#i also feel like this lack of role models or archetypes to draw from is inextricable from my fatness tbh

[toothyblowjob]

so i recently decided that, while i am still An Entire Man, my gender is complex in a way that i feel can only really be described as genderqueer. and i really like the way i explained it to my boyfriend today--"identifying as genderqueer is my way of acknowledging that there's no blueprint for what i am. i have to carve out a space for myself, because there's not one already."

[song-of-oots]

Fuchsia Groan: my (un)exceptional fave

A while ago a friend of mine was asking for people to name their favourite examples of strong female characters, and my mind immediately leapt to Gormenghast’s Fuchsia Groan because it always does whenever the words “favourite” and “female character” come up in the same sentence. In fact scratch that, if I had to pick only one character to be my official favourite (female or otherwise) it would probably be Fuchsia. There are not sufficient words in the English language to accurately describe how much I love this character.

The issue was that I’m not sure Fuchsia Groan can accurately be described as “strong”, and until my friend asked the question, it hadn’t even occurred to me to analyse her in those terms… 

Actually this isn’t completely true; Mervyn Peake does describe Fuchsia as strong in terms of her physical strength on multiple occasions. But in terms of her mental strength things are less clear cut. She’s certainly not a total pushover, and anyone would probably find it tough-going to cope with the neglect, tragedy and misuse she suffers through. In fact, this is something Mervyn Peake mentions himself – whilst also pointing out that Fuchsia is not the most resilient of people:

“There were many causes [to her depression], any one of which might have been alone sufficient to undermine the will of tougher natures than Fuchsia’s.”

Anyway, this has gotten me thinking about Fuchsia’s other traits and my reasons for loving her, going through a typical sort of list of reasons people often give for holding up a character as someone to admire:

So, is Fuchsia particularly talented?

No.

Is she clever, witty?

She’s definitely not completely stupid, and her insights occasionally take other characters by surprise, but she’s not really that smart either.

Does she have any significant achievements? Overcome great adversity?

Not really, no.

Is she kind?

Yes. Fuchsia is a very loving person and sometimes displays an incredible sensitivity and compassion for others. But… she can also be self-absorbed, highly strung, and does occasionally lash out at other people (especially in her younger years).

So why do I love Fuchsia so much?

Well, I’ll start be reiterating that I don’t really have the vocabulary to adequately put it into words, but I will try to get the gist across. So:

“What Fuchsia wanted from a picture was something unexpected. It was as though she enjoyed the artist telling her something quite fresh and new. Something she had never thought of before.”

This statement summarises not only Fuchsia but also the way I feel about her (and for that matter the Gormenghast novels in general). Fuchsia is something I’ve never really seen before. On the surface, she fits the model of the somewhat spoiled but neglected princess, and yet at the same time she cannot be so neatly pigeon-holed. It’s not just that her situation and the themes of the story make things more complex (though that is a factor); Fuchsia herself is so unique and vividly detailed that she manages to be more than her archetype. She feels like a real person and, like all real people, she is not so easy to label.

Fuchsia is also delightfully strange in a way that feels very authentic to her and the setting in general (which is particularly refreshing because it can all too often feel as though female characters are only allowed to be strange in a kooky, sexy way - yet Fuchsia defies this trend).

She’s a Lady, but she’s not ladylike. She’s messy. She slouches, mooches, stomps and stands in awkward positions. Her drawing technique is “vicious” and “uncompromising”. She chews grass. She removes her shoes “without untying the laces by treading on the heels and then working her foot loose”. She’s multi-faceted and psychologically complex. Intense and self-absorbed, sometimes irrational and ruled by her emotions more than is wise, but also capable of insight and good sense that takes others by surprise. She is extremely loving and affectionate, and yet so tragically lonely. Simultaneously very feminine and also not. Her character development from immature teenager to adult woman is both subtle and believable. She has integrity and decency – she doesn’t need to be super clever or articulate to know how to care for others or stand up for herself.

Fuchsia is honest. She knows her own flaws, but you never catch her trying to put on airs or make herself out to be anything other than what she is. She always expresses her feelings honestly.

She’s not sexualised at all. I don’t mean by this that she has no sexuality – though that’s something Peake only vaguely touches on – but I don’t really feel like I’m looking at a character who was written to pander to the male gaze (though her creator is male, I get the vibe he views her more as a beloved daughter than a sexual object).

Finally, I find her highly relatable. I am different to Fuchsia in many ways, but we do have several things in common that I have never seen so vividly expressed in any other character. This was incredibly important to me when I was a teenager struggling through the worst period of depression I ever experienced – because she was someone who I could relate to and love in a way I was incapable of loving myself. Her ability to be herself meant a lot to me as someone struggling with my own identity and sense of inadequacy. It didn’t cure my depression, but it helped me survive it.

What am I trying to say with all this?

I love Fuchsia on multiple levels. I love her as a person and also as a character and a remarkable piece of writing. I mention some of the mundane details Peake uses to flesh out her character firstly because I enjoy them, but also because it’s part of the point. Her story amazes me because it treats a female character and her psychological and emotional life with an intense amount of interest regardless of any special talents or achievements she happens to exhibit. She doesn’t fit the model of a modern heroine but neither does she need to – she’s still worth spending time with and caring about.*  To me the most important things about Fuchsia are how different and interesting and relatable she is – and how real she feels.

* To be honest, this is part of the point of the Gormenghast novels in general. The story is meant to illustrate the damage that society – and in particular rigid social structures and customs – can do to individuals with its callous indifference to genuine human need. Fuchsia is one of many examples of this throughout the novels. These characters don’t need to be exceptionally heroic in order to matter – they just need to exist as believable people. And despite how strange they all are, they often do manage to be fundamentally relatable.

Why am I talking about female characters in particular here?

The focus on “strong” female characters and the critique against that is pretty widely acknowledged. Growing up, I definitely noticed the lack of female characters in popular media and the ensuing pressure this then places on the ones that do exist to be positive representations of womankind – someone girls can look up to. It’s very understandable that we want to see more examples of admirable female protagonists, given that women were traditionally left to play support roles and tired stereotypes. The problem is that the appetite for more proactive female heroines can sometimes lead to characters who are role models first and realistic human beings second (characters who I mentally refer to as Tick-All-The-Boxes Heroines). It’s not a problem with “strong” proactive heroines per se, but rather lack of variation and genuine psychological depth (not to mention a sometimes too-narrow concept of what it even means to be strong).

Male characters tend not to have this particular problem because they are much better represented across the whole range of roles within a story. You get your fair share of boring worn out archetypes. You get characters who are meant to represent a positive version of heroic masculinity (and now that I come to think of it, having a very narrow and unvarying presentation of what positive masculinity looks like is its own separate problem, but outside the scope of this particular ramble). We don’t usually spend time obsessing over whether a piece of fiction has enough examples of “strong” male characters though, because we’re generally so used to seeing it that we automatically move on into analysing the work and the characters on other terms. And because there are often more male characters than female, they don’t all bear the burden of having to be a positive representative of all men everywhere. They exist to fulfill their roles, and often exhibit more variety, nuance and psychological depth. They are also often allowed to be weird, flawed and unattractive in ways that women usually aren’t (which is a damn shame because I’ve spent my whole life feeling like a weird outsider and yet this perspective is so often told primarily through a male lens).

Tl:dr; Fuchsia Groan is a character who feels like an answer to so many of those frustrations that I felt growing up without even truly understanding why. A large part of why I love her is simply because of how much I relate to her on a personal level. I admire her emotional honesty and her loving nature… But there’s also a part of me that was just so relieved to find a female character who exists outside of the usual formulae we seem to cram women into. She is unique, weird and wonderful (but non-sexualised). Psychologically nuanced and vividly written. She isn’t exceptionally heroic or talented or a high achiever – but she does feel like a real person.

Female characters don’t need to tick all the right boxes in order to be interesting or worth our time any more than the male ones do.

[analysis-by-a-muffin]

YGO Analysis: Protagonists and Rivals, the Pivotal Relationship (Part 1)

There are a variety of relationship archetypes that come with any genre. Their importance, meanings, and depiction come with a strong and wide variety even from within their own genres or franchises. Rivalries are a constant across several media; only coming with different faces depending on the reason for the competition between two characters. Action movies, shows, etc tend to have major rivalries between the protagonist and a character that is both their opposite and their equal (whether or not they’re actually an equal truly depends on the piece of content but shhh). This relationship can be a strong driving point of plot related events, and one of the finest examples of that is the Yu-Gi-Oh franchise with its growing number of rival relationships that are distinctive in their own ways— even while they’re following a very set pattern.

General Overview

Compared to many other rivalries— in shounen works especially— there’s a lot about the way Yu-Gi-Oh goes about theirs that struck a surprising chord with me. Thankfully, each spinoff doesn’t give the viewer an exact clone of the rivalry that started it all, regardless of how popular Seto Kaiba and Pharaoh Atem are. There’s also a notable lack of anything feeling generic or far too in line with tropes, following them safely down to a T. Each one has a flavor that allows for viewers to have their own favorites which can range from cold and intense to warm and soft.

Duel Monsters crafted certain characteristics and behaviors within each dynamic.

Obsession: Each rival has a focus on the protagonist that they don’t really give to any other character. The intensity of it changes with each pair, however, and can sometimes involve stalking the main character, oftentimes thinking about them, or more mildly, simply talking about them a lot in private to someone else. Another staple to their obsessive behavior is going to absurd lengths to get the attention of the protagonist, something which they’ve displayed as a thing the rival can get pretty greedy for.

Plot Importance: If a YGO series isn’t well made or structured, the main rivalry is likely not going to be a very good one. When done spectacularly, their relationship can be what causes major events to unfold and hinge on which is par for the course with this franchise. Basically, rivalry quality and series quality play very important roles.

Friendship: Typically, they start out as enemies or strangers. Whatever it is, they’re not on great terms right away, but through a connection/understanding of each other that no others have, they become unlikely (and even unconventional) friends. Their bond is meant to be seen as one of the strongest in each series and are often each other’s greatest influence. On top of all of that, it’s normally the protagonist who longs to befriend the clearly broken inside rival. Which has a high tendency to end up with them being upset at offers to help and understand them being harshly rejected.

Soulful Connection: Duel Monsters is a card game with in-universe lore heavily pertaining to duelists’ souls, and the concept of them in general. It’s no surprise that the protagonists and rivals can end up with bonds that cause them to feel like soulmates. Yet, there are times when that connection becomes extremely apparent and more overt. First duels between them tend to have the protagonist being able to read the rival, seeing parts of him that don’t line up with what he says and leaving them to wonder why they’re so closed off or who made them act this way. Of course, this comes as a huge shock to the rival along with their ego. This in turn fuels the need to aid the rival; meanwhile, this character zeroes in on the protagonist.

Key Similarities: Regardless of how seemingly dissimilar they can be in beliefs, attitudes, intelligence, and their very dueling styles, these two are meant to have something that draws them to each other unlike anyone else. This showcases a common unbreakable thread that keeps them bound. It can be anything from pride to shared background experiences to having a hidden heart of gold.

Paralleled Features: Red versus blue is an age old trope that makes itself known in YGO. If the two aren’t clearly in line with that, they have several other opposing color differences such as one wearing darker colors while the other wears lighter ones. One of each of them could also be paler than the other either slightly or blatantly.

Sun/Moon, Light/Dark: Another common trope, that comes with some diverseness across the board. The protagonist can be made out to be something bright and life-saving similar to the sun, and this can be openly stated or strong hints to this can be thrown in. In the eyes of the rival, the protagonist can be seen as their light in the darkness. Someone who thrills them, serving as this unique person who can make them feel more alive and can even stop them from sinking too deep into metaphorical darkness.

Respect and Trust: These two are cornerstones of every dynamic. Without them, everything falls apart. The rival has a lot of difficulty navigating the idea of trusting others but commands respect he often doesn’t receive. The protagonist comes in to teach them better and be a guiding force much like with aiding them in friendship.

Separately, the rivals share traits modeled after Kaiba.

A lust for power (usually the result of never having any true power in their own lives)

A physical design that depicts them as being bigger, taller, and overall more masculine (in a few cases they’re even a year or two older)

Dramatics in their gestures, speech, fashion sense, dueling methods, and interests

A cold and aloof personality in which their stoic nature causes problems in whatever relationships they have

Cards are mainly very imposing and dark creatures

Difficulty with honesty and containing aggressive feelings

Being a part of a higher social or economic class (something which weighs on them and can be the source of a huge portion of their grief)

Dueling style will almost exclusively be focused on dominating the opponent through beat down

Experiencing a tragedy that forever changes parts of themselves in ugly ways

Protagonists are similar to Yugi and/or Atem, but unlike their less kind and closed off counterparts, there're plenty of times in which they’ve deviated far from the norm.

A more open heart to kindness and letting people get close, along with the urge to help others

Designs make them smaller and shorter than their rivals with a softer appearance that welcomes instead of rejects

A warmth and hope that can irritate the rival

Are more likely to use cards that feature cute monsters

Tragedy can strike them, but it’s treated like a source of strength or something that greatly influences what they do (can come with less hurtful coping mechanisms)

[There seems to be a common tactic when it comes to hiring the Japanese voice actors for the protagonists. They don’t have the experience of several roles, and voicing a YGO lead character is their first big hit].

These dynamics are easily my favorite part of each series, and one of the things I look towards the most when a new series is announced. Finally taking the time to write out an analysis and composing my thoughts feels nice. The next parts will be dedicated to actually looking at the specific relationships instead of talking about them generally.

[sonicfanj]

One of the things that endears Tails and Amy to me is the strength of self contrast the two of them used to have that sold a positive message of freedom to be yourself. 

In Tails’ case it was the fact that he was both athletic and highly nerdy in a time era when you were either one or the other (jocks vs. nerds anyone?) and promptly insulted for either. Jocks were frequently called dumb behind their backs for fear of physical retaliation while nerds were insulted for liking anything that wasn’t scholastically approved in addition to enjoying science and were frequently physically abused because of their physical frailty. Yet, along comes Tails who is both a nerd and has the physical ability to put most jocks to shame. He married these two opposing extremes/contrasting archetypes in a character who strangely lacked any self confidence yet was always encouraged to do his best and embrace being him. He embodied the good of both athletic and intellectual ability while sympathizing with how no matter how good you are there is always insecurity. He’s such a superb character in that regard to me.

Then you have Amy, who still faces the same stigmas over and over again that have been persistently present since she was introduced. If a girl is girly she must be frail and simultaneously is demeaning to women because she paints a stereotype that prevents woman from being equal with men. If a girl is a tomboy she is throwing away her femininity and trying to be a man to earn “false respect” without recognizing her place. I’m sorry, what? This type of rhetoric has always found its way to Amy conversations and as a result people ignore her spectacular contrast of being a girly-tomboy. She enjoys traditionally girly things like fashion, frilly things, thinking about the boy she likes, and simultaneously loves doing the things that the boys do such as going on adventures, taking part of the action regardless of the form, and so on. Like Tails, Amy takes two supposedly opposing extremes/contrasting archetypes and marries them into a character that has both harmoniously. And then on top of that she is absolutely over the moon happy when she is doing either traditionally girly or boyish activities and strongly emphasizes that these activities are enjoyable and can exist together harmoniously. The emphasis she brings to just doing what she likes and enjoying that has always been so inspirational in my opinion.

Unfortunately I have seen too many people demand for both of them that they pursue a unique identity by shaving off large chunks of who they are. I constantly see people wanting Tails to be the gadget guy because it matches his smarts and makes him distinct from his hero that he wants to be like, or bashing Amy for either being too girly or too boyish as it makes her a bad role model for girls by not being some elusive idea strong female character. Somehow these individuals fail to realize that Tails is awesome because he has brains and athletic ability, pretty much able to be the Spider-Man of the Sonic universe if just given the chance, and fail to understand that Amy is a great role model and powerful female character because she embraces who she is, what she wants to do, and lets absolutely no one tell her she can’t be her even though they don’t like it. It just eats me up when I see Tails not using his physical abilities or Amy stripped of her everything to be some model female clone who supports indescribable agenda’s that she better supports by just being her.

Tails and Amy are built from contrasting archetypes and are so much stronger for it with so much potential that is freely brought out just by traveling with Sonic. Tails can demonstrate his athletic ability just by keeping up, but interacting with Eggman’s creations also brings out his nerdy side as he marvels at the doc’s work. Amy has her girly side brought out as she tries to win over the boy of her dreams but also has her love of traditionally boyish things come out by her love of the adventures and excitement that she experiences by chasing after Sonic and partaking in his adventures.

Their is also the potential for a great relationship that exists between Tails and Amy as Sonic’s two biggest fans. Amy’s optimism and belief in the ability of others serves as a counter and foil to Tails’ self-doubt while Tails’ more reserved nature and abilities supports and foils Amy’s more reckless and spontaneous tendencies without necessarily the ability to keep herself out of trouble. The two support each other so well and are so heavily invested in Sonic and what he brings to their lives, as well as him as just a person and the most important person in the world to them. It’s part of the reason I believe in a trio of Sonic, Tails, and Amy instead of Knuckles* as the relationship between the three and ability to partake in a never ending road trip is so harmonious and multi-directional. Sonic encourages Tails to be his best at everything he does and constantly provides encouragement by being a great big brother figure, while with Amy he may tease her, but with her personality his teasing encourages her to keep going and strive to get better and better creating a cycle of constant self improvement. Tails meanwhile supports Sonic both with his physical and intellectual abilities while Amy’s overflowing emotions, teasing, and persistence in chasing Sonic gives him reason to keep doing what he loves (running) and also face those emotions of his that traditional masculinity and boyhood naivete frowns upon. And as stated above there is the relationship of support that can exist between Tails and Amy that is also two way.

So to me at least, Tails and Amy are such great characters conceptually who are more often than not squandered due to any number of reasons. It’s a shame to since I feel the Shōnen Jump tenants of friendship, effort, victory easily work with them and the franchise and target demographic. Then of course just their shared desire to follow Sonic on his adventures, not just with each other but with the audience, combined with the caring nature they draw out of Sonic on a much more personally level than his strong sense of justice ever demonstrates. I think SEGA/Sonic Team isn’t necessarily wrong that a trio setup best benefits the franchise, but where SEGA/Sonic Team looks at the profit margin imagery I look at the character narrative ability and think they focus on the wrong trio. Sure that trio brings instant familiarity which guarantees a quick sale, but I think that a solid narrative that fully embraces the relationships that can happen naturally and takes full advantage of that would bring the business so much more money just becasue something well crafted and believable that reaches well beyond just the gameplay/classic imagery crowd could bring back so much more. Sonic games have narrative after all, and when people come for a narrative good and natural character dynamics can it make memorable even if the narrative isn’t so much. I feel personally that Tails and Amy add that to the Sonic/Eggman dynamic and find it a shame that who should have been a one off character prevents that from being because it seems to me at least that the short term dollar signs orbiting him blind SEGA/Sonic Team/everyone else from seeing how teh franchise can grow beyond its currently shriveled state.

*[I don’t have anything against Knuckles but prefer him as the Guardian of the Master Emerald whose excursions away from Angel Island are duty related (like in the Japanese Chaotix manual) making his every appearance a question of whether or not he is an ally this time.]

[film-focus-mind]

my essay on autistic representation in the media

I wrote this for three months for my usem class, it’s just my opinions on what is wrong with most autistic media representation

Abstract

The representation of those with autism in the media is, simply put, stereotypical and deeply flawed. From depicting people with autism as eternal children, rude, idiotic, or genius savants, the media portrayals play into and perpetuate harmful stereotypes. This portrayal affects how society views autism, despite how consciously some people realize that the autistic representation is not accurate and socially harmful. If a character with autistic traits is shown in a negative light, people will form implicit biases and associate autistic traits as being wrong and bad. Media representation of those with autism has to change to be more accurate and less abusive and stereotyped. There needs to be better autistic representation for the sake of both neurotypical people and people with autism. Stereotypes need to be rejected and replaced with people with autism as being people.

Keywords: autism, media representation, stereotypes, Autism Spectrum Disorder

My interest in autistic representation is personal. My little brother Leo was diagnosed with autism at age three. Despite this diagnosis, he never knew he had autism until he was thirteen. Around that time, the popular kids show Sesame Street started featuring an autistic character named Julia (Cohen, 2017). Julia talked like my brother did: in short incomplete sentences and sometimes repeating what others had just said, she got upset when there were loud noises, and she could not stand the feeling of paint on her fingers. As Leo and I watched the show and the character’s interactions with others, it dawned on me that Leo didn’t know what he and Julia had in common. My parents never told him because they didn’t want Leo to feel different.

“Leo, do you know why you’re like Julia?” I asked.

“Why?” Leo replied. “Why” in Leo’s case also meant who, what, where, when, and how. 

“It’s because you both are autistic!” I explained. “Your brains both work just a little bit differently.”

Although the Julia of Sesame Street was created as a caring and positive role model, she’s one of the few instances of positive representation of people with autism on television. Most autism representation shows people with autism as rude, child-like, dumb, or worse. Many characters who are on the autism spectrum are quite one- dimensional. Having autistic traits has been portrayed in a negative light or in an overly simplistic way. Autistic represetation hardly factors the experiences of actual people with autism. If the media portrayed people with autism as equals, there would be dozens of Julias in mainstream media (Safran, 1998). How is the media portraying people with Autism Spectrum Disorder? How can things improve? What does this say about society’s views on autism? 

For clarification, the terms ‘high functioning’ and ‘low functioning’ are problematic and will not be used in the context of this discussion because those words hold a very discriminatory view of autism, one that prioritizes the neurotypical ways of functioning over other ways of functioning. In this paper, the terms autism and Asperger’s syndrome will be used to differentiate between the two distinctly different types of ways that autism affects people. It is important to remember that Asperger, the doctor whose name is used to describe a branch of autism, was a Nazi (Baron-Cohen, 2018). That historical association speaks great lengths about how autism is/was viewed, considering how Asperger describes autism. Asperger’s opinions on autism would be considered very outdated and insulting to contemporary people with autism (Draaisma, 2009). 

Portrayals of autism in terms of fictional characters can be split into two distinct tropes, which are infantilization (Stevenson, Harp, & Gernsbacher 2014) and the savant (Draaisma, 2009). The former usually applies to autism generally, while the latter applies to those exhibiting the characteristics of Asperger’s Syndrome. Tropes are different character archetypes that group characters by their believed-to-be stereotypical traits. In a few cases of media representation, both tropes can apply to the same character, but for the most part they do not overlap. Both tropes only give a glimpse at the complexities of autism, usually leaving out autistic traits that can be seen as good.

To start, there’s infantilization (Stevenson, Harp & Gernsbacher, 2014), or for a better term, the eternal child trope. This trope portrays characters with autism of any age as child-like, and usually also naive or idiotic. These characters can be either autistic or have Asperger’s, but they act the same, naive, unable to focus, throwing tantrums, and generally interacting with the world in “innocent” and “unsophisticated” ways. Also, these characters typically have a special “obsessive” interest that they love talking about, some of examples of obsessive fixations are classical music, science, outer space, cartoons, trains, and dinosaurs. It is more harmful when adults are portrayed with this trope, as a person can be an adult with autism, and a mature autistic adult. We often think of neurotypical children as also having obsessive interests or naïve qualities, so the stereotype is not as blatantly discriminatory. Yet, when these are the only traits an autistic character has, that becomes problematic. This child trope creates a stigma of autism disappearing when one turns eighteen, or that people with autism are incapable of mental growth. Some examples of this trope that can be seen in mainstream film, television and book portrayals are Kirk from the television show Gilmore Girls (Palladino, 2000), Lenny from the great American novel Of Mice and Men (Steinbeck, 1965), and Amelie from the French movie Amelie (Jean-Marc, 2001)

Multimedia tropes are not the only case of infantilization of those on the autism spectrum. Most autism-based charities only show children with autism, effectively branding it as a children’s disease and leaving out the reality that many with autism are mature adults. In a study done in 2014, only eight out of 170 autism based charities had pictures that included adults with autism (Stevenson, Harp & Gernsbacher, 2014). When only children with autism are shown, it leaves out adults from the picture. Such absences also contribute to the man-child stereotype. When one only sees children with autism, and then meets adults with autism, they won’t be seen as the adults that they are. Adults with autism then get treated like children. Infantilization ultimately restricts the definition of what a person with autism is like, and the next trope does that as well. 

The next difficult trope is the savant (Draaisma, 2009). The definition of savant is someone who is good at one particular subject, at an almost unnatural level, but that other-worldly savant syndrome seems to come at a price. Characters with autism who fall under this trope are smart beyond their peers, but are depicted as being very rude and as lacking in key social skills. This character trope, like that which focuses on  infantilization, will show people have a special interest, like physics, medicine, drawing, learning languages to name a few examples, which they pursue with genius intensity and knowledge. These characters have friends, but are often depicted as being overly blunt and difficult or not nice to their friends. This kind of portrayal brands people with autism as being bad people and antisocial. Thus, the general public are led to believe that all people with autism must be rude (Safran, 1998). All people with autism are expected to be a know-it-all in one area, but are thought of as idiots if they are not. Some examples of the savant trope are Sherlock from the BBC’s television show Sherlock (Moffat, 2010), Paris from the sitcom Gilmore Girls (Palladino, 2000) and Sheldon Cooper from the tv show the Big Bang Theory (Cendrowski, 2007).

Sometimes, the savant trope is combined with the eternal child trope to create a doubly stereotyped character with autism. Typically these children are beyond their peers, but have trouble making friends, with a tendency to be alienated. An example would be Max from the tv show Parenthood (Holton, 2013). Max enjoys talking about beetles, wearing pirate costumes and he doesn’t like candles. When his parents find out about him being autistic, they resolve not to tell him of his diagnosis. Not telling kids of their diagnosis is bad because the children may be already feeling as if they are an outcast among their peers, but they don’t know why (Sinclair, 1999). Sometimes having information about what makes someone different can provide comfort in challenging situations. Keeping information like that from children with autism does more harm than good. It would deprive an understanding of themselves necessary to overcome their disabilities.

Another autistic stereotype is that autism affects more boys than it does girls (Lai, Lombardo, Auyeung, Chakrabarti, & Baron-Cohen, 2015, pp. 11-24). Most portrayals of autism on television are of males, effectively erasing autistic women from the narrative as well. This erasure actually has an effect on diagnosing autism because many believe that girls do not “get” autism. This also happens on a social level because females do not have the diagnosis that might help them understand their behaviors and social interactions at younger ages. With the bias of being a mostly male disorder, women with autism get diagnosed at a later age than their male counterparts (Bargiela, Steward, & Mandy, 2016). Many autistic women are not diagnosed until adulthood, which can set them back multiple years of working to get help with their disorder. Women being autistic is seen just as much of being an oxymoron as an autistic adult.

Autistic misrepresentation occurs even though characters are not explicitly stated as being autistic. When characters are portrayed with stereotypical autistic traits, they are understood by viewers as being autistic. When people see these traits being portrayed as dislikable, that may cause people to see those traits in a very negative light. This happens even before people with autism have a chance to prove those stereotypes wrong. In short, it doesn’t matter whether the word autism is used. Only the traits matter, not the label. 

How do autistic stereotypes affect people with autism? For starters, when people meet someone who shares traits with a negatively portrayed autistic character, people think that having those traits are linked with being a bad person (Safran, 1998). This leads to isolation, ostracization, and bullying. Stereotyping of any sort can be quite harmful. People will tend to judge all persons with autism they encounter in real life based on the examples they see in media. The general public will see what’s on tv and believe it to be true, even if subconsciously. It predisposes persons to negatively prejudge people with autism before meeting them.

People without autism are also hampered by these stereotypes by causing people with autism to struggle to find their respected and credible voice in social, educational and work settings. Successful interactions with people with autism require an unbiased and accurate understanding of them. These successful interactions are rendered less likely by stereotypical portrayals, which foster disrespect and distrust of people with autism encountered in real life. Everyone should want to treat everyone with respect, and correct their behavior if it is wrong.

People can actively undertake many strategies to make autistic representation more like Julia from Sesame Street, and less like every other character fuelling misunderstanding. The first solution is hiring actual people with autism as consultants for a show (Huws & Jones, 2010, pp. 331-344; Holton, 2013), ensuring the screenwriting matches up with the real experience of autism. Another way is to try to make a multidimensional and meaningful character, not a character who is merely a foil based on comic relief or being a challenge for the other characters. Autistic characters must exist as themselves, not as plot devices for other neurotypical characters.  

Another solution is to approach rectifying harmful stereotypes by using a character to educate non-autistic people about the realities of autism (Behind the Scenes, 2017). Upon seeing a character as a learning opportunity, research is done into the subject, and a more accurate portrayal occurs. People have a tendency to learn from engaging and considering fictional characters. Thus, making one accurate fictional character would do the most good when it comes to opening up people to the nuanced realities of autism spectrum disorder.   

.In conclusion, autistic representation in books, films and televisions shows negatively effects or influences therefore society’s general views of autism. These tropes are discriminatory and harm people with autism by spreading misinformation. There are many years of poor autistic misrepresentation that those in the media industry must work to undo.

References

Bargiela, S., Steward, R., & Mandy, W. (2016). The experiences of late-diagnosed women with autism spectrum conditions: an investigation of the female autism phenotype. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(10), 3281-3294.

Baron-Cohen, S., Klin, A., Silberman, S., & Buxbaum, J. D. (2018). Did Hans Asperger actively assist the Nazi euthanasia program? Molecular Autism, 9(1). doi:10.1186/s13229-018-0209-5

 Bringing Julia to Life [Behind the Scenes]. (2017, March 20). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhzfHVmSLRU

Cendrowski M (Director). (2007). The Big Bang Theory [Television series]. Los Angeles, California: CBS.

Cohen E (Director). (2017). Sesame Street, season 47 episode 15 [Television series]. Los Angeles, California: PBS

Draaisma D. (2009). Stereotypes of autism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences 364(1522), 1475-80. Retrieved from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2008.0324

Holton, A. E. (2013). What’s wrong with max? Parenthood and the portrayal of Autism Spectrum Disorders 37(1) 45-63. In Sagepub. Retrieved January 29, 2019, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0196859912472507

 Huws, J.C. & Jones, R.S.P (2010) ‘They just seem to live their lives in their own little world’: Lay perceptions of autism, Disability & Society, 25:3, 331-344, DOI: 10.1080/09687591003701231

Jean-Marc D. (Producer), & Jeunet J. (Director). (2001). Amelie [Motion Picture]. France: Canal+.

Lai, M., Lombardo, M. V., Auyeung, B., Chakrabarti, B., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Sex/Gender Differences and Autism: Setting the Scene for Future Research. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54(1), 11-24. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2014.10.003

Moffat S, (Executive Producer). (2010). Sherlock [Television series]. London, United Kingdom: BBC.

Safran, S. P. (1998). Disability Portrayal in Film: Reflecting the Past, Directing the Future. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 227-238. doi:10.1177/001440299806400206

Steinbeck, J. (1965). Of mice and men: With an introduction. New York: Random House.

Sherman Palladino, A (Director). (2000). Gilmore Girls [Television series]. Los Angeles, California: the WB.

Sinclair, J. (1999). Don't mourn for us. Autistic Rights Movement UK.

[sylleboi]

𝖂𝖍𝖆𝖙 𝖉𝖔𝖊𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖙 𝖊𝖛𝖊𝖓 𝖒𝖊𝖆𝖓?

A growing glossary for my confused brain, all being alphabetical.

A

Accidental: When speaking of something accidental, most often you’d associate it with making a mistake. In art, that is an often occurrence; but it’s not always for the worse! Mistakes can force you to see your creation from a different perspective or make you have to think outside the box to cover it up/blend it into the rest of the picture. You might even end up liking your mistake as it is and choose to then embrace it.

Allegorical: Allegory is often used in art as a way to convey and symbolize a deeper moral or spiritual meaning such as; death, life, jealousy, hatred, etc.

Angular: This refers to some kind of shape, object or an outline having sharp angles and corners.

Animatic: Essentially it can be described as a moving story that is synced up to audio. In the animation industry, it is used to create a rough visual of the final product with the use of the voice recording that they have had their voice actors record. During this process, they can add and take away everything they feel like.

Animation: A series of linked images placed in a sequence to create the illusion of movement and life

Antagonist: They are the rival of the protag. A person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary. They are often portrayed as characters with a dark background; an example of this could be an evil ruler that grew up in an abusive environment or something alike.

Archetype: This can be defined as a very typical example of a certain person or thing, often very generalising/stereotypes, but this is not how you would define archetypes in storytelling specifically. Archetypes can be defined as for example; the sidekick or comical release character (the jester), the mentor (wise), the innocent, the explorer, the hero, the lover, the ally, the trickster, the guardian, the shadow, the ruler, the friendly beast. Essentially, they are different roles.

Automatic: This is a way of tapping into the unconscious mind. When you create something using the technique of automatism, it means that you aren’t thinking about what you are drawing, have drawn and is going to draw next, you simply just let the pen and your hand do the work while your head is left to rest.

B

C

Chaotic: When referring to something being chaotic, most often you’d use this term to describe a piece of artwork, depending on how many individual aspects are put together on the “canvas”. In some cases, if the artist has a lot to say, it might end up affecting the way it turns out in the end; chaotic. If a piece of art is chaotic or feels busy, it could reflect something allegorical as well; a hidden meaning hiding in between all of the distractions.

Chattering: It generally means that each frame in a given animation isn’t lined up completely evenly; general imperfections are often very easy to spot once played back, but with practice, it can be avoided quite efficiently.

Clean up: This is part of the overall process of animating. It is especially often used in hand-drawn/analogue/traditional animation. In this workflow, the first (conceptual) drawings are called roughs, referring to how they are very loose and rough at this stage. Professionally speaking, when the director has approved of these roughs, this is when clean versions of these are created. This process is called clean up. The term of clean up can also be referred to as, for example, when you have done frames in ink and some of it may smudge in the process, you can scan in the frames and proceed by cleaning up the frames digitally.

Climax: A climax builds upon everything that has been introduced during the exposition and rising action. This is the moment of truth for the protagonist and the peak moment of the story. You know the plot is successful at delivering a good climax when the outer journeys and the inner goals of which the protagonist wish to complete click.

Considered: Opposite to automatism, considered art has been planned out before being done. Sometimes artists even go as far as planning out each line and colour before applying to the final product. This can be done by doing a bunch of tests and sketches, or by mind-mapping ideas beforehand.

D

Denouement: Denouement (resolution) is a fancy way of saying that the story is about to come to an end. At this point, all questions are resolved and answered; letting the reader.

E

Encounter: (verb) Unexpectedly be faced with or experience (something hostile or difficult). (noun) An unexpected or casual meeting with someone or something.

Exposition: This is where the characters of the story gets introduced alongside the story and plot itself. This is often the most difficult part to set up successfully, simply because you need to capture the readers/viewers/target audiences’ attention and have then clued in on what’s going on in the story, but this has to be done without completely spoiling the rest of the story. It is important to not mistake exposition and an info dump.  

F

Falling action: So, what now? You’ve technically finished the story. Finishing a story after a climax or during one is what is known as a cliff-hanger. Cliff hangers work well in film series, but they don’t feel as satisfying. A way to see falling action could be as the old saying; “What goes up must come down.” Putting together any hanging threads not yet solved in the plot is done during this stage.

Frame by Frame: An animation will only work if key positions are lined up together. There has to be a start and a finish for it to be a successful frame by frame animation.

G

H

I

Illustration: When talking about illustration, it describes usually a drawing or an altered picture of some kind. It can also be referred to the act of illustrating; (creating, drawing, altering, etc.)

Inanimate: Doesn’t move or have any life to it. Lack of consciousness and power or motion. Not endowed with life and spirit. Some examples being; bricks; it comes alive if you throw it. inanimate things come to life.

Incongruent:

J

Juxtaposition: This is when you bring together two opposite things that may not naturally go together, go together; creating contrast.

K

L

Linework/Keyline: Linework can simply be put as a specific technique of drawing lines when talking about art. There are countless ways in which you can interpret linework, some of them being; bold, fine, scattered, clean, sharp, fluid, altering thickness, etc. - When talking about keyline, it can relate to linework as the planning part of linework. To give an example of this, it could be that you outline the image or shape of something, planning where the linework has to be placed; keyline.

Looping: Looping is where you have a sequence of frames that repeats infinitely. The first frame is the same as the last frame. It’s like an endless cycle. It’s a labor-saving technique for animation repetitive motions; walking, a breeze in the trees or running.

M

Model Sheet: When talking about model sheets (also known as a character board, character study or character sheet) it is mostly understood as a visual representation of a character to understand the poses, gestures and even the personality in animation, comics, and video games.

Mutated:

N

Narrative: This can be explained as the plot of a story. It most often includes characters and a setting as well as a person or narrator from whose point of view the story is told. It is generally speaking a spoken or written (to later be illustrated/animated to convey this story) collection of connected events. It’s how a story is told. Who? It is told to an audience. In the beginning, the scenario is set up. Why is a narrative different from a story? The story is a subjective opinion about what’s happening, whereas the narrative is more of an objectified version of that. Jack walks up the hill; story, Jack has mental problems, narrative.

Narrative theory: Exposition -> Rising action -> Climax -> Falling action -> Denouement

Neolithic: Neo means “new”, Lithic meaning “stone”- New-Stone (stone age/new stone age; creating something new from old stone)

O

Objective:

Organic: When something looks organic, it’s just another way of saying “natural”. Most often, an organic shape would appear fluid and have some imperfections to its qualities. A sharply edged shape would convey something manmade like houses or other solid manmade objects.

P

Primary research: Interviews, looking and studying imagery, galleries, museums, exhibitions

Primitive Art: The term “Primitive Art” is a rather vague (and unavoidably ethnocentric) description which refers to the cultural artifacts of “primitive” peoples - that is, those ethnic groups deemed to have a relatively low standard of technological development by Western standards.

*This term is usually not associated with developed societies but can almost definitely be found in most cultures.

Protagonist: This is the main character or one of the major characters in a play, film, novel, etc. It is not at all unheard of that the protagonist is a heroic figure for. They make the key decisions and experience the consequences of these decisions and actions. Protagonists usually go through a journey to learn and evolve upon themselves.

Q

Quest: A quest is a journey that someone takes, in order to achieve a goal or complete an important task. Accordingly, the term comes from the Medieval Latin “Questo”, meaning “search” or “inquire”.

R

Rising action: This is the moment where the plot and narrative beings picking up. Rising action is usually encouraged by a key trigger, which is what tells the reader that “now things will start to take form.” This key trigger is what rolls the dice, which then causes a series of events to escalate to then set the story into motion.

Rotoscoping: It is one of the most simple and accessible ways of animating regardless of the level of skill, aimed to create realistic sequenced movement. It is one of the simplest forms of animation and is also used universally. Rotoscoping is an animation technique that animators use to trace over filmed footage, frame by frame, to produce a realistic sequence of action and movement.

S

Secondary research: Book, documentaries, the internet, presentations, articles

Sequence: A sequence is a collection of something that is related to each other, put into a specific order to create motion, storytelling, feel, spark thoughts etc. It is used in animation, related to Frame by Frame.

Stop motion: Where you have a model or any animate objects and you move it a bit for each picture taken; when played back it should give the illusion of movement. The more frames per second, the more fluid the movement will become.

Storyboard: Storyboards are a sequence of drawings, often with some kind of direction and/or dialogue included within. They are often used for storytelling in film, television productions and comics/comic books.

Subconscious: In art, the use of one’s subconscious mind was inspired by the psychologist Sigmund Froyd and his many theories on dreams and the subconscious mind. To put it simply though, the noun subconscious describes a person’s thoughts, impulses, feelings, desires, etc. all of which are not within the individual’s direct control, meaning they simply just contribute and affect the conscious decisions and thoughts the person do and experience.

T

Turnaround: A turnaround or character turnaround is a type of visual reference that shows a character from at least three different angles. They are essential for mediums that will be showing the character from multiple different angles, such as animation and comics. Another use for these turnarounds is to make sure artists keep their character visually consistent and proportional, to pitch characters for projects and as guides for teams where a bigger group of people will be drawing the character and need to stay on model.

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

[recentanimenews]

KILL la KILL - IF Is Heavy On Depth And Light On Content

If you’re a fan of Studio Trigger, you’re probably well aware that an important date is fast approaching. In just a handful of weeks, it’ll be October 4th once again, marking six years to the date since Trigger began airing their first full-length television anime: Kill la Kill. Combining the talents of established creators and young talents alike, this project took the anime world by storm and put the fledgeling studio behind it on the map. It remains an incredibly popular entry in Trigger’s growing catalogue of international hits, though many fans lament the fact it was never continued past its first and only season. 

  Admittedly, I was never one of them. I had gone into the show with high expectations for it and couldn’t help but feel sadly let down by the end. So when I found out that a Kill la Kill arena fighter for the PS4, Switch, and Steam was in the works, titled KILL la KILL - IF, I initially had no interest. That is, until I found out it was being published by none other than THE Arc System Works, rulers of the anime fighting game scene. With the likes of BlazBlue, Guilty Gear, and Dragon Ball FighterZ under their belt, they can hardly do wrong in the fighter department. Sure, they may have merely published and oversaw development at A+ Games, and it is a 3D arena fighter opposed to their usual 2D fighting specialty, but make no mistake: KILL la KILL - IF feels like an ArcSys game through and through.

    Upon starting KILL la KILL - IF for the first time, you’ll find yourself immediately forced into playing “episode one” of the game’s story mode. The story mode places you in the role of none other than Satsuki Kiryuin at the conclusion of the Naturals Election. Facing off against series protagonist Ryuko Matoi, this first mission acts as your basic tutorial for the game, and completing it will unlock Free Battle as well as a few other modes, though you’ll need to progress further in the story to unlock all of them.

  Regarding the story, I have good news and bad news for Kill la Kill fans. The good news is that this story mode isn’t a simple retreading of the show’s story. It’s a new scenario written out by the show’s original screenwriter, Kazuki Nakashima, offering an alternate series of events offshooting from the dramatic turn that takes place during the Cultural and Sports Grand Festival in the show. You also play as Satsuki for the majority of this storyline, offering by far the show’s best character a much-deserved spotlight.

    The bad news is that, unfortunately, it isn’t very good. If there was one thing I liked about the show, it’s that it had tremendous style to it ― a style that the cutscenes in KILL la KILL - IF completely fail to emulate. They try, sure, but the result is just incredibly awkward. Watching a flat cel of a character cartoonishly fall off the stage at a 90 degree angle is funny in 2D. Watching the same exact thing happen to a 3D model is just ugly. 

  If that isn’t bad enough, there’s barely any actual story in this alternate telling of events. The story lasts a handful of hours, and most of the cutscenes you’ll see are just various characters finding any reason they can to fight each other. It completely lacks any fanservice. No, not that kind, the other kind. The kind that fans want out of seeing the characters they obsess over interact in new situations. KILL la KILL - IF’s story has next to none of that, if any. At best a character will get a very archetypical line or two before fighting again. While I’m at it, there is in fact less fanservice fanservice than in the show. Characters are now shown in underwear where they were once buck naked, so there’s that, too, I suppose.

    Another glaring issue in the game is a disappointing lack of content. KILL la KILL - IF features only eight fighters: Ryuko, Satsuki, the Elite Four, Nui, and Ragyo. Admittedly, this shallow roster is to be expected from a licensed property with a mere 24 episodes to its name. But still, it wouldn’t be impossible to pick out a few minor ones from the Kill la Kill canon. As far as I’m concerned, it’s completely inexcusable that Fight Club Mako didn’t make the cut. I’d much rather play as her than any single member of the final roster. 

  The stage and alternate color palette limitations are also felt to a lesser degree. There are only six stages in the game, most of which feel and look a lot like one another. Again, this is mainly a problem stemming from the source material. Kill la Kill also suffered from a lack of variety in its environments. That being said, the lack of alternate color options for characters is rather baffling. Each character has their default look, an alternate look based on the show’s OVA, and their own unique palette swap based on popular ArcSys characters. With a confusing lack of options in the game, one would expect them to be selling more as DLC, but that isn’t the case either. 

    Now, all of that’s pretty negative, but don’t start removing the game from your wishlist just yet. While KILL la KILL - IF does fail to deliver on the Kill la Kill fanservice-y side story shenanigans fans of the show might want, it’s still a game that comes courtesy of Arc System Works, meaning it is a fantastically fun fighter from the moment you pick up the controller. 

  The mechanics are incredibly simple to pick up. You have a melee attack, a projectile, and a guard break to attack with as well as special attacks that can be activated once your SP meter fills. When certain conditions are fulfilled, you can activate your Bloody Valor, a head to head rock-paper-scissors-type battle that can award different buffs to the winner while dealing damage to the loser. There’s also a guard button for defense and a jump button that can be used to dash in different directions relative to your opponent. 

  These are, all things considered, pretty simple mechanics. However, there is a tremendous amount of accessible depth to this game’s combat. There are a myriad of different combos that can be strung together from these options. All of them are spelled out clearly and succinctly in every character’s Command List along with very helpful information about each character’s specific strengths, weaknesses, and how they’re meant to be played. 

    Though the roster may be small, there is a lot of diversity in playstyle from character to character. Gamagoori’s damage output rises the more damage he takes, and he can self-inflict damage to complement that. Nui is a highly technical character best utilized in air combat. Nonon utilizes strong projectile attacks but sports less options in close combat. Each character feels different to play as and must be approached differently when played against. 

  The only persistent complaint I have about the combat is the camera. The player has no control over the camera. It instead revolves around your opponent, meaning that if your opponent is backed into a corner, you can find yourself facing your character further away but still having to control them as if you are looking behind the back at them. Additionally, certain attacks or characters can outright block your view of your own character. This can lead to situations where you have no idea if you’re being combo'd at all or not.

    Camera issues aside, if any of that sounds interesting to you, you better hope you have some friends to play against because the online scene I experienced on PS4 was dead as a doornail. After spending all night plugging away at the story, I went to bed excited to wake up the next day, find a character whose playstyle I liked, and hop online to try them against some real people. When the time came I hopped into Free Battle and began looking for a room.

  Nothing.

  I furrowed my brow and tried again. Nothing.

  I went through all the room search parameters to make sure I cast as wide a net as possible. 

  Still nothing. 

    Baffled, I checked my internet connection. No problems there. There wasn’t a single lobby to be found for non-ranked matches online. I created my own lobby just to see if there was anyone out there. I waited, and waited, and waited. TWENTY MINUTES LATER someone finally connected. I played three matches with them. I went decisively 0-3. 

  Ranked battle was a slightly different story. I immediately connected with another user and was again demolished, this time by both my opponent and some of the worst lag I have ever experienced in an online game. After declining their rematch, I sat and waited for another to come along. No one ever did. 

    It was a real gut check moment that halted all of the enjoyment I’d had playing KILL la KILL - IF. As someone who enjoys playing competitive games, there’s little enjoyment to be had from playing against AI-controlled opponents. It can help you get the basics down, but you won’t be able to play at a higher level unless you’re testing yourself against actual people. KILL la KILL - IF’s online scene is barren, so without a circle of skilled friends to play against, your only option is enduring excruciatingly long matchmaking times only to be matched up with opponents who probably have terrible connections. 

  It’s truly unfortunate. There’s a great game to be found within KILL la KILL - IF, but it’s being held back by the very property it’s based on. The pool of reference the developers had to draw from in Kill la Kill was just way too shallow. Not to mention that though the series may be popular, it’s nowhere near as iconic or identifiable as its licensed counterparts in the 3D arena fighter genre. The overlap between ArcSys fans, Kill la Kill fans, and 3D arena fighter fans was just way too small. Arc System Works and A+ Games delivered a really solid fighter ― here’s hoping they can do it again with something a bit more marketable. 

    REVIEW ROUNDUP

+ Accessible, satisfying combat with a high skill ceiling

+ Gorgeous combat animations ArcSys fans know and love

+ Thorough, easy to understand Command Lists

+/- Unique playstyles for every character, but an incredibly limited roster

- Limited content and callbacks for Kill la Kill fans to appreciate

- Seriously, they didn’t even include Fight Club Mako

- Disappointingly boring story mode

- Wonky camera positions mid-battle

- Online scene is dead-on-arrival

  Are you a Kill la Kill fan excited for KILL la KILL - IF? Have you already played the game? Let us know how you feel about it in the comments below!

      -----

  Danni Wilmoth is a Features writer for Crunchyroll and co-host of the video game podcast Indiecent. You can find more words from her on Twitter @NanamisEgg.

Do you love writing? Do you love anime? If you have an idea for a features story, pitch it to Crunchyroll Features!

By: news+feed@crunchyroll.com

[tfwalczak]

Something you’ve read before...

If you've not read John Steinbeck's iconic and brilliant novel "The Grapes of Wrath" in the past half century or so, another look can be refreshing, if only to revisit depression era economics. For decades High Schools have made Steinbeck's novel required reading, with the majority of students slugging through the text to mark it as complete on the required list, never to return to it again. Seasoned Steinbeck readers prefer "East of Eden", or "Of Mice and Men". However, for many reasons (some apparent and some not) "The Grapes of Wrath" travels in the orbit of the best known American novels - period, let alone a Steinbeck book.

One of Steinbeck's "labor novels", the story follows the journey of the Joad family as they cross over to the Southern California valley from Oklahoma during the time of the Dust Bowl, though the dust bowl is only indirectly mentioned in the book. What is more prominent is the role of bank finance for small family farms during that era (or the apparent lack of), and the largely unregulated lending tactics that pushed families into foreclosure and economic chaos as living off the farm was THE skill for the primary breadwinners. Big business during this period was beginning its foray into farming as a mass industrial enterprise, and their resulting efficiencies, made the individual farmer a risky bet for banks.

The Joads, having lost their farm to the bank were faced with a major decision - stay local or go. Rumors of a bountiful life in the fruitful valleys of Southern California tempted the Joad family to leave the only land they had known. “Handbills" circulated, promised plenty of work in the orchards and vineyards, which in theory was true - thousands of laborers were needed. The Joad’s feeling they had no choice, quickly consolidated the family and assets to make the hard journey west. The route in actuality, was the path for the largest domestic migration in US history - which occurred between 1930 and 1940, when 3.5 million people moved out of the plains states, most of them moving west. The novel indirectly covers the mass migration through the many encounters of the Joad family.

The circulators of the handbills had adroitly ginned up demand for labor, creating a surplus, way in favor of the growers/farmers, pushing wages down to abysmal levels. The Joad family, having zero knowledge of the labor conditions at the outset, would, in bits and pieces glean the intel of the crappy conditions in California along the way from various characters of questionable standing. The Joads being all in, refused to allow any significant credence to the forecast ——-holding fast to the dream (Grandpas dream) of fruit juices rolling off their chins in the lush land of plenty.

This rush from pain, to relief is a recurring force throughout the book, a force that drives action, but also a force that blinds as evidenced by the family’s conviction to the printed word (the handbill). The Joads were, like many families vulnerable to the singular solution and the quick exit. The Joads may not be the model of sophistication by contemporary standards, but its not hard to see the parallels to modern marketing by a wide swath of industry players like credit card companies, banks and the like, which exploits the gap between the pain of now to the green fields of relief. We all at some point fall for it - and why wouldn’t the Joads?

I was not alive during the Great Depression, but my parents were, and I’ve also read like everyone else, volumes of stories and accounts from all angles, fiction to non fiction of the Great Depression. And the single defining characteristic that binds all who lived through it, was pain. Pain in hunger, pain in shelter, pain with jobs, pain experienced when families crumbled under the weight of scarcity. And pain is what John Steinbeck so acutely names throughout the story.

Of the many themes, class and socio economic status are prominent. The id of the Joads is that of agrarian survivalists, who then discover they are referred to as “Okies” by the prevailing Californians, who are wary of the newcomers, or any disruption to their peace and homogeneity. In the book and elsewhere, the term Okies serves as a vague proxy for race, and other-ism in American culture. The Okies are treated like dirt and reviled, and the otherwise strong family unit like the Joads, now had to contend with a form of racism, along with their poverty. Steinbeck's narrator is a neutral 3rd person, but has a clear lens for the pain of the Joads poverty and highlights the visceral struggles of the often clear thinking, sometimes violent, ex-con, Tom Joad. Joad, is a flawed hero, an American archetype . Tom Joad deals internally with his past (time in prison for manslaughter), but he is at the same time, the clear leader of the family, and those around him. His no nonsense, quick thinking persona draws the reader in, and you cannot help but root for him.

Culturally Tom Joad lives on. Bruce Springsteen, Rage Against the Machine, Woody Guthrie, and Mumford and Sons, have all recorded songs that more or less relate to his plight, and that of the dust bowl migrant. Tom Joad has become a euphemism for the hard luck labor guy, scraping by, living on the fringes of a reasonable human existence. At the same time, in the novel he lives to find his reason for being, and does not give up on his people (laborers) or himself intellectually.

The Grapes of Wrath can be unforgettable or an extended polemic on the evils of a capitalist market, exploiting migrant labor. But, deciphering the absolutes out this story and into binary form would be an insult to Steinbeck and to you, the reader. So I don’t think a hard choice needs to be made - the book is brilliant, which leaves the reader with much, much to think about.

[swipestream]

My Little Pony: Beyond Good and Evil

This is a guest post written by Alex Stump:

My two little brothers have been watching My Little Pony for a long time now. I watched a couple episodes (and also the unholy spin-off series Equestria Girls) and I’ll be 100% honest…My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic is a really good show. But don’t get the wrong idea, I’m not coming out as a Brony. I, as an 18-year-old man have better things to do then obsessing over a show made for seven year olds. Which really fascinates me, what is it about this kid’s series that attracts so many young adults? It’s a question that has been going around since the show premiered and the most widely accepted questions/theories I’ve seen are:

A) People like MLP for the same reason people like Star Trek or Firefly.

B) These people had terrible childhoods and they watch MLP to experience the childhood they never had.

C) These people had awesome childhoods and watch MLP because it gives them a sense of nostalgia.

And D) People watch MLP because they’re mentally handicapped.

These answers have some truth to them but I find them to be mostly flawed…So how about I give you my own answer to the question. Sure, everyone has his or her own reason for watching, but I think there’s a unifying reason why. You see I believe the reason why MLP is so popular and why it stands out in the entertainment industry is because the show has a “thing”.

What is this “thing” you ask? Well, this “thing” is very important to fiction. It goes all the way back to ancient times. It was prevalent in the 20th century but sadly is being abused and forgotten in the 21st century. Let me give you some examples:

(Example 1) The Adventures of Robin Hood is a 1938 film staring Errol Flynn and tells the tale of Robin Hood and his merry men. This movie has great action scenes,

good acting, amazing sets, and is quite possibly the happiest go lucky movie I’ve ever seen. Seriously, this film is so happy I dare you to watch it without smiling. Robin and his merry men are tons of fun to watch. They’re funny, smart and most of all virtuous. The women are great too, they’re modest, beautiful and don’t complain about the traditional family structure. Just about every character in the film has an enjoyable personality. We see medieval society portrayed in a mostly positive light, which is nice to see. Even religion gets a good light and in the end everyone lives happily ever after.

The movie’s really good; it’s a beloved classic for a reason. (Seriously, this movie’s good. If you haven’t watched it already, WATCH IT!!!)

Now let’s talk about the 2010 Robin Hood movie directed by Ridley Scott.  This film isn’t what you’ll call happy.  Robin Hood is not a righteous nobleman but a lying criminal who desserts the holy crusade and fights the evil stereotypical French. The women are awful, the church and medieval society are both portrayed in a negative light and the rest of the movie is just dark, gritty and forgettable. Guess what? The movie wasn’t well received, with critics like Roger Ebert calling the movie “innocence and joy draining away from movies.” Now there’s a new Robin Hood movie coming out this year and apparently it’s yet another dark and gritty take on the Robin Hood story. Just what the masses wanted, am I right? (Example 2) Superman! Who doesn’t know the man of steel? He is the most well known superhero in the DCU. His origin story’s an all-time classic; he is a common role model for kids and adults, his sidekicks and super villains are good. Most importantly, he saves kittens stuck on trees. Even if you don’t like Superman, nobody can deny the cultural significance he has all over the world. He is more then just a superhero, he is the superhero…In the new Superman movies however, and he is anything but a superhero. In the DC cinematic multiverse, Superman’s a nihilist, he fails to save people, kills his enemies, and lets his emotions get the better of him. He treats his life as a superhero not as a duty, but a curse. When Superman (spoiler alert!) dies in Batman v Superman nobody gives an anti-life equation, because that guy on screen is not the man who has everything. What happened to the Superman?

(Final Example): Star Wars is one of the greatest space operas ever made. A movie with amazing characters, a classic story and groundbreaking special effects. They’re movies that pay homage to Akira Kurosawa and the serials from the 30s and 40s. A story that borrows from East Asian philosophy and the archetypes of Joseph Campbell. A story with a great amount of historical symbolism, ranging from WW2, the French Revolution and the Roman Empire. Yet with all of the complexity and metaphor, the original Star Wars trilogy (and to some extent the prequels) is nothing more than simple kids movies…the new films by Disney I wouldn’t call simple. The new movies lazily rehash the plots from the original films but without the symbolism and archetypes. The new heroes are either too perfect or too flawed, there’s pretty obvious political messages floating around and all the original characters we know and love have forgotten everything they learned from Jedi and they all die. Don’t complain though, because filmmaker JJ Abrams will call you sexist for not liking the movies. (It makes you wonder what goes on behind the scenes.)

So, what exactly is this “thing” that My Little Pony, Star Wars, Robin Hood, and Superman have in common that their modern day remakes and sequels lack?

Heroism. No, really. Heroism or just simply, the heroic character is the most common archetype in storytelling and the most important. People naturally draw themselves towards heroes because they represent some kind of greater good, whether it be, faith, bravery, hope, charity and yes…friendship. When done correctly, the heroic character becomes a timeless icon. I mean look at my examples again. Superman is good not because of his superpowers but because of his character. Superman’s an immigrant, a stranger who uses his alien powers to help others. He stands for truth, justice, and the American way. No matter how bad the situation is, he never kills people. (For more on this subject, watch the animated movie Superman vs. the Elite or read the comic book it’s based on.)

Robin Hood (from The Adventures of Robin Hood) is a great character not just for his romantic, charismatic personality but also for what he’s fighting for. He fights an illegitimate authority and wants to return King Richard back to the throne of England. He believes him to be the rightful king, and he will sacrifice everything in order to get him back. Robin Hood knows he’ll bring a good, just government to England.

And Star Wars is a classic tale of good defeating evil, growing up into adulthood, redemption, and a tale of low-lifes becoming great heroes. Let’s look at Han Solo for a minute. Sure people talk about how cool Han Solo is like how he shot-first but in my opinion that’s not what makes him an amazing character. In the beginning of A New Hope, he’s a jerk to Luke. He doesn’t believe in the Force. He’s not a man of honor and only cares about money. However he slowly starts to care about Luke and Leia and discovers faith in the Force and after going through so much trouble and getting everything he wanted. He comes backs to save Luke, allowing him to destroy the Death Star. Despite not being a man of the book he is still a hero inside. Which if you really think about the real hero in the original trilogy it is Han, not Luke.

People look up to these heroes because they inspire us. Not to put on capes, overwears and conduct vigilantism, no, but to never give up hope, to always take up virtue and to know that good always triumphs…which really lacks in modern day entertainment. A lot of modern storytellers don’t understand heroism and don’t know why it’s so important to many classics. The new Superman movies suck because they don’t have any of Superman’s trademark heroism. Like I said, he kills the bad guys, he fails to save people and loses control of his emotions. That’s not a hero. The new Star Wars movies suck because all of the new characters are these god-like Neanderthals who have no reliability that made the original characters great. No all of them are sad old people who don’t learn anything. In fact, many remakes and sequels of classic stories are sad in tone when their originals were not-why is this? Well we all know why, it’s all because of the postmodern viewpoint that heroism is a fantasy and in real life everything that makes a hero doesn’t exist. Such a worldview is really bad and it shows in many original stories today. I mean look around you, fiction’s so dark it’s become commonplace for a piece of entertainment to take place in a post-apocalyptic world or dystopia where all authority is bad, all hope is lost, God doesn’t exist and the only thing that’s metaphysical is politics. There aren’t any heroes, only cynical, morally ambiguous, deeply flawed characters with little to no sympathy.  When the day is saved and the bad guy is defeated it usually ends on a very bitter note like nothing was every achieved. Does that sound entertaining to you?

Plus, when you get right down to it, a lot of these stories are shockingly bad. Many fields of entertainment aren’t being made by talented people but by executives who only care about money. Their writing is lazy, quality over substance, completely mindless with characters that are either one dimensional to two-dimensional, which writers try to hide it by making them inherently flawed. Now an inherently flawed characters is perfectly normal as long is there’s some sort of payoff or balance, However tons of writers today fail on both, causing audiences to feel alienated from the protagonist because the story literally gave them reasons not care about his or her struggles. Mix that all up with a problematic imagination and an unsubtle political agenda and you get a match made in limbo. Again, a lot of these problems come from this false interpretation of heroes not being real. Of course heroes are real. Anyone can be a hero. We enjoy fictional heroes because they remind us that good exist; If there is no hero, then there’s no value, if there’s no value then people don’t care and if people don’t care then the story is forgotten and then lost in time. I know every story can be different In form but the most popular formula is about heroes saving the day which is being desecrated in the modern era…

However-and I can’t believe I’m about to say this (or write this) My Little Pony is the exception. In the show, heroism isn’t ignored or perverse but accepted. The characters do heroic acts and they’re celebrated for it. Almost every character is nice, trustworthy and never cynical or morally ambiguous. The world they inhabit isn’t nasty, but a beautiful place, one that’ll make you wish you lived there. The show promotes many positive messages with a huge focus on friendship being the best ever, and no matter how dark the show gets (and believe me the show can get surprisingly dark at times) none of the heroes give up hope and they all lives happily ever after.

Plus, the show is well made. It’s not created by greedy executives but by talented people who’ve been working on cartoons for decades. The dialogue is funny, most of the episodes are smart, the characters are well-developed, the music and animation is surprisingly great and the show’s smart enough to not go P.C. Compare this to other television shows like The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, Big Bang Theory, The Handmaids Tale and every show on the CW, MLP is one of the few TV shows that’s actually good. Wouldn’t you agree?

I think the reason why so many young adults watch MLP is because many of them are so tired and fed up with how much fiction has merged with postmodernism and choose to watch this simple kids show, Not only for being smart and entertaining, but also celebrating something many of them haven’t seen in a long time…and that’s a story of good people doing good things…But hey, that’s just a theory! A game-wait a minute? What’d you guys think? Was my theory on the brony phenomenon absolutely right, absolutely wrong or was it missing a couple of points?

  My Little Pony: Beyond Good and Evil published first on https://medium.com/@ReloadedPCGames

[moonmurph-gamedev]

Warcraft Research

MMORPG Genre Explained

“Massively Multiplayer online role-playing game”

An MMO is distinguished by the number of players that are able to play and interact with each other in the games persistent world. This is usually hosted by the game’s publisher. This game world exists and evolves even when the player is offline. It is common for MMOs to have a monthly subscription which supports the game and also incite the player to continue playing. (To get the most out of their money)

In MMOs the progression of the player character is the primary goal rather than a focus on the story in single player games. Character progression system usually includes experiences points and numerous in game currency. This allows the player to receive better items, improve their stats and therefore take on more challenging or “exclusive” content. There’s usually different rewards for different content such as PVP and PVE using different currency/rewards to improve your character. This makes the player feel rewarded for their efforts and also promotes teamwork in raids/dungeons which require larger groups of players and also out of game forms of communication such as discord/TeamSpeak/skype for proper tactics.

A common feature of MMOs is grinding. This is where the player performs repetitive tasks for gameplay advantages/rewards. This is viewed by some as poor uninspired game design however some argue that all games contain grinding to an extent. The most extreme cases of grinding however are usually found in MMOs as developers might need a way to slow player’s progression to hold them over till the next patch/expansion is released. Grinding removes designer-defined objectives which leaves the player free to do whatever they want. For some this is a blessing as they pick and choose what to focus on.  However, others view the lack of direction confusing and feel no motivation to continue.

Fantasy Genre Explained

Fantasy Genre games draw heavily on real world history, geography, sociology, mythology and folklore. Warcraft has based many of its classes and content from common fantasy character architypes seen in classics such as Dungeons and Dragons.

These archetypes act as pillars in the fantasy genre and their influence can be seen everywhere.

Dungeons & Dragons the first major role-playing game has created several detailed and highly successful worlds. These contain established characters, locations, histories and lore’s. The “Forgotten realms” are the said to be the most extensively developed of these worlds. The huge amount of detail is what attracts people to RPGS. Fantasy writers have even derided their own work from lore created by Dungeons and Dragons instead of studying original literature and mythology. Warcraft does the same as they’ve taken obvious inspiration from popular fantasy novels and settings when creating their own lore

Origins of Franchise

The Warcraft Universe was invented by Blizzard Entertainment with its original title “Warcraft: Orcs & Humans”

The RTS game was released in 1994 and was quite successful winning three awards. This game introduced Warcraft universe and the basic conflict between the orcs and humans. Which is a familiar trope within the fantasy genre.

The Sequel “Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness” expanded the world by adding new continents, additional races and lore. Already the universe was being fleshed out with more complex stories and characters rather than a mindless “blue team vs red team” gameplay which was is quite common in other games. This title also was the main rival to the “Command & Conquer” series by Westwood Studios. Both these titles were released in NA in 1995 and the competition between these two was said to start an RTS boom in the late 90s.

The final RTS game of the franchise was “Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos” and its expansion “Warcraft 3: The Frozen throne”. The universe was expanded even more with completely new continents such as Kalimdor and Northrend being added.

Lore

Although they have found success in graphic novels, books and films the games still remain the primary focus of the universe. As you can imagine there’s been much change since the 1994 release to now as the franchise is constantly expanding the timeline but also going back and revising and tweaking the history of the universe.

I think this is quite interesting because they have to think about;

·         “What’s an interesting way to keep the story going?”

·         “Does this work with what we’ve already made?”

·         “How should we use the characters we’ve already introduced?”

Blizzard look at their franchise as a writer would their work and think about what would their readers enjoy but also having to keep in mind the limitation that whatever the writers add the developers will need to be able to recreate in game.  Not only should it make sense in the lore of the universe they’ve created but it also has to be something the game engine can handle. The writers and artists come from a variety of backgrounds some working with blizzard on multiple projects (or even being employees) or simply being contracted for single pieces of work. Here are a couple of the confirmed authors I found.

·         Richard A Knaak

·         Christie Golden

·         Jeff Grubb

·         Chris Metzen

·         Keith R.A. DeCandido

·         Aaron Rosenberg

·         Michael Stackpole

·         William King

·         Greg Weisman

Michael Stackpole is a science fiction author best known for his work in Star Wars and the Battletech books. When asked to work on “Vol’jin: Shadows of the Horde” he played the game for a month straight for research. Outside writers also have to participate in an “introductory to Warcraft’s history” course which Michael claims lasted over 6 hours.

It is obvious that Blizzard care deeply for staying true to the world they’ve created however that doesn’t mean the occasional mistake doesn’t happen. Lore has been revised and changed many a times as they fully figure out the world. For example, in the early development of the RTS games the geographical location of many areas changed dramatically throughout the series. The capital cities for humans and orcs used to be quite close but now are located on completely different continents.

Art Style

Blizzard’s distinct style is charming and cartoony. They’ve managed to maintain this style as they’ve moved the Warcraft series from top down RTS to a third person MMO. They workshopped different art styles and setting ideas but decided they wanted to keep the bright colours and exaggerated features that Warcraft was known for. There were plans to set the game 100 years after the events of Warcraft 3 and the game was going to be a lot darker in themes. They felt however it was too disconnected from the franchise they had been building up and thankfully did not go down that route.

Marketing

Warcraft like many MMO’s follows a subscription based business model. This means that to play the base game you must pay a monthly fee. Players pay this fee at the promise of free content and rework patches. These patches change, add and remove content from the game. These content patches include raids, dungeons and model updates. Not only do they strive to keep the game bug free but they also want to keep their current players interested. Without patches players who have reached the end game can become starved for content and grow bored.

Patches are good and all but Blizzard must also advertise and attract new players who might not know anything about the Warcraft universe. For someone who’s never played before the idea of paying a monthly free may deter them completely. To work around this Blizzard in 2011 added the ability to play up to level 20 for free. This allows anyone to create a character and complete the entirety of their races starting zone. The starting zones are arguably some of the best areas in the entire game. A lot of effort has been put into these areas through well-constructed quests, interesting story and enjoyable environments. This gives new players the best possible impression of the game and hopefully hook them into upgrading to a full account.

Blizzard have also began making old expansions come included with the base game. This allows any subscribed player to play the additional races, classes and higher level content without needing to buy the expansion. They’ve done this as a way to let every player have an equal chance to get to the more relevant end game content instead of having to buy 5 different expansion packs.

The announcement and time before a new expansion is released usually causes a huge boost to Blizzard’s subscribers. Returning players attempt to gear up and prepare for the new content whilst new players seeing all the surge in advertisements join the game to see what all the fuss is about.

Although many of the expansions have received generally good receptions from reviewers. World of Warcraft continues to lose subscribers and decline. The lowest point of this was after the release of “Warlords of Draenor” which at first succeeded but lack of content patches led to players burning out and leaving the game. The subscription numbers in just 9 months went from 10.5 to 5.5 million. Blizzard revealed they would no longer be sharing population numbers with the public.

[jeremyfrechette]

The War On Masculinity

Blue Booties, Pink Hats and the War on Masculinity

In the never-ending battle for America's soul, the newly endangered institution of common sense, the problem isn't toxic masculinity. The problem is toxic insecurities; that insufferable transference of implied guilt born from a weak victimization mentality. The innate differences between men and women are not a sexist conspiracy intended to define or limit our aspirations, abilities, for what we ultimately become is of our own volition. Our biological distinctions are evolutionary attributes designed to instinctively protect and proliferate our species. And while it is true each sex possesses unique strengths or generally unequal capacities, these delineations serve as symbiotic reminders we are "stronger together" when we reject Hillary Clinton's quest to dissect humanity through the social justice cross-hairs of gender warfare.

If boyish lesbians are celebrated for their adopted masculinity - "feminists" typically obsessed with seeking the physical appearance of their gender identity to, ironically, "balance" their sexual relationships - why are men now negatively stereotyped for exercising their natural inclination for contact sports, action movies, fast cars, shooting a gun or passionately defending their political convictions; whose freedom of expression, by the way, is now negatively stigmatized as "mansplaining". Apparently your father or brother's opinions are entirely contingent upon whether or not their genitals tip the weighted scales of acceptable "conservative" baggage. As long as millennial women are fatally triggered because a majority of people instinctively use a masculine reference to describe God, despite the biblical account man was theoretically fathered in his image, then please express equal offense at the countless instances "her" is used to describe one's car, America or Bruce Jenner's androgynous hypnotherapist named Billy LeDisco. After all, dressing and acting like a man no more turns Paris Hilton, a natural born female, into J.J. Watt than wearing a dress and lipstick magically transforms Charles Manson into Mother Teresa; no matter how many hormone injections or plastic surgeries someone receives.

Honestly, how does the mere utterance of a pronoun - the sex of an author, a cook or your dog - hinder or change your life for the better? Does crying over God's "assumed" appendage alter "science" or the eternal blessings of love, forgiveness or faith? Fair treatment begins by realizing "equality" is oblivious to your political desire to reject or redefine the real world according to your prejudices; a veiled attempt to compensate for your own inadequacies. Likewise, reducing God's relevance to a genetic marker, a chromosomal precursor of a baby's sex that more and more "educated" progressives believe no longer exists, is as inane as claiming criminal intent is incumbent upon one's gender. If Americans spent more time embracing the universal wisdom of the Scriptures in lieu of perverting the Bible to fit their morally skewed beliefs, chivalry would not require a permit to wake Sleeping Beauty from her cursed slumber without her consent. Yes, believe it or not, many of the most overtly, masculine archetypes are also some of the most respectful and protective gentlemen due to their strong, demanding upbringing.

When your own hyper-sensitive insecurities cannot escape the cultural black hole known as political correctness and therefore fail to process the harmless nuances of human interaction, you literally live every minute of every day being offended by the truth; that inedible garnish touching your imaginary vegan steak. It also means you probably lack the ability to discern mischief from malice. How does the immature act of a Navy Pilot leaving a penis plume in the sky draw more outrage than naked activists publicly threatening the President and screaming profanities in front of children; many times their own, no less? Dare I even mention the thousands of "empowered" female sex workers and nude models using social media to willingly objectify themselves for a buck and forever warp the mental health and sexual behavior of young kids? And to think we're still talking about tyranny of God's 'kibbles and bits', marginalizing our savior and his 7.6 billion distinct, sovereign children to the non-descript pacifier of "it".

America would be a far more inviting if political pundits and triggered feminists spent more time focusing on their own lives and personal "transgressions" in place of policing the sociological intricacies of individual discretion. "Equality" is not achieved by attempting to coerce "respect" or by forcing others to acquiesce to your subjective whims and perceived slights. It is as much an imperfect manifestation of choice as it has become a politician's crutch to distract society - those lost souls conditioned by academia/media and whose lives are defined by perpetual misery - from the fact we are our greatest oppressors and liberators because life's most daunting obstacles overwhelmingly reside within ourselves.  Both women and men play integral parts in our society's development, survival, and neither should be discounted or diminished for their invaluable contributions.

The sooner political antagonists accept responsibility for waging nonsensical campaigns that provide no foreseeable benefit, the quicker common sense forever puts feminist fervor over mere technicality to rest. Instead of arguing the perceived anatomy of God solely to coddle gender militants seeking our unconditional surrender to an agenda that equates smooth arm pits to patriarchal subjugation and promotes non-binary identification as a bonafide biological sex, why not simply embody the timeless virtues of prudence and temperance over the hostile paranoia of manufactured misappropriation? The rapid attrition of strong male role models and rise in apathetic parenting has provided a fertile breeding ground for a millennial generation content rejecting any sense of societal obligation and necessity of reciprocal respect for a trite existence seduced by entitlement, envy and the limitless perversion of moral restraint.    

To be a "she" or a "he" was never a rhetorical question, but an accepted formality of birth for masculine and feminine traits are both native and conditioned behaviors. Purposely interjecting gender into every conversation, decision or life event is not only the most petty form of discrimination, it's no different than unsolicited religious indoctrination because such convictions also represent an imposed ideological set of personal beliefs; or more profoundly, the voracious desire to dispute/corrupt someone's gender or inherent sexuality to validate one's twisted assertions. Unless separation of "Church and State" is no longer the sacred bell cow of progressive secularism, excuse me while I abstain from joining the cross-dressing cult of gender sadists attempting to shame Barbie for shaving her legs but not for emasculating Ken with  bedazzled pajamas, a crocheted pink hat and electoral shock collar. I have far too much respect for those secure, self-respecting women and men who are neither threatened by the opposite sex - the natural connection and biological gifts of each gender - or feel the need to acknowledge those hypocrites attempting to neuter unapologetic Alpha males just so they can more successfully impostor one.

[swhitt1981-blog]

Blue Booties, Pink Hats and Neutered Masculinity

In the never-ending battle for America's soul, the newly endangered institution of common sense, the problem isn't toxic masculinity. The problem is toxic insecurities; that insufferable transference of implied guilt born from a weak victimization mentality. The innate differences between men and women are not a sexist conspiracy intended to define or limit our aspirations, abilities, for what we ultimately become is of our own volition. Our biological distinctions are evolutionary attributes designed to instinctively protect and proliferate our species. And while it is true each sex possesses unique strengths or generally unequal capacities, these delineations serve as symbiotic reminders we are "stronger together" when we reject Hillary Clinton's quest to dissect humanity through the social justice cross-hairs of gender warfare.

If boyish lesbians are celebrated for their adopted masculinity - "feminists" typically obsessed with seeking the physical appearance of their gender identity to, ironically, "balance" their sexual relationships - why are men now negatively stereotyped for exercising their natural inclination for contact sports, action movies, fast cars, shooting a gun or passionately defending their political convictions; whose freedom of expression, by the way, is now negatively stigmatized as "mansplaining". Apparently your father or brother's opinions are now contingent upon whether or not their genitals tip the weighted scales of acceptable "conservative" baggage. As long as millennial women are fatally triggered because a majority of people instinctively use a masculine reference to describe God, despite the biblical account man was theoretically fathered in his image, then please express equal offense at the countless instances "her" is used to describe one's car, America or Bruce Jenner's androgynous hypnotherapist named Billy LeDisco. After all, dressing and acting like a man no more turns Paris Hilton, a natural born female, into J.J. Watt than wearing a dress and lipstick magically transforms Charles Manson into Mother Teresa; no matter how many hormone injections or plastic surgeries someone receives.

Honestly, how does the mere utterance of a pronoun - the sex of an author, a cook or your dog - hinder or change your life for the better? Does crying over God's "assumed" appendage alter "science" or the eternal blessings of love, forgiveness or faith? Fair treatment begins by realizing "equality" is oblivious to your political desire to reject or redefine the real world according to your prejudices; a veiled attempt to compensate for your own inadequacies. Likewise, reducing God's relevance to a genetic marker, a chromosomal precursor of a baby's sex that more and more "educated" progressives believe no longer exists, is as inane as claiming criminal intent is incumbent upon one's gender. If Americans spent more time embracing the universal wisdom of the Scriptures in lieu of perverting the Bible to fit their morally skewed beliefs, chivalry would not require a permit to wake Sleeping Beauty from her cursed slumber without her consent. Yes, believe it or not, many of the most overtly, masculine archetypes are also some of the most respectful and protective gentlemen.

When your own hyper-sensitive insecurities cannot escape the cultural black hole known as political correctness and therefore fail to process the harmless nuances of human interaction, you literally live every minute of every day being offended by the truth; that inedible garnish touching your imaginary vegan steak. It also means you probably lack the ability to discern mischief from malice. How does the immature act of a Navy Pilot leaving a penis plume in the sky draw more outrage than naked activists publicly threatening the President and screaming profanities in front of children; many times their own, no less? Dare I even mention the thousands of "empowered" female sex workers and nude models using social media to willingly objectify themselves for a buck and forever warp the mental health and sexual behavior of young kids? And to think we're still talking about tyranny of God's 'kibbles and bits', marginalizing our savior and his 7.6 billion distinct, sovereign children to the non-descript pacifier of "it".

America would be a far more inviting if political pundits and triggered feminists spent more time focusing on their own lives and personal "transgressions" in place of policing the sociological intricacies of individual discretion. "Equality" is not achieved by attempting to coerce "respect" or by forcing others to acquiesce to your subjective whims and perceived slights. It is as much an imperfect manifestation of choice as it has become a politician's crutch to distract society - those lost souls conditioned by academia/media and whose lives are defined by perpetual misery - from the fact we are our greatest oppressors and liberators because life's most daunting obstacles overwhelmingly reside within ourselves.

The sooner political antagonists accept responsibility for waging nonsensical campaigns that provide no foreseeable benefit, the quicker common sense forever puts feminist fervor over mere technicality to rest. Instead of arguing the perceived anatomy of God solely to coddle gender militants seeking our unconditional surrender to an agenda that equates smooth arm pits to patriarchal subjugation and promotes non-binary identification as a bonafide biological sex, why not simply embody the timeless virtues of prudence and temperance over the hostile paranoia of manufactured misappropriation? The rapid attrition of strong male role models and rise in apathetic parenting has provided a fertile breeding ground for a millennial generation content rejecting any sense of societal obligation and necessity of reciprocal respect for a trite existence seduced by entitlement, envy and the limitless perversion of moral restraint.

To be a "she" or a "he" was never a rhetorical question, but an accepted formality of birth for masculine and feminine traits are both native and conditioned behaviors. Purposely interjecting gender into every conversation, decision or life event is not only the most petty form of discrimination, it's no different than unsolicited religious indoctrination because such convictions also represent an imposed ideological set of personal beliefs; or more profoundly, the voracious desire to dispute/corrupt someone's gender or inherent sexuality to validate one's twisted assertions. Unless separation of "Church and State" is no longer the sacred bell cow of progressive secularism, excuse me while I abstain from joining the cross-dressing cult of gender sadists attempting to shame Barbie for shaving her legs but not for emasculating Ken with bedazzled pajamas, a crocheted pink hat and electoral shock collar. I have far too much respect for those secure, self-respecting women and men who are neither threatened by the opposite sex - the natural connection and biological gifts of each gender - or feel the need to acknowledge those hypocrites attempting to neuter unapologetic Alpha males just so they can more successfully imposter one.

[manojlakha-blog]

dissertation title:

‘Appropriation in fashion and the obsolescence of target demographics’

the aim of this dissertation is to highlight two forms of appropriation within the fashion industry; brand appropriation on the part of different subcultures and consumers; and cultural appropriation on the part of the brand. I will explain how this has led to a democratisation of fashion where consumers can shape fashion culture as much as designers, rendering target demographics in fashion obsolete.

here are a few interviews I conducted as research:

Baz, Cris (2016) Q&A

Cris Baz is an administrator of Stone Island Talk EU, an online group with over 20,000 members dedicated to Stone Island enthusiasts and sellers.

Q: First of all, could you explain what your role is as administrator of Stone Island Talk EU? Could you tell me how SI Talk started and how it's grown to where it is now?

A: Yeah sure. I'm an admin, so we police the group. Essentially, if there is a problem we mediate. We make sure all posts follow the group's rules and codes of conduct ie no racism, sexism, discrimination etc. We are also here for our knowledge to help determine if an item is fake or to help identify the year/season/model/region.

Stone Island Talk UK/EU started around 18 months ago because of a lack of groups which actively engaged with their younger members. Most groups are 18+ only and don't really like anyone young or who speaks differently to them. The surge of UK street culture which has bought a new wave of people into the brand has not pleased a lot of the older casuals.

Q: Interesting you should mention the 'new wave' of people becoming interested in the brand. Stone Island, for instance, has always strongly associated with football hooliganism? How, in your opinion, did this happen and how has this changed over time?

A: Yeah, I suppose it's the same with any brand: a lot of twats drive BMW cars but not the majority! If you go to Italy and ask where Stone Island came from it's not a football hooligan brand. I guess the casuals in the 80's liked quality expensive clothing and Stone Island fitted the bill; with their innovation in materials and pushing casual sportswear to a new level. ‘Urban sportswear’ is how Massimo Osti described Stone Island so I guess it was just a perfect fit for young men who enjoyed sports clothing with a military feel, as they saw themselves as soldiers of some kind.

Q: How would you define 'urban sportswear'?

Also, I've heard little bits about the Paninaro culture in Italy being one of the first groups to embrace SI. Do you know much about their history?

A: For me urban sportswear is the fusion between military style and sportswear technology.

Yes. that’s semi correct. Paninaro were one of the first but really the first group to embrace it was rich old men haha! It was developed at the start for yacht wear hence a big push towards marina wear. And also the prices forced a lot of people out. The Paninaro were like the UK [fans] as they were a young subculture based around music and similar tastes in clothing brands such as Fred Perry, Stone Island and Moncler. Fred Perry was one of Osti's biggest inspirations.

Q: Wow, I did not know that! Stone Island, to me, differs from many other brands as it's hard to pin down the exact type of audience you would expect to wear it Many high fashion brands seem to be targeted at the wealthier members of society Stone Island is priced like high fashion brands, but seems to be popular for a wide range of people, from Drake [rapper, often seen wearing Stone Island], to football hooligans, to rich old men, to roadmen [street youths, typically grime fans known to wear expensive trainers/tracksuits with designer brands].

Why do you think SI is popular amongst such a wide spectrum of people?

A: Yes, it’s why he called his first big brand Chester Perry; as a homage to Fred Perry.

Yes but if you see interviews with Osti and even now with [Carlo] Rivetti, neither talk about an audience; they talk of innovation and experimentation. This creates its own audience; they come to SI because innovation does not need to be marketed.

Stone Island itself was created not to make money but to investigate one fabric that Osti didn't feel worked with his CP company collection [the Tela fabric], so he created the brand to see what he could do with the Tela fabric as he didn't see it making money.

Q: Do you think SI's growing popularity is positive or negative? If you even believe it's getting more popular?

A: 100% it’s getting more popular, with people like Drake, Kanye and Travis repping it and the brand actively playing to different markets with the Supreme/Nike collabs It’s a bad thing for me personally because my classic Stone Island pieces are getting more expensive to find! Then again I have a few nice jackets already!

Q: Final question, where do you see the future of Stone Island and it’s fan base(s)?

A: Not sure really, as I see the brand heading down a path of mass production to keep up with demand which is a bad thing for me. [More basic, less innovative] jackets like the Soft Shell, Membrana and Nylon Metal are being produced in numbers not seen before to cater for the new entry level younger crowd. I don’t want it to become a ‘hyped’ brand, but at the same time it's good that the brand is becoming more accessible for the longevity of the brand as a whole

Q: Do you foresee a drop off in quality to go alongside the increase in production? Do you think catering for this 'new entry level crowd' is a bad thing?

A: There is already a massive reduction in quality in the jackets I listed alongside others. I would only buy [rare, limited edition] Special Process jackets now, as these are made for collectors of quality, not just to wear the badge.

No not really; if people like it, people like it. I know what I like, and I'm sure some people didn't like me or my friends wearing the brand when I started 10 years ago at the age of 16, but that's what the brand is about; a broad church of people who take what they want from the brand.

Gordon, Calum (2016) Q&A

Calum Gordon is co-author of Contemporary Menswear. He has also written articles for Dazed, Highsnobiety & LAW

Q: High fashion houses are incorporating more and more streetwear/hip-hop/punk influences into their design. Do you believe this is simply 'inspiration' or 'cultural appropriation'?

A: I think it very much matters on the specific cases. Designers referencing streetwear, punk or hip hop is largely fine -- referencing Hip Hop is the only thing on that list that could in any way be problematic, because designers need to be both aware of/and sensitive to the fact that black art has consistently been co-opted by predominantly white industries for profit. So such references need to be executed with the sufficient reverence to the culture it's drawing from.

Q: You say 'black art has consistently been co-opted by predominantly white industries for profit', which makes drawing inspiration from black art/culture a touchy subject for many. Do you think there are healthy or non-offensive methods for designers to incorporate potentially problematic themes into their work?

A: Yes of course, I don't think there's any problem with designers referencing elements of black culture/art. The problem comes when it is stripped of all of its original context and it becomes appropriation rather than inspiration. Take Junya's SS16 (I think that's the right one), collection for example, which was massively inspired by elements of African art and dress, but featured an entirely white cast of models. Compare that to someone like Nasir Mazhar, who takes inspiration from the streets of London and his runways actually reflect that diversity -- and feels all the richer and more authentic for it.

Q: Yes, I think context is key. Often, that can come from collaborating with the people/culture you're drawing inspiration from, to gain a better understanding. Maybe we don't see that enough in the fashion world.

You mentioned in your article the worlds of streetwear and high fashion are slowly becoming indistinguishable. Do you think the concepts of target audiences are slowly becoming irrelevant?

A: Yeah I totally agree.

Target audiences will always matter, because they ultimately drive sales. What we're seeing with the likes of Gucci becoming increasingly less high-brow in its menswear approach is a broadening of its target market, rather than ignoring the concept altogether. But designers will always design with a specific person or group in mind - such is the way of the modern world, however, traditional customer archetypes are becoming less relevant.

Q: In my opinion, the exclusivity of high fashion products has slowly evaporated thanks to the ubiquity of online shopping and the global expansion of high fashion houses. Do you think this has positively or negatively affected the culture of fashion?

A: Both. The constant desire for new product driven, and increasingly "it" product, like Vetements' DHL tee, is a cycle that cannot be sustained and will negatively impact the luxury market at some stage. However, that is not to suggest that embracing modernity and an international outlook is a bad thing -- fashion has always been made richer by its willingness to embrace the new... It just needs to find out the correct way to do so.

Ody, Jason (2016) Q&A

Jason Ody is the owner LeMonde, a leading retailer of contemporary menswear in the West Midlands.

Q: Hi Jason,

Thanks for the reply. Here are a few questions, which help give you a gist of where I'm going with my dissertation: Certain brands, like Stone Island, Burberry or Aquascutum, can become associated with negative stereotypes. Why do you think this is?

A: Because of certain working class tribes i.e. casuals for which Stone Island became their uniform.

Q: Stone Island, for instance, is strongly associated with football hooliganism? How, in your opinion, did this happen?

A: It was an new wave of Italian sportswear brand which was hard to find and featured very visible branding.

Q: What attracted the 'hooligan' or 'football casual' culture to Stone Island?

A: Travelling to European football matches and discovering the Italians ultras who were wearing Stone Island etc. It was like a uniform or sergeant stripes within their subculture or tribe.

Q: Do you think this hooligan image has worn off over time?

A: Yes,slowly.  But the media love the stereotype and people love what they read. As a retailer of Stone Island in recent years the customer demographic has changed to the broader audience.

Q: To what extent do you believe the consumer controls brand image, rather than the brand itself?

A: The brand controls the distribution but not who buys it. Limited distribution, price and styling have influence.

Q: Do you think target audiences in fashion are still relevant?

A: Target audiences are still relevant but society today is made up smaller tribes who find their influences from music, sport and other cultures etc. It’s up to the brand to market themselves in a fusion of modern and traditional ways to reach their audience.

Q: Thank you again for taking the time to help. I really appreciate the advice.

A: Hope that will help you. Good luck.

Santilli, Julia (2016) Q&A

Julia Santilli is the curator of ‘masproduction’ an online archive of Massimo Osti’s work.

Q: Just to get going, could you tell me a little bit about yourself and the inspiration behind ‘masproduction’?

A: So my name is Julia Santilli (I guess most people find it surprising to see a girl is such an avid Stone Island fan!). I studied menswear in London and now work as a pattern cutter for Bernhard Willhelm in LA, but i'm still always working on my own projects with textile manipulation and design.

Q: What were your early experiences of Stone Island?

A: I discovered the brand when my dad introduced me to their work at the age of 16, and when I was 18 I went to do a very short 'internship' with them in Milan for a couple of weeks. I recently visited the Massimo Osti archives and the Stone Island factory in Bologna and Ravarino and learned a lot more about their textile production which was great!

[sylleboi]

𝖂𝖍𝖆𝖙 𝖉𝖔𝖊𝖘 𝖙𝖍𝖆𝖙 𝖊𝖛𝖊𝖓 𝖒𝖊𝖆𝖓?

A growing glossary for my confused brain, all being alphabetical.

A

Accidental: When speaking of something accidental, most often you’d associate it with making a mistake. In art, that is an often occurrence; but it’s not always for the worse! Mistakes can force you to see your creation from a different perspective or make you have to think outside the box to cover it up/blend it into the rest of the picture. You might even end up liking your mistake as it is and choose to then embrace it.

Allegorical: Allegory is often used in art as a way to convey and symbolize a deeper moral or spiritual meaning such as; death, life, jealousy, hatred, etc.

Angular: This refers to some kind of shape, object or an outline having sharp angles and corners.

Animatic: Essentially it can be described as a moving story that is synced up to audio. In the animation industry, it is used to create a rough visual of the final product with the use of the voice recording that they have had their voice actors record. During this process, they can add and take away everything they feel like.

Animation: A series of linked images placed in a sequence to create the illusion of movement and life

Antagonist: They are the rival of the protag. A person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary. They are often portrayed as characters with a dark background; an example of this could be an evil ruler that grew up in an abusive environment or something alike.

Archetype: This can be defined as a very typical example of a certain person or thing, often very generalising/stereotypes, but this is not how you would define archetypes in storytelling specifically. Archetypes can be defined as for example; the sidekick or comical release character (the jester), the mentor (wise), the innocent, the explorer, the hero, the lover, the ally, the trickster, the guardian, the shadow, the ruler, the friendly beast. Essentially, they are different roles.

Automatic: This is a way of tapping into the unconscious mind. When you create something using the technique of automatism, it means that you aren’t thinking about what you are drawing, have drawn and is going to draw next, you simply just let the pen and your hand do the work while your head is left to rest.

B

C

Chaotic: When referring to something being chaotic, most often you’d use this term to describe a piece of artwork, depending on how many individual aspects are put together on the “canvas”. In some cases, if the artist has a lot to say, it might end up affecting the way it turns out in the end; chaotic. If a piece of art is chaotic or feels busy, it could reflect something allegorical as well; a hidden meaning hiding in between all of the distractions.

Chattering: It generally means that each frame in a given animation isn’t lined up completely evenly; general imperfections are often very easy to spot once played back, but with practice, it can be avoided quite efficiently.

Clean up: This is part of the overall process of animating. It is especially often used in hand drawn/analogue/traditional animation. In this workflow, the first (conceptual) drawings are called roughs, referring to how they are very loose and rough at this stage. Professionally speaking, when the director has approved of these roughs, this is when clean versions of these are created. This process is called clean up. The term of clean up can also be referred to as, for example, when you have done frames in ink and some of it may smudge in the process, you can scan in the frames and proceed by cleaning up the frames digitally.

Climax: A climax builds upon everything that has been introduced during the exposition and rising action. This is the moment of truth for the protagonist and the peak moment of the story. You know the plot is successful at delivering a good climax when the outer journeys and the inner goals of which the protagonist wish to complete click.

Considered: Opposite to automatism, considered art has been planned out before being done. Sometimes artists even go as far as planning out each line and colour before applying to the final product. This can be done by doing a bunch of tests and sketches, or by mindmapping ideas beforehand.

D

Denouement: Denouement (resolution) is a fancy way of saying that the story is about to come to an end. At this point, all questions are resolved and answered; letting the reader.

E

Exposition: This is where the characters of the story gets introduces alongside the story and plot itself. This is often the most difficult part to set up successfully, simply because you need to capture the readers/viewers/target audiences’ attention and have then clued in on what’s going on in the story, but this has to be done without completely spoiling the rest of the story. It is important to not mistake exposition and an info dump.   

F

Falling action: So, what now? You’ve technically finished the story. Finishing a story after a climax or during one is what is known as a cliff-hanger. Cliff hangers work well in film series, but they don’t feel as satisfying. A way to see falling action could be as the old saying; “What goes up must come down.” Putting together any hanging threads not yet solved in the plot is done during this stage.

Frame by Frame: An animation will only work if key positions are lined up together. There has to be a start and a finish for it to be a successful frame by frame animation.

G

H

I

Illustration: When talking about illustration, it describes usually a drawing or an altered picture of some kind. It can also be referred to the act of illustrating; (creating, drawing, altering etc.)

Inanimate: Doesn’t move or have any life to it. Lack of consciousness and power or motion. Not endowed with life and spirit. Some example being; bricks; it comes alive if you throw it. inanimate things come to life.

Incongruent:

J

Juxtaposition: This is when you bring together two opposite things that may not naturally go together, go together; creating contrast.

K

L

Linework/Keyline: Linework can simply be put as a specific technique of drawing lines when talking about art. There are countless ways in which you can interpret linework, some of them being; bold, fine, scattered, clean, sharp, fluid, altering thickness etc. - When talking about keyline, it can relate to linework as the planning part of linework. To give an example of this, it could be that you outline the image or shape of something, planning where the linework has be be placed; keyline.

Looping: Looping is where you have a sequence of frames that repeats infinitely. The first frame is the same as the last frame. It’s like an endless cycle. It’s a labour-saving technique for animation repetitive motions; walking, a breeze in the trees or running.

M

Model Sheet: When talking about model sheets (also known as character board, character study or character sheet) it is mostly understood as a visual representation of a character to understand the poses, gestures and even the personality in animation, comics and video games.

Mutated:

N

Narrative: This can be explained as the plot of a story. It most often includes characters and a setting as well as a person or narrator from whose point of view the story is told. It is generally speaking a spoken or written (to later be illustrated/animated to convey this story) collection of connected events. It’s how a story is told. Who? It is told to an audience. The beginning, the scenario is set up. Why is a narrative different from a story? The story is a subjective opinion about what’s happening, whereas the narrative is more of an objectified version of that. Jack walks up the hill; story, Jack has mental problems, narrative.

Narrative theory: Exposition -> Rising action -> Climax -> Falling action -> Denouement

Neolithic: Neo means “new”, Lithic meaning “stone”- New-Stone (stone age/new stone age; creating something new from old stone)

O

Objective:

Organic: When something looks organic, it’s just another way of saying “natural”. Most often, an organic shape would appear fluid and have some imperfections to its qualities. A sharply edged shape would convey something manmade like houses or other solid manmade objects.

P

Primary research: Interviews, looking and studying imagery, galleries, museums, exhibitions

Primitive Art: The term “Primitive Art” is a rather vague (and unavoidably ethnocentric) description which refers to the cultural artefacts of “primitive” peoples - that is, those ethnic groups deemed to have a relatively low standard of technological development by Western standards.

*This term is usually not associated with developed societies but can almost definitely be found in most cultures.

Protagonist: This is the main character or one of the major characters in a play, film, novel, etc. It is not at all unheard of that the protagonist is a heroic figure for. They make the key decisions and experience the consequences of these decisions and actions. Protagonists usually go through a journey to learn and evolve upon themselves.

Q

Quest: A quest is a journey that someone takes, in order to achieve a goal or complete an important task. Accordingly, the term comes from the Medieval Latin “Questo”, meaning “search” or “inquire”.

R

Rising action: This is the moment where the plot and narrative starts picking up. Rising action is usually encouraged by a key trigger, which is what tells the reader that “now things will start to take form.” This key trigger is what rolls the dice, that then causes a series of events to escalate to then set the story into motion.

Rotoscoping: It is one of the most simple and accessible ways of animating regardless of level of skill, aimed to create realistic sequenced movement. It is one of the simplest forms of animation and is also used universally. Rotoscoping is an animation technique that animators use to trace over filmed footage, frame by frame, to produce a realistic sequence of action and movement.

S

Secondary research: Book, documentaries, the internet, presentations, articles

Sequence: A sequence is a collection of something that is related to each other, put into to a specific order to create motion, storytelling, feel, spark thoughts etc. It is used in animation, related to Frame by Frame.

Stop motion: Where you have a model or any animate objects and you move it a bit for each picture taken; when played back it should give the illusion of movement. The more frames per second, the more fluid the movement will become.

Storyboard: Storyboards are a sequence of drawings, often with some kind of direction and/or dialogue included within. They are often used for storytelling in film, television productions and comics/comic books.

Subconscious: In art, the use of one’s subconscious mind was inspired by the psychologist Sigmund Froyd and his many theories on dreams and the subconscious mind. To put it simply though, the noun subconscious describes a person’s thoughts, impulses, feelings, desires, etc. all of which are not within the individual’s direct control, meaning they simply just contribute and affect the conscious decisions and thoughts the person do and experience.

T

Turnaround: A turnaround or character turnaround is a type of visual reference that shows a character from at least three different angles. They are essential for mediums that will be showing the character from multiple different angles, such as animation and comics. Another use for these turnarounds is to make sure artists keep their character visually consistent and proportional, to pitch characters for projects and as guides for teams where a bigger group of people will be drawing the character and need to stay on model.

U

V

W

X

Y

Z