#having a moral dilemma is perfectly healthy I think

[nullbutler]

oh this person makes really cool black butler art I wonder if they have any more on their account *checks* oh no they had a moral dilemma

[sunderwight]

finally put my finger on something that's been bugging me about people going "aziraphale is allowed to make mistakes!" (totally true) but then almost always following it up with "crowley makes mistakes as well!" (also true, but...)

the thing is, crowley's mistakes are totally irrelevant to the conversation about aziraphale's mistakes.

it feels kind of like there's this tendency to reach over and be like, see, aziraphale's not making a uniquely bad mistake here, crowley has also made mistakes, so it evens out and ergo no one is worse than anyone else! and that's what's important! keeping everything perfectly balanced at all times is the only way to have a healthy relationship!

but a relationship is not only "equal" if everyone's always got comparable successes and failures at all times. even if we give crowley the moral high ground for the last bit of s2, that doesn't mean aziraphale is put in the red in some kind of cosmic ledger system that he subsequently needs to atone for. that kind of thinking is in fact some of the thinking that the show is positing as a problem.

aziraphale can "do the bad thing" and still not be a bad guy. we've seen that throughout history, he's struggled to reconcile himself to his own imperfections. it's in fact deeply uncomfortable for him to contemplate being really, seriously wrong, making a truly wrong decision, because he's learned to equate that with falling. if he does bad things, makes big mistakes, then he should stop being an angel, shouldn't he? that's how it went for crowley, after all. but for crowley's part the worries around doing troublesome is completely different. that's just a fear of retribution if hell finds out, not an internal conflict within himself. not like how it is for aziraphale. crowley's afraid of getting caught, not afraid of what his choices actually say about him.

deep down, aziraphale knows that he's fallible. he knows it better than he'd like to, I think. but he also thinks that he's not supposed to be. so he's terrified of it. it's a big source of anxiety for him, and I think an underappreciated aspect of his dynamic with crowley is that even though crowley also knows aziraphale has flaws and doesn't judge him for them (even likes him for them), crowley is a demon, so his acceptance is also troubling sometimes. the being aziraphale agrees with nine times out of ten and whose judgment he trusts more than anyone else's, is a demon. someone who is supposed to be "evil", who lived through aziraphale's nightmare scenario as a result of his opinions. so what does that say about aziraphale? of course, it's actually really good for him that crowley accepts him. someone should! but it's not easy for aziraphale to accept that acceptance... erm, sort of.

ironically aziraphale's fear of making big mistakes actually leaves him more vulnerable to doing that, because he doesn't fully trust himself or particularly want to introspect either. he's willing to be swayed by manipulative people telling him what he wants to hear. sometimes that's frivolous, like crowley tempting him with something he likes, and sometimes it's serious, like the metatron offering him a "promotion" on a silver platter with an apparent solution to several other dilemmas too.

personally, I think that it's a fitting part of aziraphale's journey if he's just made a big, unambiguous mistake. I think he's overdue for one of those. because that's how we get to the point where he can confront his fear of them. if this isn't another one of those grey area situations like the sword or the many times he's lied to heaven or waffled back and forth over topics like grave robbing and medical advancements, if this just ends up being a fucking disaster of a decision, he will have to go through that and realize that he's still loved. he's still himself. he didn't suddenly become a villain or monster. he just made a bad call in a tough situation. happens all the time!

and none of that ought to be compared with crowley also making mistakes, because it's established that crowley, a demon, has already fucked around and found out. he doesn't need to learn that he can make mistakes, he's not on the same part of this personal journey as aziraphale. if anything, crowley needs to learn that he can actually succeed in changing things for the better sometimes, and that it's always worth it to try.

[jwillowwolf]

Okay, so I have a Theory for what will happen in the Finale, but it comes with a very long rant about my reasoning for said theory, so I’ll put it under the cut. Basically, I just got excited and wanted to talk with someone about what I think will happen and have turned to the internet to share my thoughts. Warning for spoilers from Working Through Intrusive Thoughts bellow.

Before I can get to what I think will happen, I need to explain the context of my thinking. Currently, we have Logan feeling ignored, Roman feeling lost, Virgil feeling defensive, Patton feeling confused, Remus just being his dramatic gremlin self, and Janus is in his element.

Logan himself said to Remus “It’s not every day Thomas... is interested in... carrying out this sort of thing.” Showing that today was important to Logan and spoiled by 1) Remus’s interfering, and 2) Thomas going out with Nico. Not to mention he lost his cool for a second and now we’ve got Orange to look out for.

Now, there are two possible theories I know of on this scene. 1) Logan is the Orange-side, which seems to be the most popular opinion. 2) the Orange-side, similarly to Janus, can possess other sides. Personally, I think that Logan being the Orange-side is most plausible.

We have seen Logan almost lose his temper before when he threw a piece of paper at Roman in ‘Learning New Things About Ourselves’. He seems shaken by that, almost scared of what he did. Or maybe of what could have happened. He looked even more shaken in ‘Working Through Intrusive Thoughts’ when we got a glimpse of orange in his eyes. He knows there is a dangerous side to him, an emotional state of anger and frustration that he’s been doing his best to keep under control.

How much longer will he be able to control it though?

Next, we have Roman still feeling kind of upset towards Patton, if his stiff reaction to him speaking in the end card is anything to go by. I describe him as feeling lost because in a way he’s lost his moral compass. After what happened in ‘Putting Others First’, I think he distrusts Patton and considering he has in a way followed morality’s lead through all of this, he’s now struggling through questions of what he decides for himself is wrong and right. And he needs to get this right because he’s meant to be the hero, the good creativity. Or that’s what he’s believed all this time.

He’s been conditioned to see things in black and white. To him, there’s meant to be a clear distinction between a hero and a villain, which means if he does something that is not considered good then he’s bad. You can see how that mindset affects him firstly in ‘Dealing With Intrusive Thoughts’ “It’s a little like looking into a funhouse mirror, but instead of a giant head, or like, long legs and a tiny torse, …it shows you… everything you don’t wanna be” and then at the end of ‘Putting Others First’ “He’s (Janus) asking us to go back on things we’ve known for years! rights and wrongs, should’s and shouldn’t’s!”

The world is not black and white like Roman was taught, so now he’s lost himself in trying to understand the many different shades of grey around him.

Continuing down the angst road, we have Virgil’s uncharacteristic behaviour towards Patton. Yes, we have seen him act this way before, but ever since the ‘Accepting Anxiety’ arc he’s acted differently. More like his true self with the knowledge that he’s safe and among friends, like Logan said in Fitting In he’s part of the group. So, what changed?

Logically he would act out this way as a part of his fight or flight response, or more specifically he’s fighting against what scares him. He acts this way towards Janus and Remus (although it’s harder with Remus since he’s Remus) he gets defensive, cold, and downright mean because he’s trying to protect himself. My point? Something about Patton is scaring Virgil.

If we look at the relationship between them before Virgil’s behaviour, then we have what happened in ‘Dealing with Intrusive Thoughts'. Virgil was at a terrible point of stress over Remus showing up, mainly because Patton was stressed at Remus showing up. Pat’s knee jerk reaction to Remus and what he contributes sends Virgil into a panic because, in a sense, they’re connected as Thomas’s emotions. This may seem odd but stick with me here.

Fear and stress are the two things that drive Virgil. In ‘Why do we Get Out of Bed in the Morning’, he mentions that Thomas feeling stressed over deadlines and projects causes him to “work overtime”. As for fear, that’s clear enough in ‘Moving On’ parts 1 and 2, with his reaction to Patton’s Room. The strong influence of emotions in Patton’s room may have heightened his function because emotion is a core part of who he is. In fact, in ‘Dealing with Intrusive Thoughts’, Logan asks Virgil how Thomas is feeling. This means that he is just as connected to Thomas’s emotional state as Patton.

There isn’t a clear indicator of what happened between ‘Dealing with Intrusive Thoughts’ and ‘Are There Healthy Distractions’ to prompt Virgil’s behaviour towards Patton. Or is there? Let’s look at what exactly he says to Patton:

First from ‘Are There Healthy Distractions’: “How can Thomas Feel B-A-D with his inner D-A-D?” “I can think of a few ways.” This is the first time Virgil lashes out at Patton, and it’s obvious through the whole episode that he’s stressed out.

He actively wants to address the problem throughout the episode and is in a lot of emotional turmoil since the others seem to be ignoring it while he just can’t. Seriously, the pain piles upon him till the point he and Thomas fall into an anxiety attack.

So why does he antagonise Patton here? Because Patton is the one ignoring the problem. Patton is the one most actively ignoring what happened and Virgil is feeling hurt by that. Sure, Logan is distracted, but Logan understands that there are healthy distractions and can stay concentrated on the movie, causing him to not notice Virgil’s dilemma until later. And Roman is still following Patton’s lead here. When he took a jab at Virgil at the beginning and Patton said, “that’s not nice Roman.” He instantly panicked and scrambled to amend himself.

After ‘Are There Healthy Distractions’, we don’t see Patton and Virgil interact again until the end card of Working Through Intrusive Thoughts. “Oh, thank goodness, you’re giving him permission.” “Well, y-yeah. Of course I would.” Virgil bringing up Patton giving Thomas permission seems out of context, and yet it’s perfectly in line with the ending of ‘Dealing with Intrusive Thoughts’ where Patton said “I can’t control every little thing that pops into your head. This may be unnecessary, but, … It’s okay if you sometimes think some… Icky thoughts, Thomas. You have my… permission”

This begs the question though, why is that the line that stuck with Virgil? Because Virgil doesn’t want to be manipulated anymore.

If we look at his relationship with Janus for a moment, then anyone from a mile away can see the two have some sort of history. Something that goes beyond even Virgil’s past as one of the others. The relationship that they used to have. It’s been established that Remus used to unsettle Virgil, so I doubt they spent too much time together, but Janus? That’s a very different story.

Janus is deceit, lies, and denial so he may have hidden Virgil from Thomas. He may have lied to Virgil about his function to keep him under control. It was the best way he knew to hide Virgil from Thomas. But in the end, Virgil came to the realisation that Janus was a lair and hence they must have had a terrible fallout.

This began his arc as the ‘antagonist’ in Thomas’s life. He no longer allowed Janus to control him and faced the light sides on his own. He fought to have his voice heard along with the rest. Now he’s scared of losing the freedom he fought for via Patton taking control.

He’s been down the road before where he was taken advantage of, and he doesn’t want to fall for that again. Never again.

Oof, okay, now we come to Patton himself. He seems fine from the outside, but we all know that he has a habit of keeping his negative emotions on the down-low. He doesn’t exactly know what he’s done. That doesn’t excuse it, but it does put his behaviour into context.

In ‘Dealing with Intrusive Thoughts’ he realises how his reaction to things has influence Thomas’s wellbeing. In ‘Are There Healthy Distractions’ He’s trying to stay committed to Thomas's decision and not influence changing his mind towards facing the problem. Then in ‘Putting Others First’, we see how absolutely distressed he’s feeling because the influence he has over Thomas could be used for bad and hurt Thomas.

In a nutshell, he doesn’t want to become the bad guy, but he doesn’t know how to correct his behaviour. In ‘Putting Others First’ he even asks Janus “What can we do”. It shows that he knows he’s doing something wrong and wants to do the right thing, but everything he’s ever known has been torn apart and now he’s just left confused.

He doesn’t know what to do anymore.

Remus is just doing what he normally does. He’s functioning just fine and honestly, there isn’t anything much to unpack about his behaviour. He’s being himself. Although perhaps there’s something, or someone, behind what he’s doing.

It’s no secret that Janus is the brains of the two (although Remus can create some magnificent Rube Goldberg machines) and could be the mastermind behind this scheme. Since he was introduced, we knew Janus hid behind lies and worked with complex plans to fulfil his goals. The ending of ‘Putting Others First’ shows that he has a part of himself that is only looking out for others but that doesn’t change the fact he’s planning something.

His words at the end of ‘Working Through Intrusive Thoughts’ “Yes, everything is just… fine.” He knows something is not fine. He may even be behind instigating the entire thing.

This time though, perhaps his scheme is meant for good. He can see how the sides are very different from each other. Their working together as the light sides is incredibly unstable. Thomas's mental wellbeing is practically hanging from a thread.

How do we solve this problem? Expose it. So far, Janus's meddling has been to push things into the light. to get Thomas to face all aspects of himself and better understand the complexities of the world.

The truth needs to come out before things can get better.

And all of that brings me finally to the main point of my rant. My personal theory about what will happen with the finale.

Patton and Roman/Virgil currently have an unresolved conflict. That’s what will start the episode. Patton is trying to fix things with Roman and/or Virgil. Logan will try to be the mediator for the situation, and no one seems to be listening to him.

Then Janus shows up and is now on Patton’s side. This is making things worse because well Roman and Virgil still don’t like Janus at all. Perhaps Virgil will even snap and give more context into what happened between him and Janus, comparing Janus and Patton now that Pat seems to be betraying them. Remus even shows up and adds his own comments to further unsettle everyone. The fight is going to get bigger until finally, Logan snaps.

Orange-Logan is now part of the mix, and he is angry. Nothing is holding him back anymore so now everyone is going to have to focus on him. They will listen to him now, which is good, but because anger has taken over, Logan isn’t the same. He’s not able to reason with his own emotions and act as the voice of reason. Everything is coming down!

So now the fighting has gotten even worse, even louder, everyone is stressed and hurt and shouting and then Virgil says “stop”. He doesn’t shout it, he just speaks in a normal calm tone, although his voice is echoing a bit. Everyone does stop mainly out of confusion at his sudden hushed tone, then they see what is happening to Thomas. All their arguing has caused him to spiral into a panic.

Virgil calms Thomas down from his panic, and then Logan from his anger. It’s good for Logan to stand up for himself to be listened to, but anger will get them nowhere. He even apologises for not listening to Logan before things got this bad.

Logan calms down and apologises for his behaviour then calmly calls out the others on their own actions. With a calmer atmosphere, everyone can see a bit more clearly where they were in the wrong and apologise to one another. They talk things out, come to an understanding and resolve their feelings.

Anyway, if you made it to the end of this, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this theory and any theories you have regarding the finale. Thank you for reading and I hope that you have a wonderful day.

[nice-kill-tanaka]

🌄Karasuno 3rd Years + Confessions🌌

A/N: lowkey, these turned into crush scenarios too 😭can’t blame me for getting carried away. these beautiful boys are too perfect ❤️

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

🎋Daichi Sawamura🎋

If I'm being honest? Daichi would probably take an agonizingly long time to realize and act on his feelings for you

My dude literally never noticed Michimiya's feelings for him, so do you really expect him to be that in touch with his own feelings?? Nah, he's too busy parenting approximately ten teammates (eleven if you count Suga in his more chaotic moments)

He would have to have known you for more than three months for a crush to form

And even more time after that to get it through his thick skull that what he’s feeling isn’t just immense respect for you

But, once Daichi realizes that he wants to date you, he’s gonna be very careful about his approach. I.e. presenting himself as boyfriend material rather than friend material

Offering to walk you home, giving you moral support with your hobbies, hell, even making you lunch once every few days!

In his head, he’s got his official confession all planned out:

He’d take you on a walk around town (Or a jog, depending on your athletic prowess)

And at the end of said activity, you’d both stop at a place where you can see a beautiful sunset. And you would sit there while you cooled down

Dude brought snacks and everything 😪

And while you guys ate and talked about whatever, he would find a good stall in the conversation to explain his feelings

“You know...I’ve liked you for good while. You’re everything I never knew I needed in my life. If you don’t feel the same way, we can keep being friends and that’ll be fine. But, I want to be closer to you. So...how does a date sound...?”

However, if you decide to confess first, sure he’ll look fine on the outside. But, his train of thought just had a literal catastrophic crash

He wanted to be the one to make the first move

Wait...his crush on you was reciprocated??

Wtf??

He’ll snap out of his surprised stupor when you ask if he wants to go out and watch a movie at some point

“...Hm? Oh- yeah! I’d...I’d love to go out with you.”

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

🍄Koushi Sugawara🍄

I honestly think it would be SO HARD to tell if Suga had a crush on you

You can’t go off of his regular acts of sweetness, since he’s that way towards everyone

But, there will be a change in his behavior. You just have to be observant

First, he’s still gonna make sure you’re taking care of yourself on a regular basis. However, instead of the situation looking like a parent scolding a child for not taking their vitamins or whatever, he gets on your level and lets you know he genuinely cares about you and wants to see you healthy. Lots of soft looks and touches 🤧

And y’know how Suga gets a bit flustered when people praise him? Amp that up about fivefold when it’s you that’s praising him. He’ll say “Oh- really?!” with that cute little voice crack and get incredibly red over your compliment. But, his friendly crooked smile is what usually makes those moments fly under your radar

Lastly, he’ll want to involve you in a lot of his mischief-making with the underclassmen (You’d have to be close to the team to really get in good with Suga). If he feels comfortable enough around you to not act so responsible, he’ll show you the “tequila” part of his “tequila aunt” reputation real quick

I feel like if he wanted to confess to you, he’d want you to feel as comfortable as possible before dropping the bombshell of feelings

He’ll ask if you want to hang out at his place on a Friday or something when you both have no homework

And it’s agreed that you’ll bring the snacks, and he’ll set up the place with every blanket and pillow in existence

Surprise! It’s a movie night! (A Pixar movie night to be exact)

It’s in the middle of watching Wall-E, when the lights are dimmed low and you both are sharing a blanket and a bag of chips, when he tells you

After his small speech, he goes: “...So, what do ya say, Eva? Let me be your Wall-E...?”

Ofc you said yes (With an asterisks because of how adorably corny he was about it)

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

🐻Asahi Azumane🐻

Two seconds in, and I can already tell this wreck is gonna need some help expressing his feelings for you 💀

The moment he gets that warm and fuzzy sensation in the pit of his stomach when you give him your perfectly imperfect smile, he probably assumes that you’d never date someone like him. Someone who hardly lives up to the big tough guy image people seem to pin on him 

Either that, or you’re just plain scared of him and too afraid to say something about it

Suga and Daichi try their darnedest to explain that Asahi’s worries are not the case at all. And if Asahi just pulled his head out of the sand for once and told you the truth, that you’d at least understand and react respectfully

But, doing so can be tricky when anxiety is kicking your butt over the worst case scenario

Really and truly, you would’ve confessed to Asahi, had he not given you the impression that he never wanted to be around you. He’d always get so visibly nervous around you and make a sad excuse to leave the room

“So, what to do about this stalemate of love?” Thought Suga and Daichi in this most perplexing dilemma. You and Asahi both clearly liked each other, but what would give you two that nudge you needed?

Well, it took a lot of consideration, but Suga and Daichi decided that they needed to bring in someone else: Yuu Nishinoya, to be exact. Appealing to Asahi’s fear of his crush being exposed without being able to properly explain his feelings would definitely work

And it did! Asahi was so terrified of Noya bluntly outing him, that he promised to confess to you by 2:00 tomorrow. No later

Well, come tomorrow, it seemed Asahi was stalling for time, letting his fears get the better of him. But, he managed to catch you in the hallway at exactly 1:59

Asahi showed himself friendly, trying to drum up small talk before dropping the big thing. And you blushed and went along with it, unaware of what was about to happen. Before the big moment, Asahi stumbled over his words:

“I uh...well, you see- I just, y’know, wanted to...to tell you that I- well...I may or may not-”

“Asahi’s got a big fat crush on you and he’s been too big of a chicken to say it for the whole year!”

Asahi tried to hide his face in his hands while your body was internally burning up. Gee, thanks Noya

In your embarrassment, you stepped forward and took Asahi’s hand, asking if Noya was right. Asahi gave a quiet “Yeah...you’re amazing. How could I not like you?”

Romance bloomed that day between you two, and Suga and Daichi were just around the corner snickering about it

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[🌌Take this for your travels, bud. Don’t worry about paying me or anything, everything’s on the house! Though 🍁likes🍁 and ☘️reblogs☘️ are appreciated!🌄] — Reagan

[seyaryminamoto]

How much was azula and zuko blinded of the propaganda?I have seen someone say that" azula knew the propaganda was a lie and there evidence was the fire nation were willingly to burn ba sing sa to the ground so azula should have known better"

O_o um, no offense intended to that person but... where’s the evidence that Azula ever had any doubts about the Fire Nation’s supremacist views?

I can outright point at a key dialogue where Zuko blatantly proves he’s not blinded by his father’s propaganda: Book 1, episode 3. Zuko directly tells Zhao: “If my father thinks the rest of the world will follow him willingly, then he is a fool!”, quoted right out of the wikia. So... heh. Zuko seems to be critical of his father, of his conquest, of his colonialist pursuits...

... And yet he proceeds to continue chasing the Avatar, fighting against him, outright committing treason against his own nation by releasing Aang but ONLY so he could be the one to turn him in personally, still saying things like “My honor, my throne, my country, I'm about to lose them all.” (Book 1, episode 13), telling Iroh “I want it back. I want the Avatar, I want my honor, my throne. I want my father not to think I'm worthless.” (Book 2, episode 1), introducing himself in this manner: “My name is Zuko. Son of Ursa and Fire Lord Ozai. Prince of the Fire Nation, and heir to the throne.” (Book 2, episode 7), and the list goes on :’) basically, insert everything nefarious or gray Zuko does through the three seasons, and factor in that Zuko has proven he doesn’t believe his father’s propaganda since early Book 1... you get the picture.

So... what that line in “The Southern Air Temple” ends up telling us is that all his actions are self-serving! :’D Which takes away from Zuko’s big speech to Ozai, namely when he says that the argument about the war spreading the Fire Nation’s greatness was an “amazing lie”. No, it wasn’t an amazing lie, and no, he didn’t believe it, at least he didn’t ever since the show began, as far as we saw. Therefore... I give no free passes to Zuko over any arguments that he was doing Ozai’s bidding or acting in his behalf. No one who says “my father is a fool” with such conviction in the show’s very THIRD EPISODE can pretend he was completely unaware of how wrong the Fire Nation’s direction was until he finally had his change of heart and awakening to the goodness of the world. He knew it was wrong. He did everything he did because it didn’t matter to him that it was, his throne and honor mattered more. 

And considering I could quote at least three different instances where he talks about the throne as his own, or meant to be his own, I think it’s damn clear it was constantly on his mind. The only occasion when he says anything about wanting to do right by the Fire Nation itself is with Mai in the Boiling Rock... and by then he’s “redeemed”. Ergo, he’s supposed to know better at last. Before redemption? Zero signs that Zuko believes the Fire Nation needs new guidance and that he realizes the problem is Ozai’s propaganda and ideological indoctrination. That line in episode 3 suggests he KNOWS his father can and should be questioned, but later on he doesn’t betray any interest in doing so until he outright confronts him in The Eclipse. And that’s the thing: Zuko knows Ozai is bullshitting everyone, but it’s not his problem. That’s not why he’s doing what he’s doing. He’s not here to further spread Ozai’s gospel, he’s here to get the Avatar and earn his ticket back home, and he’ll do ANYTHING to achieve that.

Meanwhile, Azula... anyone can say she’s not blind to the horrors the Fire Nation has committed, that she’s an active participant of the war, that she’s her father’s enabler too... sure. But I don’t think ANYONE can say with any degree of certainty that Azula had broken out of the Fire Nation indoctrination on any level by the time we meet her in the show. Azula, as far as I’ve always seen her, is a product of her upbringing: she is sheltered, troubled, capable of dismissing any moral dilemmas in the face of any mission, absolutely unwilling to fail at anything she ever does. But really... where’s the evidence that she KNOWS the Fire Nation isn’t inherently superior to the others? Where’s the evidence that she knows Sozin’s doctrines are just excuses? I’m not saying she’s not smart enough to figure it out, I certainly write her that way myself... but I don’t think there’s anything you can point to in the show, the way there IS, objectively, with Zuko, to say “Yeah she’s 100% aware that the Fire Nation supremacist ideals are BS and she just follows fit with them because she wants a throne for herself.”

In contrast: how many times does Azula say the word “throne” in the show?:

“The fact is, they don't know which one of us is going to be sitting on that throne, and which one is going to be bowing down.” (Book 2, Episode 20) -- not the Fire Nation throne, but Ba Sing Se’s. Ergo, a throne she took via strategic prowess... that she then abandoned and left in Joo Dee’s hands SOMEHOW (why... Azula, just... why?? xD) before returning to the Fire Nation instead of merely relishing in having obtained MORE POWER!

... That’s literally it.

Where Zuko constantly talks about “his throne”, Azula only displays genuine, overt, blatant interest in becoming Fire Lord when Ozai directly offers her the position. She doesn’t shy away from it at all, of course, but when she’s seen talking about her alleged future as Fire Lord, her wording is... curiously different from Zuko’s:

“My father asked you to come here and talk to me, didn't he‌? He thinks I can't handle the responsibility of being Fire Lord. But I will be the greatest leader in Fire Nation history.” (Book 3, Episode 20)

This isn’t even fully healthy Azula, so using her behavior here as representative for her genuine views is a tricky thing to do. And yet... she says she will be the greatest LEADER? She’s not looking at the throne as something she is owed, she’s looking at it as a challenge she needs to prove herself worthy of. She’s not looking at a crown or a throne exclusively: she’s looking at LEADERSHIP. She’s ambitious enough to think BEYOND obtaining the power, and instead she’s already thinking of how she’ll use it.

This is a fundamental difference between both Zuko and Azula. Azula’s motivation wasn’t the throne, or a crown, or anything like that until the finale. If she’d wanted more political power, like I always say, she would’ve stayed in the Earth Kingdom and ruled over Ba Sing Se herself, getting high on the thrill of finally controlling a nation of her own. She’s the main artificer of the take-over, the Dai Li literally answer to her, and yet she didn’t stick around: she left the city for other people to deal with rather than going wild over her newly acquired power. Doesn’t this speak lengths about Azula’s priorities? And once she’s finally being offered the throne she does value, her troubled mind is set on LEADERSHIP. And while of course someone can argue she’s just vain and wants to be remembered forever, kind of like Zhao did, the question of what kind of leadership Azula has in mind is still worth asking: if she didn’t want the Earth Kingdom throne, it suggests she actually cherishes the Fire Nation above all else, and another nation’s throne doesn’t suffice or particularly prove fulfilling for her beyond the initial conquest. Prioritizing the Fire Nation, WITHOUT being Fire Lord yet, above Ba Sing Se’s throne... strongly suggests a belief that the Fire Nation matters more than anything else. And that’s basically what the Ozai propaganda impresses upon his people.

For further evidence... I present to you the Fire Nation Oath:

“My life I give to my country, with my hands I fight for Fire Lord Ozai and our forefathers before him. With my mind I seek ways to better my country, and with my feet may our March of Civilization continue.” (Book 3, Episode 2)

Just one reading of this oath explains Azula’s actions and motivations immediately. Recapping her actions throughout the show: 

She finds Iroh and Zuko under Ozai’s orders, attempts to take them home peacefully, then they rebel, she fights them and regards them as traitors, loses, still intends to continue chasing them after her defeat.

Gathers new allies for her quest, comes across the Avatar, decides to take him down, fails, decides she has two targets now.

Chases the Avatar, fights both him and Zuko, narrowly escapes before being defeated, all be it to fight another day.

Helps in the Drill’s operations in Ba Sing Se, nearly stops Team Avatar’s scheme, fails again once Aang finishes their plan perfectly.

Follows Appa, fights and defeats the Kyoshi Warriors, takes their uniforms, impersonates them and breaks into Ba Sing Se while no one’s the wiser.

Acquires crucial information about the enemies’ plans to attack her nation on the day of the Eclipse.

Acquires the support of the Dai Li, captures Katara, Zuko and Iroh, overthrows Kuei.

Offers Zuko one more chance to fight by her side, attempts to fight Aang and Katara by herself, then is shown willing to fight Zuko as well as those two until she joins forces safely with Zuko and they defeat Aang and Katara.

Takes Zuko home as a hero, he hides crucial information about the Avatar, Azula attempts to set up a trap so Zuko takes the fall if the Avatar isn’t dead.

Offers Zuko advice about not visiting Iroh so he stays out of trouble, which he disregards to no consequences.

Goes on a chaotic vacation with her friends.

Gives Zuko a history lesson with more than a few harsh burns.

Tells Zuko he should go to a war meeting, which he attends later to no consequences, and she was right to say he was expected to be in it.

Intervenes in the war meeting and cuts off Zuko before he says the wrong thing, Ozai extrapolates Azula’s suggestion into his perfect, megalomaniac villain plan, and she’s shown perfectly satisfied with supplying her father an idea he values.

Organizes and leads the resistance against the invasion, stalls the Avatar’s group, keeps her father safe.

Visits the Boiling Rock, presumably upon finding out her brother infiltrated the prison, and in all likelihood suspecting he didn’t do it alone, considering that she immediately barges into the interrogations about the escape attempts rather than appearing at Zuko’s holding cell.

Fights Sokka and Zuko, nearly dies when the Warden decides to cut the line but saves herself by flying off, loses her shit when Mai betrays her, gets chi-blocked, sends her friends to prison.

Attacks Team Avatar in the Western Air Temple, takes a near-fatal plummet but still manages to survive and return home while the enemies escape.

Intends to go with Ozai to set fire to the Earth Kingdom, loses her temper, Ozai loses his, he offers her the role of Fire Lord and becomes Phoenix King.

Loses herself to paranoia gradually, hallucinates her mother, pushes everyone away, agrees to fight an Agni Kai with Zuko instead of merely commanding to be crowned disregarding Zuko’s intrusion.

Loses the fight against Katara, is sent to an asylum.

I think there’s quite a lot in here that suggests Azula’s actions are meant to uphold the values and beliefs of the Fire Nation Oath. She gave herself completely to her missions, to the point of even facing deadly peril more than once. She fought many battles, lost a LOT of them, and yet she never backed down. She is by far the most strategic character in the Fire Nation side of the story, switching her tactics constantly while the show progresses... and what is she after? Victories. For whom? Herself? Why... again, if it were just for herself, why abandon Ba Sing Se, the crown jewel of the Earth Kingdom’s Ultimate Conqueror? Why allow Zuko to share in that big achievement, too, instead of merely locking him up someplace and taking all the credit for herself?

There’s seriously zero reason to believe Azula DOESN’T live by the Fire Nation Oath. I, personally, don’t see how any of her actions indicate she’s questioned her nation’s indoctrinated creed in any way. Do I think she’s smart enough to know that the war wasn’t about spreading “greatness”? Sure. Does this automatically mean she was doing everything she ever did for herself, and not for the Fire Nation AND her father? Absolutely not. And that’s where Zuko and Azula are crucially, fundamentally different: Zuko’s concerns are PERSONAL. Zuko’s battles are PERSONAL. Zuko wants HIS honor, HIS throne: Azula never says any similar words in the entire show. Azula’s biggest display of ambition is claiming she wants to be the Fire Nation’s greatest leader. Ambitious, yes, BUT... an ambition that is perfectly in line with the oath, again, especiall with this line: “may our march of civilization continue”. Whereas Zuko’s words and actions throughout the show honestly don’t strike any legitimate chords with the Oath, as far as I can tell?

And I’m relying on the Oath because it’s literally the only solid evidence we have of actual creed and speeches the Fire Nation people are taught. While we can make plenty of guesses as to what else their education includes, by judging Fire Nation people’s actions and behavior, the only solid things we have are the misinformation the teacher attempts to give the children in Aang’s classroom and the Oath she makes the children recite. I think it’s safe to guess most Fire Nation people would know that Oath by heart, and probably attempt to live by it, too.

But like I said, where Azula’s actions can easily be interpreted as morally awful ways of displaying the “values” present in the Fire Nation Oath, I don’t see how Zuko’s actions EVER had anything to do with those values. They plain didn’t. And that isn’t a bad thing, objectively speaking: it means Zuko wasn’t insanely attached to the Fire Nation to the point of valuing it above his own life, after all. And yet, it puts a spin on Zuko’s actions and behavior that definitely doesn’t do his character any favors: no, his actions aren’t motivated by the Fire Nation Oath or any similar creed, they’re motivated, above all else, by the hopes that his father will return his birthright and honor to him. And his redemption is, of course, coded as him realizing that Ozai doesn’t get to decide whether he has honor or not! Which... again... is a blatant way of saying that Zuko’s true motivation wasn’t “doing Ozai’s bidding and advancing the Fire Nation’s war”, it was his honor, his throne, and everything to do with what he’d lost after his banishment. The whole show is full of obvious signs that Zuko’s not motivated by any beliefs greater than this -- such as the fact that he returns home as a hero and it feels WRONG to him. It’s not only because his father now respects him under the false pretenses that he killed the Avatar, but also because he plain feels out of place and isn’t happy at all! Why? Because he “got everything back”, and it feels off. Why is it off? Because he wants honor and he doesn’t feel like he regained it at all in the first half of Book 3. Then he turns his back on his father and chooses a whole different path and he’s finally at peace with himself, so much he can’t even bend anymore :’D but the point is, simply, that there’s no evidence anywhere within the show that Zuko honest to gods was acting out of anything but his own, personal needs rather than a constant pursuit for the Fire Nation’s advancement.

And like I said before, this doesn’t have to be a bad thing. It probably makes his redemption “easier”, to a fault, since there’s less to address. Do I like it? No. Do I think Zuko is fundamentally a better human being than Azula because he questioned Ozai and she didn’t? Considering how many awful things he still did while proving he could question his father, not a chance. Do I think Azula is fundamentally a better human being than Zuko since her actions do seem to follow fit with what Fire Nation indoctrination looks like? Considering what that indoctrination entails, and the deeds she proves capable of to uphold it, the answer would once again be “not a chance”.

In short: neither buying the Fire Nation indoctrination or questioning it makes either Azula or Zuko objectively better people. Both are capable of amoral deeds and actions that should never be supported, encouraged or excused :’D and while I absolutely will impress that they have different motivations, which codify their actions, I don’t think Azula’s deeds would be objectively any worse if someone SOMEHOW finds solid evidence that she truly didn’t believe in any of these doctrines, just as I don’t think Zuko’s would be any better if it’s proven (though... I’d be pretty sure it can’t be) that he’s just as brainwashed as everyone else in the Fire Nation.

On a final note, directly answering your final concern there: both Zuko and Azula are shown reacting to the notion of Ba Sing Se being burned to the ground. Heck, Ursa is shown reacting to it too. If we need a refresher...

If this is somehow proof that Azula “understands” the FIre Nation is evil (How? She’s laughing like it’s a perfectly happy revelation? So is her mother? So is her brother? How does someone watch this scene and interpret this as “this messed up family KNOWS they’re the BAD GUYS!”, rather than “this messed up family thinks burning a city down is GOOD?!”), then it’s also proof Zuko and Ursa do. And they still laugh just as she does.

If the person in question was talking about Azula’s intervention in the war meeting? Zuko’s reaction shows he thinks burning down a continent is evil. Zuko’s betrayal of the Fire Nation shows he didn’t want anything to do with that (his reluctance to share this information with Team Avatar, however, is highly illogical?). Azula’s behavior doesn’t suggest at all that she thinks burning an enemy nation is anything but a sign of superiority, something both Ursa and Zuko are totally fine with in the scene above, and her suggestion, yet again, is something that is perfectly in line with the Fire Nation’s morally reprehensible values. As such, it’s not something that proves Azula somehow was acting of her own accord and is immune to Fire Nation indoctrination and propaganda, by any means.

So.

I’d think that answers that. :’)

[yurimother]

LGBTQ Manga Review - If I Could Reach You Vol. 2

The first volume of tMnR’s If I Could Reach You was a nonstop barrage of emotionally shattering and resonating suffering. Uta hopelessly struggled against her feelings for her sister-in-law, Kaoru, until finally recognizing that she could never be rid of them nor act upon them. The second volume gives the readers a much-needed breath, a slower and less devastating story focused mainly on the side characters. While it does a lot right and helps build work's pacing, many parts of this volume feel like an auxiliary bridge between story arcs, which unfortunately drags it down.

The volume starts relatively happy and light, a drastic change from the first. Kaoru starts working on making jewelry, Uta can talk to her somewhat normally and is even looking for a job. However, Reiichi, Uta’s older brother and Kaoru’s husband, is once again absent. Uta’s friend Chloe, who got Uta her job at a cafe, requests her assistance studying for exams, which Uta sees as the perfect opportunity to escape Kaoru and her feelings temporarily.

This plotline allows the reader to learn more about Chloe and further develops her character beyond the brash girl who Uta unloads her problems. I mentioned in my review of Volume One that she was in desperate need of more characterization and focus, given her crucial role as Uta’s confidant, and it is lovely to see this need fulfilled.

Chloe’s father is a hopeless romantic and frequently falls in and out of love with women, to the point where Chloe is unsure of her mother’s identity. Fed up with her father’s behavior, she began living alone and developed a view of love as fleeting and unnecessary. Her past contextualizes her personality and explains her actions and opinions in both this volume and the previous, her isolation, apparent lack of attachments, and bluntness. It perfectly rounds out her character and makes her far more compelling than she previously was.

Miyabi, a coworker of Uta, challenges Chloe’s worldview and ideas of love when she asks her out. However, even after accepting, Chloe continues to be dismissive of her, as she is of everyone, and does not show much affection, physical or otherwise. Their relationship is not healthy; Miyabi is more invested and takes on the role of Chloe’s caretaker, cleaning her apartment, and making her food. However, Chloe is lack of affection leaves Miyabi uncertain about their relationship. Desperate for assistance and wanting to be closer with Chloe, she pursues Uta’s advice.

Ultimately, the conflict in the relationship is solved when they sit down to define their partnership. Chloe declares that she does not want to participate in the usual rituals of romance, but has come to rely on Miyabi and enjoys her presence. They come to an agreement that both agree on and continue their relationship with newly established terms. On the one hand, this resolution is unsatisfying. Their partnership still relies on the dynamic of caretaker and Chloe. Still, it is a defined, and consensual arrangement made between the two, and possibly more faithful to their characterization than a conventional relationship would have been. If one squints, they can claim that Chloe is asexual or aromantic, I think she is just cynical and jaded.

The plot is not poor by any means, and it provides readers with a much-needed reprieve from the emotional torture and drama of the first volume. Unfortunately, much of this plot feels like filler. In total, it makes few accomplishments that serve the greater narrative, such as further developing Chloe. However, its most significant achievements are reinforcing the story’s steady slow pace, and the final growth achieved by the main characters.

After witnessing the relationship between Chloe and Miyabi, Uta decides to become indispensable to Kauru. This revelation is matched by one from Kauru, who is by herself while Reiichi is away. She realizes that she is lonely and needs to have other people around. Her requirement to have Uta nearby, and Uta’s need to be close with her, create a dynamic of codependency. TMnR’s brilliance is on full display here. By establishing this new form of their relationship while the characters are separated, it will make their inevitable reunion that much more complex and compelling. Sadly, other choices made did not pay off nearly as well.

The final twist, which I will not spoil here, is predictable and poorly written. Sadly, it makes Reiichi a much weaker character and seems to set him up as the “villain” for subsequent volumes. One of his most exceptional qualities as a romantic opponent for Uta was that neither she nor the reader could hate him, as he was a moral and kind guy, albeit, slightly absent-minded, who tried to do his best for his sister and wife. However, to the author's credit, the change does not come out of anywhere and helps readers look at past events in a different light.

The manga continues to showcase phenomenal artwork. The characters are well designed and extremely expressive. There are significantly fewer panels featuring Uta looking wretched and exhausted than the first, which matches the volume’s lighter tone. However, the girl's heartache is still exceptionally well communicated, and a few more comically exaggerated faces and actions. Near the end is a fantastic sequence told only through images that shows the characters’ past together, which reinforces and supports their dilemmas and foreshadows coming events brilliantly.

There are a few light moments of service, such as the chapter 8 opening artwork, which displays Chloe in bed with bare shoulders, but hardly anything worth more mentioning. Jennifer Skarupa’s lettering, along with Diana Taylor’s translation and Haruko Hashimoto’s editing, is spectacular, just as it was in the first volume, and really pulls readers into the story and punctuates the more dramatic moments perfectly.

If I Could Reach You Volume 2 is a competent entry into the series, if slightly inconsequential save for the final chapter or two. It seeks to further the world by establishing supporting characters and showing just how dominating and self-destructive Uta’s love is, even when away from Kauru. It makes a few missteps in these efforts, such as an unwelcome twist and failing to serve the main plot. But even then, the story presented is not a bad one. It succeeds in setting the series’ pace and creating new beats by separating the main characters, which will contribute to the upcoming storm that I suspect Volume 3 will be. All of these elements are encased by tMnR’s robust dialogue and exceptional artwork. While it will not be most reader’s favorite, I strongly encourage that they do not skip it, as it serves for a launching point into a far more compelling and tumultuous continuation.

Ratings: Story – 6 Characters – 7 Art – 9 LGBTQ – 7 Sexual Content – 1 Final – 6

Purchase If I Could Reach You 2 digitally and physically here: https://amzn.to/2FQNzlw

Review copy provided by Kodansha Comics

Found out more at  kodanshacomics. com/series/if-i-could-reach-you/ 

[nicklloydnow]

"In 1910, the last year of his life and only a few years before World War I put an end to the long European peace, William James wrote a pamphlet for the Association for International Conciliation, one of the many pacifist groups whose prominence in that period convinced many people that war between nations, being so obviously irrational, was therefore impossible. James’s essay, titled “The Moral Equivalent of War,” is a work of supreme pathos and wisdom. James himself was a pacifist, a founding member of the Anti-Imperialist League, a group formed to protest America’s military interventions in Cuba, Haiti, and the Philippines, and one of the most humane and generous spirits America or any other nation has ever produced.

James understood perfectly the folly—the “monstrosity,” as he called it—of war, even in those comparatively innocent, pre-nuclear days. But he also acknowledged the place of the martial virtues in a healthy character. “We inherit the warlike type,” he pointed out, “and for most of the capacities of heroism that the human race is full of we have to thank [our bloody] history.” “The martial virtues,” he continued, “although originally gained by the race through war, are absolute and permanent human goods.... Militarism is the supreme theater of strenuousness, the great preserver of our ideals of hardihood; and human life with no use for strenuousness and hardihood would be contemptible.” “We pacifists,” he wrote with characteristic intellectual generosity, “ought to enter more deeply into the aesthetic and ethical point of view of our opponents.” To militarists, a world without war is “a sheep’s paradise,” flat and insipid. “No scorn, no hardness, no valor any more!” he imagines them saying indignantly. “Fie upon such a cattleyard of a planet!” This, remember, was the era of Teddy Roosevelt, preacher of the strenuous life and instigator of splendid little wars. James’s pacifism may be common sense to you and me, but when he wrote, the common sense of Americans was mostly on Roosevelt’s side.

How to nourish the martial virtues without war? James resolved this apparent dilemma with a suggestion many decades ahead of its time: universal national service, every youth to be conscripted for several years of hard and socially necessary physical work, with no exceptions and no class or educational discrimination. This army without weapons would be the moral equivalent of war, breeding, James argued, some of the virtues essential to democracy: “intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command.” I am sure James would have agreed that these are not the only virtues essential to democracy—he himself, with his anti-imperialist activism, exemplified an equally essential skepticism and resistance to authority. But I wonder if our contemporaries, who mostly need no convincing about the necessity of skepticism and resistance to authority, would also agree with James about the importance of valor, strenuousness, and self-sacrifice.

James wrote in America before World War I, a situation of almost idyllic innocence compared with that of the next writer I want to cite, D. H. Lawrence. The Great War, as contemporaries called it, was a soul-shattering experience for English writers. The complacent stupidity with which Europe’s governing classes initiated, conducted, and concluded that war, the chauvinism and bloodlust with which ordinary people welcomed it, and above all, the mindless, mechanical grinding up of millions of lives by a war machine that seemed to go of itself—these things infuriated Lawrence almost to madness. Like many others, Lawrence saw the facelessness, the impersonality, the almost bureaucratic character of this mass violence as something new and horrifying in human history. But more than all others in the twentieth century, Lawrence was the champion of the body and the instincts against the abstract, impersonal forces of modernity. Like Nietzsche, he marshaled torrents of impassioned prose against the apparently inexorable encroachments of progress. Here is a passage from “Education of the People,” published posthumously in the two volumes of Phoenix.

We are all fighters. Let us fight. Has it come down to chasing a poor fox and kicking a leather ball? Heavens, what a spectacle we should be to the ancient Greek. Rouse the old male spirit again. The male is always a fighter. The human male is a superb and god-like fighter, unless he is contravened in his own nature. In fighting to the death, he has one great crisis of his being.     

What is the fight? It is a primary, physical thing. It is not a horrible, obscene, abstract business, like our last war. It is not a ghastly and blasphemous translation of ideas into engines, and men into cannon-fodder. Away with such war. A million times away with such obscenity. Let the desire of it die out of mankind.... Let us beat our plowshares into swords, if we will. But let us blow all guns and explosives and poison-gases sky-high. Let us shoot every man who makes one more grain of gunpowder, with his own powder.     

And then let us be soldiers, hand-to-hand soldiers. Lord, but it is a bitter thing to be born at the end of a rotten, idea-ridden machine civilization. Think what we’ve missed: the glorious bright passion of anger and pride, reckless and dauntless.

(...)

Modernity imperils another set of virtues, which are a little harder to characterize than the martial virtues, but are even more important. I don’t mean the bourgeois virtues, though there’s some overlap. I suppose I’d call them the yeoman virtues. I have in mind the qualities we associate with life in the early American republic—the positive qualities, of course, not the qualities that enabled slavery and genocide. In 1820, 80 percent of the American population was self-employed. Protestant Christianity, local self-government, and agrarian and artisanal producerism fostered a culture of self-control, self-reliance, integrity, diligence, and neighborliness—the American ethos that Tocqueville praised and that Lincoln argued was incompatible with large-scale slave-owning. Today that ethos survives only in political speeches and Hollywood movies. In a society based on precarious employment and feverish consumption, on debt, financial trickery, endless manipulation, and incessant distraction, such a sensibility seems archaic.

According to the late Christopher Lasch, the advent of mass production and the new relations of authority it introduced in every sphere of social life wrought a fateful change in the prevailing American character. Psychological maturation—as Lasch, relying on Freud, explicated it—depended crucially on face-to-face relations, on a rhythm and a scale that industrialism disrupted. The result was a weakened, malleable self, more easily regimented than its pre-industrial forebear, less able to withstand conformist pressures and bureaucratic manipulation—the antithesis of the rugged individualism that had undergirded the republican virtues.In an important recent book, The Age of Acquiescence, the historian Steve Fraser deploys a similar argument to explain why, in contrast with the first Gilded Age, when America was wracked by furious anti-capitalist resistance, popular response in our time to the depredations of capitalism has been so feeble. Here is Fraser’s thesis:

During the first Gilded Age the work ethic constituted the nuclear core of American cultural belief and practice. That era’s emphasis on capital accumulation presumed frugality, saving, and delayed gratification as well as disciplined, methodical labor. That ethos frowned on self-indulgence, was wary of debt, denounced wealth not transparently connected to useful, tangible outputs, and feared libidinal excess, whether that took the form of gambling, sumptuary displays, leisured indolence, or uninhibited sexuality.     

How at odds that all is with the moral and psychic economy of our own second Gilded Age. An economy kept aloft by finance and mass consumption has for a long time rested on an ethos of immediate gratification, enjoyed a love affair with debt, speculation, and risk, erased the distinction between productive labor and pursuits once upon a time judged parasitic, and become endlessly inventive about ways to supercharge with libido even the homeliest of household wares. 

Can these two diverging political economies—one resting on industry, the other on finance—and these two polarized sensibilities—one fearing God, the other living in an impromptu moment to moment—explain the Great Noise of the first Gilded Age and the Great Silence of the second? Is it possible that people still attached by custom and belief to ways of subsisting that had originated outside the orbit of capital accumulation were for that very reason both psychologically and politically more existentially desperate, more capable, and more audacious in envisioning a non-capitalist future than those who have come of age knowing nothing else?

If this argument is true—and I find it painfully plausible—where does that leave us? An individual’s or a society’s character cannot be willed into or out of existence. Lost virtues and solidarities cannot be regained overnight, or even, perhaps, in a generation. Even our ideologies of liberation may have to be rethought. A transvaluation of values may be in order: faster, easier, and more may have to give way to slower, harder, and less—not only for ecological reasons but also for reasons of mental and moral hygiene. And even if we decide, as a society, to spit out the poisoned apple of consumerism and technological addiction, is there a path back—or forward, for that matter? If individual self-sufficiency and local self-government are prerequisites for human flourishing, then maybe it is too late.

(...)

Do my apparently disparate-sounding worries have anything in common? Possibly this: they all result from one or another move on the part of the culture away from the immediate, the instinctual, the face-to-face. We are embodied beings, gradually adapted over millions of years to thrive on a certain scale, our metabolisms a delicate orchestration of innumerable biological and geophysical rhythms. The culture of modernity has thrust upon us, sometimes with traumatic abruptness, experiences, relationships, and powers for which we may not yet be ready—to which we may need more time to adapt.

But time is short. “All that is solid melts into air”—Marx meant the crust of tradition, dissolving in the acid bath of global capitalism. Now, however, the earth itself is melting. Marx’s great metaphor has acquired a terrifying second meaning."And so has Nietzsche’s. If we cannot slow down and grow cautiously, evenly, gradually into our new technological and political possibilities and responsibilities—even the potentially liberating ones—the last recognizably individual men and women may give place, before too many more generations, to the simultaneously sub- and super-human civilization of the hive."

[douxreviews]

Legends of Tomorrow: Luchas de Apuestas

"You were right. There’s no such thing as happily ever after."

Legends of Tomorrow is back with its first episode in nearly four months, and it comes out swinging.

The second half of season four just got real, y'all.

Wow. That is a lot to process. Just... wow.

The most admirable thing about this episode is how much every additional tragedy felt like a natural consequence of the events that led up to it. So often when a show wants to create big, dramatic rifts between its characters it ends up coming across as incredibly contrived. The writing staff wants A and B to have a falling out for whatever reason, and so they find some way of starting a fight between them that usually comes wrapped in a big sign that says 'this is an excuse for A and B to fight.'

That's not the case here at all. What we have here is a bunch of characters that we know quite well by this point, responding to events in ways that feel perfectly true to who they are. And the actions that they take cause other characters to react in ways that are true to who they are, and soon the reverberations of all of those in character actions are careening off in tragic but understandable ways. It's like watching a meticulously arranged domino pattern but with crying.

Obviously, I'm girding myself to discuss Sara and Ava.

OK, right now I'm rocking gently and repeating to myself, 'It's not permanent. They'll work it out' over and over again. But as much as I hate that Sara and Ava have broken up, I can't help but watch all the little steps that led up to it and think, 'Yes. That is exactly how Sara would respond to that' and 'Yep, that's exactly how I would expect Ava to react to that situation.' Of course Sara would choose to give Mona and the Kaupe the benefit of the doubt and try to shield them from the Bureau. Of course Ava would feel betrayed by that and respond by attempting to take more control over Sara and the Waverider in order to protect time. Or course Ava would ultimately try to prevent Sara's team from doing something she sees as reckless by sending in troops, and of course Sara is going to respond badly to that. Just to make it more heartbreaking, they both genuinely tried several times to talk the situation through like adults so that they could head the whole thing off, but failed.

Ava needed Sara to be on her side, and Sara couldn't be because that would mean abandoning Mona and the Kaupe, both of whom are basically innocent, to punishment and torture. She feels like Sara let her down, because Sara did actually let her down, even if it was for the best of reasons. Sara needed Ava to back her up against Hank and the government forces that are torturing their prisoners, and Ava couldn't do that because without Hank and his funding the Time Bureau ceases to exist, which would leave time unprotected just as it's being overrun with magical monsters. She feels like Ava is compromising herself ethically by ignoring the torture because Ava is, in fact, compromising herself ethically by ignoring the torture, even if she is doing it with the greater good in mind.

Which was a great final twist of the knife, by the way. A lot of Sara's dilemma in this episode was not knowing if Ava was part of the corrupt system, or in danger from the corrupt system. And because Sara is an emotionally healthy adult her default position was to have faith in Ava. Which made that final conversation all the more painful when Ava not only revealed that she didn't have a problem with the torturing of prisoners, she also pointed out that the Legends were sending those same prisoners to literal Hell only a few months ago. Ouch. I had forgotten that. Hell, they were ready to send Charlie to Hell now that I think about it. Goodbye moral high ground.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the episode, wow we have a lot of characters now, don't we. So, Charlie and Ray hang out back at the Waverider, while Mick, John, and Sara go to check out the Lucha Libre to which they've tracked the Kaupe. Zari, meanwhile, heads to Time Bureau HQ to dig into their security software and find out if Mona is telling the truth about not having released the Kaupe herself. She pairs up with Nate, and of course uncovers that Hank doctored the footage and is behind the whole 'creature torture' thing. Nate shows that he's undergone some character growth and doesn't fly off the handle at Hank, but instead pretends to be cool with it so that he can go all monster hunter Donnie Brasco. I like that new direction for Nate a lot. Having him investigation the TB from within is a lot more interesting than him slowly turning to the dark side and siding with Hank during the inevitable upcoming civil war, which is where I thought he was going.

Mick, John, Charlie and Ray don't get a ton to do this week, but Mick does get a couple of solid bonding scenes with Mona, over his Buck and Garima books, of which there are now apparently many. I guess that's what Mick was doing over the winter break. John, similarly, doesn't get a lot, but had a couple very nice moments with a Luchador who is supposed to be a big hero, but who's been supplanted by the time displaced Kaupe who's now wrestling under the name El Lobo. The detail that John is apparently a big fan of that particular wrestler and his later monster movies is perhaps a tad too convenient, but it was earnestly endearing, and earnest helps to excuse a lot in my book.

So, after all that uplifting triumph over adversity, Mona has the opportunity to run away with the Kaupe, but makes the emotionally correct choice to not run away from her problems, and everything is warm and fuzzy and deeply moving. But then the Kaupe is abruptly shot and killed and Mona is apparently a werewolf (were-Kaupe?) now, and all you can think as a viewer is, 'Oh, that's why they reminded us about her Kaupe-injury and why we had all the wolfman references made to the Kaupe. They were setting up that moment really well as the natural consequence of this sequence of events and I didn't even notice.'

If only every hour of broadcast television understood and used cause and effect as a result of character choices this well. What a world that would be.

So what have we learned today?

That the show isn't even remotely concerned about what the knock on effects of changes to the timeline might be anymore. That was actually the one big flaw this week. If the presence of the Kaupe in 1961 was changing the timeline in a way that the Bureau could see, then it would have eliminated a lot of the underlying problem. Specifically, if Ava could have seen that having the Kaupe fight the Lucha de Apuestas fight was the only way to get history back on the correct course, then the whole final fight could have been avoided.

Of course, the whole final fight was much more about Sara and Ava and their relationship, so it doesn't detract that much from the episode. But it would be nice if they'd addressed it at all.

Everybody remember where we parked:

This week the Waverider went to Mexico City, 1961, to catch a little Lucha Libre. And Zari somehow flitted back and forth between the Waverider in 1961 and the Time Bureau in the present day.

Present day, interestingly enough, is still stated here as 2018, probably unavoidably, as the action picks up right where "Legends of To-Meow-Meow" left off.

Quotes:

Gary: "Aw, what an adorable little puppet." Puppet: "Eat my fuzzy dung, ya dick!"

Ava: "Gary. Close that hospital gown or I will report you to HR."

Gary: "I don’t know who I am. I don’t know why anything is things. I don’t know where my nipple went. Where’s my nipple? Where’s my nipple?!?"

Constantine: "Oh, come on Raymondo."

Nate’s mom: "Zari? What a beautiful name for a beautiful woman with excellent childbearing hips."

Ava: "Sara, my ass is already on the line. Feeling me up in front of my boss is not a good idea right now."

Constantine: "Trust me, there’s nothing people like more than a good comeback."

Bits and pieces:

-- Please don't let them be hinting that Zari and Nate are going to be a couple. I'm just not down for it.

-- Zari and Sara again looked absolutely amazing in their party dresses.

-- On the one hand, I like the implication that the show has finally remembered Nate's hemophilia, since it's implied that that's why his parents host an annual fundraiser for it. On the other hand, it's weird that that never came up once from anyone.

-- Seriously, powers that be, if you're going to take a four month mid-season break, for the love of god make the first half's episodes available on-demand so that we can get back up to speed. I spent most of this episode thinking, 'Oh yeah, I forgot that that happened,' which really killed several of the reveals for me.

-- I really, really wish that there'd been a luchador with the number 5 on his mask, somewhere in the background.

-- Luchas de Apuestas means a fight with a wager on it. Usually either the opposing wrestler's mask or hair.

-- Was the Kaupe a demi-god before? Because I think that was a bit of a ret-con.

-- Apparently the heavily hinted Gary/Mona/Kaupe love triangle is not going to be a thing. I hope they find a way to fix Gary and that he forgives Mona.

-- I did not see Mona's monster transformation coming. Can't wait to see where that goes.

-- When exactly did Sara and Ava learn that Tango? Not that I'm complaining, it looked amazing.

-- I would totally play Ray's 'Cards to Save the Timeline' game.

An episode that was both a lot of fun, and a lot of heartbreaking. Welcome back, Legends. You were gone too long.

Three and a half out of four missing nipples.

Mikey Heinrich is, among other things, a freelance writer, volunteer firefighter, and roughly 78% water.

[funkymbtifiction]

Wings / Strengths Weaknesses

To save everyone (and myself) time... [I shortened these from here.] I basically use these as shorthand to type characters from.

Gut Types:

1w9 - Seeking Rightness and Peace

Calm although eruptions of temper are possible. Detached quality. Tendency to formulate and embrace principles that have little human content, but this is also their strength. When awakened, may be objective and balanced, cool and moderate in their evaluations. More unhealthy, might have perfectionistic expectations not humanly possible to meet. May hold social or political opinions that are supremely logical but ultimately heartless and draconian. The rules come first no matter what. Can be merciless or unwittingly cruel. Often a little colorless in their personal appearance. Many Ones with this wing are plain dressers, preferring functional clothing that is appropriate to context but not flashy. The emphasis on function may extend to their general lifestyle. Practicality is highly valued.

1w2 - Seeking Rightness and Love

This wing generally brings more interpersonal warmth. High standards are tempered by humanism. May understand and partly forgive humanity for not doing its best. Work hard to improve the conditions of others, sacrificing time and energy to do good works. When more unhealthy, can be volatile and self-righteous. Authoritarian inflation and moral vanity on the low side. Can give scolding lectures or display a kind of touchy emotionalism. “Do as I say, not as I do” attitudes possible. Hypocrisy likely because the person is so convinced they have moral good intentions. Overlook inconsistencies in their own behavior. Dependency in relationships. Far more likely to be a jealous intimate subtype than Ones with a 9 wing.

8w7 - Seeking Power and Stimulation

Expansive, and powerful. Gregarious and generous, they may display a cheerful bravado. Can be forceful but with a light touch, funny. Often have a sense of humor about themselves. Extroverted, ambitious, materialistic. May talk loud and be sociable partygoers. Driven to bring the new into being. Can be visionary, idealistic, enterprising. Willing to take risks. 7 wing brings an intellectual capacity. Aggression combines with gluttony to form an virulent tendency to addiction. Prone to temperamental ups and downs—can be moody, egocentric, quick to anger. Tendency to court chaos, inflate themselves narcissistically. Some are ruthlessly materialistic. Can use people up, suck them dry. Maybe be explosive or violent, prone to distorted overreaction.

8w9 - Seeking Power and Peace

Aura of preternatural calm, no self doubt. Take their authority for granted. Gentle, kind-hearted, quieter. Often nurturing, protective parents; steady, supportive friends. Informal and unpretentious, patient, laconic, somewhat introverted. A dry or ironic sense of humor. Aura of implicit, simmering anger. Slow to erupt but when they do it’s sudden and explosive. When unhealthy, callous numbness. They can be oblivious to the force of their anger until after they’ve hurt someone. Calmly dominating, colder; may have an indifference to softer emotions. If very unhealthy, they can be mean without remorse or aggressive in the service of stupid ends. Paranoid plotting, muddled thinking, moral laziness. Can be vengeful in ill-conceived ways, abuse those they love, don’t know when to quit.

9w8 - Seeking Peace and Power

Modest, steady, receptive core. Great force of will. Get things done, make good leaders. May have an animal magnetism of which they are only partly aware. Can seem highly centered, take what they do seriously but remain unimpressed with themselves. Strong internal sense of direction. Relatively fearless and highly intuitive. Not intellectual unless they have it in their background. When more unhealthy, they manifest contradictions. Can be passively amiable then horribly blunt. May be slow to anger and then explode. Or angry but don’t know it; may confuse being assertive with being rude. Placidly callous—both styles support numbness. Tactless and indiscriminate and indiscreet. May be unwittingly disloyal, spilling everyone’s secrets. Sexual confusion, sometimes they are driven by lust.

9w1 - Seeking Peace and Rightness

Model children. Virtuous, orderly, and little trouble. Great moral authority plus good-hearted peacemaking tendencies. Often have a sense of mission, public or private. Principled expression of love. Desire to contribute, do little harm. May be well-liked, modest, endearing, gentle yet firm. Great grace and composure, bursts of spontaneity and sweetness. Elegant simplicity. When unhealthy, they self-neglect. Dutiful to what they shouldn’t be. Play the good child, settle for being overlooked. Passive tolerance of absurd or damaging situations. One-sided relationships where the Nine gives too much. Rationalize, minimize, tell themselves they everything’s fine. Placid numbness creeps over them. Intolerance of their own emotions. Gradually deaden their soul.

Heart Types:

2w1 - Seeking Love and Rightness

Conscience and emotional containment. When healthy, they act from general principles about the value of serving others. Ethics come before pride. May hold themselves to high standards. Discreet and respectful of other people’s boundaries. When upset, tend to go quiet and experience strong emotions internally. More melancholy than Twos with a 3 wing. When less healthy and unhealthy, tend to confuse their sense of mission with self-centered needs. Go blind to their own motives; invade and dominate others. Believe their actions are perfectly justified by their ethic of helping. May repress their personal desires and focus on others as a way to avoid guilty dilemma between the rules and their inner needs. If really blind they will warp their ethics crazily to justify personal selfishness and prideful hostility.

2w3 - Seeking Love and Image

This wing brings Twos an extra measure of sociability and the capacity to make things happen. When healthy, can be charming, good-natured and heartfelt. Really get things done, serve effectively on projects that involve the well-being of others. Thrive on group process and are generally good communicators. Enjoy keeping several threads or projects going at once. Unhealthy Twos with a 3 wing can be quite emotionally competitive and controlling. 3 wing brings a double dose of vanity. Strong tendency to live in one’s images. May grow brazenly deluded, preferring their glamorous, self-important scenarios to reality. Tendencies to deceit and emotional calculation. Highly manipulative. This wing is also more extroverted; dramatization of feeling in the form of hysterical snit-fits is far more possible.

3w2 - Seeking Image and Love

Highly gregarious. Tendency towards playing a role. Social perception, prestige and recognition important. Personal warmth, leadership qualities. Sincere desire to do well by others; may be genuinely nice. If they have achieved success, generous in their mentorships. When unhealthy, they are preoccupied with seeming ideal. This can extend to friendships, family, work. Want to seem a perfect spouse, friend, parent, employee, good child. Strong social focus because they need validation from others. Preening and boastful behavior possible. Bursts of egotism. Wanting to be on top, better than others. Slip into impersonation easily, may falsify feeling and not know it themselves. Deep emotional self-recognition is lost. Malicious intentional deceit is possible. Behavior of con-artists and sociopaths.

3w4 - Seeking Image and Identity

Less image-conscious or project an image more implicit and subtle. 4 wing brings a degree of introversion. May measure themselves more by their creations, artistic or social. Compete with themselves more than with other people. Motivation and ability to work on oneself. May accomplish everything they set out to do, then embark on self-analysis. Will still like a challenge, but thoughtful, intuitive or humanistic concerns of prime interest. The low side of this wing can bring a haunted, self-tormented quality or a haughty, competitive pretentiousness. Might be snobs or accuse critics of being too plebian to appreciate them. Cool, hard shell. In private, can lapse into self-questioning and melodrama. Instability and moodiness can be factors. Unrealistic grandiosity.

4w3 - Seeking Identity and Image

Outgoing, sense of humor and style. Prize being creative and effective. Intuitive and ambitious; may have good imaginations, often talented. Colorful, fancy dressers, make a distinct impression. Self-knowledge combines well with social and organizational skills. When unhealthy, have a public/private split. Conceals feelings in public then goes home to loneliness. Can enjoy their work and be dissatisfied in love. Tendency to melodrama and flamboyance; true feelings often hide. Competitive, sneaky, aware of how they look. Some have bad taste. May be fickle in love, drawn to romantic images that they have projected onto others. Could have a dull spouse, then fantasize about glamorous strangers. Achievements can be tainted by jealousy, revenge, or a desire to prove the crowd wrong.

4w5 - Seeking Identity and Knowledge

Withdrawn, complex creativity. Intellectual, exceptional depth of feeling and insight. Very much their own person; original and idiosyncratic. Have a spiritual and aesthetic openness. Will find multiple levels of meaning. May have a strong need and ability to pour themselves into artistic creations. Loners; enigmatic and hard to read. Externally reserved, internally resonant. When they open up it can be sudden and total. When unhealthy or defensive, easily alienated and depressed. Many have a sense of not belonging. Can get lost in their process, drown in their ocean. Whiny, ruminate and relive past experience. Prone to shame. Air of sullen, withdrawn disappointment. May live within a private mythology of pain and loss. Can get deeply morbid and fall in love with death.

Head Types:

5w4 - Seeking Knowledge and Identity

Abstract, intuitive cast of thought, as though thinking in geometric shapes instead of words or realistic images. May be talented artistically and inhabit moods. Combine intellectual and emotional imagination. Enjoy the realm of philosophy and beautiful constructs. The marriage of mental perspective and aesthetics. Fluctuate between impersonal withdrawal and bursts of friendly caring. Can get floaty and abstract. Act like they’re inside a bubble, sometimes with an air of implicit superiority. Cliché of the “absentminded professor” applies especially to Fives with this wing. Environmentally sensitive and subject at times to total overwhelm. Touchy about criticism. Can be slow to recover from traumatic events. Melancholy isolation and bleak existential depression are possible pitfalls.

5w6 - Seeking Knowledge and Security

Detail, technical knowledge, thinks in logical sequence. Intellectual, extremely analytical. Loyal friends, offering strong behind-the-scenes support. Kind, patient teachers, skillful experts. Sense of mission and work hard. Project an aura of sensitive nerdiness, clumsy social skills. When defensive, unnerved by others’ expectations. May like people but avoid them. Sensitive to social indebtedness. Has trouble saying “thank you.” Fear of taking action, develop “information addiction” instead. Asks lots of questions but doesn't get around to deciding. When unhealthy, they suspiciously scrutinize other people’s motives but can blindly follow. Misanthropic and Scrooge-like when defensive. Cuts off their feelings consistently. Cold, skeptical, ironic, and disassociated.

6w5 - Seeking Security and Knowledge

Introverted, intellectual. Many interests, competencies and skills. Original, idiosyncratic point of view. Bookish; interested in history or feel rooted in the past or related to a long tradition. Good at predicting the future. May test friends for a long time but become a friend for life. When unhealthy, project a willed remoteness. Hidden dimensions, intensity and activity. Tension between needing to be seen and withdrawing for protection. Might act arrogant, cryptic or cynical when afraid. Can be diplomatic and say things without saying them. Counterphobics are cool loners or argumentative and violent. Can brood over injustices, entertain conspiracy theories, spend time alone building cases. Paranoid. Sneaky vengeance, passive/aggressive toward others, self-attacking and self-destructive at home.

6w7 - Seeking Security and Stimulation

Outgoing, nervous. Want to be liked, pursues others. Can be charming, sociable, ingratiating. Fast tempo. Personal warmth. Cheerful, forward-looking drive, disarmingly funny. Self-effacing, gracious, curious. When unhealthy, may be self-contradicting and want two things at once. Sometimes test others overtly, drive you crazy with mixed messages. It may be hard to follow what they’re saying. When threatened, impossible to please. When counterphobic, accusative. Some get caught up in big plans they hope will result in material security. Insecure, irritable, petty, irrational, chaotic. Mood swings, inferiority complexes, runaway fears. Hair-trigger paranoid flare-ups . Falsely accuse others and not realize it. Other times plead to be taken care of. Conservative in their lifestyle.

7w6 - Seeking Stimulation and Security

Responsible, faithful, lovable, nervous and funny. Oriented to relationships, want acceptance. Steady, willing to stick with commitments. Openly vulnerable, unguarded, tender sweetness. Has trouble expressing anger. May evade authority but are still aware of it. Canny and practical, they look for deals and loopholes. When unhealthy, may have episodes of sensitivity or insecurity. Get their feelings easily hurt. Sensitive to comparisons. May avoid testing themselves. Grow dependent and addicted to other people, afraid to be alone, suspicious and skittish. Easily feels guilt, may act irresponsibly. Shallow, falls in and out of love easily. Breezily betray others by running away. Can be reckless, unstable, and self-destructive. Hates to be told what to do.

7w8 - Seeking Stimulation and Power

Generous, gregarious, expansive. Loyal to their friends. Leaps aggressively to their defense. Loud or boisterous, urbane and witty. Enjoy social celebrations, storytelling, jokes, food and travel. Self-confidence for worldly matters and getting what they want. Talent for making something out of nothing. Shares what they have, wants others to share their interests. When unhealthy, demanding, selfish, impatient. Self-justifying narcissism. Wants what they want right now. Aggressive, greedy for money, pleasure, recognition. Can demand others say only what they want to hear—sugarcoated truths. Lashes out angrily if reality doesn’t meet their expectations; sometimes vengeful. Moralize to others while being irresponsible. Amnesia for promises. Particular difficulty with sexual fidelity.

 - ENFP Mod

[sieben9]

“only you”/“an untold story” impressions

{Quick request to anyone reading: I’m watching OUaT for the first time, and I want to avoid spoilers. So, if you want to discuss something spoilery, I’d be grateful if you could start a new post for that. Thank you!}

Yes, both in one post. Mostly because I watched them in one go. And because they’re really just one long story, anyways.

please feel free to insert your own episode-relevant pun here

Before I get into anything else: NO MORE UNDERWORLD LIGHTING! I’d almost forgotten how much that stupid red filter bothered me, until I didn’t have to stare at it while going through my screenshots. Dobby is freeeee~

Anyways, to my intense surprise, especially after the mess that was “Last Rites”, I really liked this finale! Not as a season-finale, because it wasn’t, but it was a very solid, fun two-parter that feels like it should have aired halfway through the hiatus between seasons. (I have Opinions™ on the “season finale followed by a mostly-unrelated epilogue/setup for the next season” format, and not one of them is positive.) The setup for the next season did get me cautiously excited, though. Not quite the “holy crap, I have to watch that!” of the s4 finale, but still good.

Just for clarity’s sake: I will be referring to this two-parter as one episode, just for ease of conversation. I have not slept this weekend, and I refuse to juggle grammar.

OK, just so I have it out of my system:

Gay roadtrip!

“i know we spent the last ten episodes getting my boyfriend back from the dead, but there isn’t room for four in the bug, so bye!” — emma swan, apparently

My joyful little shipper heart aside, the Emma/Regina bits in this episode were just fantastic. From their little heart-to-heart about Regina missing Robin (and Emma actually properly empathising this time) to the oddly even more personal topic of Regina’s constant battle with her “evil” side, it was all that I might have wanted and more.

The scene also left me with a weird feeling, because on the one hand, sure, it’s hard to constantly have to censor a part of yourself in order to be accepted in the company of the people you love (and who love you), but on the other hand… if that part of yourself has “kill it with fire” as the first response to any and all annoyances, maybe, just maybe, that’s something that you should censor. That said, Regina, you should definitely make an appointment with Archie. That sounds like his cup of preferred beverage.

And now to maybe my least favourite part of the episode, so we get it over with… the actual “main” plot. Or the excuse plot, as I will call it, because, really, the whole “Henry destroys magic” thing never really felt like a credible threat. It was more something to get everyone into motion so they could do the actually interesting stuff.

Don’t get me wrong, Henry snapping after losing yet another person—even by proxy through his mother—is perfectly understandable and realistic. That he’d turn his anger on magic as a whole isn’t exactly out of left field, either. He’s done this before, after all. At least this time, he didn’t try to blow up the magic well. I like that well, recent drama notwithstanding.

instead, we get the reverse-cornucopia of magic, apparently

But the plotline itself seemed far too rushed and low-energy to really grab my attention. And the resolution was… ::sigh:: there’s a dilemma for me, here, because I unabashedly love cheesy “The Power Is In You” moments, and the scene at the well did hit that button. It just felt unearned, which is why I couldn’t really enjoy it. (Also, I don’t know what New Yorkers are like, but I know how people from around here would have reacted to a performance act like that. Ah, well. Never Mind All That.)

the real magic was convincing so many people to throw away their spare change

I don’t even know what to say about the Dragon cameo. Nice to see he’s not dead, after all, but everything else in that scene... Nick, if you’d be so kind?

OK, that’s over with. Luke-warm excuse plot with some nice elements to it. I’m not sure if Violet needed to be in this, but I guess Henry needed someone to talk to.

Just as a pick-me-up, I want to give a shoutout to one of the best-executed bits of comedy on this show so far:

“Guy on the third floor is involved in some kind of satanistic ritual and dumped his food on the floor. Pretty polite and tips well, though. 8/10”

Just… very good performance and comedic timing on both parts. I liked it.

Aaaaand over to the “they got sucked through a portal. Again.” part of the episode.

ah, zeppelins; the easiest shorthand for “alternate universe” there ever was

I do kind of like the sound of the Land of Untold Stories and I really, really hope this gets a little more fleshed out in the coming season. How do people end up there when they’re not sucked through Yet Another Portal Accident? Is this what happens to all stories that haven’t been written down by an Author, yet? Is Harry Potter in there somewhere?

So many questions, so little screentime… I’m not sure if I would have liked 8 episodes of stumbling around in this new world, but I would have liked to find out if I did. …listen, it made sense in my head.

This plotline included what is probably my biggest complaint about the writing this episode: Snow selling out Belle. Just… with little to no hesitation. Which is why blaming the writing and not her. If this was supposed to be some kind of big, dramatic moral dilemma, I expect we’d have seen at least some semblance of guilt on her part. Instead, she just told this clearly violent individual about the defenceless, sleeping-cursed pregnant woman within nanoseconds of him threatening Hook. I know Snow’s characterisation has been a bit inconsistent recently, but come on. This isn’t her, and I am disappointed that the show even tried to sell this to me.

And I think I would have believed the version where Snow just blurts out the information about Belle and later feels awful, because holy crap, how could she? (There’s… some precedent for poor judgment on Snow’s part when it comes to sharing information, after all.) But this wasn’t even a Thing for her. I just… ::frustrated noises:: why, show?

So, yeah, the Bad Guy kidnaps Belle. Well done, there. By the way, wasn’t it incredibly difficult at some point to make portals to the Land Without Magic? I get why portalling to Storybrooke would be easier—it’s got magic, after all. But hotel room 318, New York? I guess you could argue that the crystal brought the magic along, but still.

i giggled at this bit, i’m afraid. fellow cat owners will understand.

So, I’m not sure what the “intended” reading here is, but I find it interesting that Rumple seems to understand himself so much less than Hyde apparently does (prediction: they totally know each other; mostly because Rumple knows everyone—guy gets around…) So he went to protect the magic crystal, because what else would the thundering teleport-vortex of doom have come to steal? As has been noted before, Rumple doesn’t really go after people through their loved ones, with one very recent exception, and he had to ask his dad for help to come up with that one. The idea that someone would kidnap Belle to get whatever the hell they want from him, doesn’t seem to occur, even though it has happened multiple times, already. Just… maybe you should have kept that box in your coat pocket, my friend.

Yeah… this is sure going to be fun, I can already tell. What does Hyde want with Storybrooke, anyway? It’s been established that it has one of the least-fun-to-rule populations, and everyone and their dog has magic. Seems like a bad pick, overall.

You do you, though.

And from Jekyll and Hyde, we finally come to this…

that still looks so very unpleasant.

I’m… ambivalent about the personality split, and I really want to wait and see how it turns out. Clearly, this is a good way to have the Evil Queen around again without also having to sacrifice Regina’s redemption arc, which I’m grateful for, believe me. It’s bad enough to have one of my faves on a redemption-yoyo—no need to add a second one.

is it bad that i missed her?

OK, look I’ve seen this Star Trek episode. Ten bucks that it turns out the Evil Queen isn’t “just” Regina’s evil side, she also got many of her more forceful, but overall positive character traits, and both are less without the other, leading to them re-fusing or something. (Yes, wrong fandom. So sue me.)

…obviously, I’m willing to be surprised, but I like this version a lot more than the idea that you can just siphon out the “evil” parts of yourself. (Even Hyde wasn’t really Jekyll’s “evil” side—just the collection of his socially unacceptable traits made flesh. I only read an abridged version of that book, and that a while ago, but Jekyll still seemed like a bit of an ass to me.)

While we’re here: shoutout to Snow and her flask of cocoa-fortifier. That got a surprised (and amused) laugh out of me.

Also, do we want to talk about whether or not it’s healthy to be so at odds with a part of yourself that you think killing it is the best way to deal with it or…? ‘cause, honestly, I would like to talk about that. Seems like Regina is a lot less OK than she’d like others and herself to think…

yeah, that’s not a “finally i’m free!” face

So, cautiously optimistic about s6 so far. The villains definitely seem interesting, and this episode was a good reminder of what I liked about the character dynamic in the first place.

An addendum about 5B:

Goddamn, but this season dragged. There seems to be simultaneously too much plot for too little time and not enough plot to fill ten episodes. This is probably based in my personal biases for and against certain characters (and the fact that I was insanely busy and couldn’t watch the season all in one go), but… yeah, I’m kind of relieved it’s over, to be honest.

[impostoradult]

Unpopular SPN Opinion Time

While I do believe Dabb to be trolling (for the most part), I also don’t care if Jack has a love interest, and in fact, if anything, I am PRO that idea. 

I think Supernatural’s allergy to its main characters having (actual) love interests is dumb and needs to die. (For the record, random one-night stands are not what I mean here) 

I also think the whole “Jack is a baby!” argument is D-U-M-B. He was born walking and talking with the body of post-pubescent person. His existence is still fairly new, but he’s not a literal baby and that’s a stupid way of characterizing him. Literal babies can’t go hunting or fight the forces of evil. He’s not a baby. 

Also, I’m pretty sure the multitude of cosmically sized moral choices he’s had to make since being born makes him more than fully capable of consenting to sex. If you can successfully navigate whether or not to trust your father, who is literally Satan and one of the most manipulative creatures in all of existence, I think you have the intellectual and emotional capacity to decide if you want to make out with someone. Controversial opinion, but I’m standing by it.

Stop infantilizing Jack 2K18. He IS young and inexperienced, but he isn’t a “baby” and he’s navigated more complex moral dilemmas in his first year of life than most people ever do or will. He’s perfectly capable of having a healthy romantic/sexual relationship with someone. 

[italicwatches]

The Good Place, season 2 - Episode 05

Tomorrow…Is gonna be busy. But today, at least, I’ve got some time to work with. It’s The Good Place, season 2, episode 05! Here we GO!

-We begin at Eleanor’s place, with Chidi putting the trolley problem in front of the class. One of the classic head scratchers. You know how it works. Your trolley’s brakes fail. On the track ahead are five people. You can do nothing, and they die. You can switch to a side track, on which there’s one person, but that means making the active choice to kill that person. What do you do?

-Eleanor’s questioning is remarkably…pragmatic in her own way. She wants to know about the people, and if there’s a nasty ex, or a judgmental shopkeep. …You do not. Okay, then, gotta go for the least harm. Better to live with the guilt of choosing one death than the guilt of un-choice making for five.

-Tahani gets lost in her lifestyle stuff. But, she also picks saving the five.

-Right, good! That’s a pretty common answer. But the trolley problem is interesting because of how data changes it. Say the one is a good friend of yours, or a loved one. Or what if you’re not, yourself, on the trolley, but just a bystander who might be able to reach the track switch in time? Or even, skip the trolley itself, look to another metaphor. You’re a doctor facing five people with organ failures, and you’ve got one healthy organ donor. You could save all five…If you shot the donor in the head right now.

-And so that does make things different. The raw arithmetic is the same, but the framework changes the moral quandary. And through the whole thing, Michael’s been awfully quiet. But to him, the dilemma is clear.

-How do you kill all six? His plan is a long pole arm hung out the window. to catch the one while we catch the five. …He’s wrong, isn’t he. Yep! Now write “People = good” ten more times on the blackboard.

-Chapter 19!

-After all of that, Tahani and Jay are gonna tap out and take their free hour before they’re expected at a thing…I assume they’re gonna go bone down again.

-I WAS RIGHT

-And so after their boning down, or as Jay puts it, ‘pounding it out’, Tahani is all worried about people finding out…But Jay thinks she needs to talk about this with someone. Of course, Tahani doesn’t have anyone she can go to in this place, because the only two fellow humans are the ones she’s trying to keep from finding out… (Janet’s right there, guys. Not, like, literally, that would be weird and also I have to clarify given the character but you get my point)

-Back at Eleanor’s place, Chidi’s struggling to get this stuff to stick with Michael…And aside from his attempt to form it into a rap musical, the core thing Eleanor leaves him with is…time. You’ve got time, use it. Michael’s gonna be a slow burn, but they’ll get him there. And very no on the rap musical.

-Back to Tahani! She hits on the idea that she can talk it out with Janet. And Janet even gets out a notebook and some quite frankly adorable glasses to be a sounding board slash therapist.

-New day, new scene, Chidi’s chatting with Michael about his…Complete and utter failure to grasp the ethical questions in Les Miserables. He’s relying too heavily on his concrete knowledge of how the back-end of the whole system works, and thus not doing the real work, which is about questioning assumptions.

-Back with Tahani’s therapy sessions, where Janet hits on a core element of Tahani’s problem: She has no experience with someone like Jay…And if I may interject? Tahani’s whole deal, aside from seeking fame and fortune to get all eyes on her, is sticking firmly in well-charted waters so she can memorize those charts and look like the smartest person in the room for following them.

-Speaking of Jay, he stumbles on in and Janet decides she wants to hear his side of things. Tahani, though, cuts it off with, and I quote: “He thinks I have to control everything and he has no voice in this relationship. Right? Good. Now, where were we?”

-And then she hears herself actually say it, and…Okay. Okay, she’ll step out.

-Back with Michael and Chidi, Chidi tries to get two concepts into Michael’s head: First, these things do not have concrete answers, that is their point. Second, when it comes to grappling with and explaining human ethics? Chidi knows more than you do.

-Michael’s not buying it. He’s not liking all this theoretical stuff, and so he decides they need to have a more concrete example.

-And that’s how they’re on a speeding trolley with the very real, concrete scenario in play. Five workmen on this track, one on that one! Here’s the levers! Do what you’re gonna do, Chidi!

-Chidi ends up doing nothing and hits all five. Good lesson, Chidi. What did they learn? Come on, they weren’t real people, he’d never make you kill real people. “Oh, well that’s reassuring, because some of the parts of the fake people FLEW INTO MY MOUTH!” Chidi is not having a great day.

-And, okay, back to the classroom. And fresh restart on the trolley! So, take another run at it? PULL THE LEVER, Chidi! Also this version of the problem has the one person be Henry, of the infamous boots.

-Which slap across Chidi’s face when he’s forced to run Henry the fuck over.

-The Ethics Express comes to a stop, as Chidi’s in screaming shock and Eleanor’s trying not to let her inner Michael Bay fan out too much.

-Baaack to therapy! Jay’s problem is that, fundamentally when you boil out all the jokes about his stupidity, is “I feel like Tahani’s embarrassed that I’m not some scientist who forecloses on banks.” Speaking of Tahani, cue Tahani who’s freaking out and she needs Janet. …Janet, what about couples therapy?

-She’s game! Also her upped thumb just came off, filled with helium, and floated into the air. She might be operating a bit out of protocol here and it might be making for some glitches in the physics engine.

-Let’s see how the trolley problem is going. Chidi chose to run over five Shapespeares to save one Santa Claus. Interesting! And Eleanor’s feeling like they need to call it on this trolley problem. Michael agrees.

-How about the doctor one?

-So that’s how they all find themselves in scrubs, and these five people all need organ transplants! Eleanor’s perfectly healthy! (You are so lucky that the afterlife makes that true) Slice her open and use her parts to save these patients! Wait, wait Chidi think about this, think it through man, she’s your…No, she’s your…She’s A friend!

-And Chidi takes a hardline stance. Look, in this scenario he’s a doctor, right? Right. Hippocratic oath. First, do no harm. He is not going to violate that oath. Cool, cool. …Tell the families.

-“Doctor Chidi? My daddy needed a heart transplant. Did you save his life? He was working, then a really bad man ran him over with a trolley.”

-I literally cannot outdo that. Like, my goal with these is generally to make the jokes just as punchy, to make the drama just as tasty, to get as much of the experience of the show in as possible. But I can think of no way to do better than just straight quoting that entire line right there.

-Even Chidi has to call bullshit and Eleanor realizes Michael is just torturing them. …Okay, yeah, it’s true, sorry but it was pretty fun right? …No, Michael. No, it was not. Your entire premise for why they’re working with you is that the alternative is being tortured. You have just undermined the entire justification for why you’re here, and you are no longer welcome in this class. Get the fork out!

-Chidi stomps off furiously, and Michael is legitimately confused.

-A full hour later, Eleanor checks in with Chidi…Who has been concentrating on a table of contents to help calm his nerves. It’s not working. But Chidi has decided this was all a sham from the start…But Eleanor’s got another theory she’s working on.

-Back to therapy. Where Janet tries to get Tahani to give all the things she likes about Jay. …He’s thoughtful, and kind. Deeply un-self-aware and has no reason for his confidence, but all of that confidence means he actually goes for it in the bedroom…

-But from Jay’s boiled down perspective, he tries to be nice to Tahani, and yet she’s often not very nice to him. That’s…Not okay. And all Tahani can ask for is time. …And then Janet vomits up a frog, which is very much not the plan.

-Meanwhile, Eleanor’s gone to Michael’s office and you’re doing what she used to do. You’re lashing out when you feel like you’re not good enough. You felt dumb and small, so you took it out on the teacher.

-Bullshit!

-Okay, prove her wrong. Go make it up to him, and make it right, and prove you’re better than she was. Or stay down in the mucky muck of Shellstrop conflict tactics.

-So that’s how Michael ends up back at Eleanor’s place, having done a lot of long hard thoughts to get them each something they will deeply enjoy.

-For Tahani…A diamond the size of her god damned fist, but she’s giddy. For Eleanor, you have a secret shrimp dispenser! Ohhhh yes this is good.

-For Jay? A Pikachu balloon awwww he popped it.

-And for Chidi? It took a lot of long, hard thoughts…But he figured it out. One of Immanuel Kant’s lost notebooks, plucked right from his history. Full of thoughts, and musings, and…some crude erotic doodles. Interesting guy, Kant.

-Cool, cool.

-Chidi chucks it right in the bin.

-He’s not interested in a bribe or having his forgiveness and love bought, Michael. So what DO you want? For Michael to admit that he felt lost and small and vulnerable?!

-…Well yeah.

-So, Michael does exactly that aaaand he was totally faking it if you ask me. Also, bribe or no bribe, Eleanor’s keeping the shrimp machine.

-Cut to a month later! Tahani and Jay’s relationship has become stronger, better. …And then Janet books it because an earthquake is running hard through the whole facility!

-She appears in Michael’s office because she is going wrong. Her glitches are getting worse and she can’t stop them. She is going to put this neighborhood at total risk of utter collapse. …So that’s her day, how are you doing?

-Credits!

Well SHIT

[quinintheclouds]

why do you think Patton uses fi? he always seemed like a total fe user to me

I totally get that! He does give out that vibe, and I did think that for a while before diving in. There’s a kind of huge set of misconceptions about Fi though, and because of that it gets mistaken for Fe a LOT. People seem to go with the blanket statement of Fe = caring about others’ feelings more than your own and bottling up any negativity; Fi = caring about your own feelings more than having a focus on others’ and embracing or wallowing in the negative emotions. Either of these can do any of these, and they do. 

Fi is more focused on what the individual believes is right or wrong (hence it often being called the “morality” function), while Fe is more socially-oriented, and therefore more often prioritizes/is subject to what a group thinks is right or wrong. Fe is happier when the group is happy - and so is Fi - but Fi users’ emotions are more (for lack of a better word) personal. Fe aims for harmony among a group, which is why it can be caring and put others before itself. Fi aims for inner harmony in the sense that it isn’t comfortable/fulfilled unless it feels that what they are doing is right, good, and true to themself. BUT Fi is also highly empathetic, while Fe users tend to be more sympathetic. This empathy makes healthy Fi users warm, loving, open, caring, put others first, and all the other things people generally attribute exclusively to Fe.

Patton is Thomas’ moral compass. Fe is less about what YOU perceive to be right/wrong or good/bad, and more about which response will provide harmony for others. Patton’s whole function (haha unintentional pun) is to use Fi to guide Thomas’ decision-making, usually around the central theme of being true to yourself (the Fi anthem). Fi strives for authenticity; Fe strives for external peace (external meaning within the framework of others). Thomas absolutely aims for both of these, but he clearly emphasizes making sure he and those he cares about are honest with themselves and genuine in their happiness. Fe users like this outcome, but generally don’t address it on such an individual or prioritized level, and when they do it’s via different methods.

Fi can be especially confused with Fe when someone’s Fi places value on helping others and being kind. Keep in mind that Thomas, a super loving and caring person, would have the kind of Fi that focuses on that, because that’s something he values greatly, and is a huge part of who he is.

We’ve seen what happens when Patton tries to suspend his feelings for the sake of Thomas (something that would come more naturally to an Fe user, who’d be better at adjusting their emotions to make things easier for everyone. When Fi users try to do this, they usually can’t hold it up for long or become uncomfortable and even distraught). In Moving On, Patton tries to stand up to Logan because he knows his room isn’t where Thomas needs to be, but Logan makes the executive decision to go, and Patton reluctantly agrees (trying to go along with the group). Once in the room, Patton indulges in easy-to-deal-with emotions that accompany the memories of all the stuff he’s kept. At a certain point he can’t hide his deeper sadness anymore, so he lashes out at Logan because he’s afraid to go back to reality, and instead marinates in pleasant memories to try and force happiness onto himself. This is exactly what Fi does when under stress. Its intense desire to (unhealthily) avoid addressing painful emotions can override logic and often attempts (futilely) to force other, more preferable emotions to happen. This doesn’t last. Only when Fi is acknowledged in a healthy, open way and is allowed to be honest about its feelings can the painful process of dealing with the issue at hand begin. Once Patton’s facade of happiness is removed, Thomas has to face what he tried to suppress.

Can Lying Be Good was all about how without Patton, they lacked a sense of direction, and Thomas was left confused and unaware of what he thought was right or wrong. The episode was Thomas looking within himself to find what he believed was right, and decided that honesty was the way to go because it was the right thing to do (a conclusion that yes, Fe users can come to, but not by this same type of inner dialogue Thomas uses). Deceit [the way it’s portrayed here] is the other side of the Fi coin. “Deceit is an inner coach that acts with the one intention of self-preservation.” It protects you from feeling you’re a bad person by corrupting your Fi and distracting you from focusing on how you actually feel about your choices and what they mean about you. It’s basically a silencer of Fi, which fits perfectly with the plot of that video.

Pretty much every video deals with delving into Thomas’ personal issues to dig in to who he is (Am I Original in particular is a very Ne-Fi dilemma), help him become a better person, deal with overwhelming emotions, or try to be someone he can be more proud of. The way he does this so regularly, and as his primary method of working out his problems, is undeniably Fi. I can’t see Patton as an Fe-user anymore, considering the way he handles emotions and his methods for self-reflection. 

Whew, this was long! You can see now why I didn’t go off about Fe vs Fi too much in the original post lol :P I’m really glad you asked, though!! Hopefully this helps to explain it! Have an awesome rest of your day; I’d love to hear your response

[thinktosee]

IT’S A DOG’S LIFE

KIng and Oscar. Circa 1981

This essay is in memory of Loki.

We see and yet not feel. While the blind feel to see.

Loki was a youthful and healthy dog. Not long ago, his owner made the heart-breaking decision to put him down. (1) Sensible questions were raised by the public in singapore regarding his passing. Among these :

Why did the veterinarian put him down if he was healthy?

Did the owner have a right to do this?

Did the veterinarian go beyond medical ethics?

Could things have been done differently, to spare his life?

These questions are no doubt emotive and quite rightly so. Public sentiments should always be taken seriously, especially since our body of laws is founded on social morality. Having regard to law and morality, there are instances wherein the legal and ethical framework has yet to catch up with evolved social mores. Here’s an example of evolved social mores :

“In the 1960s, I knew people who, before going on vacation, would take their dogs to a shelter to be euthanized. They reasoned that it was cheaper to have a dog euthanized – and buy a new one upon returning – than pay a kennel fee.

Two decades later, I was working at Colorado State’s veterinary hospital when a group of distraught bikers on Harley-Davidsons pulled up carrying a sick chihuahua. The dog was intractably ill, and required euthanasia to prevent further suffering. Afterwards, the hospital’s counselors felt compelled to find the bikers a motel room: their level of grief was so profound that the staff didn’t think it was safe for them to be riding their motorcycles.” (2)

-  Bernard Rollin, Professor of Philosophy, Animal Sciences and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University

It is possible the law and medical protocols in Singapore, where they pertain to the treatment and welfare of animals, including pets, may require some review. Loki deserved better from us. Somehow, I feel we failed him, tragically.

The law and medical guidelines in general, accept an owner has the primary responsibility and duty of care to the pet. Animals are sentient and autonomous beings, that is, they feel pain, are imbued with emotions, and can function independently. The communicative aspect however, is an issue which imposes added responsibility and authority onto the owner and veterinary specialist in connection to the animal’s health and welfare. To put it simply – we don’t know what the animal is thinking or feeling, so a moral and ethical approach should always be adopted.

Before we go and exclaim, “Aha!” And to blame Loki’s tragic passing on a perceivably irresponsible owner or unethical veterinarian, let us pause for a moment to consider the words of Marcela Rebuelto, from the Veterinary Sciences Faculty of the University of Buenos Aires :

“Euthanasia of small animals, as cats and dogs, is a highly stressful situation not only for the owner of the animal to which euthanasia will be done, but also to those who have responsibilities in performing such procedure, as veterinarians or workers on animal shelters. Owners most common response to euthanasia is grief at the loss of his or her pet and guilt about their consent to euthanize their pet. As a proof of how distressing this situation is for the owner or client, in dogs, cats and horses or other animals regarded as pets, euphemisms such as “put to sleep” or “put down” are used for euthanasia. Veterinarians are also affected negatively by euthanasia, as the animal has usually been his or her patient for long, and they have become affectionately attached to it, or because they sympathize with the owner, and cope with different ways to the euthanasia of their patients.” (3)

There is a massive body of medical and veterinary literature which supports the statements of Dr. Rebuelto. No one wants to put an animal down unless guided by medical and ethical questions. However, there are no doubt instances wherein the decision regarding the on-going welfare of a pet was not given exhaustive consideration. This then raises an ethical and moral dilemma :

What more could have been done to save the life of a healthy pet? The following, again by Dr. Rebuelto, places the issue in some context :

“….when an owner of a perfectly healthy pet asks it to be euthanized, because of treatable sickness or behavioral problems (inappropriate elimination, aggressive behaviors, excessive barking), or because social reasons (being no longer useful, moving to a smaller home). In these circumstances, some veterinarians consider a moral dilemma how to comply with the client’s right to make decisions regarding his or her pet versus the responsibility the veterinarian has to alleviate the suffering of his patients and provide and ensure them humane and scientific care. These are difficult situations in clinical practice, and probably one of the most stressful for a veterinarian. American bioethicist and philosopher Bernard Rollin states that the fundamental question of veterinary ethics is: To whom does the veterinarian owe primary obligation: animal or owner?” (4)

To this, the following suggestion may be useful to consider :

Where a veterinarian has legitimate concerns about euthanizing a healthy pet, and this after the owner/client has exhausted every possible avenue for re-homing or engaging a shelter, a 3rd party medical and veterinary specialist, with a background in medical ethics, shall be consulted to determine the most compassionate and ethical approach towards the welfare of the pet. While it is generally acknowledged under the law and by professional animal welfare guidelines, that the owner/client has an overriding interest and responsibility toward the animal, it does not necessarily extend to euthanasia, particularly if the animal is medically healthy. The 3rd party medical specialist should therefore base their recommendation, after consultations with the veterinarian, owner, pet shelters and animal welfare agencies, in order to assure every possible remedy is given due consideration. (see Rebuelto, p.24). This too allows for a time-out for all, including the owner, to reconsider their respective positions in this emotive matter. 

The above proposal should apply only to the extent the client and veterinarian agree to it, especially since, their relationship is privileged, and hence, confidential. To go beyond the constraints imposed by the very nature of the doctor/client relationship may however, require legislation and or added professional and ethical guidelines for the veterinarians.

Having said this, we should always be mindful that animals have feelings and emotions. The owner and veterinarian should essentially work to compose and administer an acceptable programme of health and medical care throughout the lifetime of the pet. We should also keep in mind that the American SPCA estimates that 670,000 in-shelter dogs and 860,000 cats in the USA alone, are put down annually. (5) I wonder how many among these, were healthy animals like Loki. These are difficult medical, ethical, moral and animal management issues. They do impel us to give more thought to the welfare of animals in our care. Here’s Professor Rollin once more:

“For thousands of years, humans have kept animals as pets. But only during the past 40 years have they come to be viewed as family.”  (6)

 In the Spirit of David Cornelius Singh

Image courtesy SJII/Pret-a-portrait

-    David’s father

www.thinktosee.tumblr.com

Sources/References

1. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ava-clarifies-euthanasia-guidelines-says-clinic-followed-protocol-putting-down-pup

2. Rollin, Bernard. “When is it ethical to euthanize your pet?” The Conversation, 2015

3. Rebuelto, Marcela. “Ethical Dilemmas in Euthanasia of Small Companion Animals.” p.22-23, Bentham Open, 2008, 2, 21-25

4. ibid.

5. https://www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and-surrender/pet-statistics

6. Rollin, Bernard. “When is it ethical to euthanize your pet?” The Conversation, 2015

[aion-rsa]

25 Best RPGs Ever Made

https://ift.tt/3fG6nH3

It’s almost cruel to talk about the best RPGs ever made. Not only is it the kind of topic that inspires especially heated debates, but even a shortlist of the greatest RPGs ever may leave you desperately trying to find the time to somehow play them all.

Then again, the thing that separates the best RPGs from the rest is that they never really make you feel like you’re in a rush to “beat” them or move on to the next thing. They grab you by the hand and take you on a journey defined by character building, storytelling, world design, and, most importantly, the very convincing idea that you are no longer simply yourself but rather have the chance to truly become the kind of legendary figure you used to only be able to daydream about.

Whether they’re JRPGs, CRPGs, Tactical RPGs, or ARPGs, the best RPGs ever made are united by their ability to ease the escape from your burdens, your worries, and your world by taking you on an adventure the likes of which you simply won’t find in any other game.

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

25. Disco Elysium

It may be the newest game on this list, but in less than two years, Disco Elysium has changed the way some of the industry’s best creators approach the art of video game writing and RPG design. 

Though it lacks a proper combat system, this hard-boiled detective adventure is never lacking in intensity. With its fascinating moral dilemmas and incredible writing, Disco Elysium raised the bar in terms of challenging us to define who we are in its intoxicating world. If that isn’t role-playing, what is?

24. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance

Tactical RPGs don’t always get the love some of their genre cohorts enjoy, but it’s nearly impossible to not respect everything that Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance does so well.

Fire Emblem’s “rock, paper, scissors” style combat shines brighter than ever in this 2005 GameCube classic, but it’s the way this RPG’s incredible plot highlights the thrills of Fire Emblem’s high-risk permadeath system that puts it over the top. This is a simply brilliant blend of tactics and raw emotion that few games in this genre have come close to besting.

23. Ultima 4: Quest of the Avatar

There’s a healthy debate to be had about the best Ultima game ever, but Ultima 4 gets the nod here by virtue of this sequel’s sheer audacity.

Free of nearly every overused role-playing trope, Ultima 4 tasks you with finding yourself in an age of enlightenment rather than battling some great evil during a dark time. Ultima 4 deserves more credit than it typically receives for its plot that focuses on internal struggles in a time of peace, but it’s this game’s Virtues system, unusual character-building mechanics, and truly open nature that make it special to this day.

22. Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

Look, Vampire: The Masquerade was a tragically broken game upon its release and is only really playable today thanks to fan updates. However, so many of Masquerade’s problems can be attributed to its incredible ambition.

Some of the best tabletop-style RPG mechanics ever perfectly complement a truly unique RPG world where vampire clans battle for control of an extensive underground society. At its best, Vampire: The Masquerade is even better than that premise makes it sound.

21. Dragon Quest VIII: Journey Of The Cursed King

Ranking the Dragon Quest games is a tall enough task in and of itself, but there’s something to be said for how Dragon Quest 8 so perfectly captures most of the things that make this series great while adding a few necessary improvements.

Here’s a Dragon Quest game that offers a 100 hour+ journey packed with the incredible settings and memorable characters this series is known for that still manages to make the whole thing just accessible enough to encourage even the timid to participate in a truly epic adventure.

20. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

What is there left to say about KOTOR? After all, you probably know about its all-time great Star Wars story, its memorable morality system, and certainly its incredible twist.

Instead, let’s focus on how BioWare managed to break down the wall that divided PC and console RPGs by releasing one of the most well-crafted, best-written, and surprisingly deep PC-style RPGs ever exclusively for a console. It’s as if millions of gamers cried out in joy at the collective realization that it suddenly felt like anything was possible no matter what platform you owned.

19. Secret of Mana

It’s really a testament to the quality of the SNES’ JRPG library that Secret of Mana isn’t even the first SquareSoft RPG that people usually think of when they think of that console.

Still, Secret of Mana is something close to a video game design miracle. Few other games have come this close to packing this much depth and heart into such a substantial RPG experience that never feels like a slog and even allows you to play with a friend. This is one of the most entertaining RPGs ever made.

18. Earthbound

For years, Earthbound fans had to beg and plead for gamers to go out of their way to give this initially overlooked RPG the chance it deserved. I even spent quite a few years preaching that same gospel.

Now, though, many gamers know that Earthbound is one of the weirdest, most creative, and most surprisingly emotional JRPGs ever made. From its bizarre story to its soundtrack that refuses to stick to a genre for more than a song, Earthbound is a truly unique creative vision the likes of which many weren’t prepared for at that time and likely won’t see again.

17. Vagrant Story

Vagrant Story is another one of those games that were initially overlooked by many of the people who may have enjoyed it most. Even positive reviews said that Vagrant Story was too complicated, too dry, and maybe too much of an investment.

Years later, some of those criticisms remain, but they’re often quickly drowned out by praise for Vagrant Story’s unique take on the dungeon crawler genre and the ways that it juggled a pleasantly deep combat system with a dark, subtle, and mature narrative. There’s a world in which Vagrant Story achieved Dark Souls levels of fame, but it’s still rightfully remembered as one of the best dungeon crawlers ever. 

16. Persona 5

There are very few misses in the Persona franchise, but Persona 5’s story and style arguably elevate it over the other Persona titles that could have easily appeared on this list.

Alright, if I’m being very honest, Persona 5 gets the nod here for its style alone. This title’s design team took no piece of on-screen real estate for granted and managed to turn even the most mundane piece of UI into art. The worst part about this game is spending almost 100 hours with your jaw on the floor. 

15. Final Fantasy 9

You’ll soon discover that Final Fantasy 9 essentially “beat” Final Fantasy 7 for a spot on this list. They’re obviously both great games, but there are just so many little things that separate Final Fantasy 9 from the series’ revolutionary 7th (numbered) installment.

Final Fantasy 9’s characters, story, world, and music are simply among the best in franchise history. While it certainly doesn’t hurt that Final Fantasy 9 returned to a wonderful medieval setting, this incredible swan song for the original PlayStation ultimately gets the nod for the ways that it so perfectly utilizes and improves on so many of the things the FF franchise does so well. 

14. Deus Ex

Deus Ex may owe a lot to the System Shock series, but when it comes to executing the ambitious concept of a narrative-driven first-person RPG series that emphasizes environmental storytelling and character building, the original Deus Ex arguably stands alone. 

While Deus Ex’ bionic implant system and the way it offered multiple solutions to almost every situation are just brilliant bits of roleplay excellence, the game is arguably best remembered for its conspiracy theory narrative and how it sent you across the globe in search of something close to the truth.

13. Suikoden 2

While many RPGs (including an especially famous one we’ll be talking about in a bit) are built around assembling a party, few do it better than Suikoden 2 and its cast of 108 “collectible” characters with unique personalities, abilities, and stories. 

That large cast of character is understandably the game’s highlight feature, but what’s easy to forget about Suikoden 2 is how its incredible political storyline, castle building minigame, and surprisingly enjoyable combat system so easily ensnare you even if you aren’t especially interested in finding every available party member.

12. Planescape: Torment

For years, I’ve heard Planescape Torment fans argue that it features the best story in RPG history. Well, you know what? They…might actually be right.

Planescape: Torment’s story of the “Nameless One” quickly evolved into a philosophical meditation on the nature of existence that never feels as pretentious as that description may make it sound. This masterpiece expertly forces you to confront the implications and impact of every decision you make in a way that feels pleasantly organic. This is a nearly unrivaled example of choice-driven storytelling.

11. Baldur’s Gate 2

There’s a strong case to be made that Baldur’s Gate 2 is the best “pure” D&D style RPG ever, but what’s really so impressive about this title is how it translated D&D’s most complicated concepts to a digital medium so easily that you’ll likely find yourself wondering why other games haven’t been able to pull that feat off with such apparent ease.

Of course, there’s nothing easy about Baldur’s Gate 2‘s design. Its choice and consequence-based storytelling and stunningly deep character-building systems have often been replicated, but it’s hard to top one of the best RPG developers ever working at the top of their game.

Read more

Games

Star Wars: How Knights of the Old Republic II Became Gaming’s Great Unfinished Symphony

By Matthew Byrd

Games

Dark Souls Bosses Ranked

By Matthew Byrd

10. Dark Souls

It’s always a little controversial to label Dark Souls as an RPG, but the two things that this game does better than most in terms of classic RPG genre conventions are class distinction and character building. 

To survive in the world of Dark Souls, you have to understand your character and your own abilities in a way that goes beyond knowing which button to hit. The bond you form with your character by the time that you finish Dark Souls is something that the best RPGs strive for but rarely achieve. You truly feel like you have become your in-game persona and belong in this game’s wonderful yet horrifying world.

9. Pokémon Red and Blue

In case you’re wondering, this spot nearly went to Pokémon Gold and Silver based on quality alone. Ultimately, though, the cultural impact of Red and Blue was too great to ignore.

There’s a very good chance Pokémon was the first RPG that many people lost themselves in, which is all the more impressive when you consider that it’s a shockingly deep RPG in its own right rather than a simple “introduction” to the genre. Adventures are supposed to feel magical rather than cumbersome, and few RPG adventures are as consistently magical as this one. 

8. The Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind

Look, I know Skyrim is the blockbuster best-seller, and I’ve even argued that Oblivion is the best Elder Scrolls game ever, but much like Pokemon Red and Blue, it’s hard to argue against the impact of Morrowind and how it forever changed our expectations for the scope of an RPG. 

Morrowind‘s status as one of the first modern open-world RPGs (at least based on how we use usually that term today) is impressive enough, but what’s so shocking about this game is that few RPGs that followed in its footsteps have come close to topping Morrowind‘s visual creativity and lore. It’s so easy to forgive so many of the ways that Morrowind hasn’t aged especially well once you’ve fallen down the shockingly deep rabbit hole of its character-building possibilities and world-building.

7. Fallout: New Vegas

The debate over the best Fallout game will go on, but for the moment, let’s put down our swords and talk about all of the things that make Fallout: New Vegas so unbelievably brilliant.

Rarely have we ever seen an “open-world” RPG that puts this much attention into its side quests, out-of-the-way locales, and minor characters. Most open-world games try to sell you on the idea that you can go anywhere and do anything, but Fallout: New Vegas is one of the few that will encourage even the most focused gamers to see it all. More importantly, it manages to offer a variety of potential paths forward that only reveal themselves based on how you navigate its complex web of choices. It’s the kind of game that makes you want to stand up and take a bow.

6. Mass Effect 2

There are some who will say that Mass Effect’s core promise of a galaxy that’s fate will be impacted by most of your choices was always too ambitious. There are others who will argue, “It wasn’t. Just look at Mass Effect 2.”

Mass Effect 2 is arguably the closest BioWare came to realizing their most ambitious design ideas. Despite working with (often against) a scope that would make most studios weep in the corner, BioWare packed this sequel with a legion of memorable characters with their own complicated arcs that slowly reveal themselves as you brazenly explore a galaxy that feels ready to open up or crumble at your feet at any time. Mass Effect 2 does all of that and still manages to be a blast to play throughout.

5. The Witcher 3

The first two Witcher games are incredible, but if you find that most people don’t seem to be able to put The Witcher 3’s impact into words, that’s probably because even the first two games couldn’t quite prepare them for this masterpiece.

The Witcher 3 has side stories that would be worthy of campaigns in lesser games. I honestly still can’t quite explain how this game remains so fresh and exciting even after dozens of hours of play. Many of us grew up dreaming of being thrown in an elaborate medieval fantasy world where we truly felt like the hero that could shape the fortunes of all, and The Witcher 3 might just be the ultimate piece of sword and sorcery fantasy wish fulfillment.

4. Final Fantasy 6

Look, I could sit here all day and talk about the virtues of Final Fantasy 6 or even how its best moments are still capable of reducing gamers to tears. I could tell you about the heroes, the villains, the plot beats, and all the other things that make this game the classic that few will debate that it is.

Instead, I want to talk about how Final Fantasy 6 changed how so many of us look at gaming. This title’s prestigious nature was so prominent that it almost feels like developer Squaresoft traveled into the future and brought something back with them. This was the kind of game you begged people to play and it was the kind of game that made you pledge your allegiance to the very concept of gaming. 

3. Diablo 2

In an earlier article, I talked about how Diablo turned RPGs into an addiction. Somehow, that brilliant game managed to retain all the deep qualities of the greatest D&D adventures and wrap them around a simplified combat system that had many of us playing until the wee hours of the morning completely unaware of what was happening in our own world.

Well, Diablo 2 did all of that and made the whole thing so much better that you rarely even hear people talk about the original Diablo anymore. If the highlight of an RPG is that moment when you so completely lose yourself in its world that the troubles of your own existence leave your mind, Diablo 2 arguably reaches that point faster than almost any other RPG ever made.

2. World of Warcraft

I often wonder how I would explain to a child of the ‘80s or early ‘90s that a game like WoW exists. I suppose I’d just say “See, there’s this persistent world filled with wonders that you and your friends can spend thousands of hours exploring as you work together to defeat overwhelming threats and write your own adventures.” They’d probably understand the appeal of that idea but may not be able to comprehend how such a thing could be possible.

WoW may require one hell of a commitment to get the most out of it, and the game has had some ups and downs over the years, but the fact of the matter is that there is really no other RPG that can offer what the best moments in WoW history have to offer. It’s a truly magical experience that you’ll willingly sacrifice your free time to for the simple fact that it offers experiences you could only previously dream of. 

1. Chrono Trigger

Maybe this is an oddly appropriate statement for a game about time travel, but I’m fairly certain that Chrono Trigger will forever remain a timeless masterpiece. 

Chrono Trigger is an almost flawless game that not only combines so many of the things that we love about RPGs but arguably perfects them. Assembled by a dream team of some of the best JRPG creators ever, Chrono Trigger makes even the most seemingly mundane elements of its adventure feel absolutely joyful. When this game wants to go big, though, it does it in a way that few other games could ever dream of topping. Here’s a game with over 10 endings and a multi-layered time travel plot that moves with the effortless pace of a game of Tetris. 

Chrono Trigger is simply one of the best examples of curated RPG design that has ever or will ever be crafted. 

The post 25 Best RPGs Ever Made appeared first on Den of Geek.

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

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Subject Fail

by Wardog

Tuesday, 02 February 2010

Wardog is utterly horrified by the Subject Zero in Mass Effect II~

In case all the squeeing in the playpen hasn’t made it clear, I’m currently playing Mass Effect II – one of my favourite RPGs of all time, not least of all because it has

a genuinely functional morality system,

for once. Mass Effect II takes everything that was even slightly imperfect about Mass Effect I (and there were some issues, believe me – not least of all the cumbersome rumbling around barren planets in the crappy mako) and either polishes it until it shines or throws it out the window. Whoring for renegade and paragon points so you can use your charm / intimidate skills is no longer necessary, and finally they’ve noticed that picking the neutral option shouldn’t be a bum deal, so you actually get a scattering of both renegade and paragon points for charting a course between doormatty sainthood and shooting people in the face. With the result that Mass Effect IIis a little piece of awesome, and I love it passionately.

As much as I enjoyed Dragon Age, I genuinely (and probably heretically) believe that Mass Effect is by far the superior game. By giving you an already established character, Shepard, and the freedom to develop his/her attitude as you wish, it avoids all the problems Dan articulates in

this

article on Dragon Age. I think embracing linearity, as opposed to serving up a poor semblance of freedom, makes for a deeper story and, paradoxically, a more personalised experience. In short, I'd much rather be Shepard within a story constructed all around me, than Second Dwarf Commoner From The Left.

Spoilers incoming.

There's only one fly in my Mass Effect ointment, and that's the character of Subject Zero. Seriously, Bioware, what were you thinking?! To be fair, Mass Effect has always been

a bit dodgy

with its gender politics. But, despite being wet as a rice paddy during a Monsoon (and not in a good way) and the weird virginity fetishisation undertone, Liara did make a decent partner for my Shepard, soothing my renegade inclinations with her tentacles...err...I mean gentle ideals. But Subject Zero goes beyond “hmmm, you were a bit clueless, weren't you?” and into “ye gods, what is wrong with you?”

Before the game came out, there were a couple of trailers to build up excitement and anticipation about the Subject Zero character. Click

here

for the first one. Trying too hard, much? Good grief, she swears! She has tattoos. And a shaved head! How freaky! How alternative! How badass! My tiny mind is blown. Now putting aside the fact she looks, and talks, like your typical Ox Goth, which is off-putting to say the least, this is pretty cringe-worthy but not so out of the usual realm of cringe-worthy wankfantasy videogame characters that I did more than roll my eyes and sigh. It is, however, generally annoying that for a woman to be a badass she also has to be broken (“turns out, mess with someone’s head enough and you can turn a scared kid into an all-powerful bitch"). Healthy women, y’see, wouldn't be getting tattoos and firing guns, oh no, they'd be, I don't know, doing healthy things like sewing or getting married.

Then came the second trailer (which you can see

here

). It's still annoying but it's less “wow, we have a terrible attitude towards women” annoying, and she shows some depth and complexity beyond the over-sexed, broken badass model of the first trailer. Well, at least she does if you’re feeling mildly generous about it.

Part of the problem with the trailers, I think, is the lack of awareness – there seems to be no understanding of how far are we meant to buy Subject Zero's rhetoric, how far she buys it herself, and to what extent it is rhetoric. I like the second trailer more than the first because she seems genuinely psychotic and dangerous – which puts her on par with most of the rest of the cast - as opposed to the first trailer which depicts her as somebody ultimately fearful and pretending. Is she a victim or a badass, or a victim AND a badass, and if the latter how far, and in what ways, are they connected?

And then there's the game itself, where it all goes to shit.

You recruit Subject Zero (or Jack as she is known – which I think is quite cool) from a penal colony called Purgatory as part of the formation of your personal Dirty Dozen. She was sold, as a child, to a dodgy medical facility who tortured her, and a bunch of other kids, in order to increase their biotic abilities. Eventually, Jack managed to kill her way to freedom – causing chaos throughout the galaxy until her arrest. As part of her “gain her loyalty” quest, you take her back to the remains of the facility because … y'know … she's a woman, so she needs closure, or some other touchy feely girly crap. Again, the quest as a whole straddles the border between interesting and annoying. It’s interesting because there’s a brief moment in which the writers seem to be doing something slightly original with Subject Zero - she learns that other children were being abused even worse than she was in order to protect her, and make sure the biotic-enhancement experiments wouldn't kill her. This would genuinely be an intriguing development for someone who, rather self-indulgently and self-destructively, has always perceived herself as a victim. But the game promptly brushes this under the carpet, and instead presents you with the usual “you're a killer, Jack, get used to it” versus “but you have to let go of your past so it no longer controls you” moral dilemma. Yawn. And ultimately what you have here is a sequence which does nothing but prove how completely dominated Subject Zero is by the terrible things that were done to her when she was a kid – so much so that it makes much of her subsequent life of badassery a complete lie.

Of course, it’s perfectly realistic that somebody would, in fact, be completely dominated by the terrible things that happened to them as a child. People are. BUT the game isn’t trying to engage with the far reaching effects of child abuse. It’s offering up the worst kind of male fantasy there is – that of the woman who seems totally strong, but is secretly a broken flower who desperately needs a man to save her. All the characters you recruit to your Suicide Squad are, to a degree, dangerous and fucked up but - even the dying assassin who was trained to be one from the age of six or the scientist who worked on a virus to control an entire alien virus or the dude grown in a tank by a crazy frog alien – no matter how much guilt and remorse they feel, they ultimately own their past, their decisions and their badassery.

Not so Subject Zero. What powers she has were given to her by the people who experimented on her. And all the bad shit she did in her life was not truly her choice, and not something for which she can be held accountable, because she was impelled to it by the damage done to her. (Again, check out Dan’s article

The Victim Dilemma

for more on this) What you’re left with is a completely unthreatening female pseudo-badass.

This is all bad enough but it’s when you start to get into the sexual side of things that you move from cluelessly offensive, and into really really fucking disgustingly offensive. I will admit Subject Zero is kind of hot, and, again, it’s potentially a good thing to have an attractive female character who isn’t conventionally feminine in appearance – although, again, it’s all trying slightly too hard for it to really be effective. And I do kind of wish she’d put a proper shirt on. Having your nipples hanging out is dangerous if you're encountering regular cross fire. Anyway, you can bone Subject Zero in two ways... so to speak, but only if you're a man. Despite having done girls in her past, because it’s a turn on for the male gamer, I suspect, she doesn’t do girls now – because, y’know, bulldykes just aren’t a turn on for the male gamer. And although it’s perfectly reasonable for Subject Zero not to be an equal opportunities bonee in principle, in practice it means she’s still further defined by her status as a male fantasy.

The 'renegade' way is to get it on with Subject Zero is to shaft her against a bulkhead

as soon as the opportunity arises

– she will then discard you because you've proven yourself just another using manslut. The disturbing implication of this is, therefore, that Subject Zero doesn’t actually like sex – otherwise she’d be perfectly happy to keep fucking you, in this cheerful, no strings attached way. Again, although it’s perfectly reasonable that someone with a history of abuse might not enjoy sex and use it as a form of self-harm, the game isn’t actually engaging with this. Subject Zero’s promiscuity, like her badassery, is just another lie because the game simply can’t get its head round the notion that a woman could enjoy casual sex.

The paragon way is to pursue a relationship with her, whereupon she comes to your cabin aaaand

check this shit out

, and try not barf.

Ye Gods. I know the romances in Mass Effect are there to pander to our fantasies (mine just happens to be Garrus Vakarian all the way) but this is absolutely the most destructive and repulsive male fantasy there is. The supposedly 'strong' woman who is actually broken and helpless and just needs a male shoulder to cry on. Because, yes, a woman who weeps while you stick it to her is a real turn on. Don't get me wrong, I understand this fantasy. We all want to save women, especially from the cruelty of other men (see

nice guy syndrome

) but at least I'm self-aware enough to acknowledge it has absolutely nothing to do with women, and is incredibly, unspeakably unhealthy.

Also, just look at the way this scene is animated. You have Subject Zero (not so badass now, eh?) trembling, weeping and wordless, acknowledging that Shepard has a deeper understanding of her needs than she does, admitting tacitly that the person she has become is little more than a façade for her truly vulnerable, properly feminine self. And then she lies down, passive and submissive, her arms stretched over her head while Shepard heals her with his mighty mancock.

Eeeeew!!!

(Just as contrast, do check out

the consummation scene with Miranda

, one of the other female options. I think video-game sex scenes tend to look a bit ridiculous, as the animation isn’t quite up to it, but this is quite fun and sexy. They power dynamic is balanced, Miranda is clearly an active and willing participant, and there’s nothing freakier going on than two healthy, consenting, adult human beings having a good time together).

But Subject Zero isn't a person at all – she was created by the men at the facility, broken by those same men, used by men across the galaxy and ultimately healed again by a man. And by the looks of it, she still doesn't even seem to like sex. In short, they've created a character whose sole purpose in the game is to make men feel good about themselves, without actually threatening or challenging them in any way. What’s hotter than a female badass? A female badass who isn’t actually a badass. What’s hotter than a highly sexed woman? A woman who isn’t actually highly sexed. What’s better than a strong woman? A vulnerable woman who needs a man to hold her. It sickens me. It actually sickens me.

I can take the sexual fantasies romance options in games seem to be offering, but the emotional ones – especially when they invoke the most repulsive aspects of Nice Guy Syndrome – have gone beyond disturbing.

Themes:

Computer Games

,

Sci-fi / Fantasy

,

Minority Warrior

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Arthur B

at 13:22 on 2010-02-02Awesome rant. But are you really being a Minority Warrior if you're a woman complaining about a game's portrayal of women? I thought the point of MWing was to leap to the defence of a group you're not actually a member of against the vile iniquities of your own demographic...

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 14:21 on 2010-02-02Arthur, are you saying I can't be a Minority Warrior because I'm a woman?!

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:36 on 2010-02-02I'm saying that, if the defining trait of a Minority Warrior is speaking on behalf of demographics you don't belong to, then you can't be a Minority Warrior whilst speaking for your own demographic. :)

On the other hand, my Minority Warrior instincts say that anyone who self-defines as a Minority Warrior should be recognised as one.

But now I've ended up being a Minority Warrior talking on behalf of Minority Warriors, so I can't be a Minority Warrior, so then I must be because I'm talking on behalf of them, but I can't be because I am one, but I can't be because I'm talking on behalf of them, but I can't be because I am one, but I can't be because I'm talking on behalf of them, but I can't be because I am one, but I can't be because I'm talking on behalf of them, but I can't be because I am one, but I can't be because I'm talking on behalf of them, but I can't be...

permalink

-

go to top

http://webcomcon.blogspot.com/

at 17:28 on 2010-02-02Hi guys, first time posting on FerretBrain! I love your articles.

Anyway, I just beat Mass Effect 2 for the first time not long ago, and did in fact pursue the romance with Subject Zero. Looking back, there's really no way to view Jack than the typical Whedonchick, the super badass killer who was secretly traumatized and needs a good man to keep her up. Compare Jack with River.

There's also the comparisons between Jack and Kaiden, from ME1. Kaiden wasn't around in my ME2 save, but in retrospect they've got a bit of a similar backstory. Both were traumatized at a biotics training facility, Jack more than Kaiden, and both ended up killing to get away, Jack more than Kaiden. I'm not sure how much I can say about their comparison other than to note that nobody seemed to like Kaiden at all, although that may have been because his VA was the dude who voiced Carth Onasi.

I'm inclined to cut BioWare some slack for this, since it seems that literally every other female in Mass Effect is pretty much independent, proactive, and self-defined. The other party members in ME2 definitely are: Tali, Miranda, and Samara are all achievers with independent goals who have had tons of success without needing to deal with Shepard. To an extent, Tali and Miranda are defined by being their father's daughters (Miranda much more so than Tali, who is a pretty independently active woman), but they still do tons of stuff on their own, of their own volition. There's also Liara, who is happily the head of her own intelligence agency, doing things for her own reasons. Ashley, these days promoted to high command and the overseer of the entire military branch of a colony.

Even the secondary characters tend to fare pretty well: Emily Wong, Nassana Dantius, Shai'ara, the leader of the crime syndicate you meet in the Presidium in ME1, Matriarch Benezia (who, despite being mindraped by Sovereign, deliberately chose to infiltrate Saren's army and knew the risks that she would end up being indoctrinated; she wasn't just some random chick that Sovereign subjugated because puppet shows, hot)... Generally the women in Mass Effect tend to be pretty strong and very rarely defined as "someone's sister" or "someone's wife" (cf. Warcraft). There is the doctor from ME1, a somewhat archaic Damsel In Distress, but still. Most of the women in the game who get screentime tend to be pretty well-presented.

(Unless this entire analysis has just been my phallocentric manocratic thinking convincing me that the legions of sexual playthings paraded before me in a tentacular orgasmic rape simulator are actually fairly independent, well-characterized women. The curse of a minority warrior!)

permalink

-

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Yqe00sizOcIYBx41yITkDVVKJA_7g--#6c7d4

at 22:36 on 2010-02-02Is it just me or did they base Jack on the character of the same name from Chronicles of Riddick?? Even how the game unfolds during the mission on Purgatory, parallels Riddick and Jack's escape from "Crematoria" (prison colony/world).

Your interpretation of Jack reminds me of one of the quotes from Bioware's other character, "Morrigan", from their recent game "Dragon Age: Origins":

"Men are always ready to believe two things about a woman - that she is weak and that she finds him attractive."

Your fixation on gender is rather telling. I could care less that a man "heals" or "saves" Jack, or if a woman does. The paragon scene between them is about love. Love requires you to compromise pride and ego to attain something greater than yourself. What I see are two people engaged in a tender and emotional moment.

I could care less about lust or casual sex. And speaking of strong women, it takes a strong woman to truly give herself completely to intimacy, and the same of course is required of the man, to have a truly loving relationship. Even the word "relationship" implies "more than yourself". Casual sex is entirely selfish, and the preference of the weak willed.

On the contrary I believe it's a testament to Jack strength of will and character, to be so intimate with Shepard, after all she has been through. She's learned (and said in some of the dialogue) that people only act out of selfish concerns, and are not to be trusted.

But then it seems believable given the person Shepard proves himself to be (through paragon actions) and that he is an exceptional individual; peerless... saving the galaxy more than once.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 23:06 on 2010-02-02@ Webcomcon, hello and welcome to Fb. Thank you for the comment. I suspect Kaiden was universally disliked because he was a whiny bitch and, honestly, game mechanically rubbish - it's amazing how much being a strong addition to your party can make you inclined to really dig someone. I actually liked Carth very much though - and have nothing against the VA.

I will agree that Bioware have done better with the other women in the game - I like Miranda, I adore Tali ... and, well, Samara is a big breasted dominatrix but at least she's not weak. Also from a character rather gendered perspective, I didn't quite *buy* Liara's shift from naive sheltered scientist to cold hard information broker.

I think what bugs me about Subject Zero is the lack of self-awareness in the portrayal - I genuinely believe it's a distasteful fantasy to indulge. Also the fact that it's tied into the morality system is just plain creepy - it's 'renegade' to have sex with a woman when she offers it, but 'paragon' to bone her while she weeps? EEEWWW! EWWWWW! EWWWW!! I think it plays into the idea tha sex is something women give to me to reward them ... rather than something that women want, and can enjoy, on their own terms.

Hello, err, me.yahoo.com/a/2Yqe00sizOcIYBx41yITkDVVKJA_7g--#6c7d4.

Your fixation on gender is rather telling

Telling in what way?

Love requires you to compromise pride and ego to attain something greater than yourself.

Like fuck it does.

What I see are two people engaged in a tender and emotional moment.

Really? Because what I see is a repulsive borderline misogynistic rape fantasy. If a woman started crying when I fucked her, I'd stop. I certainly wouldn't find it some kind of turn on.

And speaking of strong women, it takes a strong woman to truly give herself completely to intimacy, and the same of course is required of the man, to have a truly loving relationship.

And what, precisely, is Shepard giving up or compromising in this scene? It opens with her telling him he was right about everything. Also yours is a rather heterocentric depication of an ideal relationship isn't it?

Casual sex is entirely selfish, and the preference of the weak willed.

And arbitrary judgements are the refuge of the morally and intellectually cowardly.

But then it seems believable given the person Shepard proves himself to be (through paragon actions) and that he is an exceptional individual; peerless... saving the galaxy more than once.

Yes, heaven forefend she actually experience sexual desire.

permalink

-

go to top

http://webcomcon.blogspot.com/

at 00:06 on 2010-02-03It's a Randian anti-feminist ideal. The greatest possible exemplar of humanity is the powerful male; the greatest possible exemplar of FEMININITY is a woman who willfully "romantically surrenders" to such a man. Indeed, rape is actually the most legitimate form possible of love, because it's the most authentic representation of man's intrinsic superiority.

Another woman who comes off pretty well: Aria T'loak. Forgot her the first time around.

If I have any interest in Subject Zero, it's because I deliberately mis-read the character and imagine that she really IS coming to the realization that she actually WASN'T the worst off at the Cerberus facility and that most of her misery IS self-inflicted. It's a character arc where she finally realizes that the most destructive thing in her life has been her own refusal to engage with other people relationally, and Shepard finally helps her realize that. It's ba-a-arely suggested by the actual text of ME2.

====

Since I can't reply to the Playpen, mind if I may a few comments on that GamaSutra article? I think it's rather accurate, personally. I'm also of the belief that a more complex game is not necessarily a more interesting game or (most crucially) a more fun game. With Mass Effect, most of its complexity came in the form of rubbish loot that the game vomited up continuously, which was impossible to manage with its complex inventory. The secondary source of complexity was the gigantic skill trees each character had.

There are definitely two options: Refine the systems so that they're complex AND ENTERTAINING, or discard the systems so that you're left with the good stuff you had before. Personally, since I have no interest whatsoever in managing inventory, I'm glad they chucked the "here, receive eight billion copies of the Kolyat VII Sniper Rifle! try to find time to sell all the gear you'll never bother to equip!" system. It might have been interesting to see it upgraded into something Borderlands-esque, but meh.

I'm ambivalent on the reduced complexity in the skill trees. One benefit to the simplified skill trees is that different characters, even ones with the same specialty, are pretty distinct mechanically. Jack in combat doesn't really play like Samara, and Zaeed and Jacob are pretty distinct too. Unlike in ME1, where a Soldier Shepard and Ashley were basically identical, except Shepard was always better because she got more skill points. On the other hand, having tons of options to build your character is neat.

I play more shooters than WRPGs anyway. I really appreciated ME2's refined cover system. It feels infinitely more natural and useful than ME1's, although it's still not as good as the cover in Gears or Uncharted.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 09:38 on 2010-02-03

It's a Randian anti-feminist ideal

Oh God, it's been such a long time since I've looked at / thought about Rand, but, yes, you're right. There's a kind of romantic re-interpretation of this you can find in early romance novels, when female sexual desire was still something borderline inexpressible. You get a lot of psuedo-rape, awakening to true self yadda yadda stuff, but mainly as a cover so the heroine can get her rocks off without feeling guilty about it.

Another woman who comes off pretty well: Aria T'loak.

Oh, yes, she's awesome. It was really nice to see an Asari not being a nameless merc, lapdancer or a touchy-feely sex counsellor for once. Also I should probably emphasise I don't - in general - have an issue with the portrayal of women in ME. Just Subject Zero; and I was initally quite interested in the character myself because, although there was that 'trying too hard' air about her, I did quite like her, because she was hot, direct and well voice-acted. I thought the visit to her facility very nearly came off well - but then the whole thing degenerated into ICK.

With ref to the Gamasutra article - I think the issue is that a lot of the things ME II has discarded are considered endemic to the cRPG format/genre. I entirely agree with you about inventory mangaement - I want to play the game I've bought, not some tedious tetris-alike whereby I'm juggling resources from one box to another as efficiently as possible. But I think for a lot of people having an inventory that needs managing is as much a part of a cRPG as sprawling skill trees or having to visit a merchant every 10 minutes to offload your crap.

For me, I think a good computer games makes you feel like what you're suppoesd to be. I liked the pared down approach of MEII because all the stuff that made me feel I was playing a computer game (fucking inventory management) has gone and all the stuff that makes me feel like a bad ass sci-fi chick has been amped up. But I think the Gamasutra is right - because of this, it's genuinely debatable whether MEII is an RPG any more.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 10:04 on 2010-02-03The inventory management thing is especially odd when, as far as I'm aware, nobody really considers encumbrance rules, which would be their equivalent in tabletop RPGs, to be a necessary or vital component of a tabletop RPG system; I'm aware of several which don't have such a thing.

To be fair, with traditional RPGs you really ought to be able to rely on the participants not abusing this and having their characters running around carrying an obscene amount of kit. But on the other hand, JRPGs quietly gave characters inventories of nigh-unlimited size a long time ago. And I suspect some CRPG inventory systems were developed mainly to keep the size of saved games down, rather than being based on any real consideration of how much characters could actually carry... and have been retained, long past the point where save game size really matters (or at least, past the point where what's in your inventory is going to take up more than a tiny fraction of your saved game).

permalink

-

go to top

http://webcomcon.blogspot.com/

at 15:00 on 2010-02-03Base-building and resource management is endemic to the RTS format, and grinding is endemic to the MMO format. While I'm not going to say with absolute certainty that those things are always lame (I've had fun building bases in Earth 2150), I am generally grateful when you get games that pare away that bullshit and give you something actually interesting.

And I suspect some CRPG inventory systems were developed mainly to keep the size of saved games down, rather than being based on any real consideration of how much characters could actually carry

Makes sense, especially when you look at the pencil-and-paper parallels. One obvious difference you have to consider when drawing analogies between CRPGs and tabletop RPGs is the absence of a GM. In Dungeons and Dragons, the dungeon master can just say "knock it off, you moron, you can't carry the entire contents of the dungeon with you" without needing any explicit rules about how you can only carry one hundred and forty pounds per point of Strength modifier.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 15:09 on 2010-02-03I think it would be awesome if instead of a message popping up saying, "You can't carry any more in your backpack", the game message did say, "Knock if off, moron, you can't carry the entire contents of the dungeon with you". Perhaps followed with a "Greedy bastard. Isn't it bad enough that you're robbing corpses!" :-)

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 21:48 on 2010-02-03

Arthur, are you saying I can't be a Minority Warrior because I'm a woman?!

In the immortal words of Eric Idle,

'Don't you oppress me!'

permalink

-

go to top

http://webcomcon.blogspot.com/

at 19:03 on 2010-02-04Some responses to the ME2 article Kyra posted:

Most of the actual criticisms seem fair enough. It would be nice if the levels weren't so clearly delineated between "combat area" and "walking-through area". It would be nice if the mission structure were changed up a bit. His suggestions generally seem reasonable.

Then he gets to the actual analysis, and it's like "This game basically blows and I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to like it, GOOD JOB bioware for blinding all the sheeple and dumbing down your game." Seems like he, too, is happily trumping up a game for the sake of an extreme byline.

It would also be really nice if people could criticize games without calling it "dumbed down". It's been part of the descriptive vocabulary for Deus Ex 2, Mass Effect 2, Modern Warfare 2, Bioshock, and really virtually any game that's gone from a PC background onto a console. Even in the case of Mass Effect, that started life on a console. Even if I buy into the idea that a more complex and difficult game is necessarily a better one, the overtly hostile elitism is incredibly distasteful.

permalink

-

go to top

Rude Cyrus

at 19:38 on 2010-02-04I’m really enjoying Mass Effect 2 so far, and I agree with Kyra’s criticisms. Jack always rubbed me the wrong way, perhaps because she came off as dangerously psychotic, as opposed to, say, Grunt, who was merely antisocial. As creepy as the scene between Shepard and Jack was, I’m not sure you can call it a sex scene, considering they kept their clothes on the entire time. :P

Anyway, my new favorite character has to be Mordin: he initially comes off as a mad scientist-type, but he’s actually quite nuanced. One of the stranger (and more hilarious) moments of the game comes when he makes an offhand remark about singing in a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. When you ask about this, he launches into the Mass Effect version of the Major General song. When it was finished, I sat there for about 12 minutes and muttered “what the fuck” over and over.

As for the article posted in the Playpen -- yeah, I don’t like it, but I’d like to address one of the criticisms: in the “Bring Down the Sky” DLC for the first game, there’s an instance where the aliens do speak their own language, and a codex entry informs us that languages are translated via a subdermal implant, or something like that.

Oh, and I agree that the Paragon/Renegade choices are much smoother.

permalink

-

go to top

http://webcomcon.blogspot.com/

at 19:42 on 2010-02-04Mordin is great. I was totally fascinated by his personal attempts to wrestle with the morality of the genophage. Plus he's just fun to listen to.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 21:17 on 2010-02-04Mordin is fantastic - I'm looking forward to his operatic interlude.

Which reminds me. Amused: did you see the advert for all-Elcor Hamlet?

Garrus is still my homie though. I have no idea what the magic is but he's my favourite video game character ever. Possibly it's the buddy cop movie feel, or his voice acting, or the fact I can now I get it on with him (neither of us crying) but, yeah, Garrus for President!

permalink

-

go to top

Rude Cyrus

at 22:03 on 2010-02-04The game also has, I think, a single example of an actual female krogan. It's easy to miss, but I was still floored.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 09:31 on 2010-02-05Zomg! WHERE?!!

permalink

-

go to top

Rude Cyrus

at 20:49 on 2010-02-05On Tuchanka, in the shaman's room, is a krogan named Natorth. She talks about being an envoy to the female clans and basically threatens you every time you prompt her. Like I said, easy to miss.

permalink

-

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Yqe00sizOcIYBx41yITkDVVKJA_7g--#6c7d4

at 22:24 on 2010-02-05

..there seems to be no understanding of how far are we meant to buy Subject Zero's rhetoric, how far she buys it herself, and to what extent it is rhetoric. I like the second trailer more than the first because she seems genuinely psychotic and dangerous – which puts her on par with most of the rest of the cast - as opposed to the first trailer which depicts her as somebody ultimately fearful and pretending.

The fact that she has killed many people and has no reservation of killing, completely disproves any notion that her killer persona is a pretense. Who cares why she kills, she does, and that alone makes her dangerous and worthy of respect.

I can understand that you don't like her character, but don't try and belittle her. You'd just be underestimating her and that would get you killed. (If she was a real person..since we're comparing her to a real person)

I finally played through the game as male Shepard, so I've seen a different side of Jack (initially I finished the game as the female Shepard).

Maybe the one thing you and others are forgetting is that Shepard is a peerless warrior and leader. Savior of the galaxy, more than once. It only makes sense that Jack would have more respect for him than any other person in her life. And ultimately fall in love. I also imagine she views him as non-threatening, which fosters her attraction to him.

I will concede that I was surprised in

how

she falls in love with Shepard. I suppose for the sake of brevity in the game, the entire process happens in a few scenes. She opens up to him far too quickly.

..but this is absolutely the most destructive and repulsive male fantasy there is. The supposedly 'strong' woman who is actually broken and helpless and just needs a male shoulder to cry on. Because, yes, a woman who weeps while you stick it to her is a real turn on. Don't get me wrong, I understand this fantasy. We all want to save women, especially from the cruelty of other men (see nice guy syndrome) but at least I'm self-aware enough to acknowledge it has absolutely nothing to do with women, and is incredibly, unspeakably unhealthy.

I could care less about what fantasies people have. It's when you allow fantasies to negatively affect/interfere with your life, is when it becomes problematic.

Also, when it comes to saving women or being protective of them, I think it has more to do with a subconscious (and irrational) perception of women as our daughters. Which would explain why men often perceive women as weak. The protective feeling also has no sexual motivation, at least for me, which also corroborates that theory. Weakness in a woman provokes a feeling of tenderness from me, as I see it as an opportunity to show kindness.

Oh and, I never saw her weeping when they were kissing. She only teared up once, initially, after speaking to Shepard. And I can't imagine they were having intercourse either, with their clothes on. Forgive me for saying but that seems like an odd inference. Maybe I'm old fashioned but in that situation, and just in general, I expect a little more foreplay involved before sexual intercourse.

The 'renegade' way is to get it on with Subject Zero is to shaft her against a bulkhead as soon as the opportunity arises – she will then discard you because you've proven yourself just another using manslut. The disturbing implication of this is, therefore, that Subject Zero doesn’t actually like sex – otherwise she’d be perfectly happy to keep fucking you, in this cheerful, no strings attached way.

Or maybe she hoped for more from him and was disappointed. And maybe she feels that as much as she could use him for sex, he would also be using her, which that renegade action made abundantly clear. It also says a lot about what Shepard thinks of her, if he is more concerned with screwing her body than getting to know the person standing in front of him. Maybe she realizes this insult, consciously or not, and feels compelled to deny him the pleasure of sex even if it means not gratifying herself.

permalink

-

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Yqe00sizOcIYBx41yITkDVVKJA_7g--#6c7d4

at 22:38 on 2010-02-05The paragon romance scene also goes to show that you never truly know someone. Often people keep their true feelings and their true self hidden. Until they meet the right person(s).

I also don't consider what happened between them to define Jack. It's a far stretch to say that one moment contradicts everything she has done in her life, or who she is.

I wouldn't consider a misanthrope, who found one person worthy of trust and respect, to immediately find all people worthy of some trust and respect. Jack is still the same killer, but as I hinted at before, compromise is intrinsic to love. I think she would always remain distrusting and hostile to people, unless in conflict with their relationship (such as Shepard's friends). I think this is just her fundamental nature, and some things a person can never change about themselves.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 22:48 on 2010-02-05

Who cares why she kills, she does, and that alone makes her dangerous and worthy of respect.

Because if you're a killer, you can't also be wracked with doubt and fear.

Also, when it comes to saving women or being protective of them, I think it has more to do with a subconscious (and irrational) perception of women as our daughters.

Because being paternalistic is so much better than being horny.

Maybe she realizes this insult, consciously or not, and feels compelled to deny him the pleasure of sex even if it means not gratifying herself.

Because women are the gatekeepers of sex who ration it out to men if they feel that the men are deserving.

Wow.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 23:52 on 2010-02-05

(If she was a real person..since we're comparing her to a real person)

I'm not, I'm analysing her, and what her character implies, as a literary construct.

I could care less about what fantasies people have. It's when you allow fantasies to negatively affect/interfere with your life, is when it becomes problematic.

I refer you to your own comment here: "Weakness in a woman provokes a feeling of tenderness from me, as I see it as an opportunity to show kindness." It's kind of sad you need women to show 'weakness' in order to be kind to them; and that you need to use the vulnerability of others to make yourself feel better.

nd I can't imagine they were having intercourse either, with their clothes on. Forgive me for saying but that seems like an odd inference. Maybe I'm old fashioned but in that situation, and just in general, I expect a little more foreplay involved before sexual intercourse.

Err, lies on top of her, begins kissing her face and neck - and then it fades to black. I think that indicates forthcoming sexoring.

Or maybe she hoped for more from him and was disappointed. And maybe she feels that as much as she could use him for sex, he would also be using her, which that renegade action made abundantly clear. It also says a lot about what Shepard thinks of her, if he is more concerned with screwing her body than getting to know the person standing in front of him. Maybe she realizes this insult, consciously or not, and feels compelled to deny him the pleasure of sex even if it means not gratifying herself.

Again, this is entirely based on the notion that bad men want sex whereas woman want "something more." There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting physical gratification - it's not "an insult" between two consenting adults. Sex is not something men want and women give - it's an act of mutuality, whether it is based on desire or desire and love.

permalink

-

go to top

Rami

at 06:16 on 2010-02-06

Maybe the one thing you and others are forgetting is that Shepard is a peerless warrior and leader. Savior of the galaxy, more than once. It only makes sense that Jack would have more respect for him than any other person in her life. And ultimately fall in love.

I don't know about you, but the idea of a dude who is so awesome that women's brains melt into loving submission around him sounds like a pretty dysfunctional portrayal of women in general. Worship != Love, y'know.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 14:28 on 2010-02-06Even if we take a very generous reading of me.yahoo.com's statement and interpret it as meaning that through his example Shepard inspires respect and loyalty in his/her allies (which isn't completely out there), there's still a

major

difference between respect and love. Love requires respect if it's going to function. But respect does not inevitably lead to love. People don't exist on a relationship continuum from "hatred" to "bonking".

permalink

-

go to top

Jamie Johnston

at 21:35 on 2010-02-06Another indication (if we need another) that there's a categorical difference is that it's generally considered possible and healthy to admire and respect people you've never met, whereas (romantically) loving someone you've never met would be widely regarded as unhealthy or impossible.

permalink

-

go to top

http://ibmiller.livejournal.com/

at 16:15 on 2010-02-07Sorry, random thought, but James Cameron's The Terminator seems built around the idea that loving someone you've never met it totally awesome. But then, I thought the first Terminator was really, really, um, dumb.

Now, admittedly, I am on rather a different ideological spectrum when it comes to gender issues than most of fb (e.g. I like Twilight, though not uncritically). Just want to say that before I comment further, so there's no confusion.

However, I really like the paragon romance with Jack (though I'm not sure I'd really want to play it - I like Tali more). While I see some of the problems of the victim syndrome, I'm not sure if it's necessarily a misogynistic impulse. I'm not really seeing how Jack (who is basically a bald River Tam, without the schizophrenia) learning to love is that different from, say, Katsa from Graceling (ducks). Both are extremely good at killing, both learn to open up emotionally, and both do so to men.

I'm not sure how I regard the idea that the tears are supposed to be a turn on. I don't think that's my reaction to them, as I saw them more as Jack finally trusting someone else instead of humiliation. However, I do see how loathsome and utterly vile nice guy syndrome is. I'm just not sure that this situation really fits that category.

Finally, I think that the Miranda scene is rather stupid - but then, I think Miranda is really, really annoying. I much prefer Tali or (from the first game) Ashley (though I could see how the latter is also open to similar charges, as her whole "I never felt good enough" backstory seems similar to the elements of Jack's backstory found objectionable).

(Side note: where I hang out, there's actually huge numbers of people who liked Kaiden - most of whom also liked Carth. Most of them are 30-40 year old female gamers, I think. Clarifying statement: I hope that my classification of those who like Carth doesn't dig me deeper in the hole I've no doubt I'm already in. I'm afraid it does, though. Nuts. Addendum: I really hope I don't come across quite as a completely arrogant idiot.)

permalink

-

go to top

http://ibmiller.livejournal.com/

at 16:30 on 2010-02-07Hmmm, sorry for double posting, but I should clarify - my purpose in commenting is not that I have an axe to grind, but that I'm genuinely curious - I really don't see how Katsa and Jack are that different.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 18:10 on 2010-02-07Hmmm, the way I saw The Terminator I thought that Kyle was sort of boyishly obsessed with Sarah before he met her, but once they met there was in fact a sufficient spark which led to them falling in love. His confession is, after all, a confession, that comes about only once they have known each other for a while and he is opening up emotionally to her and she to him. His first words to her are, after all, "come with me if you want to live", not "I've loved you from afar for years! Come with me, your Time Stalker!"

permalink

-

go to top

Rude Cyrus

at 07:48 on 2010-02-08I've finished ME2, and I haved to admit I have some mixed feelings about it, along with a few worries. First, it feels rather sparse in comparison to the first game -- the structure is basically "recruit people, do loyalty missions, do 3 other main plot missions, the end." It's surprisingly linear compared to its predecessor. Second, I'm worried that ME3 is going to be the same way. Bioware is trying to release ME3 in 2011, which is a surprisingly short development time, considering the first game came out in 2007. I fear they're going the Matrix/Pirates of the Caribbean route by developing both games at the same time. As you know the Matrix/PotC sequels were, well, kind of shit. I don't want that to happen with this franchise. I seriously love it.

Or maybe I'm just being paranoid.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 16:35 on 2010-02-11@Ibmiller

Don't worry, I won't go off the deep-end :P

On the subject of Jack versus River ... I guess ... look at the series rather than the movie which attempted to tie up lose-ends in a rather unsatisfactory way, I would argue that the difference between Jack and River is that River is comprehensively broken in a way that seems unfixable. I mean, Simon looks after her, yes, but in a way that is delicately and ambiguously portrayed as not exactly being good for both of them. Nobody putting his cock in her and encouraging her to cry will make River 'better.' Nor is there ever any suggestion that what River needs to make her better is to have good ol girly cry about it, and rest her head on the chest of a strong man. (I love Firefly, by the way, River and Simon break my heart)

Also I think the difference between Katsa and Jack is that even though Katsa has issues with emotional (and physical) intimacy and has done some terribly violent things, her strength is unquestionably her own, unlike Jack. Katsa is badass because she is badass, not because she is broken.

Also I'm not sure comparing MEII and Graceling is entirely fair because they're such different mediums but I'll just re-quote my favourite line in the entirety of, well, romance actually:

He laughed “You may hunt for my food and beat me every time we fight, and protect me when we’re attacked, if you like. I’ll thank you for it.” “But I’d never need to protect you, if we were attacked. And I doubt you need me to do your hunting, either.” “True. But you’re better than I am, Katsa. And it doesn’t humiliate me.” He fed a branch to the fire. “It humbles me. But it doesn’t humiliate me.”

There's no element of this mutuality between Jack and the PC - Jack cries and opens herself to intimacy (and screwing), the PC doesn't. Of course, this is entirely a problem of the medium. Romances in computer games can only work in one direction, it's a big part of their limitation as a type of storytelling (although not necessarily as a type of interaction).

I'm probably not expressing myself very well - I am not against the idea of a character like Jack coming to express emotional imtimacy towards the PC, I think it's the juxtaposition of vulnerability / femininity / submission that kind of squicks me out. (I'm not against those things either by the way but I think they have to be explicit and acknowledged). There is no reason that Jack couldn't express her vulnerability and then for the characters to have ... you know ... rather less dodgy, weepy, violiny sex.

Actually if you compare it to, for example, the Tali scene it doesn't hold up well. I mean, Tali is clearly nervous (adorably nervous) and she babbles away until the PC reassures her. She's clearly quite emotionally vulnerable here as well - but when the PC removes her helmet she does this beautiful little thing where she's talking away and she just pounces on him and they kiss their way to silence. It's a lovely lovely little scene, because Tali is clearly entirely herself, healthy, consenting and *totally into you in a physical, sexual way*. Rock on.

I should probably have used Tali rather than Miranda - as I don't like Miranda either (hello ... personality pls?) but I wanted to compare human-against-human.

I also liked Ashley a lot, for what it's worth, and Carth. Does this officially make me 40 now? ;) I don't know why Kaiden didn't work since they're quite similar characters and even have the same VA. There's just something fundamentally decent about Carth, even if he does keep whinging about his dead wife.

And, no, you don't come across as an arrogant idiot - I suspect this whole article makes me sound like I'm frothingly obsessed with gender/sex issues.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 16:39 on 2010-02-11@Cyrus

I kind of stalled at the end of the loyalty missions - I know exactly what you mean about the sense of linearity. Tbh, linear stories don't bother me but it's a little bit *too* all happening in one room-ish. I remember the first time I landed on the Citadel my tiny mind was completely blown by this vast vast place with all the aliens in it. But there's nothing like that to compare in MEII. I mean Omega is basically just a bar and some shops. There's no sense of this sprawling underworld of crime. I can't believe that such a vast galaxy feels so dinky.

I guess it's problematic since they're essentially burdening themselves with huge trailing tendrils of story as they go along but ... but ... I miss the vastness of spaaaaace.

I will finish it though because, like you, I am still crazily in love with the games.

And also with Garrus.

And also with Mordin who might just be the best video game character EVER. I love his moral complexity.

permalink

-

go to top

https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Yqe00sizOcIYBx41yITkDVVKJA_7g--#6c7d4

at 19:27 on 2010-02-11

Err, lies on top of her, begins kissing her face and neck - and then it fades to black. I think that indicates forthcoming sexoring.

That's the beauty of "fade to black". And the other story elements in the game. It's "open ended", leaving the viewer to see

what they want to see

. How each person interprets a situation is very telling of their thoughts and feelings.

I didn't see that scene having enough passion to make it reasonable to assume they had sex. Maybe all they did was kiss and hug each other. She was distraught, after all, which as you said is a strange emotion to have while consenting to intercourse... And yet you made that assumption. Am I the only one that thinks that a man and woman can just "cuddle" and not require intercourse?

If they did have sex, the scene afterward, shouldn't they have their clothes OFF? Or at the very least be partially nude and covered in a blanket, to imply they had sex?

I don't know about you, but the idea of a dude who is so awesome that women's brains melt into loving submission around him sounds like a pretty dysfunctional portrayal of women in general. Worship != Love, y'know.

I said nothing of worship. Jack has a problem trusting anyone, and believes that everyone ultimately take interest in her or uses her, for their own selfish reasons. She even describes her feelings about the last time she fell in love. I think because of the

person

Shepard is, she is more inclined to open up to him emotionally, and out of all the people on that ship, it's for that reason that Shepard seems the most likely person she would fall in love with. Of course, not that I expect her to fall in love with him, I'm just saying it makes sense that she does.

The 'renegade' way is to get it on with Subject Zero is to shaft her against a bulkhead as soon as the opportunity arises – she will then discard you because you've proven yourself just another using manslut. The disturbing implication of this is, therefore, that Subject Zero doesn’t actually like sex – otherwise she’d be perfectly happy to keep fucking you, in this cheerful, no strings attached way.

Maybe she doesn't discard him or consider him a "manslut", nor is it evidence that she doesn't like sex. I think that when a person engages in casual sex, the intimate nature of the act can change the way each person feels about the other, namely their physical and emotional compatibility.

Also you assume that he would consent to having sex with her on more than one occasion. Maybe he just wanted to have a fling with her and really pursue someone else, like Miranda. Of course the limitations of the game wouldn't allow this, but it still seems plausible.

permalink

-

go to top

http://ibmiller.livejournal.com/

at 19:55 on 2010-02-11Whew, I'm glad I didn't offend too badly. Thank you for such a thoughtful and helpful response - that does help clarify my questions.

I see what you're saying about River, though I'm curious how this explanation and contrast with Jack's storyline fits with River's only made better through her brother (a man's) actions (in series, at least, though in the movie it was sort of a reverse fridge thing), and her frequent crying in said man's arms (albeit certainly not sexual unless you really, really love squick). I agree that the sex thing seems a bit out of place if looked at as the actual healing action - though I think it's mostly an "awkward placement" thing (or can be), since I think it happens late in the game, and they may have been pressed for where else to put the two events (healing and sex).

I'm confused as the reason Katsa and Jack being badass is important - it isn't a choice on either of their part. It's just that Katsa is born with it, and Jack is experimented on. I actually have problems with the whole "superpowered empowerment" thing, since it's terribly unhelpful if you're trying to say something about the "real world" (and I think it's been analyzed on fb at least once before). I mean, even guys don't get much help from thinking "Well, Spider-man can cling to walls, so I will be a good dude and save people," so why would women say "Well, Buffy/River/Jack/Katsa have a demon/experiments/Grace and can defend themselves, so I will be a strong woman and hit people." Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

I think you highlight the real problem or dissonance between interpretations with your comments on medium problems. I personally would read and play the Jack romance with a lot of imagined scenes (that would be pretty unnecessary for the plot and game mechanics, so I don't think it's really a weakness on the game's part that they're not there) in which the main character also opens up (not only to Jack, but other characters) and is vulnerable. After all, one of the reasons I love BioWare games is that you need party members - I'm not a huge fan of FPS or other single-player games. I like the "interaction" (plus I got fed up with "the Chosen One" trope a long time ago).

However, I agree that the Tali romance plot and scenes rock. But I think the Jack ones aren't necessarily as misogynist - at least you don't have to play them as if they were. But then, I also like to handicap myself in RPG to "roleplay." Like playing KotOR with knives or pistols, just because, and then making up a backstory as to why, when the game is clearly geared towards lightsabers.

permalink

-

go to top

http://rebootfromstart.livejournal.com/

at 19:45 on 2010-02-14

If they did have sex, the scene afterward, shouldn't they have their clothes OFF?

Just a little point here: you don't necessarily need to take your clothes off to have sex.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 11:15 on 2010-02-15Also, it's worth pointing out that "fade to black" has had a fairly consistent history of being used to indicate that sexual shenanigans of some nature are about to take place. Yes, it can be used to create a deliberate ambiguity. But it is just as often used - and in the sort of context we're talking about here, is almost

always

used - not to create ambiguity, but to quite unambiguously indicate that sex has occurred without actually showing it.

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 16:29 on 2010-02-15@Ibmiller

I hope you don't think it's a copout that I respond generally rather specifically to individual points - I guess I have real problems with the whole broken / bad-ass spectrum of female characters. I mean it's partially tied in with the Empowerment From Disempowerment aka Victim Dilemma that Dan writes about but I think it just ties in quite awkwardly with notions of strong women and their place in the world. I mean one of the reasons I really loved early season Buffy (before Joss Whedon got bitten by the feminist bug) is that early season Buffy is a genuinely strong female character - in that she kicks vampire ass AND simultaneously is a pretty blonde girl who wants a boyfriend and to be a cheerleader. Of course it's partially a joke (incongruity alert! this small blonde girl is KICK ASS!) but until the show went barging down A HERO MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND MAKE SACRIFICES AND OH BY THE WAY BUFFY IS TOTALLY WRECKED boulevard both aspects of her life had validity... and often you spent the episodes wondering if she would make the cheerleading squad ... oh and also kill the bad guy. I think that's a nice combination, personally. And, again, the thing I really like about early Buffy was that her powers, like getting bitten by a radioactive spider, were just something she had (before she had to get in touch with da spirits of de first slayer or whatever crack that was).

And the different between the broken badass empowered woman versus, say, Spiderman is that although Spiderman struggles to balance being a super-hero and being a normal guy, there's never any question that if he didn't have a moral duty to save people he'd be *fine*. The problems he faces in everyday life are not because, like, he's totally wrecked by his experiences with the spider but because he has chosen a life of ultimate self-sacrfice. You don't doubt for a moment that, if only he could, Mary Jane would be lucky to have him. Whereas with broken bad-ass chicks that which makes them bad-ass is also that which makes them non-fuctional as a person or, implied, as a woman.

I genuinely think the Jack Love Arc is not okay (although I do see your arguments why it might be) - it's not that there's anything per se wrong with a healing-through-lurve thingy, it's the fact that the cRPG format can offer no sense of reciprocity. And the fact he bones her while she cries. Dude. It just strikes me as *potentially* playing into a dodgy fantasy of emotional rescue - you know that the PC can't give her anything (like his cock) while she's "strong" only when she's weak and weeping.

permalink

-

go to top

http://tristanjsstuff.blogspot.com/

at 04:24 on 2010-05-30Out of curiosity, what did you think of Shepard's and Jack's friendship? I've only played through 2 as Nice!Fem!Shepard, and she seemed more like she was trying to 'fix' Jack, and by the end of the game, it seemed more like Jack was on the road to recovery.

Also, I don't understand why Jack wanting closure by blowing the crap out of the hellhole she came from is 'touchy feely crap cause she's a woman'. Sounds like a perfectly understandable (if not reasonable or healthy) response.

Finally, what would you have thought if Jack had all the exact same backstory, personality, motivations and interactions, but was male? Again, I'm just curious.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 23:00 on 2010-07-23So I just beat Mass Effect 2. Thoughts:

- I played it as Asshole Shepherd, which is quite good for avoiding sexual creepiness towards Jack. The Renegade attitude towards her (when it doesn't involve trying to bone her) seems to involve a rugged determination not to enable her moping whilst letting her do what's necessary to work through her issues, which just seems miles healthier than "let me heal you with my dick". Either way, I was glad that completing her loyalty mission unlocks the option to make her wear a shirt.

- The loyalty missions could be a bit more diverse. It would be nice to have more which didn't end with the NPC in question confronting a character from their past and either killing them or not killing them. (I quite liked Thane's one for that reason actually).

- I was really impressed with the way they structured the suicide mission and the potential for major NPCs (and you) dying during it. Though apparently Zaeed is a suboptimal person to lead the B-team in the suicide mission, which seems... bizarre. You're told you need to pick someone who's used to leading a team. He once led a whole mercenary army. You'd think he'd be perfect for it.

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 02:02 on 2010-07-25Double post because I forgot to mention something:

YOU CAN BUY

BOO

AND KEEP HIM IN YOUR CABIN

permalink

-

go to top

Bookwyrm

at 05:08 on 2013-07-05I have a couple questions. When you said Jack was a "pseudo-badass" were you just referring to the story or were you including the game play too? According to

TV Tropes

, Jack is one of the weaker characters despite being touted as one of the most powerful human biotics in the cut scenes.

I haven't played the game myself so I wanted to know if she was at least useful in combat(if you used her at all). Also, what did you think her character in Mass Effect 3?

(Personally I'd like to know how someone with an extensive criminal record and clear psychological issues managed to get a teaching job at Grissom Academy within six months.)

permalink

-

go to top

http://arilou-skiff.livejournal.com/

at 11:59 on 2013-07-05^ Companions don't make that much of a differenc really, pick the one you're most comfortable with.

"- I was really impressed with the way they structured the suicide mission and the potential for major NPCs (and you) dying during it. Though apparently Zaeed is a suboptimal person to lead the B-team in the suicide mission, which seems... bizarre. You're told you need to pick someone who's used to leading a team. He once led a whole mercenary army. You'd think he'd be perfect for it."

He's also the guy whose team always ends up either dead or betraying him :p

permalink

-

go to top

Arthur B

at 12:15 on 2013-07-05

He's also the guy whose team always ends up either dead or betraying him :p

True enough, but the more distance on it I get the more the suicide mission's underlying assumptions and logic seems counter-intuitive and oblique and impenetrable. Which is good if you want people to occasionally die apparently arbitrarily for reasons the player can't fathom, except that really doesn't seem to have been what Bioware were aiming for.

Possibly this is a side effect of me preferring to ignore

ME2

these days, partly because in retrospect I see bits of

ME3

stuff creeping in there (like the weird way it makes you want to consider Cerberus stuff important but then refuses to let you actually interact with it in any interesting fashion) and partly because my peak of enthusiasm for the series was at the end of

ME1

, where it felt like there was still a whole universe out there to explore and the story could go

anywhere

from that point.