, he regressed in allowing autonomy of the MePhones, but still created them to appear like such. the appearing MePhones were only limited to responding to commands, and remain creepily... idle and unresponsive otherwise. when they’ve outlived their relevance, not even their use, they are immediately replaced by a new one. that’s pretty. unsettling, as is.

think what you want about AI and AI rights, but basically this is a situation similar to (dread I say it) the game Detroit: Become Human. If an AI, even a “device” created for the servitude of their creators, is made to be close to and is capable of acting alike to their creators, even without traditional emotions, should they be given rights similar to humans and accommodating to the autonomy of the AI? honestly, i think the answer should be yes. if you make them like people, you treat them like people.

i think the actions that cobs is taking is inherently immoral. i’m not saying that cobs is obligated to make AI as close to people because he is capable of doing so, i’m saying that if he wanted to make advanced, sophisticated devices that are engineered to cater to the whims of people, he should design them that way. he’s giving Meeple products like MePad and MePhone5 and so on and so forth not just distinguishable personalities, but individual self-awareness and individual self-consciousness. what defines a person? what defines a person with autonomy? in the inanimate insanity world, the bar is low, and people are still expected to have common, human decency. the Meeple products were most likely created to emulate lifeforms. why? because cobs had the choice to make them not so.

because he made his AI’s so close to life, it is cobs’ responsibility as their lifegiver to give them a standard quality of life. it is an obligation for him to give them high qualities of life, by treating his creations as people, and by treating them as people capable of autonomy at the least. why? not only did he knowingly encode conscious, sophisticated thought into his creations, but he made it so that it is within the realm of possibility for them to act like people. The MePhones, therefore, should be considered as people. Along this line of reasoning, as their creator, mentor, and guardian, should be treating them as people.

Cobs has little respect for people in general. Cobs is not a nice person, or at least a pretty uncomfortable person to be around. He took his parents’ garage because it was relevant to the legacy of his company, presumably without their consent. That’s called stealing. Cobs was determined to take Fan’s egg, simply because it interested him. He’s also apparently self-absorbed, deigning to take them on a tour of his headquarters despite the contestants mentioning they needed to take care of something. He also, um, y’know, berated and yelled at MePhone4 doing things the latter enjoyed because the former was being inconvenienced (once because he was mad that MePhone4 didn’t do his chores, another time because MePhone4 walked in with a thing he wanted Cobs to see and Cobs was reviewing paperwork). When MePhone4 didn’t “work right,” his first instinct was not to work with MePhone4 personally in a way to hear out his creation’s concerns, but to replace him with someone new.

The Meeple products being Cobs’ children or not, he is still an immoral person. And with my later examples, it’s apparent that he is an abuser, even if you don’t consider the Meeple products to be his children. He pits his own creations against each other to get rid of what he views as his “mistakes.” When he isn’t happy with someone, he immediately looks for someone better while destroying the “failure,” either emotionally or physically. He has a golden standard for his inventions, and he doesn’t lose a wink of sleep over whether or not his creations are doing the same thing trying to meet those standards. He knows he appears as a monolith of great inventions and great ideas and he flaunts it, and attempts to use that to his advantage to get what he wants out of others. He’s self-absorbed and only looks for his own gain.

Isn’t this alarming? Isn’t this setting off some flags? It does for a good amount of people, which is why they feel the way they do. We think he’s an abuser because he abuses people. To me, and to most of us, that’s not something that can be easily forgiven—or forgiven at all. Cobs’ actions hurt others, and as far as we know, he doesn’t see it as an issue. He doesn’t try to change himself. He is an antagonistic force on the show, and can very much be the primary antagonist.

Now, this doesn’t mean liking Cobs is bad, for most cases. It’s completely okay to like a villainous character in terms of narrative, as they can provide an age-old sense of conflict in stories. Some villains can be absolutely heinous, and Cobs is no exception. He’s well-written... but none of that, absolutely nothing of his role in the show and how he acted is acceptable, nor should it be acceptable in real life. Fiction affects reality. God, does fiction affect reality. This doesn’t mean that liking Cobs will make you a bad person, though understandably it will make quite a few people wary of you. What I mean is that the appearance of a character like Cobs might resonate with people who’ve gone through abuse (not just child abuse, any kind tbfh). People like that are given venues to recognize what they’re going through and, with hope of the writers’ direction, realize that what they’re going through is not only bad but can be survived. Characters like Cobs gives folks a fictional outlet to deposit bottled hate towards. Even if a viewer hasn’t personally been abused or know someone that’s gone through abuse, they can still recognize his behavior as problematic and make use of that information as they please (make sure they don’t act like that, try to observe if people like that exist in their life or the lives of their friends, etc). He’s a villain, and people are allowed to despise villains and what they stand for.

So it’s understandable if people vocally hate Cobs with a passion. Yes, they are attacking the character. No, they are not attacking you, nor should you behave as such. Some of you relate to or kin Cobs in some fashion, and I can respect that hate like that makes you uncomfortable. But for the ones I’m aware of, it appears most of you are separating a good chunk (or all) of his actions from his identity. So if you're aware of Cobs’ harmful actions, why are you so quick to defend him? If someone is uncomfortable with your presence or preference of Cobs and they explain it’s because of his actions, why are you so eager to change their mind?

You can’t keep saying that it’s okay to hate a character while trying to convince someone otherwise.

You can’t keep saying your opinion should be respected while trying to change someone else’s opinion, when it’s obvious they won’t agree.

You can’t keep saying you don’t dismiss a character’s actions if the person you’re trying to convince would have to dismiss said character’s actions to like them.

You can’t keep saying you’re not trying to argue while trying to continue the argument.

Everyone believes they’re right, so they won’t listen if you say they’re wrong.

What you say is independent of what you do. What you do determines where your loyalties lie, whether you say you’re something or not. I don’t think it’s so bad that some folks get pissed at the existence of abusive people, because such people have been extremely detrimental to others, and especially to people I care about. If you’re so eager to prove Cobs isn’t abusive, to people who think he’s abusive no less, then I’d like you to ask yourself: why? How come you want your opinion to be respected when you think someone else’s opinion is wrong enough to prompt you to attempt to change it?

These are rhetorical questions, by the way. I don’t mind hearing other people’s takes, but I won’t listen to anyone who approaches me with the intent of conversion. You are permitted to read this, disagree, and go on your way. Live your life as you intend. Just remember that your actions are the greatest factor in determining how people act towards you. This may be your only warning.

[enjo-kousai]

206 - 202105030150

The other time I was thinking how the label “pr*shipper” is just an explicit synonym for “p*do” , given the fact that the majority of people that use it do it because they like or tolerate that type of content (normal people who do not base their personality around the nsfw fiction they consume, that enjoy problematic stuff (not p*do) and that are aware the content they consume is fiction and should be kept in separated spaces for adults only do not generally go through life identifying with that term). And it seems I am not the only one thinking that because recently an artist I know (but don’t follow) decided to drop that description from their bio under the explanation ���I just prefer to not label myself, I know what I like 🤷” (the artist is a pretty innocuous jonadio shipper). I am sure they dropped the term because of that negative association, because I’ve seriously not seen any sane person in the last years using the term pr*shipper in a not cringey way. I realized I was not the only one noticing this association when, recently, I saw a few posts from individuals involved in these niche discussions agreeing on how pr*shipper = p*do

I think there was a time were the label made sense: people used it as a way to say “is okay to ship whatever you like (as a way to not invalidate fans that liked crack ships or “toxic” ships like hero/villain, antagonists, etc; ships that were probably not popular or “wholesome”). Then the discourse started to include not only something as innocent as non-popular ships, but other topics like “problematic” kinks (I say “problematic” because although I understand why people are grossed out by the content I don’t share the opinion these are always inherently negative) like BDSM, nonc*n, dubc*n, inc*st, yiffy, age g*ps/age diff*rence, etc. People defending that were generally thinking about clear situations were the authors were keeping their work adequately tagged or works were the kinks were not depicted in scandalous or too disturbing ways or where people were using that as a resource to write or create certain material without condoning it in real life or people liking ships where these things happened or just people unapologetically liking these dynamics while being conscious they were fiction and not condoning the real things (example: someone shipping two characters that in the original source are siblings because they like their chemistry [like Luk*xLei, Els*nna], someone writing pretty bad yaoi where one character is abused and then falls in love with the abuser, people who liked ships of characters that in the source hate each other or have an abusive relationship, etc) Up to this point I think the label and people using it had a point regarding how absurd it was to police the preferences of others in fandom. It was a good response against the “*ntis” who were like Christian soccer moms trying to keep a Puritan way of consuming media and wrongly accusing people of being degenerates. It made sense to defend fiction as a way to indulge in certain fantasies or scenarios.

I think up to that point the label “pr*shipper” made sense. But then people started to use the label to basically say that “anything goes” and suddenly this became not a way to defend others in the fandom to be free of exploring fiction in ways that were not “pure” but as a way to identify people that use freedom of speech as an excuse to consume content that raises suspicions because of how explicit, detailed and gross it is.

Yeah, I don’t think that “fiction always affects reality”: people do not become killers after watching action or horror movies or playing videogames, someone does not become a serial r*pist after watching p*rn, someone doesn’t go and bangs their mom or siblings after reading incest fiction. However, one does not have to be a genius to realize that obsessions, attachments, previous mental affectations, etc can change the way in which this type of media affects an individual. I don’t mind, for example, someone that likes n*ncon or d*bcon although I don’t share the liking for it. However, if that person obsessively consumes it or creates it, if they talk about it all time, if they consume highly violent content of it, if they consume it out of adult spaces, if instead of recognizing why some people (have an understandable reason to) find it bothering and they are oblivious to it, if they get super defensive, if they confuse freedom of speech with consuming or creating content that is getting into disturbing territory (trying to act as martyrs) then I do think we are right on not wanting to associate with these individuals. I can’t blame people (*ntis and others) of not wanting to associate with them and wanting them out of their spaces. Saying “fiction always affects reality” is giving too much credit to certain works and their relevance in our world. But saying “fiction does not affects reality” is being stupid and not recognizing how fiction is a powerful tool to imagine and create other possibilities of existing.

Although *ntis are in no way better (they harass people who enjoy content in ways that are not equiparable to the individuals mentioned above and are all for censorship) I think we cannot blame them for taking that stance after we’ve seen the worst that pr*shipper people have offered. I think is pretty funny and sad that a label that started as a way to defend people’s right to enjoy fiction became a synonym of, precisely, the thing they didn’t want to associate with.

[hoenytae]

A Mistake (2)

If I could turn back time, I want to be the greatest man in the world.

Word Count: 3.2k Genre: Angst Pairing: Kim Seokjin x Reader

Description: Inspired by Jin’s Love Yourself Teaser Photo. I saw the teaser photo and decided to write the Part 2 of my fiction A Mistake. It was written from reader and Jin’s point of view. I hope you guys like it! :)

Few days had passed since that night where you disclosed your feelings towards Seokjin which ended up having your hidden relationship came to a halt. You had not heard anything from him ever since that night. That night where you let yourself unfold all the things you had kept hidden inside your heart. The same night where you let him tear your crippled heart like it was made of paper, you let him crush your pride to the lowest pit as he spoke the most disheartening truth you wished you would never have to hear from his mouth.

Yet ever since that night, there was no day gone by without you missing his presence. You knew you were a fool for missing his scent, but could not lie to yourself that you missed his warmth, you missed his random texts, you missed his affection, you missed the tingling feeling you always had whenever he had his arms around your waist, you missed his broad shoulders where you always laid your head on whenever he’s around.

You missed him.

You had spent your days laying in your bed for days, you did not even bother to fill your empty stomach, you ignored all the calls and texts you received from your office, you probably had lost your job but you could not care less. You were too broken to even get up from your bed to face the harsh reality. The cruel reality that turned you into a bad villain, the cruel reality that turned you into some sort of malicious lady that finally had her life crashed the bottom rock. As if you were the hated antagonist character in a movie, not because you did something repulsive, but because you were for falling for someone else’s love and that was your biggest crime.

The biggest mistake you could possibly make was for being in love with someone who was clearly taken. Another mistake you did was letting yourself in for things without weighing up what is actually involved in it.

On the first time, you saw him glancing at your direction, there was a slight satisfaction running through your veins as you caught the attention of the most attractive man in the room. The first time you caught him staring at you up and down, you knew you made the right decision for spending a little bit more effort on dressing up for the night as you flaunted the curve of your body in your best dress. When he swiftly untangled himself from the conversation he was having and made his way towards you, you knew he was interested in you. When he finally sat down next to you at the bar and started a conversation with you, you knew it was not just his appearance that’s attractive but his personality too. And the moment you let yourself enjoying the atmosphere he created, you stopped thinking about the possibility of him coming to you just for his own pleasure.

You mistakenly thought his sweet actions towards you were sincere, you thought it was his way to express that he also wanted you the way you wanted him. You thought he kept a spare spot for you inside his heart for every time he knocked on your door in the middle of the night, every time he held you close, every time he brushed his lips against yours, every time he left his traces on your skin, and every time he spent the whole night at your place and not in his fiancée's glorious pent house.

It was all your mistake, it was because of you. You could not blame anyone because you were the one who let yourself fall into his trap. You fell for his actions, you fell for his charms, you fell for the little attention he was giving you. You thought he genuinely cared for you and that was enough for you to allow him dragging you into his world.

You felt pathetic, you even let yourself confused by thinking Seokjin had given you the green light for coming into his life and being his solid lover, meanwhile the whole time Seokjin obviously did not love you back.

You were the one at fault.

Why did you let your hope high? Why were you so naïve? Why did you let him break down your wall?

Without you noticing, tears had started building on the corners of your eyes. You closed your eyes to prevent more tears staining your cheeks. You were tired of crying, your eyes were still swollen from the excessive amount of crying you have had for the past few days.

Days were passing by and it was strangely long to Seokjin. Every day, every hour, every minute, every second felt like years to him. It felt so difficult for him to face each day knowing that he would not be able to lay down by your side anymore and yes it’s hurting him.

All the memories passed through his mind like it just happened a second ago. Every moment was vividly flashing in his memory, the moment he saw your lips quivering as you told him your true feelings with the sorrowful gaze that was blazing through your dark orbs, it seemed like he could capture how broken you were that night from every angle.

Little did you know, you were not the only one who was suffering from the separation.

Kim Seokjin should be considered as the luckiest man alive. He was born from a wealthy family, his father was known as one of the powerful men in the country and aside from his wealth his charming appearance seemed like striking it rich for him too, there was not only one or two random passerby who stopped in their tracks just to admire his good looks, as they saw him walking on the street. His amazing body proportion also made him stand out wherever he goes. Being rich and handsome were not his only charms, he was also given with an intellectual brain and glorious talents, his curiosity in music made him able to play various instruments. Seokjin also graduated and earned his title with flying scores and after few months of his graduation day he was engaged to a beautiful heiress. She was the daughter of his father’s old friend.

Seokjin was always thoughtful and selfless, he never wanted to disappoint anyone in his life, particularly his father. Thence, he agreed to the engagement that was essentially arranged by his father. He had never fallen in love in his life, he did not know what it was to be like to fall in love. The moment his eyes met with the girl that was supposed to be his fiancée, he did think she was attractive. Her beauty radiated from her slender body that was wrapped elegantly in her expensive dress. By the time she opened her mouth, he knew any guy in the world would definitely fall under her spell in no time because the way she talks gleamed her loving personality and it also gave off her intelligence which did not fail to amaze the other people in the room.

The numerous time he had spent with his fiancée brought a little happiness to him. Seokjin enjoyed the time they spent together although both of them were busy with their businesses they would always try to find a spare time to just go on dates like normal couples do. He was happy and he believed the feelings were mutual. Even people on the street would always sneak a skeptical glance towards them as if they just witnessed something out of the ordinary and God just did something immoral because they just eye witnessed two beautiful humans walked together hand in hand.

But even so, Seokjin could not lie to himself. Other people who had not walked in his shoes might think he was living a great life and his life was completely perfect, in such a way that he had the kind of life which every man on the planet would die for. Yet in contrast, he felt empty, he felt like there was something missing. He could not comprehend what it was, he tried to bury down the feelings several times only to have it reaching back into the surface. He was thankful for everything he had, but it felt like some part of him was missing, he did not feel complete.

Things had been rough for him at work. He had to face a lot of difficulty in order to save his failing company. His father built the family company from zero, struggling with the uphill battle until it became one of the most powerful companies in the country.

One year ago when his father turned 60 he decided to retire from his chair and he gave Seokjin the honor to replace his position. His father always believed in his ability, he determined that Seokjin was the one. He knew as a successor, Seokjin would be able to spread their company’s wings even wider. Seokjin was delighted to be chosen for the position, although it meant he had to give up on his dream for music. He was okay with it, he completely had nothing against it. Ever since he was a kid he was always foolishly abandoned his own happiness because he simply did not want to let his father down. He loved his father just as much as his father did love him. Therefore he followed and listened to his father all the time. His life choice almost seemed like it was designed by his father for him.

Seokjin was smart and quick witted, however handling a huge company at such a young age was a great challenge for him. It was not easy. Especially with the pressure that he gained from all the workers in the company which brought so much tension to his nerves and not to mention his father’s colleagues who expected a very high expectation from him. They were all having the same mindset, thinking that Seokjin must have inherited his father’s amazing leadership skill, and with the perk of being young, they all predicted Seokjin would be able to work better than his father.

On the other hand, the current condition of the company was not in his favor. Most of his co-workers were starting to talk behind his back as they started to doubt his competence. Ever since he was chosen to be the CEO of the company, the path had been rough. The position was very promising, that’s true, but also very stressful. It was not easy to manage a company with more than ten thousand workers. Every day was like bloodshed for Seokjin.

Seokjin was very reserved, especially when it came to his personal matter. He was the type of person who always spread positivity but not sharing his burden with others, he liked to keep everything to himself. Not even to his fiancée, he had never once talked about his life or his thoughts to her, whenever he met her, both of them only talked about the casual conversation of the present. And it seemed like the two of them avoided to go deeper into the conversation and to learn more about each other. Seokjin thought, making the other person smile and happy the whole time they’re together was enough to be called love. Whenever he was feeling down, he made a call to his fiancée, asking her if he could meet her, most of the time she would reject him reasoning that she was busy with works and the other time when she said she was available to meet, he just couldn’t be able to bring out the topics to her, he could not seek a comfort from her. It just did not feel right to him.

Seokjin was not a man who liked to come to any company’s party. He disliked the atmosphere and he disliked it even worse because he always had to put on a fake smile on his face and be ready to get dragged into a formality conversation whenever his father’s colleagues came to greet him. However, that day was exceptional, his company was the host of the party and he was obligated to come and gave his speech as the CEO.

On that night he had asked his prospective spouse to attend the party with him but much to his disappointment she refused. The attendees of the party at that night were more than his expectation and it was just adding more reason to why he better left the party as soon as he finished his speech. Yet, he changed his mind the moment he saw you standing there at the corner of the room, dressed in your red dress, showing your body shape just right to enhanced your curves, your hair was tied up flashing the alluring neck line that weirdly looked very sexy in his eyes. Seokjin could not stop darting his eyes onto your direction the moment his gaze locked with you. His first instinct was to come you and know your name. Without him knowing, he was already making his way to you. He never thought a word of asking for your phone number would slip out of his mouth. The exquisite look in your eyes somehow made him feel he was absorbed into your world and the enticing sound of your voice brought the excitement that chimes through his spine. Throughout the whole night, he wanted to be just next to you and unfortunately, that was not just the only time he wanted to be with you.

Seokjin called you the next two days after your first encountered. Putting a he got an interesting job offer for you as a reason instead of saying the real reason for wanting to hear your voice. Ever since that night he talked to you, he could not be able to get you out of his head. He was pleased when you gladly agreed to meet him again.

The second meeting with him was far from awkward. He never thought he would feel very comfortable talking to you, someone he just met couple days ago. Seokjin could freely laugh and joked around with you, he was impressed on how you could make him enjoy every second he spent with you.

Things escalated pretty quickly for him and you. To a point where Seokjin dared himself to ask you to be his friends with benefits. He wanted more than just be your friend and he could see it in your eyes that you were also feeling the same thing. No string attached. He could not fall in love with you, that was the rule that he had set. He drew the line for himself.

As time flew by, he realized that you made him experience a significant feeling he never felt before, not even with his fiancée. He knew you were just different and he felt completed whenever he was together with you. He felt happy, relaxed and he felt like the whole bunch of weight that was weighing him down disappeared. With you, he could easily speak up about his mind and he could easily express his feelings.

The only one place that came to his mind whenever he feels down or he needs to seek a comfort was you. When he was having a hard time because of his work, you were the first person he went to, you were the one who consoled him and reassured him that everything was going to be okay. He trusted you, he let you soothe him into sleep, he let you hold him until morning came and he was glad he made the right decision for coming to your place.

All those nights he spent with you were always able to ease his worries away. Being with you constantly helped him to feel loved, with you there was no more stressful night because having you in his arms was enough to make him feel content. It was whimsical and against the rule that he set to himself, this was a no string attached relationship. He could not develop any feeling towards you. Yet it seemed like he was slowly breaking his own rule.

The circumstances that Seokjin let himself banded in was starting to suffocate him. Deep down in his heart, he knew the person he wanted to be with was not his current fiancée, but it was you. But unfortunately, he let the person who completed him go as he chased for the fabricated bliss that was made by another person he did not want to let down.

However, being a coward he was, he could not bring himself to admit it to himself. He was not happy. He was feeling empty. He hurt the person he loved the most and as a result, he hurt himself even worse. He kept denying his feelings for you.

He denied the truth and cultivated the lie.

He lied to you. He lied to his father. He lied to his fiancée. And he lied to himself.

His legs felt as if they were growing heavier with every single step taken. The walk in your apartment corridor seemingly long, the memories of him telling you he would never come back to your place once again arose on the back of his head. He shook his head, brushing off the awful remembrance from his mind.

He stopped his step in front of your door, lifting up his fist to knock on your door. He waited for a response and when he got nothing, he repeated the same action again.

He knocked several times on your door until it was finally flung open. He felt a pang on his chest when he saw your presence in front of his eyes. He could see your eyes were bloodshot red and puffy, you must have been crying a lot, he thought to himself. He could see you must have gotten as much sleep as he did for the past few days, you looked like you had lost few kilos. He could not help but to cease his forehead in concern when he saw your state.

He wasted no time in pulling your body into his arms, engulfing you fully in his wrap. He missed you, so much. And he felt sorry for what he had caused you, he just could not forgive himself for making you like this. He hated himself for what he had done to you. You did not hug him back, you did not say a word, you did not make any sound or movement yet he was glad. He was glad because you did not push him away, it was enough for him as long as you did not refuse his embrace.

As if he had lost his tracks, as if he had lost himself, he once again showed you the most vulnerable side of him as he buried his head in the crook of your neck and let his own tears leaving his eyes.

The sincere apology was yet to be spoken but his actions ultimately spoke louder than every word could ever ring in your ears.

“I’m sorry.” He tightened his arms around your body.

If I could turn back time, I want to be the greatest man in the world.

[treasure-mimic]

Meta Used As Tension In Games

So, uh,

Discord is giving me free games now, since I’m paying a completely reasonable price to use my gigantic collection of emojis in any server I want. And the first game that caught my eye enough for me to play it is a game called Kathy Rain.

Spoilers incoming by the way.

Kathy Rain is, uh, I’d say it’s pretty average throughout though it definitely feels like maybe the creator ran out of time or money because the ending kind of, comes out of nowhere. Like on a purely technical level it is a good game but it’s a hard game to recommend to people because it’s a mystery game, where the mystery isn’t really solved.

There’s one moment though that really stuck out to me, and I think it’s going to stick with me for a while.

Kathy Rain is part crime mystery visual novel part old school point and click adventure game. Like a cross between Hotel Dusk and King’s Quest. Throughout the game Kathy keeps a running tally of all the unanswered questions she has in her notebook and this mechanic drives the game’s pretty basic dialogue option system between inventory-based puzzles, just here instead of the conversation with each character having its own context-specific questions, you can ask any character any question from a global list.

With, ya know, a couple of generic responses if you ask somebody something that they wouldn’t by any right know.

As the game goes along it transitions slowly from a grounded, personal mystery story to more of an occult thriller. It never fully commits to whether or not the supernatural elements are genuine mysticism or smoke and mirrors influenced by a hallucinogenic plant. Like I said, a mystery where the mystery is never solved. But at the start of things, you definitely get the feeling of this being some kind of Scooby Doo mystery, albeit a very heavy one, you know, a seemingly supernatural occurrence that actually has a somewhat reasonable explanation, or at least a plausible one.

There is, however, a definite turning point where the game settles into its ambiguity and rides it out for the rest of the story.

Around halfway through the game, maybe leaning more towards the 2/3 mark, Kathy meets with a person who had been previously impacted by the supernatural element and has now been institutionalized into a mental hospital. When you first arrive he claims that he’s had this conversation with her, or some vision of her from the future, many times before.

He then goes on to lead you through your dialogue options.

As with most of the game, it’s not concrete. There’s nothing in there that he reasonably shouldn’t know about, outside of seeming to recognize Kathy herself but mistaking the identity of others isn’t an uncommon symptom of senility, at least in popular media, but it is rather direct isn’t it? It feels as if he isn’t talking to Kathy he’s talking to you. He knows your methods and is calling them out.

But he doesn’t. Or at least, that’s the closest he comes to acknowledging it. There’s no moment of peeling back the curtain, of throwing away the cursor or digging through your menus, by all accounts your method might also be Kathy’s method and it’s eerie that he seems to know this.

The point I’m getting at I guess is that it’s subtle enough to not break immersion, but it’s pointed enough to put me on edge. It’s a very small thing that never really comes up again, but it is at this point that the idea of an actual supernatural occurrence becomes a possibility, and like I said, it’s the single moment of the game that struck me the most.

I say a lot among friends that I hate meta in stories. This isn’t entirely true, I hate meta used as a serious plot. As a joke it’s fine of course, when used for comedy it allows a character to become relatable on the most immediate level possible, they have the same thoughts about fiction and media as you are having right now, it’s great. But the drawback of meta comedy is that it, on some level, robs the viewer of immersion, it’s built on the idea that what you’re watching is not actually happening but a story orchestrated by a writer for the sake of entertainment. I know people who disagree so to avoid generalizing too much, I have trouble maintaining a feeling of tension when the fact of the situation’s fiction is made apparent. When the conflict is based around the fact that these characters don’t exist, I don’t feel for them as characters.

It’s always my kneejerk reaction to dismiss meta plotlines as lazy. They’re the purest form of writing what you know. You know writing fictional situations, so write about how the situation is fictional. But honestly, I don’t think that’s true, I think that people do put genuine thought and effort and passion into creating these stories, and audiences respond very strongly towards them. Meta narratives are especially popular in video games, which makes sense. In the medium where the person experiencing the work can directly affect the work itself, it makes sense that creators would want to toy with that thin line separating the player and the world, to great affect apparently, simply by looking at the reception to games like The Stanley Parable, Undertale, and Doki Doki Literature Club.

And I got to be honest, I kind of hate their approach.

I think I’ve made it pretty clear that I have a lot of problems with Undertale, but I think my problems start with how blatantly it exists as a video game that’s about being a video game. It’s blatant to the point that at the points of the most crucial plot important pieces of backstory, I’m completely disconnected from the work as a piece of fiction. I have trouble engaging with these characters and this world when it goes out of it’s way to remind me that it does not actually matter.

I think the moment in Kathy Rain is way more impactful because the characters come right up to the fourth wall instead of charging right through it. Because the illusion of the situation’s reality hasn’t been shattered but a force that knows more than it should has still been introduced. And I’m not saying that Kathy Rain is, in any way really, better than Undertale, Undertale has way more and way better emotional character-driven moments and definitely has more closure with its ending, this is just a comparison of some similar elements.

There’s another game, 9 Hours 9 Persons 9 Doors, which is absolutely fantastic, an amazing, genuinely thought provoking game that messes with ideas of gameplay only elements existing within the narrative of the game and I wouldn’t dream of spoiling any of it here, just saying that much is probably saying too much please play it, I would actually say that it’s a better game than Undertale. 

BUT, it and Kathy Rain both hit on similar notions of how meta elements can be incorporated into a narrative without breaking its immersion. Namely: that the player’s mentality are more important than their existence. Characters in Undertale ponder the existence of a being that replays its situations over and over, trapping them in a seemingly infinite loop of resets, and asks why a being would ever do such a thing? How could you bring to existence a series of events wherein you kill all the inhabitants of the underground? What kind of cruel, uncaring person would do such a thing?

Well, we know why. Nobody is playing a merciless playthrough of Undertale because they hate the characters and genuinely want to kill all of them. It’s not  a mystery, it’s a guilt trip, and it’s exacerbated by the game’s assertion that, yes, these characters are in fact just spritesheets and lines of code. Kathy Rain doesn’t acknowledge the player’s existence directly, but it does take notice of their habits. It understands its own design well enough to know how people are going to approach dialogue options. The man is speaking to Kathy when he tells her about how she’s not going to just run down her list of questions, but it was the player’s decision to approach the game in this way through Kathy. Instead of picking at a decision that the player was invited to make by the game, it picks at a decision the player probably didn’t think of at all, because why would it matter? And when the game decides it matters, when the game is able to out think the player, it makes the player question the reality of the game, as opposed to dismissing the game’s reality outright.

I guess the point I’m inevitably drawing at here is, uh,

Psycho Mantis got this on lock?

[elizas-writing]

TV Reviews: Thirteen Reasons Why

This... was a tough one to get through.

I read the book by Jay Asher when I was 15 and fell in love, so when I heard there was going to be a Netflix series, I was all aboard and excited. But that quickly switched to concern as the criticisms came out almost immediately. I was still willing to give the benefit of the doubt and maybe some good would come out and... well, let’s start with the story.

Heads up that there may be some slight spoilers, but just in regards to discussing the graphic content of the later episodes. I’ll keep it as vague as I can, but it’s something that still needs to be talked about. If you’re still concerned about content and if it’ll trigger you, I hope this is extensive enough. And I will make a separate post for major spoilers

A small town is shaken after the sudden suicide of a teenager named Hannah Baker. With a lawsuit building up against the high school, there are more questions than answers to why Hannah did what she did. That is until one of her former classmates, Clay Jensen, receives a package of cassette tapes, starts playing one, and hears Hannah’s voice, saying if someone is listening, then they are one of the reasons why she was pushed to suicide. And the series revolves around Clay trying to figure out Hannah and find out the truth from those who hurt her.

From the get-go, anyone can tell this series was a massive expansion of the book. While the book was entirely in Clay’s perspective and he finishes all the tapes in one night, in the series, he actually interacts with the people who listened to the tapes before him, trying to uncover the truth. Each tape gets an hour long episode for Clay to slowly digest everything Hannah says, especially with anticipation building up to his own tape and how difficult it is to listen to the crap she endured. You also see multiple perspectives, including the others on the tapes, and how they were affected. Of course, there’s also the Bakers filing the lawsuit and trying to figure out their daughter, and Clay and Hannah’s relationship is also expanded. These changes are welcome and necessary if all these stories are to be told in their entirety, so I appreciate the producers knew not to cut corners, especially with the subject matter.

I liked the differences between scenes set in the past and those in the present with the former in warm tones and the latter in cool tones (and also Clay having a scar through the series). It’s obvious yet clever signs to tell when the story is being told out of order; I just like little details like that. It was also fun to watch scenes play out like a typical YA drama (indie music and all), but they don’t overstay their welcome and draw you back into the gritty reality of it all. The show doesn’t shy away to bring up subjects like slut-shaming, rape cultures and the double standards of high school girls and boys. And Tony grew on me to become one of my favorite characters of the whole show from his demeanor to his design; he’s just fascinating to see how he’s involved in all of this without actually being on any of the tapes.

Out of the many criticisms, people say Hannah committed suicide for a sick revenge fantasy rather than actual depression. Even though I don’t interpret it as such, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t see where people were coming from, especially since the show plays up Hannah to likely be an unreliable narrator. But even though a ton of people listened to the tapes before Clay and were told upfront how and why they hurt Hannah, they’re still hypocritical assholes and remain in total denial of any wrongdoing even at the last episode. It reminded me a bit of Heathers and how everyone reacted to Heather Chandler’s supposed suicide right down to the memorials and going on and on about how sad and tragic she really was when in reality, everyone hated her. There’s almost a dark comedic aspect (not to the same level as Heathers) where everyone suddenly cares about the signs of suicide, blissfully ignorant that they were witnesses and enablers of Hannah’s bullying, particularly Courtney-- who I swear reminded me way too much of nearly every high school girl I knew in ASB with their high and mightiness. They were just fake. It’s still problematic as hell, but I think it’s an interpretation that needs to be taken with a grain of salt when you break down the facades these people are putting up to avoid accountability. Some definitely start reevaluating their behavior and what is and isn’t the truth with some powerfully emotional scenes, even calling each other out for their bullshit, but those still in denial are important to note as well for the true nature of people even in the face of tragedy.

Besides, it’s not really a problem with how Hannah chose to distribute her suicide note; she’s just sadly not that well written, at least compared to the rest of the cast. Everyone else has pretty clear cut signs of depression and other mental health problems, but you don’t really see that with Hannah until the last couple episodes or so. There are definitely mentions of loneliness and lack of prospects for a future, but compared to everyone else, it’s almost glanced over, which sucks because, well, she’s supposed to be one of the main focuses of the story. Some of the reasons she listed aren’t even that well explained as to how she was affected, so it leads to a number of viewers interpreting her as selfish and manipulative when we know that wasn’t supposed to happen. And yeah, I understand depression varies person to person and teenagers don’t always know how to communicate their problems and trivial things to adults can be big deals for teens-- I was a teenager once upon a time too--, but Hannah just needed way more focus rather than trying to make characters like Justin sympathetic even when they honestly don’t deserve it. There’s also a lot of inconsistencies from the characters’ actions to the messages that just muddle everything up, but I’ll save that for spoilers.

But the big talk of this show? The graphic and triggering content as you can see below (shout out to @bezukhova for making this chart, and I tried seeing about pin pointing other time slots to skip, but it’s edited with so many jump cuts, it’s near impossible).

Yes, it’s about as unnecessary as you would think and only serves for shock value. I give Netflix credit that they had the automatic warnings when they did, and I think it’s a start for an easier time for their customers to stream movies and TV shows comfortably. But... why?? Was there a reason to push it this far and even go out of their way to change Hannah’s suicide method from the book?

And yes, I did watch the Beyond the Reasons special to understand why they did what they did. They dragged on quite a bit about being “real and authentic” and “want[ing] it to be painful to watch.” For starters, if you can’t figure out that suicide and rape are horrible things in the great year of our lord 20 fucking 17, I don’t know what the hell is the matter with you; you don’t need a TV show to spoon-feed it to you. Not to mention, they’re still losing a potential audience of people who might be looking for such a fictional narrative for some form of help in their trauma and having them sit through the same things they already endured is a horrible way to go about that. I know people who flat out refuse to watch stuff like Game of Thrones because of the rape content; it doesn’t matter if the rest of the show is good. These survivors know what will likely set off an anxiety attack, and that is not a game they’re willing to play, period. It’s honestly kinda insensitive that they didn’t take that into consideration when making those scenes which sucks because it does include some interesting talks about rape culture (to an extent anyway, but again, spoilers).

There are ways to portray this content and be subtle. Compare some of this content with how it was handled in Perks of Being a Wallflower (definite spoilers if you haven’t seen the movie or read the book, but this is important to compare).

Towards the end of the story, Charlie starts having an anxiety attack when he tries to have sex with Sam. This sets off a ton of flashbacks of repressed memories of his aunt sexually abusing him shortly before dying in a car accident. And his mental state deteriorates to the point where he contemplates suicide. All you see is his aunt touching his leg and saying “don’t wake your sister.” All you see is the camera pan towards a knife on the kitchen counter (you don’t even see him pick it up) before the police break in and Charlie wakes up in a mental hospital. That’s all you need to figure out why Charlie is breaking down. No over-the-top graphic content, just subtlety because damn it, your audience is capable of critical thinking. This is how you do it without making your show a giant trigger.

And to top it all off, Thirteen Reasons Why fails to deliver clear-cut solutions to the problems presented. It’s just misery on top of misery for everyone, and if you’re trying to go for a “it gets better” message, it doesn’t work. I know the ending is super ambiguous and there’s potential for a second season, but how long can some of your audience afford to wait when all you have to offer is one link to a website? The only worthwhile stuff they talk about is about rape culture and dispelling myths and a quick guide to consent. But if teenagers have a hard time verbalizing their problems, what can they do to fix that? How can we identify signs of depression and suicide way earlier on? How can we better listen to victims and not shame them? What are the best mental health centers and hotlines to reach out to? How does someone going through similar trauma as Hannah cope in a healthy way? A lot of the solutions the producers discuss are so vague and offer little to nothing for the audience, especially those who might be seeking help.

I’m sure this review might seem all over the place, but that’s pretty much my thoughts on the show. The scenes that are done well are worthwhile like Jessica in the later episodes or whenever someone calls someone out on their bullshit. And the whole cast does well with what they’re given to deliver such raw emotional pain and conflict. And I know the crew was had good intentions to make a statement about dozens of issues for teenagers and knew to take its audience seriously. But on the whole, it’s pretty clunky at times. I think it’s one of those shows where you have to watch yourself to make your own opinion, but this is not the go-to resource if you’re looking for help, especially if the graphic content can make you feel worse. I’m sure others will find more good in it than bad, and I don’t totally regret checking it out, but from what I was expecting, it was kinda a disappointment aside from some select scenes and performances.

[chvvva]

With each passing day, I become more and more aware of fandom dynamics and of what belonging to an organized subculture means. It’s no secret that fandom is a pretty old thing, but, and here’s the point of this introduction, though social network may have quickened and facilitated the process of people with the same interests from all over the world amazingly coming together, it also consistently fueled a fascinating phenomenon. Yes, I’m talking about those little mean anons and those walls of repetitive ass complaints preventing you from seeing content in the tags. In short, “hate”. Which represents the anti-movement and, it’s safe to safe to say at this point, a sub-subculture in and of itself. A few inputs before the actual rant:

From a neutral perspective, the Internet basically works like this: Immediate access to/diffusion of informations = Viral and limitless circulation.

And that’s great and positive,

but if your parents told you not to believe everything you read on the web to be true, now it’s time to remember that advice.

Because when free info distribution and limitless circulation make sweet love, it leads to increasing misinformation.

You’re misinformed when: you read someone else’s opinion and are firmly convinced that it is true without resources and/or factual proofs and qualified people confirming it.

Rings a few bells?

But fine, let’s say that those who condemn social issues, those who advocate, who do their best to promote healthy and open mindsets, those who want some kind of progress, aren’t spending 90% of the time they could be dedicating to those important causes… on the Internet > The place where sometimes - sometimes, but it happens - questionably subversive arguments are worded better than motivational speeches. This can be proven by looking at any post containing words like; “fetishization”; everything ending with “-phobia”; “harmful”; no, I’m not making these up, they’re the literal parody of terms with a heavy emotional impact. It doesn’t matter if they lack meaning. They can affect people on different degrees, but rest assured that the chance of someone not reacting to them [on a subconscious level] is pretty slim. All in all, these words serve their purpose very well. Now let’s put misinformation aside, let’s put data indigestion aside, as well as fragile contestations, lack of investigation, and idealistic visions of societies where we all think the same way.

So, fast forward.

I want to talk about fandoms. Who am I kidding, this was originally 100% about the Killing Stalking fandom. Except between discussing dark content in media, and fandom culture, and looking up precedents, such as Strikethrough (when I say antis remind me of radical religious groups I’m not shitting you but I wish I was), the point became wider. And clearer.

Everything you’ll read from this point on boils down to: Art is bad. Art exists to be bad.

I won’t claim these are my words, people - far more intelligent than me - have been having the same intuition since ancient times.

Homer’s Iliad is about war, mourning and death. It glorifies them on cosmic levels. I have read the Iliad two times. Wow, I guess I think dying is fun.

Euripides’ most famous play, Medea, is about a mother murdering her sons, then escaping. She’s the heroine of the play. In ancient Greece, plays were performed during festivals in public theatres. And I’ll tell you more: citizens who couldn’t afford the ticket participated anyway, because the government paid it for them. That’s because everyone, and I mean literally everyone, was encouraged to witness “wrong, controversial, absolutely vile” things as long as they happened on the stage.

On a lighter note, it’s possible for art to be simply amoral, since it’s how it’s always been, and always will be, as long as we’ll be entitled to free speech. Authors make choices. Either they put their beliefs and opinions into their work or they don’t.

Literature swims in the murkier waters of the human condition.

I’m going to go a little bit into this. When we talk about the horror genre, we should consider its origins. I’m sure you’re familiar with the piece of literature that lied the foundations of this genre, or at least with its renowned title. “Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus” was published in London on New Year’s Day, 1818, and “there was no author named on the title page, and readers and reviewers, almost to a person, assumed the book had been written by a man. They were mistaken.” (New York Times) We modern readers and reviewers, however, know that the Gothic novel that has enjoyed the most enduring popular success was written by a woman. And she was not the first one. Richard Davenport-Hines takes us back to the 18th century, years before Frankenstein was even a draft: “A significant amount of horror fiction of this era was written by women and marketed at a female audience, a typical scenario being a resourceful female protagonist menaced in a gloomy castle.” (Gothic: 1500 Years of Excess, Horror, Evil and Ruin. 1998.) Knowing that women have given a remarkable imprint to the horror genre made me think quite a lot. Is it possible to assume that gothic/horror/psychological are, in fact, some of the few narratives women had (and continue to have) such a deep impact on? And why is that? Answering these questions would be as difficult as determining the brain mechanism that leads us to actively seek the thrill of a good horror movie. And if you claim that a the horror genre is good only when it explicitly condemns bad and vile things, you need to read more books. If you haven’t even thumbed through Frankenstein, you’re probably unaware of its controversiality. I must admit, much as death is depicted with violent and terrifying tones, it’s nothing compared to other works of fiction I’ve met. But what really sticks to you after an afternoon spent between those pages, is human cruelty, as well as the utterly disarming human inclination to error. It sticks to you because it is real. When you pass judgement against fiction for influencing reality, I think it’s a far fetched, if not plainly wrong assumption, because that is not the nature of this relationship, which is simple. Fiction draws elements from the real world. Just what is necessary. Conversely, reality isn’t bended by fiction; and Darwin knew there was no way of Shelley’s tale happening just as well as she did. The extreme and profound emotions her book explores, however, belong to a human’s inner dimension. As debatable as they may be, or precisely because they are debatable, they belong to the pages of a book.

I find kind of hilarious how only a century later a horror story, written by a woman, ends up in young people’s hands and it is immediately considered inexcusable and “nasty” because of “amoral content.”

If you followed me until now, it won’t be hard to understand the next point. Pleasure can be amoral. Either people put their beliefs and opinions into what they love or they don’t. Often, these factors play a big part on what catches our attention; but that’s not mandatory, as I certainly don’t think murdering your son is a nice family activity. Medea is still one of my favorite plays. In school, no one told me this would make me a “murder apologist”.

Whenever it became progressive and almost natural to overlap an author’s, or even a reader’s conscience to a character’s, for whatever reason, I’m sure art will never be really free from this prejudice. My guess is that people simply aren’t able to separate the concept of something real from the concept of a parallel reality [fiction] in which ethical and physical laws aren’t applied in the same way. (And some people might feel so out of place and insecure about their own morals that as soon as moral integrity is questioned for its inflexible nature, the world crumbles down.)

There’s someone out there who will read this and be condescending (I get a tiny bit pretentious, especially since my safe zone is involved) but I don’t really care as long as there’s polite debate.

The article that encouraged me to write down my opinion, while being a superficial source, is an interesting one:

“Literature swims in the murkier waters of the human condition. Conflict and matters of life and death, of freedom and oppression—it is the business of books to explore these themes, and the business of teenagers, too.

New brain mapping research suggests that adolescence is a time when teens are capable of engaging deeply with material, on both an intellectual level as well as an emotional one. Some research suggests that during adolescence, the parts of the brain that processes emotion are even more online with teens than with adults, (something that will come as absolutely no surprise to any parent of a teenager). So, developmentally, teens are hungry for more provocative grist while emotionally they’re thirsty for the catharsis these books offer. Of course teens are drawn to darker, meatier fare.” (Gayle Forman, novelist - interviewed by Time)

What I’m saying is that art is vile. But the real world is also vile. Where’s the catch? Which part of this comes as a surprise?

Here goes the true shocking reveal, though: discouraging the creation of bad art isn’t a way to make reality significantly less bad. Let me put this more straightforwardly.

Censorship means taking away one of the most important human rights, while me writing a story in which a character thinks abuse isn’t a bad thing doesn’t violate any.

At this point, someone could argue that surely I’m not being sensible to abuse survivors, but the reason why I get away with it and Unfriendly Anon doesn’t is that I don’t do anything to directly and purposefully affect another person. So I’m good. Hate to break it down to you, but I’m not in charge of every single person on this site any more than you’re in charge of me and of my feelings. Or of minors and their feelings. Or of survivors and their feelings.

I’ve probably left something out, but hopefully the main points came across clearly. It’s fine if you don’t agree with them. Maybe make sure to understand what you’re talking about before you do broadcast your thoughts.

[mirthful-sonnet]

Could you please tell me about Margaret Beaufort, what was she really like in real life? I only know about her from The White Queen and The White Princess and i know that Phillipa Gregory books are not known for their historical accuracy. She always seemed like an interesting figure in history but she is awful in those books.

Hello there anon! Margaret Beaufort is a fascinating figure and the representation by Phillipa Gregory bears very little resemblance to who she actually was, or at least, it fails to single out the little details that made her such a formidable woman. I did not read The Red Queen (glimpsed it), only the Kingmaker’s Daughter and The White Princess and in this latter book her portrayal was just terrible. Gregory tends to play on scandals, rumors and negative propaganda to boost her fiction, (Cecily Neville having an affair with an archer, Elizabeth Woodville being a witch, Elizabeth of York having an affair with her uncle, Anne Boleyn sleeping with her brother etc. etc.). The subjects for this are always women since they are the focus of Gregory’s fiction, and Margaret Beaufort doesn’t come off easy. Seriously she was quite terrifying.

The Cousin Wars series follows the line of the later negative propaganda against Margaret Beaufort (Francis Bacon comes to mind) by putting her as a fanatical and overly scheming woman whose motive is nothing but power. The root of these claims are true to a degree, Margaret was deeply devoted to her Catholic faith but then again this wasn’t anything out of the ordinary for the time and it definitely didn’t go to the extent Gregory presents in the books where she even receives “visions” and believes herself to be some kind of advocate for God. Margaret, as many others did especially during this time, found solace in her faith from an early age and I believe that with Margaret it was one of the few comforts she had. As for the ambition side, once again, I’m not going to claim Margaret was helpless or that she had no ambitions of her own, but then again the way Gregory presents it is in a way that derives from antagonism and no motivation other than that of her own self-gain and self- preservation, when I think her main driving force was her son Henry.

As you may know Margaret Beaufort was first married when she was just a baby and then again when she was a young girl, which was customary back then but her second husband (her senior by some years) decided to consummate the marriage earlier than expected, something that has been debated and agreed to an extent that it was basically rape, even if this was something that Margaret most likely saw as her duty. She quickly got pregnant, her husband died, and she finally gave birth to Henry when she was 13 years old and it was such an agonizing experience for her that both she and her son almost died at one point and her body was left incapable of bearing any more children. I have no idea how this part is portrayed in The Red Queen, I’ve seen comments however that the scene of the birth is rather upsetting which bears truth to what actually happened, just imagine yourself in her shoes? Her youth is something that is completely obliterated from TWQ show at least, because instead of a child she is portrayed by a mature woman bordering on her 30’s so her initial struggle is brushed over with Margaret briefly confronting her mother about it.

Margaret’s new state as a widow at just thirteen made her circumstances difficult and as was the custom she had to give up her son Henry to the guardianship of his uncle Jasper, whom Gregory portrays as some love interest to Margaret but there’s no evidence to suggest that. It’s evident that such a separation must have been expected but painful for Margaret as a new mother. It is also said that around this period she clung to her faith as never before and she referred to Henry as her only consolation in life.

From this point onward her life found itself on a roller coaster of changes and moves to survive by marrying into York to secure her position and that of her son (whose lands were stripped away) until the turn that happened in 1471 where Jasper and young Henry fled into exile and the separation from her son was imminent and they would not see each other for another 14 years. Her third husband Henry Stafford also died during this time throwing Margaret into an uncertain point again and these new set of circumstances consisted on securing herself a position where she could gain Edward IV’s trust and ensure her son’s return. The opportunity for Henry’s return to England arose at one point on the intervention of his mother but Henry escaped his escort by pretending to be sick, probably believing that Edward had other intentions with him for which I can’t speak because even if I think Henry’s flimsy claim to the throne was laughable and not a catalyst for any attempted murder I don’t live inside Edward’s or anyone’s head. But it’s not off to assume that this result of her efforts to bring her son back must have been quite upsetting for Margaret.

Gregory puts Margaret Beaufort as the culprit behind the prince’s deaths, which I personally don’t agree with for several reasons even if I wouldn’t discount her as a suspect if somebody presented a good argument which I’ve seen on some cases, but on this case what I see most of the time is the usual sexist patron of always blaming a woman for another’s doing or my personal favorite, “she had all the motives to kill them, not Richard!”. I love Margaret Beaufort and also Richard III but I don’t discount them as suspects simply because I like them, it’s just dishonest and puts them as something close to fictional characters instead of real people. The only thing that bothers me is what I mentioned before, most of the time instead of seeing arguments all I see is people making bizarre comments about her and saying how her sole and only reason in life since the very beginning was to take the crown (I even saw a comment saying how God told her that her son would get the crown, a fun cause to play ‘Spot the Gregory reader!” when scrolling through comments), and this is exactly what’s shown on Gregory’s portrayal of Margaret. Gregory only presents this as yet another device among many others to demonize her and nothing else.

In The White Princess she’s the mother in law from hell and it’s here where I was particularly disgusted with her representation. Her relationship with Elizabeth of York was just plain abusive and terrible in this book when in reality there is nothing suggesting they hated each other or even an allusion to abuse. I do think that at some points Elizabeth must have found Margaret overbearing, after all Margaret took precedence over Elizabeth which was probably insulting to her and there were reports by two ambassadors on how Elizabeth was powerless and seemed sad, though they shouldn’t be taken as blanket statements as people often do with comments of this nature but they shouldn’t be disregarded either. However on other occasions Margaret and Elizabeth got along well and they even teamed up together on matters of patronage and specially the issue of her granddaughter’s marriage to James IV. This is where my main disgust over this book comes through because as I told you, Margaret was basically raped when she was a child and this clearly affected her as when her son Henry was arranging the marriage of his very young daughter to James IV Margaret stepped forward along with Elizabeth in the case of delaying the marriage arrangements until her granddaughter was old enough, which indicates that Margaret probably feared that James wouldn’t wait until her granddaughter was old enough to consummate the marriage, just like her husband did with her when she was barely thirteen. So Margaret was a rape victim, was clearly affected by it and didn’t want the same to happen to her granddaughter, so why in the world does Gregory portray Margaret so horribly that she’s the one who orchestrates Henry’s rape of Lizzie in this book? Because it makes total sense to have a rape victim plot the rape of another person! Genius! Even when Gregory clearly makes the allusion that the early consummation of Margaret and her second husband was horrible (while at the same time barely dwelling on it) she still latches onto the plot line of Margaret putting the rape idea on Henry���s head. By this sole detail I can already tell you what I think of this book and what I think of Gregory as an author.

The real Margaret Beaufort was an enigmatic and complex woman with her flaws and her strengths as any other human being. I mentioned her early struggles because they’re an essential part of who she is, she was thrust into extreme circumstances out of her control starting by her traumatizing childbirth and instead of completely relying on others or backing down she made moves on her own and relied on her own judgement. The way she handled her circumstances from such an early age is mind blowing and it’s one of the many reasons I admire this woman. While she is certainly criticized for the ambitious moves she made it doesn’t make her any different to any of her contemporaries and without a doubt it doesn’t bear any resemblance to the fanatical child murdering nut-job that Gregory presents in her book. In reality she was praised for her virtue, her piety and her intellect, one example by her good friend bishop Fisher praises her in a similar fashion: “She chose me as her director, to hear her confessions and guide her life, yet I gladly confess that I learnt more from her great virtue than I ever taught her".  And a particular description I liked by her biographer Charles Henry Cooper describes her very eloquently: ‘She presents the brightest example of the strong devotional feeling and active charity of the age in which she lived, and she is entitled to the warmest gratitude of posterity for her generous patronage of the learned and her munificent provision for the advancement of science and literature.’ There’s a constant habit of disregarding historical figures actual achievements and virtues in favor of whatever rumors, mischief and propaganda is laid against them and it’s quite tiring. Margaret was a patroness of the arts, a staunch advocate for education, headstrong in the face of adversity, charitable with the poor and most of all she was a devoted mother and she should be celebrated for these things.              

I am sorry for this ridiculous long rant. Thanks for the ask anon. ^_^