#i know this is messy & it's not really even analysis it's just a jumble of stuff but! just needed 2 get it out there u feel.

[aamleh]

So i’ve been thinking… bear with me because it’s late and my mind is all jumbled but hear me out:

Mike is shown to be extremely caring with his friends, especially when it comes to Will. Mike would do anything for them, he is a smart cookie, pretty street-smart, that boy knows how to work under pressure. He is constantly defending Will against bullies, not only him, Dustin was one of them at the quarry scene, but it was always with Will in the back of his mind. So anyway, he loves his friends and would protect them if anything happens, it’s in his nature. Keep in mind that Mike is overly protective of Will.

Fastforward to El! He is shown to enact a lot of care for her because of course he loves her, but we know as fellow Byler analysts that he doesn’t love her, so his attitude seem a bit off compared to how he reacts to Dustin being missing (trying to reach out to him multiple times and being worried), and with Will, whom Mike chased after him to Castle Byers, when the Mind Flayer take control of Billy in the sauna (checking on Will) and, the first episode cinema incident. we never saw Mike directly being concerned with El, if im remembering correctly, there’s not even a simple « are you okay? » exchanged, there’s barely any conversations with them this season who seems truthful and without interruption, we’re left with crumbs and barely an explanation. They don’t talk it out at all. Mike doesn’t offers her reassurance, it’s Max and Hopper throughout the season, even his most important monologue of the season is said without her being in the room.

So, If Mike can check on his missing friends and on Will, what’s so different about El? Well, we need to talk about season 4!

Consciously or not, Mike is in love with Will, im not doing an analysis on here but you get my jam. He id convinced he loves El, she is his girlfriend right, so why does he seemed cold with her all goddamn season? Not bothering to check on her at Rink O Mania when Angela shows up, bc clearly El was exuding extreme discomfort, Will picked it on. Not bothering to try to understand her outburst and gaslighting her at the table for it while being all frosty and unbothered and checking on her the morning AFTER. Him not trying to reach after coming back to Hawkins.

The reason is that Mike doesn't consider El as his friend. She is his girlfriend, yes, but they never were friends, they don’t share anything, they don’t understand each other. My point is, Mike doesn’t know what El is in his life because as i said,he never considered her a friend in the first place, it was a crush on an on, and he struggles with the fact that he don’t love her like he think he should because he loves Will, she has no label because he just don’t truly know her and the relationship they have

But he knows Dustin and Lucas, he knows his truth, they’re his friends, the line is clear.

Will is also his friend, but he reacts to him like his lover and he don’t understand the line. It’s messy and a gap is formed between them because of that, because there’s a missing piece inside, and the romantic love he feels for him expand the gap with his own girlfriend bc his instinct is framed on Will even if he is not aware.

So if he treats Will as a lover, subconsciously or not, he can’t treat El like one, but if she isn’t, is she a friend? No, but they can be.

Mike is someone who’ll do anything for the one he loves, but with El? The lines are blurred real hard too. He needs to accept himself and his truth in order to understand his relationship and embrace El as a whole and gain trust and understanding of who she really is, because she’s not the one for him, he can’t come up with himself to try to be here, because his heart is already elsewhere while he tried for El to take Will’s place.

Mike loves El dearly, he cares for her more than anything but the fact that he restrains what he feels for her in a box she don’t fit would never allow him to truly embrace the potential of his love for her, it will always be tense under false pretence, and once he realise he would be the most amazing friend she ever has, they will finally be able to grow and find themselves and be true to one an other!! El needs someone who can be honest with themselves in order to love her romantically, and she needs to free herself first and seek her true path and what she wants to be

[idontwannabreakdown]

Ariel's Costumes in Ready For Combat

So, excluding the acoustic videos, I am pretty sure this is the least amount of costume changes in any video. If I'm not mistaken, the only other (non-acoustic) music video that only has one costume is Now You Know. Now, in Amorphous the costumes being light and dark seemed to represent Ariel's struggle with her demons and finding the light. I find it very interesting that songs like Now You Know and Ready For Combat don't mirror that, especially when the costumes in YCKU and Scripted follow that pattern as well. Both of these songs are fight songs. Ariel knows where she's at and she's pissed. There's not really any internal struggle in the song and that's why there's only one costume.

Before I do any actual analysis I do just wanna say how poor this costume is for fighting. I don't box, I've never wrapped my hands because my dad and tae kwon do instructor were very much just like "keep your wrist straight and you won't break anything" so I cannot comment on if her hands are wrapped in a way that would actually protect her joints. The shoes, while those are really cute would be absolutely awful to do any sort of physical activity in. Tall shoes like that provide horrible ankle support and you will get hurt. Not to mention those are wedges and she will most definitely step on her laces and fall. I'm sorry. And why are you wearing jewelry to a fight? It will get grabbed or ripped off/out and it will hurt.

But also like, maybe that's the point

This entire song is finally about standing up and fighting back after being taken advantage of, of course, she's not going to be fully equipped. If you've been talked down to, taken advantage of, ignored, etc, the first time you stand up for yourself it is going to be messy, you may not be fully equipped for what happens next. Or alternatively, this could be her doing things her way. After reading Turn Your Pain into Art and knowing what we know from Icon's experience with T&N, this could show that she's gonna fight her way, even if everyone around her is putting her down and telling her there's a "better" or "proper" way to do things. I mean just look at the colors. Both black and gold are pretty powerful and the venom shorts!!! Oh My God the Venom shorts!!!! The first line that comes to mind is "You're only as strong as you think you are" and this totally fits Ready For Combat. It's kinda like a prequel, she's realized her strength and now she's ready to fight. Not to mention the vipers on the shorts, again Venom, but also Blindside. "Feeling like a viper finally shed my skin/bet you didn't know I had it from the outside in" and "I'm about to strike/ gonna leave a mark" It's both a reminder of the pain she came from and also a reminder of her own strength.

I'm so sorry if this is jumbled

I'm readjusting to my meds so everything is funky and also I'm tired

Please please please use this to start a dialogue I live for these kinds of discussions

[one-squash-one-end]

An analysis on gender and sexuality - Blue Sargent

Hi! This belongs to my big Raven Cycle analysis, click here for the masterpost!

This part will deal with our favorite short ant, Blue Sargent. A sort of silly but still intentional analysis/essay on why I think she's nonbinary, where I go off on random tangents because i have adhd and access to the internet. Enjoy! (This will be so fucking long though, I had Thoughts)

3. Trust me, the characters are queer as fuck and I can prove it (+ my professional opinion on whether they’d wear a crop top)

a) Blue Sargent

Look. No matter how I look at this entire character, there’s simply no way Blue is not genderfluid. (The fluid is one of Maura’s footy healing teas btw.) And I am here to spread the agenda and force my own identity onto fictional characters so that after you have read this analysis and interpretation, you will agree with me on my correct opinion.

To begin with, there is this entire theme of not fitting in and dressing in an “unusual” way. It becomes very evident that Blue is really proud of being weird and eccentric, this displayed in attitudes towards her mom, the boys and her internal monologue about Mountainview High. She does not want to fit in if it means changing for others, yet she says “the problem with being weird was that everyone else was normal”. This could possibly be a metaphor for being trans; being proud of it, yet being only surrounded by cis people, who conform to all those societal gender norms. It means one would feel sort of isolated (as Blue does mention she is), not being able to relate to or feel deeply understood by anyone in their environment.

Additionally, alternative fashion (or at least that’s how I would describe her aesthetic in general) has quite typically been claimed by queer people. I know this is a lot of interpretation here, and it’s worth mentioning that you absolutely cannot tell someone’s gender by how they present on the outside. However, the evidence gets stronger as we dive deeper. If we look at her fashion sense together with the statement of “I don’t care to be pretty, I care to look on the outside as I do on the inside.”, it sends quite a clear message: Her outside is very jumbled, not conforming to societal norms, a mix of many different styles that seems to change its focus daily. In my opinion, that’s pretty gender of her. If that’s how she presents on the outside (which is not traditionally “female”, among other things I just mentioned), just think about what that would mean for her inside. It’s chaotic, it’s messy, it’s just a lot of things. It’s called being genderfluid.

The second big theme we have is her constantly being treated as “one of the boys”. And yes, of course cis girls can be friends with large groups of boys (and the other way around) but it is quite rare or unusual, especially if all of them are straight (so my point is this: Blue is not cis and also the boys are all queer, more on that later). Either way, Blue defies traditional gender norms and “girly” hobbies by taking part in fun teambuilding activities such as cave exploring, trespassing, grave robbery and burying a body. We stan.

Then we have this quote, which is talking specifically about Blue truly being part of the group for the first time: “They were loud and triumphant and kings of Henrietta.” Now, while kings are a theme that is quite consistent throughout the books, each of the boys and Mr. Gray being called one at least once in significant scenes of their character arcs, by that time it is not yet that established. There would have been so many other words for Maggie Stiefvater to use. First of all, kings and queen, though that would be a bit unwieldy. She chose not to alienate Blue. But there were other alternatives, something not quite so gendered, such as royals, or gods even. Yet, that specific wording happened, showing she is in no way other than the boys. And maybe in that scene she really wasn’t, feeling more masculine that day perhaps.

Furthermore, “whatever her identity crisis was, it seemed to live at home, not with the boys”, meaning she does feel alienated around all those women, but she does somehow fit in with the boys. Yes, this is also a teen thing of being misunderstood by parents while identifying a lot with peers, but when what she rejects is femininity and she seems to embrace masculinity, it’s a bit sus, don’t you think? And then lastly it’s not only the Gangsey, but also the Vancouver crowd as well, a group of boys held together by somehow being different than the rest of Aglionby (if I remember correctly), that she feels immediately at home with.

Next, there are the 300 Fox Way women. As we just established, Blue feels a sort of identity crisis in this house filled with women. She does not fit in, because she is the only one without any psychic abilities, meaning she is already “other”, but there is a clear focus on showing how she is so, so loved, by her direct family (like Maura) but also the others (Calla, Persephone) have accepted her as one of their own. Now, what if she was also genderqueer? Wouldn’t that give her one more reason to be different, while simultaneously putting emphasis on the fact that trans people can and deserve to be loved by their families?

I saved the strongest evidence for last (well, sort of, there’s still more to come actually). The following quote is the ultimate confirmation Blue is not female. As she, the Gangsey and some of her family group together in the kitchen, she says there were “three boys, four women, and one Blue”! Here she is specifically not assigned either of the aforementioned genders, not grouped together with the 300 Fox Way women in a “five women, Blue being one of them” manner and also not one of the boys in this scene. This might be an age issue (like how for months I wasn’t sure if I dislike both the terms “woman” and “girl” being used for me because of age or gender), but the scene could have easily said “women, boys and one teenage girl”, focusing on groups divided by age and gender like the original intention might seem to be. And yet it didn’t.

Now for some more quotes. After some guy from her school draws a penis on the unicorn on her binder, she says “she preferred her unicorns ungendered”. For the reasons already listed I deduce that, much like the unicorn, Blue prefers herself ungendered.

“She felt one thousand years old. She also felt like maybe she was a condescending brat.” is of course supposed to show how contradicting growing up can feel, perception of oneself flickering between being terribly grown up and still being a little child, who cannot know anything. I would also argue, though, that this duality can be quite reminiscent of her gender identity, feeling like multiple, supposedly contrasting, things at once. As an additional afterthought, the theme of being ageless is sometimes associated with omniscient beings, detached from being human, such as deities. Another thing that would be quite typical for gods, especially when they are so apart from society, is being genderless, or having a gender that fluctuates. Some examples for this would be Dionysus, Loki or the ancient genderfluid entity Asushunamir, stemming from the mythology of one of humanity’s first civilizations, Mesopotamia.

Then, naturally, we have other people’s perception of her. While she probably has been described as a girl in quite a few instances in the book (one of them being Henry, though before he really knew her), to me it sticks out that she describes herself as a “sensible teen”, not a sensible girl, though that might have made even more sense in the context of not going around kissing random boys (but yes, let’s be honest, that’s some antiquated slut-shaming, people can kiss as many consenting people as they like). Further instance is that Gansey says “Blue was a fanciful, but sensible thing. Like a platypus, or one of those sandwiches […]”. Like, he goes out of his way to not describe her as a girl in that scene, instead drawing weird-ass comparisons. Now, while calling his friends magnificent creatures is totally his thing (maybe Gansey rejects gendered terms and embraces silly greetings), this did seem intentional to me. Not to mention the obvious parallel of platypuses being mammals but laying eggs, somehow combining different species. Despite reproducing differently than “normal” mammals (also having different sexual organs), they are still recognized as such, and if that isn’t very trans rights of them, I don’t know what is. (Yes I know being a mammal is not derived from reproductive organs and this is probably all somewhat wrong, but I am relying heavily on metaphors here and also I dropped Biology.)

Now as a last thing I chose the entire theme of “something more”. If I’m not mistaken, “something more” is important for every other character as well (I specifically remember Henry), but it begins with Blue and seems to be most relevant to her either way. As I’m writing this I realize so much of the evidence I have collected can also be read under points of view of growing up, but still fits her gender, showing not only that Blue is pretty reminiscent of how teenagers feel, how things in their lives contradict, but also that we come to realizations about our own gender as we grow up, whether it’s realizing at five, fifteen or fifty years old, self-discovery is an ongoing process. So “something more” is absolutely about her future, but it might also relate to her gender being something more than simply female, more than the binary dictates.

If you read this entire series with the opinion that Blue is not cis (like I do! And like my real life friends hopefully will after reading this J), there are masses of hints pointing towards it and creating evidence. Smash the cis-tem.

By now I’ve made my point about her gender pretty clear, so now it’s time to point out that Blue isn’t straight either. First of all, if she does not confirm to either of the binary genders, she cannot, in any way, be heterosexual, but either way, there’s just no way she’s straight.

Now, if you read this essay (? analysis? meta deep-dive?), you will soon be convinced that her entire friend group is queer somehow, which absolutely accounts for something because I can confirm, from real life experience, that queer people seem to flock towards each other. I will admit that we don’t really see her interact with many female characters outside of family (yes I will admit this is a red flag, but I promise the book passes the Bechdel test), but the vibes she gives off are clearly m-spec.

Additionally, because I am always looking for some representation of my own identity, Blue could potentially be somewhere on the aro-ace spectrum. This isn’t shown super strongly, especially since she does get a canon relationship and it’s very sweet and romantic. Yet, she is not really sex-driven or anything like that and seems to value friendship a LOT, though the entire theme of friendship in general throughout the series will be explained in a later part of this analysis. Also, while I am aware that the books are YA and thus won’t focus on sex too much either way, especially in teen characters, it’s comparably low, considering the premise is (wrongfully) about true love’s killing kiss. We can also compare her storyline and character to Kavinsky, someone her age who seems to be very obscene, and characters like Ronan, who are somewhere between them on that scale. Overall, I would probably call her pan, but once again, there might be some greysexuality or something similar in there.

Lastly, Blue would absolutely wear crop tops of course. Now that I think about it, she probably even does at some point in the books.

[iskierka]

Body Image and Aziraphale, or, Violently Projecting My Issues Onto This Character The Way God Intended

In honor of my new URL, I wanted to get down some of my feelings around body image since I’ve been doing a lot of projecting onto Aziraphale recently. I want to talk about both why Aziraphale is one of my favorite (and one of the more positive examples of) fat characters, and why I still relate to him through the lens of my own issues.

First off, there are a few trigger warnings that could apply here, but mainly if you’ve struggled with an eating disorder or disordered eating or body image in general, even though this isn’t a graphic discussion or anything, this may not necessarily be something you want to read.

Having dealt with different eating disorders for ten or eleven years now, and body image issues for longer than that, fat characters are really important to me—but only when they’re treated well (by the production, not as necessarily the other characters). There’s obviously a big difference between how Aziraphale is portrayed and how, say, a character like Thor was portrayed in Endgame. Aziraphale is fat, but it isn’t in and of itself A Personality Trait. However, I don’t think it’s a purely physical trait either. In fact, him being fat reflects the good (if not Angelic Good) aspects of his character. Aziraphale enjoys the comforts and pleasures of earth, and his body is just a reflection of that. I see it as a reflection of his love for the world. And look: when Gabriel says “lose the gut” the implication is for Aziraphale to miracle himself into shape, right? What’s made clear here is that Aziraphale can change the way he looks at any time. I think this is to be expected, but it’s important in this context because it means Aziraphale likes that he’s soft. When he comes back with “I’m soft,” it’s a reflection of how he sees himself in a permanent sort of way. Physical softness is not an immutable trait for him, but of course Aziraphale is not talking only about his physical form. His whole being is soft. (Certainly, there are other aspects to his personality; Aziraphale is just enough of a bastard to be worth liking. But compared to the rest of the Host that we see: other angels are rigid in a way that he just isn’t.) Basically, what I see is this: one, part of what makes Aziraphale likable (his love for the world) goes hand in hand with his being fat, and two, Aziraphale has made a conscious choice to be fat.

So then, something else about me: I’ve always felt alienated from body positivity and fat activism. It doesn’t matter whether I’m a size 6 or 22, as someone who has spent—spends—quite a lot of their time genuinely hating their body, those spaces have always felt unwelcoming. My experiences with eating disorders have felt often unwelcome in the context of fat activism. (“Deal with your shit on your own time.”) I’m not able to muster enough Positivity to be a proper activist. So, it may seem odd that a character like this, one so at home and satisfied with being fat, has struck me so emotionally. There are a few reasons here that I see that make Aziraphale comforting rather than needling at these same insecurities. I believe that’s because how little attention the show pays to him being fat. It’s not something that’s really negative or positive in its portrayal. Sure, Gabriel makes that “lose the gut” comment, but it’s not something the audience is meant to side with him on. He’s the villain here, and it’s also meant to be a bit silly or absurd—maybe you could put it in with his disturbance at Aziraphale eating sushi, which shows how much closer to “being” human Aziraphale is than the other angels. And on the other hand, while I have kind of argued here that his fatness is put in a positive light, but I don’t think that’s an overt thing. (For most people watching casually, Aziraphale’s weight is irrelevant and nothing but a one-off joke.) And it isn’t only treated that way by the powers that be, Aziraphale himself, in calling himself soft, says that is integral to him in an absolutely natural way—it’s just part of who he is.

But here’s the thing: I’ve near read my way through the body image and eating disorder tags for Good Omens on AO3. One fic in particular where Aziraphale begins to develop an eating disorder, I’ve already read through four times.* Honestly, it is that normality of his fatness, the permanence of it and role in his own self-image, that make this whole genre (I suppose?) of fics hit so hard for me. For a lot of people including myself, EDs are a form of self-harm. So what makes stories where a character like Aziraphale struggles with issues like these so rending is that it would be a representation of a deeper unhappiness with the fundamental parts of who he is.

And maybe to a lot of people, it seems just a little bit this side of absurd still that he ever would.** But people with EDs often share certain personality traits. A few I recognize in Aziraphale’s character: a tendency towards (personal) harm avoidance, worry, and lack of emotional openness. I think there a few examples of each of these. First harm avoidance—besides just his general desire to avoid ending the world (this is much, much more tied to his love for it anyway), I think his reticence in his relationship with Crowley (“you go too fast for me”) shows this best. Their relationship is also likely the best example of his emotional barriers. (Sure, he isn’t cold like other angels, but nor is he open, and Aziraphale seems to desire that warmth and closeness from connection in a way that the rest of the Host do not.) There are many points where his tendency to over-worry comes across: thinking Crowley is asking for a suicide pill, after five centuries still worrying Heaven will care about the Arrangement—these come up over and over. Maybe it isn’t so unreasonable to think that some version of Aziraphale could fall into an ED. Look at it this way: you lose your only real anchor on earth, your trust in the goodness and rightness of Heaven is broken down, so you try some way to feel in control again, no matter how irrational. Another part of Aziraphale that I think speaks to this tendency to fall into this as a coping mechanism is his position as a protector, a guardian. He lives a role that is about serving and providing for others. When you have an identity constructed around providing comfort, security, and faith to others, it can feel very natural to turn to inwardly or personally destructive habits like EDs instead of reaching out or opening up to others. If you lose some fundamental outward belief, it often feels insurmountable to also reassess your perception of yourself (“lose faith in yourself”) and seek out support.***

I think part of the reason that Aziraphale is comfortable for me to project on here is that his body is established as something neutral-to-positive in canon, while being fat is something negative societally. His character doesn’t bring baggage, and so I think those of use who are fat or have struggled with body image see ourselves in him. For some people that means seeing a character able to be beyond societal pressures on the body, for others it means seeing a powerful character still able to fall into the same things we do and not be bad or weak because of it.

I’m stopping here for now and I know this is all pretty jumbled, but I’ve just been feeling like I need to get this down. It’s been nice to see some positivity about Aziraphale being fat, but sometimes it can be hard to see only positivity because I can’t relate to that. I’m really happy to be in a fandom again where there are characters who aren’t fit/skinny & I love reading all y’all’s fic and seeing fanart—it’s meant a lot. Also: if you too have fat Aziraphale feelings, pls pls come talk to me!!!

* link to that fic

** I know there are reasons why this seems weird re: story mechanics, but I don’t think it’s that hard to understand this plausibly within canon. I’ve got lots of ideas anyway :^)

*** I’m trying not to stray into headcanon territory here but I think it is important that any fic that deals with EDs doesn’t fall into a gets together with/receives affirmation from skinny partner and ED suddenly disappears trope. The reality is that EDs usually stick around after whatever crisis that might’ve triggered their development has passed.

[darkobssessions]

Autism Things: A List

-when you can’t show your work or follow any particular steps unless they make sense to you (or are YOUR specific way of doing things)

-when you can’t look up anything new without it becoming an hours long journey into obscure details, most likely becoming a special interest, and connecting to your life’s work in some way

-along the same vein, when you cannot do the simplest of tasks without overcomplicating it, like turning a shopping spree into a categorisation and research fest, or setting out to do one specific task and ending up labeling and boxing all your belongings

-when you have to prepare for weeks before an outing, and then sleep for weeks when it is done, especially if you have to mask extra hard around the people

-but also getting very vexed if someone changes plans last minute, secretly relieved that the pressure TODAY is gone, BUT now you know it will be looming over you until it does happen

-meltdowns in simple human language are ‘I have gotten hopelessly overloaded and you would do well to clear out of the bomb’s way.’ Maybe next time don’t pressure that they go out somewhere stressful, or dismiss the fact that every single sound is in an orchestra of disharmony?

-speaking of sounds. Every. Single. One. It’s multilayered. The mosquitos chime in, the bed creaks, the neighbours upstairs are having a fight again. In words it is linear, in senses, it is a simultaneous melted cheese cacophony.

-feeling physical pain at that one person’s voice, or that texture that you cannot stand anywhere near you. Toxic chemical smells? Forget it. I see the sensitivity as an app more intricate than those on smart phones for toxic level detection. If we’re wheezing, it’s altering your hormones and chemistry, Karen.

-barometers. That’s the word. It IS too hot in here, and stuffy, and crowded and messy. You think you don’t care but your spirit is suffering.

-keeping a job approximately as long as it takes to burnout. No more and no less.

-doing things the same exact way because THEY WORK. Watching favourite shows again because they also work. The desired outcome is a given. Yes I WILL be watching the Lord of the Rings extended edition for the 5th time. Nowhere near done.

-doing something with our hands while talking and getting very excitable. Probably don’t even notice ourselves doing it. It feels good, and it’s somehow sound solidified.

-giving you compliments and being really nice. Actually is really nice. No agenda.

-getting fooled when people lie and taking everyone at face value unfortunately means a penchant for attracting predatory behaviour. Cannot compute people being mean, selfish or not wanting to hear the truth.

-about the truth. You will hear it. Facts are facts. They don’t care about feelings. Doesn’t make them insensitive. We need rules, people.

-not finishing a task or assignment because you literally collected 200 pages worth of information more than was required. There’s a fuse button in normal human circuits I think? I can’t locate mine. 

-hopping, twirling, swaying, rocking, squeaking, jumping up and down, flapping, are all ways we show that we are super enjoying ourselves. There’s so much energy in the system it starts to escape in patterns, like a glitter storm all around us.

-similarly, an individual who does not go through meltdowns cannot possibly understand the uncontrollable behaviour that comes from being pushed over the edge. Not in a tantrum way, because we are not getting our way. But a collapse. Everything hurts, words and sounds become jumbled, it feels like a panic attack or paralysis. You might see head hitting, punching things, smacking or pinching which are unconscious ways we try to release the stress or manage the overload.

-when we say we are in burnout we do not mean that we are way overworked and just tired for the weekend. This is bed for days, in the dark, no words, no mobility. This is losing function, friends and ability to do basic tasks. 

-that being said, paradoxically incredibly adept and nimble at seemingly impossible and very difficult tasks while being hopelessly poor at various other things, mostly those people usually find a piece of cake. Depends on the person and their skills and special interests. For example delivering a scientific analysis talk without preparation, understanding deeply nuanced subjects, solving complex problems, identifying the errors in any operation. In contrast, could be poor at hygiene, riding the bus or navigating the supermarket, or knowing what to say to new friends.

-no conception actually of the manual of the friendship trajectory. Oversharing on the first date or first meet up? Sure. Best friends after two positive experiences? Yes. Otherwise keeping years long friends at a distance because lacking inner prompts to make things more serious? Also yes. 

-and it goes without saying that the social cues and the ability to unravel the scripts people use to navigate is not the strongest suite.

More to come. 

[bakerymanslaughter]

Dude I dunno if u were joking but I want to read that Makoto analysis so much u don’t understand, he’s my fav but so many ppl don’t bother understanding his character and just call him bland

Oh I was absolutely NOT joking, this kid is so interesting in the context of the game. I'm so glad you agree. If I'm gonna do this on the fly it's probably gonna be just me rambling? Also, I'm in the middle of the last case and havnt played the other two games yet, so I might be missing key details, which I'll add at a later date when I finish.

Also! Spoilers for like, almost the whole first game?? So blacklist dr spoilers or ignore this. Also blacklist dr if this media makes you uncomfortable, I totally understand.

Ok so. Makoto Naegi.

Makoto being branded as "average" is essential to his development and the rest of the story. In fact I'd go as far to say the reason Makoto succeeds is because he's normal, and here's the key part, compared to the other ultimates. Every other student excels in what they do, and most are caught up in their own dilemas because of it. Makoto doesn't really have that, he's just a hopeful kid trying his best among all these super talented people. AND YET, he cracks every case, worms his way into any or all of the students hearts, and remains hopeful despite every traumatizing and horrible event that happens to him and his friends. This is because his perspective and outlook is essential to balance out the playing field and even tackle despair.

Kyoko, this super talented smart detective, needs his help specifically at numerous times. And even gets a few things solved because of Makoto. Byakuya fails to crack a case and even realizes what happened because of Makoto's deductions. The list goes on.

Also can I just say, Makoto has no experience with solving murders and yet he wins every case?? Yes sure Kyoko holds your hand a bit, but he still does a ton of the work despite being labeled "average" or "does what everybody else does." This kid isn't bland, he has so much talent and merit that nobody ever gives him credit for. And you could argue its his luck, but someone doesnt put all these complex thoughts and makes a case just because theyre lucky. Luck is him getting into the school or an extra gift on the mono mono machine. Luck isn't him using his own skills.

He gains the trust and friendship or the people left, and does his best to keep them all focused on getting at the mastermind. You could argue Kyoko does this to, and she does, but she usually only does it when she wants more information from Monokuma or solving things for herself. Makoto is the one to rally everyone about 75% of the time. This kid tries so hard man. I would argue he's the most hopeful along with Kyoko, and their combined experiences and outlooks are why they combat despair. Makoto isn't just there because we play as him, he's there because he's important and his own person.

Also, when you think about his ultimate luck thing, it at first seems like a crutch for the events involving him in the game. (Surviving the execution, befriending the others, not getting murdered etc.) But, why would the headmaster keep him in the school for the hopeful future if he was just lucky? With the world in flames and few people to preserve for the future, there has to be a reason Makoto wasn't tossed.

Makoto may have had a normal family, school life, been a general normal person, etc etc. But he's not really bland at all. He somehow manages to stay in a super successful school, admitted by luck but stayed enrolled by his own skills. Everyone grows close to him or at least learns to tolerate him *cough cough* rich boy *cough* despite him being supposedly "boring."

Makoto is interesting because he's so different compared to all these crazy ultimate kids. And I think his luck has way more to do with him than just a funny gag or explanation. But I don't know how to put that into words.

This is really messy and jumbled but basically this kid deserves so much more credit. He's hopeful and sweet and just trying his best to keep goin and everyone get along. Plus the students are probably the only friends hes got? I don't really imagine him having that many friends before his first stay at hope's peak, I think it was good for him. You know, before it became a traumatizing killing game.

Makoto is a good character and a good kid! Leave him alone.

[peterparkerstarker]

Kinktober Day 20: Sex Pollen (Starker)

A whumpy dubcon sex pollen fic in which Peter totally has the hots for Tony, and is forced to ask him for... assistance.

Cw: Starker, age difference, underage Peter (16), Tony is in his 50s, sex pollen, dubcon turning into con, nymphomania, handjob, physical whump (Peter in pain, feverish, cramps, is scared)

@readysetstarker @jwolf18791 @warathena418 @pray4meireadstarker @thotticusmaxximus @mvrphyblooms @morgoona-stark @silkystark @untold-royalty @pollyparrot8 @sthefystarkersworld @katzenbaby1 @another-starker-hoe @tony-is-my-daddy @mystarkershame @plsstopgivingpetertrauma @hoeforthegays @lonleystarker @awesomeimportantfan @friendlyneighborhoodlosxr @hpspazz @starker-obsessions @starkershomelife @tightaroundthewebslinger @animefan1998-love @peterpissparker @starkercandy @loki-helmet @petecake @starkercrossedlovers @nerdylocksandthethreebears @thirstyhoe4yoongi @starker-reader @starkerissemiok @tomhollabel @momobaby227 @dragonskittysblog @sleepy-and-depressed

———————————

Peter shifted in his seat, sweaty and uncomfortable. He hadn’t been feeling great ever since the alien battle they’d narrowly won, but Tony had chalked it up to him not sleeping well. It didn’t help that he’d breathed in a mouthful of some dust that the hive-like creatures were apparently trying to spread. It tasted disgusting, and Peter had to lift his mask to spit out the offensive substance.

Tony had blasted the powder in the air with a repulsor beam and discovered it was highly flammable. It was a big risk for him to have taken, but once they’d discovered their weakness it made short work of an otherwise exhausting battle.

“You’re doing too many late night patrols, kid,” he’d told Peter afterwards, ruffling the boy’s messy, damp curls. “Leave some baddies for the rest of us. You’ve got that AP Calc exam to ace. We can handle Queens for a bit.” He’d smiled down at Peter, cocky and sweet, and Peter had felt something flutter in his stomach.

It’s not like he’d never thought of Tony like that. Of course he had. It was Tony freaking Stark. Who hadn’t been charmed by his good looks, easy confidence, and penchant for generosity?

But Peter knew he couldn’t act on it. Couldn’t ever tell Tony about his crush. It would be too weird, too much blurring of lines.

Plus there was the minor inconvenience of Peter still being in high school, and Tony was pushing 50.

So he shoved down all those thoughts into the part of his brain that could box things up, and he did his very best to not let himself go down that road whenever they were together. So far he’d been surprisingly successful.

Except now, his stomach was starting to cramp and he felt feverish, like he was going to be sick. But instead of the usual queasiness, he felt… something else. Something needy and desperate and animalistic.

Horny.

Holy fuck, he thought to himself, cramps nearly making him double over in pain. His cock was throbbing now, swollen and leaking pre-cum, and he wanted so desperately to touch himself, but he couldn’t. This was all developing so fast, and he didn’t know what was wrong, but clearly something was. Fear entangled with the heady pressure of desire, and he gripped the nearest armrest to keep from falling down.

He was alone in a helicarrier with Tony, and it was all he could do to not start rubbing one out in the cabin. Tony glanced over, finally noticing something was wrong, and Peter looked up to see him looking concerned, scared even.

He drew in a shaky breath, willing himself to gain control over whatever was happening to his body, but that turned out to be the wrong choice. Tony had moved to bend over him, clearly trying to figure out what was going on, and all he could smell was Tony. His fresh clean scent tinged with motor oil and grease.

It made him want to hump the older man’s leg until he came over and over, made him want to keep going until he was utterly spent, any last bit of his orgasm milked out of his cock. He bit back a moan at the delicious mental image and held his breath, afraid to catch even another whiff of Tony’s scent.

Tony moved in closer, a steadying hand resting on his shaking shoulder, and Peterabout cried from the touch.

It was warm and comforting and soothed some ache deep inside. He wanted to chase that feeling, drown in it. He needed more.

“Pete, talk to me, what’s going on?” Tony’s voice was so firm, serious. It made Peter want to submit, do whatever he said. It made him want to give up any and all control and just let Tony have his way with him.

His heart was racing, mind dizzy with jumbled thoughts as he stuttered out, “I-i, think there’s something wrong... feel k-kinda off.”

“No shit, kid,” Tony barked out a laugh, but there was no humor there. “Talk to me, what are you feeling? I need details if I’m gonna be able to help.” As he spoke he rubbed a circle into Peter’s hunched shoulder. His thumb caressed bare skin, and in spite of himself, Peter let out a desperate, high pitched moan.

He clenched his eyes closed, mortified, as he felt another desperate throb coming from his cock.

Tony’s eyes went wide, darting down to Peter’s groin. He shifted, trying to hide his incredibly obvious erection from the man, but the high tech spandex suit wasn’t built to withstand whatever was happening to Peter’s body.

He glanced a nervous look at Tony, who suddenly seemed to grasp onto more of the situation now.

“FRI, I need you to do a chemical analysis on the kid’s body. Look for any foreign substances, anything that might be causing this... this kind of reaction.” Tony’s voice was still stern, but there was something else there. Embarrassment. Pity. He felt bad for Peter, and that was somehow so much worse.

“Sir, Mr. Parker seems to be experiencing high spikes of physical and mental arousal, likely due to a xenomorphic powder, ingested through the mouth and nose. I immediately found traces of it, and am working to analyse its compounds, but my initial results suggest this could be life threatening if action is not taken immediately,” the AI said in a serious, clipped tone

Peter darted a look to Tony, who seemed to still be processing FRIDAY’s words.

A moment later, Tony spoke. “What is the recommended course of treatment, FRI?”

“The substance appears to be attacking Mr. Parker’s central nervous system, blood pressure and hormones, among numerous other bodily functions. The obvious answer seems to be to alleviate the symptoms until I can finish my full analysis. At the least it should buy Mr. Parker some time,” she said.

Peter let out a startled huff. “She doesn’t mean, surely, not…”

Tony sighed, eyes not meeting Peter’s. “The best plan right now is for you to get yourself off right now. Hopefully it’ll put off the effects of whatever that powder is having on your body until we can figure out a solid plan of action.”

“But, but, I can’t… I mean I can’t… not with you here,” Peter said, right as another cramp wracked his body, and he let out a loud groan, cheeks flaring crimson red from how obscene the noise was.

“I don’t think you have any other options, Pete. You heard FRI, this stuff is killing you. I know the cabin is small, so I’ll do my best to give you some privacy. I get that this is embarrassing, kid, but it’s the best option we have right now,” Tony said quietly, turning to give him the promised space.

Peter breathed out heavily. He didn’t want to do this, didn’t want to jerk himself off with Tony 20 feet away, but the other option was dying, so he had no other choice.

He pressed the release button on his suit, feeling a hint of cool relief on his skin as the tight fabric loosened its grip. Gritting his teeth, he worked the suit down his body until at last, his cock sprang free, slick and coated with pre-come. He felt so sticky and messy, but at least there was plenty of lubrication.

Peter placed his hand on his cock, pumping experimentally, letting out a whimper that had him clasping his free hand to his mouth, as he tried in vain to silence his sounds. Tony didn’t react, just stood there with his back turned to Peter, ever the gentleman.

He kept stroking, faster now, being rougher with himself than he ever had before, chasing his relief. With clenched teeth and his hand still muffling his mouth, he made a series of mortifying groans and whines, desperate to come, desperate to soothe the ache deep inside. He kept pumping, gripping himself harder, harder, until it almost hurt, but try as he might, he couldn’t get to that point. He couldn’t quite come, and the more he tried, the more it frustrated him.

He stopped, catching his breath.

He knew what he needed to do, what he needed to ask of Tony, but it didn’t make it any easier.

“Uhm.. T-tony? It’s not really… working. It’s helping, but I can’t seem to quite, uhm… get there. If you know what I mean,” Peter said in a whisper of a voice. His whole body ached, down to his bones.

“FRI, can you give us an update?” Tony asked instead of responding to Peter.

“Boss, Mr. Parker’s vitals improved significantly while he was alleviating the symptoms, but I fear that if he doesn’t reach climax soon, he may develop a brain bleed from the amount of stress on his body. His blood pressure and hormones are spiking again.”

“Fuck,” Tony said, still not turning to face Peter.

“There… there is one thing that might help,” Peter said, biting back a yell as the cramps took hold again. “When you touched me earlier, it helped. Your-your thumb touched my bare skin and I felt a lot better for a minute. Maybe if you....” But he couldn’t finish the sentence. It was too mortifying. God, he couldn’t believe he was even asking this of Tony.

Ever so slowly, Tony turned to face him, fear and confusion apparent on his face.

“Peter, I can’t, I mean, you’re 16 for Christsakes. I can’t. Your Aunt would kill me,” he said.

“Please Tony, I don’t want to die. P-please?” He was crying now, fat tears dripping down his cheeks. He was so scared, so afraid that he might not make it through this.

Tony scrubbed a hand on his face, thinking. “Okay,” he said. A long moment passed before he spoke again, “I’ll do it. I can’t lose you kid.”

And then he was crossing the length of the helicarrier cabin and was kneeling in front of Peter, and it was all too much. He’d spent so many nights shoving down thoughts of this moment. He didn’t want it like this, but what choice did they have?

“How should we do this?” Tony asked, and fuck, he was too perfect, too beautiful.

Peter gulped and said, “Maybe if you just... touch it?” He winced. God, that had to be the least sexy thing he could have said in this moment.

But Tony did as he had been asked, and grasped shaking fingers onto Peter’s throbbing cock. It was practically purple with all the blood flowing to it, and he felt instant relief at the touch.

He moaned loudly, clapping a hand to his mouth once more, but Tony kept touching him, ever so gently. He held Peter like he was delicate, something precious and fragile.

And then Fuck fuck fuck! Tony was stroking him, up and down the length of his shaft, circling the head and using his thumb to spread the wetness. It was incredible. Peter felt dizzy and floaty as pain gave way to pleasure. Real and unfiltered pleasure. He wanted to cry from how delicious Tony felt, working him in smooth steady strokes.

He leaned back against the wall behind him, lost in the sensation of Tony’s hand on him. He didn’t care about how fucked up this whole situation was anymore, because it just felt so goddamn good. He thrust into Tony’s grip, chasing the friction, needy and greedy for more, and closed his eyes.

“Tony, ah, fuck, Tony. Need you so bad. Thank you! I’ve wanted you for so long. I know this is wrong, know you’re just doing this to save me, but I’ve wanted you for so long, please don’t stop, don’t stop!” He knew he shouldn’t be admitting this, but his fever-addled brain didn’t care. He needed Tony to know.

Peter could feel it rising from deep inside, the pressure building at the base of his cock, from within his balls, and he was so close, so, so close. “Tony, I’m gonna, gonna--” And then he was spurting, shooting thick milky come, coating Tony’s hand, his chest, and he kept pumping up into the wet warmth like an animal in heat, releasing every last little droplet he could.

He sagged against the wall, slumping a little from how exhausted he was. He was drenched in sweat, his fever apparently broken, and all the pain he’d felt had faded away. All that was left was fucked out bliss.

They stayed there for a few moments, before Tony started laughing. Peter, still sleepy from coming, peeked a look at the man still kneeling before him.

“Jesus, Pete, if you wanted me so bad you should have just said so. You didn’t need to go huffing alien viagra,” his smile was easy and relaxed, the relief that Peter was okay clear on his face.

“Hey now!” Peter started, but FRIDAY chose that moment to interrupt. “It appears that his vitals have returned to normal, boss. The alien substance has worked its way through its life cycle, and is no longer present in his body from my readings.”

Tony gave a quizzical look at Peter, before asking, “Life cycle? I thought you said it was just a powder, FRI?”

“That is what I had initially assumed,” she continued, and Peter swore he could hear a touch of indignation in her voice, “But I’ve ascertained it’s something more similar to a pollen, something the hive you fought was spreading in an ill-advised attempt to gain control over the human species. I’ve already sent out dronebots to collect any remaining particles for containment, boss.”

“Atta girl, FRI,” Tony said proudly, turning his attention back to Peter, “So.. sex pollen huh?” he chuckled. “You really do need a break from patrolling after all that.” He leaned up to place a gentle kiss on Peter’s lips, soft and warm and sweet. “Let’s get cleaned up and get you home. And maybe we don’t tell your Aunt about this particular mission, Pete?”

Peter gulped, nodding and said, “Yep, a completely routine alien battle, we got them taken care of in less than 15 and then you took me out for shawarma and made me study for AP Calc on the way home, right Mr. Stark?”

“Right kid,” he said with a smile, kissing Peter once more. “Now, are you going to tell me about all these fantasies you’ve been having about me, or am I gonna have to fuck it out of you?”

[darkobssessionspoetry]

March 23rd, 2021

AUTISM THINGS: A LIST -when you can’t show your work or follow any particular steps unless they make sense to you (or are YOUR specific way of doing things) -when you can’t look up anything new without it becoming an hours long journey into obscure details, most likely becoming a special interest, and connecting to your life’s work in some way -along the same vein, when you cannot do the simplest of tasks without overcomplicating it, like turning a shopping spree into a categorisation and research fest, or setting out to do one specific task and ending up labeling and boxing all your belongings -when you have to prepare for weeks before an outing, and then sleep for weeks when it is done, especially if you have to mask extra hard around the people-but also getting very vexed if someone changes plans last minute, secretly relieved that the pressure TODAY is gone, BUT now you know it will be looming over you until it does happen -meltdowns in simple human language are ‘I have gotten hopelessly overloaded and you would do well to clear out of the bomb’s way.’ Maybe next time don’t pressure that they go out somewhere stressful, or dismiss the fact that every single sound is in an orchestra of disharmony? -speaking of sounds. Every. Single. One. It’s multilayered. The mosquitos chime in, the bed creaks, the neighbours upstairs are having a fight again. In words it is linear, in senses, it is a simultaneous melted cheese cacophony. -feeling physical pain at that one person’s voice, or that texture that you cannot stand anywhere near you. Toxic chemical smells? Forget it. I see the sensitivity as an app more intricate than those on smart phones for toxic level detection. If we’re wheezing, it’s altering your hormones and chemistry, Karen. -barometers. That’s the word. It IS too hot in here, and stuffy, and crowded and messy. You think you don’t care but your spirit is suffering. -keeping a job approximately as long as it takes to burnout. No more and no less.-doing things the same exact way because THEY WORK. Watching favourite shows again because they also work. The desired outcome is a given. Yes I WILL be watching the Lord of the Rings extended edition for the 5th time. Nowhere near done. -doing something with our hands while talking and getting very excitable. Probably don’t even notice ourselves doing it. It feels good, and it’s somehow sound solidified. -giving you compliments and being really nice. Actually is really nice. No agenda. -getting fooled when people lie and taking everyone at face value unfortunately means a penchant for attracting predatory behaviour. Cannot compute people being mean, selfish or not wanting to hear the truth. -about the truth. You will hear it. Facts are facts. They don’t care about feelings. Doesn’t make them insensitive. We need rules, people. -not finishing a task or assignment because you literally collected 200 pages worth of information more than was required. There’s a fuse button in normal human circuits I think? I can’t locate mine. -hopping, twirling, swaying, rocking, squeaking, jumping up and down, flapping, are all ways we show that we are super enjoying ourselves. There’s so much energy in the system it starts to escape in patterns, like a glitter storm all around us. -similarly, an individual who does not go through meltdowns cannot possibly understand the uncontrollable behaviour that comes from being pushed over the edge. Not in a tantrum way, because we are not getting our way. But a collapse. Everything hurts, words and sounds become jumbled, it feels like a panic attack or paralysis. You might see head hitting, punching things, smacking or pinching which are unconscious ways we try to release the stress or manage the overload. -when we say we are in burnout we do not mean that we are way overworked and just tired for the weekend. This is bed for days, in the dark, no words, no mobility. This is losing function, friends and ability to do basic tasks. -that being said, paradoxically incredibly adept and nimble at seemingly impossible and very difficult tasks while being hopelessly poor at various other things, mostly those people usually find a piece of cake. Depends on the person and their skills and special interests. For example delivering a scientific analysis talk without preparation, understanding deeply nuanced subjects, solving complex problems, identifying the errors in any operation. In contrast, could be poor at hygiene, riding the bus or navigating the supermarket, or knowing what to say to new friends. -no conception actually of the manual of the friendship trajectory. Oversharing on the first date or first meet up? Sure. Best friends after two positive experiences? Yes. Otherwise keeping years long friends at a distance because lacking inner prompts to make things more serious? Also yes. -and it goes without saying that the social cues and the ability to unravel the scripts people use to navigate is not the strongest suite. More to come. 

[beabaseball]

I didn’t want to do anything productive so I did a rudimentary analysis of KH opening songs

(let’s put this here right away that I understand if people think one relationship has more weight than another--soriku, sokai, i’m an ot3 person and am not taking sides-- so interpret whoever you will as the ‘designated person being spoken to.’ A lot of this does feel very much like Riku, since he’s the one actively doing things and giving us more characterization, rather than Kairi, who is already set up as pure of heart and is comatose for like two games straight until she jumps off a balcony and destroys my little gay heart, but it’s like… obviously pretty vague in a lot of ways and up to interpretation.)

So there’s always been something that sort of struck me about the KH opening songs that I’ve been trying to define since Don’t Think Twice got partly released, and I think maybe part of it is the forthrightness of the narrator. Especially since it’s a woman singing about love. It could be the POV is actually Sora or Riku, etc. (probably sora, but to cover my bases), so the gender is a little muddy towards interpretation, but singer-wise it still sort of strikes a chord in me because of how forthright it is about not wanting to tie the other person down:

“When you walk away You don't hear me say, "Please, oh baby, don't go."”

For most of my life, I interpreted that as the person running away was not listening when the singer was trying to make them stay, but after listening to ‘don’t think twice’ I realized another possibility-- that the singer is willing to let the other person leave and be comfortable with that.

“Simple and clean is the way that you're making me feel tonight It's hard to let it go”

The current relationship is already simple and clean. They come and go as they please without strings attached, in a pure sort of childish love that doesn’t need to be complicated in order to be strong. Which is very much how Sora, Riku, and Kairi are at the beginning of the first game: they don’t have much complicating their friendship except a pretty convoluted love triangle over that’s never really mentioned again or built on at all--it’s just kids squabbling a little--but that also means it’s easy and uncomplicated, and it risks being made messy by trying to deepen the bond, even though they want to. They’re on the precipice of change lately (“it’s hard to let it go”)

"Don't get me wrong, I love you, But does that mean I have to meet your father?" When we are older you'll understand What I meant when I said, "No, I don't think life is quite that simple."

The speaker wants things to be deeper, though. ‘Does that mean I have to meet your father?’ / ‘No, I don’t think life is quite that simple,’ has always sort of struck me as a powerful line. The other person is trying to do what they think is expected of them, perhaps? Or yielding to another authority? Regardless, what they are trying or assume they are being asked to do is not at all what the speaker actually wants-- very much like how Riku fails to listen to Sora during the first game, exploring without really paying attention to the damage he’s causing and ending up sided with Maleficent and blinded by ego long enough for darkness to really sink its claws in.

The daily things (like this and that and what is what) That keep us all busy are confusing me That's when you came to me and said, "Wish I could prove I love you, But does that mean I have to walk on water?" When we are older you'll understand It's enough when I say so And maybe some things are that simple

This is basically a whole summary of the game. Sora is getting run down and confused, but searching for Riku and Kairi keeps him going--and yet, when Riku finally is able to listen, it’s too late in a lot of ways. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t still love.

Sora loves them because he says so. And sometimes it’s exactly that simple-- that love conquers and you can both come back from the brink and bring back others from the brink through the love you share: like Kairi bringing him back from darkness, and Riku returning to aid one last time. There is no ‘perfection,’ but that doesn’t mean Sora has to settle for anything, either. “It’s enough when he says so.”

Hold me Whatever lies beyond this morning Is a little later on Regardless of warnings the future doesn't scare me at all Nothing's like before

As long as that concrete love is under his control, he’ll be okay, because his friends are his power. With them, he has nothing to fear.

By the second game, Sora has something to fear!!!!

Sanctuary from the second game is…. More upsetting in a lot of ways. It’s obviously a lot more jumbled than ‘Simple and Clean,’ and much more alarmed. Sora’s gone through a lot and spends most of the game searching for answers, for his friends, and for a way home. The adventure has definitely lost a lot of its charm and now he’s more focused on survival and carving out his place as a person--which is important in a game largely about identity.

In you and I there's a new land, Angels in flight My sanctuary, my sanctuary, yeah Where fears and lies melt away Music will tie What's left of me What's left of me now

In-game we’re aware of Roxas, and externally of Xion, Vanitas and Ventus. Sora’s also undergone puberty which uh is a whole new fucking land, but it’s probably more literally about being in a strange new situation which sometimes includes new worlds. They’re no longer on the island and searching for sanctuary in what is familiar: each other.

I watch you fast asleep, All I fear means nothing

Riku could honestly be the singer of this one I think, if the songs shift POVs. The only thing here to fear is losing the other while they’re out of sight, and while, literally, Sora is asleep and may not wake up for the first part of the game.

But to also put back that Riku could be sharing the song, if not singing it, Sora is also helping him on his journey of traveling between Light and Dark:

My heart's a battleground

You show me how to see, That nothing is whole and nothing is broken,

This can also be still Sora, of course (woo hoo, overlapping themes!) who has Literally both Light and Dark inside him as whole fucking people-- and more specifically, who has a doppleganger running around trying to find his own identity, which in turn makes Sora question his own internal self some, while never doubting his own personhood, only insisting on Roxas’ personhood: but they can only both be whole people, if you dismiss the idea that things only have the states of ‘whole’ or ‘broken.’

Woo. Now the last one:

We don’t know a ton about the 3rd game yet, but…

“How did I live in a kingdom of thieves And people who say things they don’t really mean (really mean)?

You’re all the everything I ever dreamed of (ever dreamed of x2) You must be kidding me, did you really think I could say ‘no’?

I want you for a lifetime, so if you’re gonna think twice baby I don’t wanna know, baby, I don’t wanna know Everything is just fine, but if you’re gonna think twice baby I don’t wanna know, baby, I don’t wanna know”

Sora is fucking done with these people not being forthright with their emotions and being deceptive liars and fucking with himself and his friends and all the people who are now in a boarding house in his metaphysical heart. He’s ready to go and take the final step and plunge of having the other person ‘for a lifetime’ -- but if they’re going to hesitate at all, he doesn’t even want to touch it. Things are going fine: but he’s ready to take the plunge, and if the other person isn’t as absolutely dedicated to it as he is… it’s just not worth it and he’d rather not know.

Do it or don’t. But don’t leave him hanging.

[notconsolation]

hello Hannah !!! alright I need your help on something which kinda has a deadline but you really don't have to reply to this if you don't wanna ,,, it's all good ,,,, remember when we'd do song analysis. well I'm gonna ask your opinion, thoughts and feelings on bowie's sweet thing/candidate/reprise. it's for a design project and I'm trying to get as Many opinions as I can and honestly I just love hearing your thoughts and theories on music,,alright that's it love u hope u have a good day!!

Say no more i love this

this shall be mighty big and messy and long, just like the whole suite of songs

so

a primer on this trio of songs and on Diamond Dogs in general:

Bowie gave an interview where he said "I’d failed to obtain the theatrical rights from George Orwell’s widow for the book 1984 and having written three or more songs for it already, I did a fast about-face and recobbled the idea into Diamond Dogs: teen punks on rusty skates living on the roofs of the dystopian Hunger City; a post-apocalyptic landscape"

This is where the whole things plays out. I wouldn’t say ‘takes place’ because I think there’s actually deceptively little story in these songs. Or rather, the story plays out like a sweeping crane shot of a hellish cityscape that glides along with some people for a while but has no allegiance to any one of the characters we meet. I think that’s key because it emphasises this feeling that is present in the lyrics that nobody is on your side, whoever ‘you’ are in this city. I’ll be honest, the lyrics don’t make too much sense to me beyond the feelings they evoke, but I think that’s quite common with Bowie songs. I feel like some of the time he’s less concerned with telling stories than conveying emotions.

The lyrics emphasize key aspects, eg putting such emphasis on ‘scared’ and ‘lonely’ so early on helps set the tone. All the verbs or implications of action are full of anguish in the opening song (sweet thing): wrangle, scream, pain, trailing on a leash, run, break, steal, curse, bless. It’s a whirlwind that portrays this city which is broken through by this voice that almost seems to be coming from above in the chorus, promising 

“it’s a sweet thing, sweet thing/ if you want it … get it here/ Cause hope … is a cheap thing”

which seems such a tantalising contradiction wedged between these anguished verses

As for this horror-filled city, I want to mention that, in a way, it falls quite neatly into the English tradition of cities as hellish and nightmarish. You’ll find this in TS Eliot, in Joseph Conrad, in Thomas Hardy…. lots of it. They were obsessed with this view of cities as corrupt, sluggish, parasitic, leaching the people inside them of life and the land around them of colour… but the tradition goes back further than that actually, and it’s especially apparent in contrast to American horror tales. Think characters like Jack the Ripper vs the wendigo, or other American stories that explore our fear of the forest or of being isolated. Traditionally, urban legends focus on the horrors within us while rural ones focus on external ones. 

All this to say that even though Bowie always strove to break with tradition and upend expectations, in this he does fall into line with other people who imagined city nightmares and urban dystopias.

Actually calling it that might be going a bit far, though, because I think it’s definitely largely just routed in reality more than a dystopia.

ANyway.

About the sound of it.

It begins with this discordant rising of backwards tapes and jumbles that all sort of clang together until, almost by chance, it seems, they come together into a triumphant swell of a chord and begin the song proper, almost like it was waiting for the catalytic moment where all the ugliness clashes together into something that makes sense and sounds sweet.

Especially in Sweet Thing, there’s this way in which he extends certain words - not necessarily in a way that disagrees with their natural intonation, but in a way that tugs at the emotion behind it to stretch it out. He then bunches other phrases together, like it’s an aside, sort of, like he’s muttering them.

There is, as i find is typical of bowie, this wide array of voices that gives you the sense of things going on the background that you can’t quite hear. It makes all three songs busier than they should be, somehow, like something has been twisted or reversed in the background. 

The guitar helps with that, because it also has this twisted metallic taste to it, especially in the reprise. The guitar in Sweet Thing is fairly contained, albeit distorted, complementing the vocals rather than challenging them. When Candidate hits, the guitar becomes bolder in the mix and starts strangling out the vocals. They, in turn, become more desperate, like he’s trying to tell you something but time is running out. That’s also to be seen in the way the songs gradually speed up, almost imperceptibly at first. I think i didn’t really notice it the first time until that point where it suddenly gets super stripped down and its just the drums and a distorted guitar and you can really hear the drums gathering speed, but not in a way that feels hugely exponential, just in a way that your heart has just enough time to keep up and match the increasing speed in its rhythmic beating.

The transition to Candidate is interesting because there’s this high, soaring end to Sweet Thing that becomes an echo just shy of shrill and is perfectly complemented by this low, droning sax and bass that comes in to begin Candidate. The drum (snare i think?) that’s playing at the beginning of Candidate is also interesting. There’s something kind of military about it, and I read somewhere that Bowie told the drummer to imagine he was a french boy drumming a snare at the first execution with the guillotine or something. he went deep. Bowie invented method acting.

Candidate also starts with this tough-cool voice offering you something and it feels like the devil. Does that make sense? It feels like the devil offering you something in a back alley at 2am when you’re buzzing and you’re not sure if you know any humans.

Then during the Sweet Thing reprise the emotional emphasis about, oh idk, quadruples with the drums and the rolling discordant shivers of sound that echo out. And then that turns into this heavy almost driving beat with regular bass and twisted metal guitar over it and then your hearts in your throat and now it feels like its being strung through the strings of a harp.

It’s the sort of thing thats really scary when things seem less than real.

And there you have it. Sorry if that was really unstructured and long. I just…. my thoughts are messy and so is this song.

[riverstonesims]

House of Pancakes - Writing Prompt #3

Another day, yet another prompt. This features Giuseppe and the ever so lovely Iris Cunningham as teens. Giu will be a teen in my game one day I promise. Also, this could be canon, this could be not. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Prompt: “Don’t say it. If you say it out loud, we can’t come back from that.”

@storylegacysims and @justkeeponsimming hope you enjoy this ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 

“Please wait.”

“No, we’re not doing this, we’re just… we’re not.” Giu pushed her away furiously, reaching over and grabbing his car keys from the marble bench, slamming his beanie on his head. He shrugged off the hand on his arm and moved through the large kitchen with its gleaming floors, white counters, gold utensils. He glanced at the chandelier above his heads and muttered a swear word as his footsteps echoed into the corridor, heavy and full of regret.

“Ital-no, d-di Forza, please, just wait.” Her voice called after him.

He kept walking and was just about to reach for the front door when she slammed herself against it, hands outspread to stop him from opening it. He snatched back his hand and instead crossed his arms, frowning. Grey eyes looked up at him.

“Let me leave. I don’t want to be here anymore.” She was far too close to him.

“Stay and hear me out, right now,” she demanded but Giuseppe shook his head, trying to analyse the situation in front of him.

“God, my whole existence has just been a real pain in the arse for you, hasn’t it? Why stop now?” he shot back.

“Oh don’t be stupid.”

“Excuse me?!” Giuseppe looked at her in disbelief. “I came here to do a science project that we got teamed up to do and after what’s just happened, you’re calling me stupid? Me?” He laughed though it was hollow. He looked around the large hallway, at the staircase that stretched for miles up to the next floor, to the lounge off to the side with it’s plush cushions, grand fireplace, expensive wooden flooring. “You need to reevaluate everything that has just happened.”

Iris grabbed his arm for the second time. “I-I-”

“You’ve subjected me to bullying, to humiliation, to not wanting to come to school, to rigging competitions, to trying to ruin writing for me, and now you think it’s a good idea to pull a stunt like this? Who are you really, Cunningham? Who are you? What makes you tick?” he hissed furiously, eyebrows knitted as he look down on the girl in front of him. His eyes swept over her grey ones, over her messy hair, lipstick smudged. His own lips were stinging.

Iris stuttered again, eyes wandering everywhere but his face. “D-d-di Forza, how dare-I wouldn’t- I- what are-no. We just, we just uh, you know uh…”

“Pssh. Explain what you’re playing at! That’s all I want. You can’t just bully someone for years and then expect them to kiss you back! The fuck is wrong with you?” He glared at her, giving her more time to reply but it was a while before she did. A silence settled between them, the old grandfather clock tick-tocking behind them, a chandelier hanging over their heads.

Her eyes dropped to the floor and she mumbled something. Giu rolled his eyes, tapped his foot and noticing her more relaxed posture, pushed her aside and began opening the door, managing finally to escape through, heart hammering, mind a jumble as he pondered what to do next. To Elise’s? Back home? To the library?

“Italiano!” Her voice hung in the air, echoing around the street. He glanced at the lit houses down the road, feeling out of place amongst their grand nineteenth century fronts, feeling out of place in general. Giuseppe Leonardo di Forza didn’t belong here.

He heard footsteps behind him, lighter, the heels clicking on the steps and then the crunch of gravel. Giu stopped himself and spun on his heel.

“We’re not… we’re not going to talk about this again.” The words hung in the air. “I’ll do the project on my own, you just send me your notes and analysis.”

“Italiano, please.” Iris begged him to wait, to listen to her. Why wouldn’t he listen to her?! She had things to say, important things to say. Iris Cunningham always had important things to say, people listened to her. Why couldn’t this boy do the same?

“You can’t even get my damn name right, don’t think you’re one to lecture.”

“Fine, just fine. Giuseppe. Listen to me.” That stopped him, the way his name flowed from her mouth, how she pronounced his name, the way she shaped her vowels.

“I’m sorry,” she spat out, hand running through her hair before rubbing her cheeks. “I’m sorry, Giuseppe. I’m sorry for everything but you didn’t make it easy on yourself.”

His hands found the beanie on his head as he fiddled with it, pulling it down at the back. “Hah, what?!”

“It was just hard to… to get your attention otherwise. You’ve always been joined at the hip with her and, well, I… I didn’t know what else to do. There’s something about you, Giuseppe.” Iris moved closer to him as he stood rooted to the gravel; her voice had become lower and silkier.

Iris continued. “You’ve always been an interesting character in my story, Giuseppe di Forza. I’m intrigued, what makes you tick, how come we’ve always been drawn to each other?”

“Cunningham, that’s complete crap.”

“The retorts, the competition, the glances at me in class?”

“Oh please, as if.”

“Why’d you kiss me back, then?” A smirk appeared on her face and Giu panicked. The image came back to him; in the kitchen as their project had lain before them, her hand on his shoulder, turning around, her grey eyes piercing his, a hand on his waist, one going to hers, the pull, lips meeting, wanting more-no, no, no!

“What? No I didn’t, don’t be ridiculous.”

“Don’t lie to yourself, or to me for that fact. Look Giuseppe, after all these years, I’ve… I think… I don’t know… it’s been a recent development and I was very shocked when I realised, but you and I… I think I-”

“Don’t say it. If you say it out loud, we can’t come back from that.” Giu put his hands up to stop her, their eyes meeting, his pleading with hers to stop. He looked around for an escape but felt the inevitable pull and the spin of his words as she spoke to him.

“I think… I love you.”

Well, shit.

[insert-witty-comment]

PRODUCTION AND RELEASED DETAILS SPOILERS!!!I will be using information from things like interviews and known, released production details. If you're planning on going into the new season knowing as little as possible, please don't read any further. I also can not speak to what others might post in support of, or against my theories while contributing to the discussion, this could possibly range from things like set photos all the way up to full on leaks, which personally I welcome in this discussion (within the bounds of the sub rules). So again, if you have any concern of spoilers, please leave now.  3...  2...  1!  Alright if you're sticking around, I apologize in advance if this is a little messy or jumbled. I've tried to source and organize things as best I can, feel free to call anything out or ask questions, or for clarification.Suggested Reading: My last half decent theory post from the previous trailer  So, quick timeline recap! The "showdown" takes place November 12th, 1983. The Demogorgon is "killed," and Eleven vanishes. 43 days later, December 24th, things have returned to what I guess you could call "normal," Will is home, but suffering from the bleeding effect of the Upside Down, and vomits up the slug creature.S2 take place in the Fall of 1984, and we see a big focus is Halloween, so October 1984, roughly 10 months later, depending on the span of time that passes this season, I believe they've said that it'll be longer than just a week but I can't confirm that. Just a matter of when exactly things pick up.  From the looks of it, Eleven's story will pick up almost immediately where it left off, with her having been displaced and ending up in the Upside Down after defeating (or maybe not?) the Demogorgon, and it appears that she'll make it out of the Upside Down fairly quickly and easily. Hopper leaves her the food in the chest in the ending sequence of 1x08, so December 24th. It's fair to assume she gets the food within a few hours to a day, as seen in the Final Trailer. Again, ~43 days at that point, she's been "free" and roaming. But as of the events of S2, most everybody still thinks she's missing.She escapes the Upside Down almost immediately, but doesn't make contact with anyone, except Hopper as far as we can tell.She's on her own, doing her own thing, for roughly a month and a half from what can be seen of the timeline relative to S1 and the Final Trailer.She's still assumed missing during S2, so she's been operating for almost a YEAR on her own, save for a little help from Hopper.What is she doing? We know she eventually makes it to Terry Ives' (her biological mother, in case any of you forgot) house, but at this point she has a full head of hair (unless it's another wig?), so this will likely happen during the events of S2, rather than the events between S1/S2.Since operating for almost a year, almost entirely undetected would be quite a feat, even for Eleven, I'd say it's fair to assume she's been operating outside of Hawkins. We also know that the opening scene will take place outside of Hawkins. We also know that one of the new characters, Roman, is an outsider and does not reside in Hawkins. I'm guessing that whatever Eleven is doing, whatever she's looking for, is of course connected to the Hawkins Lab, the experiments, and very likely Roman. They'll likely meet each other early on.  It doesn't appear that the new Monster is a physical being, it looks to be made up of some sort of smoke/shadow/dark energy. "Will saw... a sort of Shadow." This could be Mike speaking loosely/figuratively, or in D&D/fantasy terms, more literally. "A shadow is an incorporeal creature of sentient darkness." I'm not too terribly familiar with D&D, maybe somebody more knowledgeable about it can chime in, is there any other sort of "Shadow" creature that would function similarly, or in relation to, the Demogorgon?  We see Nancy and Jonathan with Murray Bauman, who is certainly living up to his description of "a disgraced journalist-turned-conspiracy theorist" with some interesting String Theory shenanigans going on. Who is he stalking?  From here it's difficult to glean much from the trailer, just a lot of intense fast cut sequences, so here's some of the things I found most interesting."If anyone knows how to destroy this thing... it's Will." Goddamn am I hyped for Will, his presence in S1 left a lot to be desired, but I have no doubt he comes back with a vengeance. Does he pick up any latent powers from his time in the Upside Down? Are we gonna get an Eleven/Will superpower duo?We see Dr. Owens in person a handful of times. Still not sure what his motives will be compared to Brenner... Who I'm still not quite convinced is really dead, what with the classic, "if you don't actually see them die onscreen..." I also found this to be a mildly interesting detail, as mentioned on the wiki, "Reiser previously played the villainous character Burke in Aliens, a 1986 James Cameron film that the Duffer Brothers named as an influence for Season 2."Steve teaming up with The Kids™ is gonna be super interesting and a lot of fun, but... I'm still worried about him. I don't think he's gonna make it. He'll most likely die in a sacrifice to save The Kids™.  I still have a few thoughts here and there but nothing too coherent to make anything of, these are just a few things I wanted to point out, maybe get some discussion going. I think one of the funniest things about this show, but also one of my favorite things, is that really in the end, even after this wall of text, we still really don't know what's going on. The show is so mysterious but still makes sense, they don't give enough away to really piece much together, so honestly it's kind of pointless, but it's just so much goddamn fun theorize and write this kind of stuff up. Pleaseforgivemeforanypoorformattingandsuch.Anyways, thanks for reading, please feel free to through in your two cents! via /r/StrangerThings

[lets-carameth]

Part of our ongoing Doc Nights collection, AND WITH HIM CAME THE WEST screens July 17 at 7:30 PM at the AFS Cinema with director Mike Plante in individual. Purchase tickets. Plante may even be a part of us the following night time for a Moviemaker Dialogue on brief movies.

The gunfight at the OK Corral was a legend made famous by Hollywood studio westerns over many many years, from John Ford’s MY DARLING CLEMENTINE (1946) all the option to George Cosmatos’ ‘90s blockbuster, TOMBSTONE. In his provocative documentary, filmmaker Mike Plante examines the Hollywood legacy of Wyatt Earp by way of the many movies that rewrote history to immortalize him. Plante shall be in attendance for the screening on July 17 and in addition take part in a Moviemaker Dialogue at Austin Public on July 18.

Here he shares his thoughts on what impressed him to make the movie and some of the questions it poses:

What’s it about the story of Wyatt Earp that inspired you to make this film?

I grew up in western Colorado, so apart from seeing western films and reading tons of books about the “real” wild west, I used to be all the time operating round ghost towns. It was enjoyable as a kid, however unusual too. Going to a totally shaped city that was super wealthy for a number of years that had collapsed right into a shell was surreal. It was additionally lovely, and sad and damaged—a mysterious comic ebook come to life.

As an adult I noticed how insane these frontier towns have been. The immense circumstances that everybody had to overcome, the harsh places, the mountains, the deserts. The group that had to come together to survive. I additionally realized the brutal politics of manifest future. The difficult historical past of the people concerned, both good and dangerous. The truth is way extra fascinating than the mythology.

In the late ‘80s I moved to Tucson, Arizona, and lived there for a decade. Tombstone is nearby and I turned more serious about that specific town history. There were not that many duel-style gunfights in the west, most have been myths, so the OK Corral caught out much more.

After I discovered that Wyatt lived lengthy enough to go to Hollywood and go to film sets, this specific story turned much more surreal. Tons of western characters reinvented themselves in their very own lifetime—however for Earp to go to filmmakers in Hollywood and ask them to make a film about him, to help type his legacy, that’s subsequent degree.

Have been there specific films you watched rising up that influenced your understanding of the Wyatt Earp story better than others?

I grew up in the ‘70s and ‘80s so the western was not a well-liked genre at that second. It was western characters in outer area as an alternative. I noticed the older Earp movies on TV. I favored them however they felt like a bygone era that was utterly faraway from trendy occasions, closer to King Arthur than Al Capone.

The previous films really blended together over time—one of the ways films create American mythology. You start to assume that this many films on one subject couldn’t probably misinform you, which is absurd. And then the revisionist ​DOC is from 1971 however was never talked about, I by no means saw it on TV. One thing like ​MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER​ (1971) is unimaginable, not a few historical individual yet so sensible and deep. But I by no means saw it on TV. We didn’t have a revival movie theater on the town, and these weren’t the huge VHS tapes of the second.

There have been a couple of non-Earp westerns that basically influenced me in terms of their fashion, films that felt absolutely true and very important although they weren’t sensible. The spaghetti westerns ​ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968) and ​MY NAME IS NOBODY (1973) are still superb to me. They paid off in phrases of overboard action and large story, but they’ve received complicated characters in the center of them.

In ​ONCE,​ Henry Fonda is heroic and delightful however a horrible villain. Claudia Cardinale is a robust feminine lead preventing for her land, this ain’t a 1930s western. ​NOBODY is a satire however succeeds in the similar method, with Fonda (in his final western) even stating, “there were never any good ol’ days.” It’s with these movies that I began to assume perhaps the west was far more superior, bizarre, and messy, and that folks of their day have been very trendy.

When ​THE LONG RIDERS (1980) got here out, I was obsessed with it. Again, a contemporary movie with trendy digital camera and modifying, with characters extra nuanced into a gray hat, fairly than a white-hat black-hat simplicity. But this time the characters had the names of real individuals (the James-Youthful gang). What I needed as a child was not clean propaganda, however messy realism. What did it seem like to be in the similar place as these individuals? Including all the mundane moments. That movie is nearly a musical, the soundtrack is just not booming however true to life, full with a marriage dance and characters enjoying instruments.

So then once I saw the Earp movies again as an grownup, ​GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL (1957) for example, they felt unusual. The type was great—Technicolor-delicious—but the appearing was really stilted and the story was so jumbled. There’s some fascinating stuff, like how the town had gun control and some awesome gambling scenes. But there’s rather a lot of pressured romance and no dangerous language. The fun elements have been enjoyable, but the G-rated-ness made you marvel what happened in real life.

As a movie fan doing historical analysis for years, I began to piece together the scenes and the lasting impact films have had on history. Once I began seeing unimaginable found-footage films, like Craig Baldwin’s ​TRIBULATION 99 ​(1992) and Naomi Uman’s REMOVED (1999), or even Cindy Sherman’s images, I received a blueprint for the concepts. I’m working in the vein of Thom Anderson’s LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF ​(2003), simply ‘Wyatt Earp Plays Himself.’

By the means, I don’t assume I’m anyplace close to the degree of these filmmakers! I’m just standing on shoulders.

Why do you assume Hollywood has returned repeatedly to the retelling of Earp, Tombstone, and the gunfight at the OK Corral?

Money. That’s the primary aim of studios, Hollywood is a business. Westerns fall in and out of reputation, however they will all the time relate to the present occasions in a method or another, and action movies make lots of cash. This story made cash earlier than, it will probably once more.

However you may also look to people who really believed in the story and the complexity, who then had enough pull in the business to get a movie made, like Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner. They appear to know the trendy connections between at this time and the wild west, not only in social issues however in the sort of people who reinvent themselves into legends.

And it’s in all probability a helluva lots of fun to make a western.

All through it, the movie explores the blurring of strains between reality and fiction. In the end, is that distinction essential, or does it not matter?

I feel it issues. We need to consider in historical past. I feel it starts to matter more as a result of individuals run with what they need to consider, and that’s what I’m making an attempt to explore.

Even when an elevator doesn’t put the quantity 13 on the buttons… there’s nonetheless a 13th flooring. Why can we do this to society? I’m actually curious about how that blurring occurs and how it’s typically simply accepted. People need to feel protected on this large planet and we create issues to be comforted.

The mythology of the past could be extremely inventive and inspirational. I feel most people know that once you examine the previous, there is a layer of interpretation concerned. From the author sharing the info to the individual reading it. So, you determine what is trustworthy when it’s worthwhile to, and what’s just enjoyable and entertaining. And that’s why professional journalists and critical historians and librarians actually matter.

In the film, I give my take on what happened, however I don’t inform the viewers what to think about the occasions or how the films have warped historical past. This can be a poem about Wyatt Earp, not an encyclopedia. I’m supplying you with the info and we should always all have a dialogue about it. The actual danger is just not talking about history.

At the similar time, let’s have fun. I typically marvel if individuals with opposing opinions would get alongside once they realized that they all consider in UFOs.

The film also takes us by means of the very beginning of movie and its evolution as a way of storytelling – in this occasion the story of an actual historical individual. What do you assume is the subsequent wave of Westerns and filmmaking know-how and why is it essential that moviegoers proceed to be all in favour of historical past?

We like to recollect our personal lives as film scenes so it’s not a surprise to keep making these connections to historical past as entertainment. Some historic figures are so nuts, so fun, it makes a terrific film. Let’s snort and cry and study together, that’s what each films and historical past are for.

The western is such an everlasting genre and filmmakers retains pushing the limits of drama, comedy and action. I love to see crossovers with different genres. The Zellner Brothers’ ​DAMSEL (2018) is nice, principally a romantic dark-comedy in the west. The ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINE collection by Tsui Hark must be counted among the great westerns. Or just extra stories with unique characters, like Kelly Reichardt’s ​MEEK’S CUTOFF (2010). And I’m undoubtedly not the first to explore the western in a documentary—everybody ought to be watching Neil Diamond’s ​REEL INJUN (2009). Nor am I the first to do a remix, like the superb brief by Peter Tscherkassky, ​INSTRUCTIONS FOR A LIGHT AND SOUND MACHINE​ (2005).

We’d like the dystopian western. The technological advancement of the previous west was ridiculous, fueled by the gold rush. Like ​THE CITY OF LOST CHILDREN (1995) by Jeunet and Caro—you possibly can’t even tell if that’s the previous or the future, it’s so magical.

And why no more bombastic spaghetti westerns?? Just don’t use real historic names and make it bizarre.

The post Austin Film Society Interview with Mike Plante, Director of New Wyatt Earp Doc ‘And With Him Came the West’ appeared first on Black Dot Mobile.

[omgxfireicewolfx-blog]

Part of our ongoing Doc Nights collection, AND WITH HIM CAME THE WEST screens July 17 at 7:30 PM at the AFS Cinema with director Mike Plante in individual. Purchase tickets. Plante may even be a part of us the following night time for a Moviemaker Dialogue on brief movies.

The gunfight at the OK Corral was a legend made famous by Hollywood studio westerns over many many years, from John Ford’s MY DARLING CLEMENTINE (1946) all the option to George Cosmatos’ ‘90s blockbuster, TOMBSTONE. In his provocative documentary, filmmaker Mike Plante examines the Hollywood legacy of Wyatt Earp by way of the many movies that rewrote history to immortalize him. Plante shall be in attendance for the screening on July 17 and in addition take part in a Moviemaker Dialogue at Austin Public on July 18.

Here he shares his thoughts on what impressed him to make the movie and some of the questions it poses:

What’s it about the story of Wyatt Earp that inspired you to make this film?

I grew up in western Colorado, so apart from seeing western films and reading tons of books about the “real” wild west, I used to be all the time operating round ghost towns. It was enjoyable as a kid, however unusual too. Going to a totally shaped city that was super wealthy for a number of years that had collapsed right into a shell was surreal. It was additionally lovely, and sad and damaged—a mysterious comic ebook come to life.

As an adult I noticed how insane these frontier towns have been. The immense circumstances that everybody had to overcome, the harsh places, the mountains, the deserts. The group that had to come together to survive. I additionally realized the brutal politics of manifest future. The difficult historical past of the people concerned, both good and dangerous. The truth is way extra fascinating than the mythology.

In the late ‘80s I moved to Tucson, Arizona, and lived there for a decade. Tombstone is nearby and I turned more serious about that specific town history. There were not that many duel-style gunfights in the west, most have been myths, so the OK Corral caught out much more.

After I discovered that Wyatt lived lengthy enough to go to Hollywood and go to film sets, this specific story turned much more surreal. Tons of western characters reinvented themselves in their very own lifetime—however for Earp to go to filmmakers in Hollywood and ask them to make a film about him, to help type his legacy, that’s subsequent degree.

Have been there specific films you watched rising up that influenced your understanding of the Wyatt Earp story better than others?

I grew up in the ‘70s and ‘80s so the western was not a well-liked genre at that second. It was western characters in outer area as an alternative. I noticed the older Earp movies on TV. I favored them however they felt like a bygone era that was utterly faraway from trendy occasions, closer to King Arthur than Al Capone.

The previous films really blended together over time—one of the ways films create American mythology. You start to assume that this many films on one subject couldn’t probably misinform you, which is absurd. And then the revisionist ​DOC is from 1971 however was never talked about, I by no means saw it on TV. One thing like ​MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER​ (1971) is unimaginable, not a few historical individual yet so sensible and deep. But I by no means saw it on TV. We didn’t have a revival movie theater on the town, and these weren’t the huge VHS tapes of the second.

There have been a couple of non-Earp westerns that basically influenced me in terms of their fashion, films that felt absolutely true and very important although they weren’t sensible. The spaghetti westerns ​ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968) and ​MY NAME IS NOBODY (1973) are still superb to me. They paid off in phrases of overboard action and large story, but they’ve received complicated characters in the center of them.

In ​ONCE,​ Henry Fonda is heroic and delightful however a horrible villain. Claudia Cardinale is a robust feminine lead preventing for her land, this ain’t a 1930s western. ​NOBODY is a satire however succeeds in the similar method, with Fonda (in his final western) even stating, “there were never any good ol’ days.” It’s with these movies that I began to assume perhaps the west was far more superior, bizarre, and messy, and that folks of their day have been very trendy.

When ​THE LONG RIDERS (1980) got here out, I was obsessed with it. Again, a contemporary movie with trendy digital camera and modifying, with characters extra nuanced into a gray hat, fairly than a white-hat black-hat simplicity. But this time the characters had the names of real individuals (the James-Youthful gang). What I needed as a child was not clean propaganda, however messy realism. What did it seem like to be in the similar place as these individuals? Including all the mundane moments. That movie is nearly a musical, the soundtrack is just not booming however true to life, full with a marriage dance and characters enjoying instruments.

So then once I saw the Earp movies again as an grownup, ​GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL (1957) for example, they felt unusual. The type was great—Technicolor-delicious—but the appearing was really stilted and the story was so jumbled. There’s some fascinating stuff, like how the town had gun control and some awesome gambling scenes. But there’s rather a lot of pressured romance and no dangerous language. The fun elements have been enjoyable, but the G-rated-ness made you marvel what happened in real life.

As a movie fan doing historical analysis for years, I began to piece together the scenes and the lasting impact films have had on history. Once I began seeing unimaginable found-footage films, like Craig Baldwin’s ​TRIBULATION 99 ​(1992) and Naomi Uman’s REMOVED (1999), or even Cindy Sherman’s images, I received a blueprint for the concepts. I’m working in the vein of Thom Anderson’s LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF ​(2003), simply ‘Wyatt Earp Plays Himself.’

By the means, I don’t assume I’m anyplace close to the degree of these filmmakers! I’m just standing on shoulders.

Why do you assume Hollywood has returned repeatedly to the retelling of Earp, Tombstone, and the gunfight at the OK Corral?

Money. That’s the primary aim of studios, Hollywood is a business. Westerns fall in and out of reputation, however they will all the time relate to the present occasions in a method or another, and action movies make lots of cash. This story made cash earlier than, it will probably once more.

However you may also look to people who really believed in the story and the complexity, who then had enough pull in the business to get a movie made, like Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner. They appear to know the trendy connections between at this time and the wild west, not only in social issues however in the sort of people who reinvent themselves into legends.

And it’s in all probability a helluva lots of fun to make a western.

All through it, the movie explores the blurring of strains between reality and fiction. In the end, is that distinction essential, or does it not matter?

I feel it issues. We need to consider in historical past. I feel it starts to matter more as a result of individuals run with what they need to consider, and that’s what I’m making an attempt to explore.

Even when an elevator doesn’t put the quantity 13 on the buttons… there’s nonetheless a 13th flooring. Why can we do this to society? I’m actually curious about how that blurring occurs and how it’s typically simply accepted. People need to feel protected on this large planet and we create issues to be comforted.

The mythology of the past could be extremely inventive and inspirational. I feel most people know that once you examine the previous, there is a layer of interpretation concerned. From the author sharing the info to the individual reading it. So, you determine what is trustworthy when it’s worthwhile to, and what’s just enjoyable and entertaining. And that’s why professional journalists and critical historians and librarians actually matter.

In the film, I give my take on what happened, however I don’t inform the viewers what to think about the occasions or how the films have warped historical past. This can be a poem about Wyatt Earp, not an encyclopedia. I’m supplying you with the info and we should always all have a dialogue about it. The actual danger is just not talking about history.

At the similar time, let’s have fun. I typically marvel if individuals with opposing opinions would get alongside once they realized that they all consider in UFOs.

The film also takes us by means of the very beginning of movie and its evolution as a way of storytelling – in this occasion the story of an actual historical individual. What do you assume is the subsequent wave of Westerns and filmmaking know-how and why is it essential that moviegoers proceed to be all in favour of historical past?

We like to recollect our personal lives as film scenes so it’s not a surprise to keep making these connections to historical past as entertainment. Some historic figures are so nuts, so fun, it makes a terrific film. Let’s snort and cry and study together, that’s what each films and historical past are for.

The western is such an everlasting genre and filmmakers retains pushing the limits of drama, comedy and action. I love to see crossovers with different genres. The Zellner Brothers’ ​DAMSEL (2018) is nice, principally a romantic dark-comedy in the west. The ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINE collection by Tsui Hark must be counted among the great westerns. Or just extra stories with unique characters, like Kelly Reichardt’s ​MEEK’S CUTOFF (2010). And I’m undoubtedly not the first to explore the western in a documentary—everybody ought to be watching Neil Diamond’s ​REEL INJUN (2009). Nor am I the first to do a remix, like the superb brief by Peter Tscherkassky, ​INSTRUCTIONS FOR A LIGHT AND SOUND MACHINE​ (2005).

We’d like the dystopian western. The technological advancement of the previous west was ridiculous, fueled by the gold rush. Like ​THE CITY OF LOST CHILDREN (1995) by Jeunet and Caro—you possibly can’t even tell if that’s the previous or the future, it’s so magical.

And why no more bombastic spaghetti westerns?? Just don’t use real historic names and make it bizarre.

The post Austin Film Society Interview with Mike Plante, Director of New Wyatt Earp Doc ‘And With Him Came the West’ appeared first on Black Dot Mobile.

[iinsatiablezus]

Part of our ongoing Doc Nights collection, AND WITH HIM CAME THE WEST screens July 17 at 7:30 PM at the AFS Cinema with director Mike Plante in individual. Purchase tickets. Plante may even be a part of us the following night time for a Moviemaker Dialogue on brief movies.

The gunfight at the OK Corral was a legend made famous by Hollywood studio westerns over many many years, from John Ford’s MY DARLING CLEMENTINE (1946) all the option to George Cosmatos’ ‘90s blockbuster, TOMBSTONE. In his provocative documentary, filmmaker Mike Plante examines the Hollywood legacy of Wyatt Earp by way of the many movies that rewrote history to immortalize him. Plante shall be in attendance for the screening on July 17 and in addition take part in a Moviemaker Dialogue at Austin Public on July 18.

Here he shares his thoughts on what impressed him to make the movie and some of the questions it poses:

What’s it about the story of Wyatt Earp that inspired you to make this film?

I grew up in western Colorado, so apart from seeing western films and reading tons of books about the “real” wild west, I used to be all the time operating round ghost towns. It was enjoyable as a kid, however unusual too. Going to a totally shaped city that was super wealthy for a number of years that had collapsed right into a shell was surreal. It was additionally lovely, and sad and damaged—a mysterious comic ebook come to life.

As an adult I noticed how insane these frontier towns have been. The immense circumstances that everybody had to overcome, the harsh places, the mountains, the deserts. The group that had to come together to survive. I additionally realized the brutal politics of manifest future. The difficult historical past of the people concerned, both good and dangerous. The truth is way extra fascinating than the mythology.

In the late ‘80s I moved to Tucson, Arizona, and lived there for a decade. Tombstone is nearby and I turned more serious about that specific town history. There were not that many duel-style gunfights in the west, most have been myths, so the OK Corral caught out much more.

After I discovered that Wyatt lived lengthy enough to go to Hollywood and go to film sets, this specific story turned much more surreal. Tons of western characters reinvented themselves in their very own lifetime—however for Earp to go to filmmakers in Hollywood and ask them to make a film about him, to help type his legacy, that’s subsequent degree.

Have been there specific films you watched rising up that influenced your understanding of the Wyatt Earp story better than others?

I grew up in the ‘70s and ‘80s so the western was not a well-liked genre at that second. It was western characters in outer area as an alternative. I noticed the older Earp movies on TV. I favored them however they felt like a bygone era that was utterly faraway from trendy occasions, closer to King Arthur than Al Capone.

The previous films really blended together over time—one of the ways films create American mythology. You start to assume that this many films on one subject couldn’t probably misinform you, which is absurd. And then the revisionist ​DOC is from 1971 however was never talked about, I by no means saw it on TV. One thing like ​MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER​ (1971) is unimaginable, not a few historical individual yet so sensible and deep. But I by no means saw it on TV. We didn’t have a revival movie theater on the town, and these weren’t the huge VHS tapes of the second.

There have been a couple of non-Earp westerns that basically influenced me in terms of their fashion, films that felt absolutely true and very important although they weren’t sensible. The spaghetti westerns ​ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST (1968) and ​MY NAME IS NOBODY (1973) are still superb to me. They paid off in phrases of overboard action and large story, but they’ve received complicated characters in the center of them.

In ​ONCE,​ Henry Fonda is heroic and delightful however a horrible villain. Claudia Cardinale is a robust feminine lead preventing for her land, this ain’t a 1930s western. ​NOBODY is a satire however succeeds in the similar method, with Fonda (in his final western) even stating, “there were never any good ol’ days.” It’s with these movies that I began to assume perhaps the west was far more superior, bizarre, and messy, and that folks of their day have been very trendy.

When ​THE LONG RIDERS (1980) got here out, I was obsessed with it. Again, a contemporary movie with trendy digital camera and modifying, with characters extra nuanced into a gray hat, fairly than a white-hat black-hat simplicity. But this time the characters had the names of real individuals (the James-Youthful gang). What I needed as a child was not clean propaganda, however messy realism. What did it seem like to be in the similar place as these individuals? Including all the mundane moments. That movie is nearly a musical, the soundtrack is just not booming however true to life, full with a marriage dance and characters enjoying instruments.

So then once I saw the Earp movies again as an grownup, ​GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL (1957) for example, they felt unusual. The type was great—Technicolor-delicious—but the appearing was really stilted and the story was so jumbled. There’s some fascinating stuff, like how the town had gun control and some awesome gambling scenes. But there’s rather a lot of pressured romance and no dangerous language. The fun elements have been enjoyable, but the G-rated-ness made you marvel what happened in real life.

As a movie fan doing historical analysis for years, I began to piece together the scenes and the lasting impact films have had on history. Once I began seeing unimaginable found-footage films, like Craig Baldwin’s ​TRIBULATION 99 ​(1992) and Naomi Uman’s REMOVED (1999), or even Cindy Sherman’s images, I received a blueprint for the concepts. I’m working in the vein of Thom Anderson’s LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF ​(2003), simply ‘Wyatt Earp Plays Himself.’

By the means, I don’t assume I’m anyplace close to the degree of these filmmakers! I’m just standing on shoulders.

Why do you assume Hollywood has returned repeatedly to the retelling of Earp, Tombstone, and the gunfight at the OK Corral?

Money. That’s the primary aim of studios, Hollywood is a business. Westerns fall in and out of reputation, however they will all the time relate to the present occasions in a method or another, and action movies make lots of cash. This story made cash earlier than, it will probably once more.

However you may also look to people who really believed in the story and the complexity, who then had enough pull in the business to get a movie made, like Kurt Russell and Kevin Costner. They appear to know the trendy connections between at this time and the wild west, not only in social issues however in the sort of people who reinvent themselves into legends.

And it’s in all probability a helluva lots of fun to make a western.

All through it, the movie explores the blurring of strains between reality and fiction. In the end, is that distinction essential, or does it not matter?

I feel it issues. We need to consider in historical past. I feel it starts to matter more as a result of individuals run with what they need to consider, and that’s what I’m making an attempt to explore.

Even when an elevator doesn’t put the quantity 13 on the buttons… there’s nonetheless a 13th flooring. Why can we do this to society? I’m actually curious about how that blurring occurs and how it’s typically simply accepted. People need to feel protected on this large planet and we create issues to be comforted.

The mythology of the past could be extremely inventive and inspirational. I feel most people know that once you examine the previous, there is a layer of interpretation concerned. From the author sharing the info to the individual reading it. So, you determine what is trustworthy when it’s worthwhile to, and what’s just enjoyable and entertaining. And that’s why professional journalists and critical historians and librarians actually matter.

In the film, I give my take on what happened, however I don’t inform the viewers what to think about the occasions or how the films have warped historical past. This can be a poem about Wyatt Earp, not an encyclopedia. I’m supplying you with the info and we should always all have a dialogue about it. The actual danger is just not talking about history.

At the similar time, let’s have fun. I typically marvel if individuals with opposing opinions would get alongside once they realized that they all consider in UFOs.

The film also takes us by means of the very beginning of movie and its evolution as a way of storytelling – in this occasion the story of an actual historical individual. What do you assume is the subsequent wave of Westerns and filmmaking know-how and why is it essential that moviegoers proceed to be all in favour of historical past?

We like to recollect our personal lives as film scenes so it’s not a surprise to keep making these connections to historical past as entertainment. Some historic figures are so nuts, so fun, it makes a terrific film. Let’s snort and cry and study together, that’s what each films and historical past are for.

The western is such an everlasting genre and filmmakers retains pushing the limits of drama, comedy and action. I love to see crossovers with different genres. The Zellner Brothers’ ​DAMSEL (2018) is nice, principally a romantic dark-comedy in the west. The ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINE collection by Tsui Hark must be counted among the great westerns. Or just extra stories with unique characters, like Kelly Reichardt’s ​MEEK’S CUTOFF (2010). And I’m undoubtedly not the first to explore the western in a documentary—everybody ought to be watching Neil Diamond’s ​REEL INJUN (2009). Nor am I the first to do a remix, like the superb brief by Peter Tscherkassky, ​INSTRUCTIONS FOR A LIGHT AND SOUND MACHINE​ (2005).

We’d like the dystopian western. The technological advancement of the previous west was ridiculous, fueled by the gold rush. Like ​THE CITY OF LOST CHILDREN (1995) by Jeunet and Caro—you possibly can’t even tell if that’s the previous or the future, it’s so magical.

And why no more bombastic spaghetti westerns?? Just don’t use real historic names and make it bizarre.

The post Austin Film Society Interview with Mike Plante, Director of New Wyatt Earp Doc ‘And With Him Came the West’ appeared first on Black Dot Mobile.

[clubofinfo]

Expert: Fighting over the definitions of words can sometimes seem like a futile and irrelevant undertaking. However it’s important to note that whatever language gets standardized in our communities shapes what we can talk and think about. So much of radical politics often boils down to acrimonious dictionary-pounding over words like “capitalism,” “markets,” “socialism,” “communism,” “nihilism,” etc. Each side is usually engaged in bravado rather than substance. Radical debates turn into preemptive declarations of “everyone knows X” or “surely Y,” backed by nothing more than the social pressure we can bring to bear against one another. And yet — to some degree — we’re trapped in this game because acquiescing to the supposed authority of our adversaries’ definitions would put us at an unspeakable disadvantage. The stakes of debates over “mere semantics” can be quite high, determining what’s easy to describe and what’s awkward or laborious. Thus the partisan impulse is usually to define our adversaries out of existence: muddying their analytic waters, emphasizing any and all negative associations, and painting their conclusions as insane, verboten, or outgroup. At the same time we leap on any and all positive associations we can twist to serve our own ends. Debate over definitions is so often merely a game of social positioning: every word reverberating with the different associations of different audiences and thus what alliances you’re declaring or managing to ascribe to your interlocutor. Language is a messy, complicated, and nebulous place where fallacious arguments are not only par for the course but often thought to be how the whole thing hangs together. In the worst corners of academia and “radical” politics this is embraced wholesale, where philosophy is reduced to mere poetry and cheap ploys of emotive resonance: batted back and forth with an underlying smug derision at the entire affair. “Have you ever noticed that we use the same word for your job — your occupation — as we do for the occupation of Iraq?” and this is somehow treated as insightful rather than doing violence to clarity and honesty. Obviously my biases here — and social affiliations — are quite apparent. While there can be a place for rhetoric to convey emphasis and it is sometimes necessary to counter fire with fire, in general I find these opportunistic language games detestable. Whenever possible I prefer a subversive linguistic pluralism, happy to adopt the language of those I’m speaking to, declaring myself, for example, pro-“capitalism” or pro-“communism” in some contexts and against “capitalism” or against “communism” in others. If by “capitalism” some poor soul means nothing more than economic freedom then I’m fine adopting his tribe’s language to reach him — the same holds true with “communism”. Yet opportunities for such ecumenism are few and far between; even in those situations where we can escape tribal jockeying and arguments from popularity, such words almost always carry hidden baggage through their broader associations, with the explicit definition hiding the implicit conclusions of its wider use. When it comes to semantics, I’m of the opinion that our first step should always be to discard popular associations as much as possible and decipher what are the most illuminating or fundamental dynamics at play, only then attempting to realign or reserve our most basic words for the most rooted concepts. If our final mapping of concepts to terms is idiosyncratic or provocative, or if it strips away the full array of associations found in common use, then perhaps all the better. While such an approach is often contentious, I believe that it offers a relatively nonpartisan compromise and starting point in definition debates. Let us hold off as much as possible on barraging each other with claims about what’s more “authoritative,” much less what can be leveraged as proof of such, and likewise abandon the negative and positive association-judo. We can always return to this after we’ve sorted out what sort of realities are even before us to map our vocabulary to. This offers us a certain efficiency, handling some quite heavy work at the start, but at least offering us something other than an endless quagmire going forward. More important though is the danger that jumbled interpretive networks or misaligned concepts pose when normalized. Terms that fail to cut reality at the joints can mislead and obscure, make some basic realities incredibly hard to state or address. In language we should seek depth, generality, and accuracy first and foremost, not mere rhetorical expedience. There is a place for the play of “interestingly” open interpretations but such hunger should not consume us and sever our capacity to act. Democracy and Anarchy In many contemporary western societies “democracy” retains positive (if nebulous) associations. Naturally, many activists have therefore repeatedly tried to latch onto that term and redirect it in narratives or analysis that line up with their own political aspirations. “You like chocolate, right? Well anarchism is basically extra chocolately chocolate. It’s more chocolate than chocolate. It’s like direct chocolate.” This opportunistic wordplay is at least self-aware, and such maneuverings seems fair game to many. After all, isn’t “anarchy” a similarly nebulous word — a site of contention and redefinition? Yet I’d argue that the situations are quite different. The fight over “anarchy” is an inescapable one for anarchists because the world we want will never be obtainable as long as the term’s historical definition goes unchallenged. In every language that touched ancient Greek, “anarchy” bundles together the explicit definition of “without rulership” with the implicit definition of “fractured rulership” (what should really be called ‘spasarchy’) in a nasty Orwellianism that makes the concept of a world without domination unspeakable and often unthinkable. We have a term for the abolition of power relations and we use it instead to refer to chaotic, violent, dog-eat-dog situations of strong (albeit decentralized) power relations. In short, the fight over the definition of “anarchy” is a battle to untangle an existing knot. On the other hand, “democracy” tends to stand for majority rule and etymologically for the rule of all over all. If there is an Orwellianism at play it is seems to me one of being too charitable to the term, sneaking in associations of freedom when one is in fact describing a particular flavor of tyranny. A situation more akin to “war is peace” than the “freedom is slavery” is at play with “anarchy.” Honest proponents of democracy can of course contend that such an “ideal” would look nothing like our contemporary world and so the characterization of our nation states as “democracies” misrepresents what true democracy would actually be. But it would still be a dystopia to anarchists. “Rulership by the populace” is clearly a concept irreconcilable with “without rulership” unless one has atrophied to the point of accepting the nihilism of liberalism and its mewling belief in the inescapability of rulership. Or perhaps even going so far as to join with fascists and other authoritarians who silence their conscience with the ideological assertion that one cannot even limit power relations, only rearrange them. Etymology isn’t destiny but it does carry a strong momentum and corrective force. I’m not sure why we should feel obliged to fight an uphill battle to redefine “democracy” in a direction consistent with anarchist aspirations. And in any case, from an abstract distance it seems wasteful to assign two terms to the same concept. Those claiming that democracy and anarchy can be reconciled seem to either be rhetorical opportunists — gravely mistaken about what they can and should leverage — or else they seem gravely out of alignment with anarchism’s aspirations, treating “without rulership” not as a guiding star but a noncommittal handwave. Perhaps this is today the regrettable consequence of a few decades of anarchist recruitment from activist ranks, a conveyor belt that has sadly often resulted in the most shallow of conversions. Rather than a fervent ethical opposition to rulership, we’ve often settled for merely instilling a mild distaste for collaboration with the existing state on leftists, sometimes going no deeper than “you want to accomplish X with your activism but have you noticed that the state is in your way?” This has led to generations of activists — many I count as close friends — who have never considered how they might achieve their standard collection of leftist desires like universal health care in the absence of a state. When pressed they invariably describe a state apparatus, squirming in recognition and cognitive dissonance. “Oh, sure I’m describing a centralized body wielding coercive force and issuing edicts, but it wouldn’t be, you know, The State… because, like, well it wouldn’t systematically kill black people at the hands of the police.” Such an anemic analysis of the state’s crimes never ceases to be shocking. Just as the gutless defanging of anarchism’s radical ethical hunger and dismemberment of its philosophical roots to a mere political platform is invariably depressing. Let us be clear; if anarchy means anything of substance then many of these people are not really anarchists. At least not yet! They do not believe anarchy is achievable or even thinkable. And this is reflected in their own frequent aversion and/or equivocation in relation to the term “anarchy,” gravitating more to some positive associations they have seen made with it than the underlying concept of a world truly without rulership. Compared to our present society they want the things often associated with anarchism without the core that draws them. I was — for a time — hopeful that such individuals would move to the much more open term “horizontalist.” In truth they’d be better described as minarchist social democrats, who want a cuddlier, friendlier, flatter, more local and responsive state that makes people feel like happy participants and doesn’t engage in world historic atrocities. Yet for those of us who have tasted the prospect of a world without rulership, this is simply a difference in degree of dystopia. If it truly were possible to achieve some kind of enlightened social democracy without wealth inequality, systematic disenfranchisement of minorities, and with some decentralization of state function, anarchists would still go to the barricades because this is not enough. If anarchism is to mean anything of substance, it is surely not merely an opening bid from which you are happy to settle. Anarchy doesn’t stand for small amounts of domination: it stands for no domination. Although our approach to that ideal will surely be asymptotic, the whole point of anarchism is to actually pursue it rather than give up and settle for some arbitrary “good enough” half-measure. Such tepid aspirations is what has historically defined liberals and social democrats in contrast to us. But it’s important to go further, because “democracy” doesn’t solely pose a danger of half-measures but also of a unique dimension of authoritarianism. A pure expression of “the rule of all over all” could be a hell of a lot worse than “Sweden with Neighborhood Assemblies.” The etymology itself seems to best reflect a nightmare scenario in which everyone constrains and dominates everyone else. If we seek to match words to the most distinct and coherent concepts then perhaps the truest expression of “demo-cracy” would be a world where everyone is chained down by everyone else, tightening our grip on our neighbors just as they in turn choke the freedom from our lungs. To be sure few proponents of “democracy” specifically define it as “the rule of all over all.” There are many distinct dynamics that folks single out and focus on, but none of these definitions directly address the problem of rulership itself. Democracy as Majority Rule The most conventional definition of democracy among the wider populace is today quite rare in anarchist circles. At this point “majority rules” is rarely advocated by anyone in my experience outside some old fogies in the underdeveloped backwaters of the anarchist world like the British Isles, and its use in ostensibly anarchist meetings or organizations now rises to moderately scandalous. But it’s maybe worth reiterating that majority rule can be deeply oppressive to minorities. If 51% of your neighborhood committee votes to eat the other 49% alive, that’s a hell of a lot worse than a situation without majority rules where one person refuses to mow their lawn and thus unilaterally inflicts their malaesthetic on the rest of the neighborhood. Proponents of such tyranny by the majority love to pretend that the only alternative is “tyranny by the minority.” But anarchist theory is all about removing the structures and means by which rulership can be asserted or expressed by anyone, majority or minority. This is probably not the place to list them all like some kind of 101 course, but one example is superempowering technologies like guns that asymmetrically make resistance more efficient than domination. Such technologies are directly responsible for the increase of liberty over recent history. In an era where capital intensive undertakings like trained knights on horseback trumped anything else, you got rulership by elites; when the best weapons are one-kill-averaging soldiers, you just line up your troops and the one with the biggest count can be expected to win. But high-ammunition guns give every individual a veto against the lynch mob outside their door, allowing guerrillas to impede empires that vastly outscale them in capital. Technologies like the printing press and internet function similarly. And on the other side of the coin, the infrastructural extent and dependent nature of modern technologies of control or domination makes them brittle against resistance, easily prey to acts of disruption and sabotage. These tools — along with technologies of resilience and self-sufficiency — allow individuals to reject the capricious edicts of anyone, be they a minority or a majority. Ideally anarchists seek to highlight and strengthen such dynamics with the political approaches we take, treating everyone like they have the most powerful of vetoes, capable of destroying everything, of grinding everything to a halt if they are truly intolerably imposed upon. This focus on individuals stops “the community” or other beasts from running rampant, forcing a detente tolerable for all parties. Such truces are far more likely to be attentive to the severity of individual desires, because “one vote per person” is incapable of reflecting just how much a person has at stake: something we could never hope to make objective and would be laughable to try to have a collective body legislate. What norms fall out of such an assumption of veto powers are complex (and I’ve argued left market property norms are likely to be one) but at the center is always freedom of association. The consensus society is one primarily comprised of autonomous realms so that individuals can minimize conflict between their swinging fists and maximize the positive freedoms provided by collaboration. But note also the psychological norms. Majority rule treats people as means to whatever ends you want (rallying a large enough army at the polls), whereas a consensus detente can never lose sight of the fact that people are agents with their own particular desires. There is no subsumption of one’s subjective desires into merely being “one of the vote-losers”, a bloc rendered homogeneous and dehumanized by such democracy. Okay agree some, but maybe we can say that consensus itself is democracy? Democracy as Consensus This is probably the most charitable way of framing “democracy” but here too are deep problems. There’s a massive difference between consensus that’s arrived at through free association, and consensus that’s arrived because people are locked into some collective body to some degree. Often what passes for “consensus” within anarchist activist projects is merely consensus within the prison of a reified organization. Modern anarchists are still quite bad at embracing the fluidity of truly free association, and we cling to familiar edifices. Our organizations reassure us insofar as they function like the state, simplistic monoliths that exist outside of time and beyond the changing desires and relations of their constituent members. Truly anarchist approaches to consensus would prioritize making the collectivity organic and ad hoc, an arrangement that prioritizes individual choice in every respect. Not just the prospect or potential of choice but the active use of it. This would mean adopting an unterrified attitude about dissolution and reformation, learning new habits and growing new muscles that have atrophied in the totalitarian reference frame of our statist world. As it now stands, the prospect of going separate ways on a thing if we can’t reach consensus on a single collectively unified path strikes absolute fear into the hearts of most. For consensus to be truly anarchistic we must be willing to consense upon autonomy, to shed off our reactionary hunger for established perpetual collective entities. Otherwise consensus will erode back in the direction of majority rules, individuals feeling obliged to tolerate decisions lest they break the uniformity of the established collective. Almost everyone of this generation is quite familiar with the general assemblies of Occupy that endlessly and fruitlessly fought over essentially just what actions would be formally endorsed under a local Occupy’s brand. Clearly in many cases we should have just gone our separate ways, working out not a single blueprint but a tolerable treaty to allow us to undertake separate projects or actions. The brand provided by The General Assembly was a centralization too far, creating such a high value real estate that everyone was obliged to fight to seize it. Surely anarchists should resist the formation of such black holes. Okay, but regardless of the size and permanence of the collectives involved, maybe democracy is just collective decision-making itself? Democracy as Collective Decision-making While there are unfortunately many pragmatic contexts on Earth that oblige a degree of collective decision-making, it’s dangerous to fetishize collective decision-making itself. Many young leftist activists get caught with a bug that suggests the core problems with our world are those of “individualism” by which they mean a kind of psychopathic self-interest that is inattentive to others. The solution, this bug tells them, is to do everything collectively. To stomp out anti-social perspectives by obliging social participation. If we all go to meetings together then we’ll become more or less friends. The unspoken transmutation they appeal to is one where extraversion and being enmeshed in social interactions will somehow suppress selfish desires. Of course in reality the opposite is often true. The most altruistic people in the world are often introverted individuals who prefer to act alone and the most psychopathic predators are often those most at home manipulating a web of social relations. Many leftists are scarred by the alienating social dynamics of our society and seek meetings as a kind of structured socializing time to make friends and conjure a sense of belonging to a community, but this is absolutely not the same thing as engendering a sense of altruism or empathy. If anything collective meetings are horrible draining experiences that scar everyone involved and only partially satiate the most isolated and socially desperate. Like a starving person eating grass, the nutrition is never good enough and so the activist becomes trapped in endless performative communities, going to endless group meetings to imperfectly reassure base psychological needs rather than efficaciously change the world for the better. (I say such cutting words with all the love and sympathy of someone who’s nevertheless persisted as an activist and organizer attempting to do shit for almost two decades.) Collective decision-making itself is no balm or salve to the horrors that plague this world. But that’s not even the worst of it. Collective decision-making is itself fundamentally constraining. It frequently makes situations worse in its attempt to make decisions as a collective rather than autonomously as networked individuals. The processing of information is the most important dynamic to how our societies are structured. A boss in a large firm for example appoints middle managers to filter and process information because a raw stream of reports from the shop floor would be too overwhelming for his brain to analyze. There are many ways in which aspects of the flow of information constrain social organizations, but when it comes to collective decision-making the most relevant thing is the vast difference between the complexity our brains are capable of holding and the small trickle of that complexity we are capable of expressing in language. As a rule, individuals are better off with the autonomy to just act in pursuit of their desires rather than trying to convey them in their full unknowable complexity. But when communication is called for it’s far far more efficient to speak in pairs one-on-one, and let conclusions percolate organically into generality. “Collective” decision-making almost always assumes a discussion with more than two people — a collective — in an often incredibly inefficient arrangement where everyone has to put their internal life in stasis and listen to piles of other people speak one at a time. The information theoretic constraints are profound. If collective decision-making is supposed to provide us with the positive freedoms possible through collaboration, it offers only the tiniest fraction of what is usually actually possible. That there are occasionally situations so shitty that collective decisionmaking is requisite does not mean anarchists should worship or applaud it. And one would be hardpressed to classify something far more general like collaboration itself as “democracy”. Okay, but maybe we can reframe democracy as an ethics? Democracy As “Getting a Say in the Things That Affect You” It got particularly popular in the 90s to frame anarchy as a world where everyone gets a say in the things that affect them. And for a time this seemed to nicely establish anarchism as a kind of unterrified feminism. But let’s be real: there are plenty of things that massively affect you that you should have no vote over. Whether or not your crush goes out with you should entirely be at their own discretion. Freedom of association is quite often sharply at odds with “getting a say over things that affect you.” This may seem in conflict with the moral we drew from our discussion of consensus and the necessity to create a detente grounded in a respect for individual vetoes, but it’s important to remember that we weren’t settling for the naive first-order resolution where anyone strongly affected by something sets off a nuke. There’s a kind of meta-structure that emerges in any network of people upon consideration. The detentes we ultimately gravitate to involve certain more abstract norms, that are more generally useful to all than their violation in specific instances. Respect for freedom of association is one such very strongly emergent norm. And in any case the goal of anarchists is freedom, we champion a decentralized world — among other conditions — precisely so that it might dramatically increase our freedom, not chain us down. This means at the very least cultivating a culture of live and let live when someone blocks you on Twitter rather than setting the world ablaze because you feel entitled to their attention. Similarly if everyone in your generation starts using Snapchat — which you dislike — that puts you at a disadvantage: such an emergent norm clearly affects you in a negative way. But this doesn’t and shouldn’t give you cause to bring your peers before the city council and demand that Snapchat be outlawed. The norms of freedom of association, freedom of information, and bodily autonomy cleave out distinct realms of action that can affect third parties immensely yet should not — barring absolutely extreme situations — be dictated or constrained by them. Every invention and discovery changes the world but you don’t get to vote against the propagation of truth, however disruptive it might be to your life. Okay, but maybe we can reframe democracy as not as any kind of system but as a demographic? Democracy as “The Rabble” In recent times David Graeber has re-popularized the historical association of “democracy” with large underclasses. And it’s true that in certain points in history “democracy” served alongside “anarchy” as a boogeyman of the horrors they were claimed would arise if the ruling elites lost their stranglehold on the populace. Certainly we anarchists leap to defend the unwashed masses from those sneering elites. The prospect that the rabble would demolish the elites’ positions of power or get up to dirty and uncouth things with their freedom is something we embrace. But just because we despise those who despise “the rabble” doesn’t mean we should embrace any and all mobs or the concept of “the mob” itself. The positives that can be wrestled from this use of the term surely aren’t worth explicitly opening the door to “mobocracy”. This archaic use of “democracy” has obvious subversive potential in our present world, flipping the positive affect built around “democracy” by our current rulers and returning it to those in conflict with them. But anarchists are not blind proponents of “the masses” in any and all situations, something this rhetorical opportunism would lock us into. The masses can be horrifically wrong, and what is popularly desired can be quite unethical. It’s not vanguardism to resist pogroms or work to thwart the genocidal ambitions of majorities like in Rwanda. There are endless examples of “the masses” seeking to dominate, and our goal as anarchists is not to pick sides but to make such rulership impossible or at the very least costly. Anarchists aren’t engaged in team sports; while we often defend underdogs in specific contexts, we’re not out to back one demographic against another in any kind of fundamental way. Okay, but does “democracy” still have a role as a transitory state? Democracy as a Transitory State This is a complicated issue because obviously it depends on a host of abstract and practical particulars. We’ve covered a lot of different definitions one encounters among apologists for “democracy” in anarchist circles, and what I’ve tried to highlight among all of them is both a lack of any explicit anti-authoritarianism as well as a series of lurking problems that risk warping things in an authoritarian direction. In some situations, certain things going by the name “democracy” would likely pose half-steps in the direction of anarchism. The replacement of a feudal lord with a village assembly would almost certainly be an improvement. We can get distracted with concerns about possible failure modes and lose sight of what’s actually happening on the ground. Just because the democratic processes of Rojava could theoretically bend in a more sharply nationalistic or racially oppressive direction doesn’t mean that they actually are. There are many situations where participatory democracy represents a major step forward, even something anarchists should fight for with our lives. But when democracy is idealized — when it’s generalized or elevated as an ideology rather than as a pragmatic strategy in a specific context — things gets dangerous. The risk of such idealization is inherent to its use. And oftentimes democracy serves as a half-measure that actually impedes further progress. The Chomskyian strategy of compromise and “incremental steps” that secure bread today can actually further entrench power structures while providing minor ameliorations. Democracy is in almost every definition a kind of centralization and such centralization pulls everything under its control. Just as with other types of states, once you establish a centralized system with far-reaching capacity it starts to become more efficient for individual agents to try to do everything through the state: to capture it for your ends rather than working to build solutions from the roots up outside of it. Even those with sharp anarchist ideals start feeling the pressure to go to the General Assembly rather than doing things outside of it as actual agents. Like shooting people, in our messy and deeply dystopian world democracy may sometimes be necessary and strategic, but as anarchists our every inclination and instinct should be to avoid such means by default, to only cede to them kicking and screaming, and never cease feeling distaste. We must not lose sight of our ideals and even as we can only asymptotically approach them we must still attempt to asymptotically approach them rather than asymptotically approaching some halfway point. And of course let us not forget that a world where say a social democrat like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn gets their way might even actually end up worse than our present horrorshow. Liberal and socialist policies have a long history of making worse the things they were supposedly out to fix. Okay, but isn’t that unfair since the whole point is direct democracy? A Note About “Directness” It’s annoying how often young activists attempt to create a spectrum of democracy with varying levels of mediation or representation that places anarchy as synonymous with the most direct democracy. It’s true that depending upon a representative to speak on your behalf is an insanely inefficient approach — anyone who’s dealt even just with spokescouncils pooling few dozen people knows this. We know that due to the shallow bandwidth of human language, conversation itself is ridiculously inefficient at a means of conveying the fullness of our internal desires and perspectives, so delegating to someone else with only the vaguest of outlines of what you want is surely much worse. But what I find particularly pernicious about the reduction of anarchism to a mere “direct” qualifier on “democracy” is that it plays into a fetishization of immediacy that has already ideologically metastasized among anarchists, indeed often among those more insurrectionary or individualist figures on the other side of the debate over “democracy”. The issue with representation in my mind isn’t the lack of immediacy but a matter of limits to the flow of information. It’s a subtle but crucial difference. A number of anarchists or former anarchists have in recent years increasingly grown to treat immediacy as the secret sauce — the very definition of freedom. This stems from a philosophical confusion over what freedom is and a very continental or psychological focus upon emotional affect, focusing on a phenomenological experience they associate with “freedom” — that is to say a kind of spontaneity or impulsive reaction rather than reflection (since in our present world reflection often brings to attention just how constrained we actually are). To consider an action is precisely to chain it through a series of mediations, to filter and parse it. It’s important to note that the reactionary approach smothers one’s internal complexity, ultimately reducing an agent to a mere billiard ball. When treated as an ideal, immediacy necessarily involves the suppression of consciousness and thus of choice. The problem with collective decisionmaking isn’t that the discrete deliberative bodies involved process information or ponder choices, but that such arrangements are ridiculously inefficient at it compared to individual autonomy: an embrace of the full agency of their constituents. A more organic network of reflective individuals would provide more choice — that is to say more freedom. Against All Rulership, Always To people in the trenches just trying to grab whatever weapons they find useful, all this philosophical criticism of “democracy” no doubt appears to be an ungainly impediment. But anarchism is not a pragmatic project myopically concerned only with what can be won here and now. Our most famous triumphs have been our foresight — often our predictions of dangers to come from various stripes of “pragmatism” and “immediacy.” Anarchism is a philosophy of infinite horizons, taking the longest and widest possible scope. An ethical philosophy of stunning and timeless audacity, not some historical artifact trapped in a limited set of concerns. This sweeping consideration is what enabled us to correctly predict the failures of Marxism, and it’s a tradition worth maintaining. Bakunin’s denouncement of Marx took place in a context long before Kronstadt and all the atrocities that would eventually become popularly synonymous with Marxism. Such “abstract philosophy” and non-immediacy split the ranks of those fighting against the capitalist order, weakening what they could bring to bear in the service of workers’ lives that very minute. And yet the world is clearly all the better for it. Thanks to the anarchist schism with Marxism, the struggle for freedom was able to survive. I’m not saying that a system of direct democratic town councils are going to be set up somewhere in the world tomorrow under the banner of “direct democracy” and turn genocidal or into some kind of totalitarian small town nightmare, but every take on “democracy” is nevertheless pretty distant from anarchy and thus unlikely to stay true. When your ideal isn’t pointed at freedom itself it’s only a matter of time before the runaway compounding processes of domination warp its path. I am, at the end of the day, happy to grimace slightly and move along when some comrade I’m working with spouts something about “more democratic than democracy!” just as I’m capable of biting my tongue with the sincere but confused trapped in Marxist or anarcho-capitalist languages. Semantic battles are not the be-all and end-all, but attempts to appropriate the general goodwill towards “democracy” have yet to latch onto any underlying concepts worth validating. It seems to me that a far better practice is to stick somewhere close to the etymology of the word (the rule of all over all) and its near universal associations (majority rule). One might object on the semantic grounds that it’s better to assign our words to their most positive possible interpretations, but I do think it’s important to have words for bad things, to be able to describe the array of possibilities we oppose with any sort of detail. It’s important to be able to see and comprehend the various flavors oppressive systems can take. Even if we don’t presently live in a full-blown democracy with all the horrors of a true domination of all over all, it’s still an illuminating extreme and one that I think warrants highlighting. Anarchism’s uniqueness is that it doesn’t seek to equalize rulership but to demolish it, a radical aspiration that cuts through the assumptions of our dystopian world. Anarchism isn’t about achieving a balance of domination — assuring that each person gets 5.2 milliHitlers of oppression each — but about abolishing it altogether. --- Mutual Exchange is C4SS’s goal in two senses: We favor a society rooted in peaceful, voluntary cooperation, and we seek to foster understanding through ongoing dialogue. Mutual Exchange will provide opportunities for conversation about issues that matter to C4SS’s audience. Online symposiums will include essays by a diverse range of writers presenting and debating their views on a variety of interrelated and overlapping topics, tied together by the overarching monthly theme. C4SS is extremely interested in feedback from our readers. Suggestions and comments are enthusiastically encouraged. If you’re interested in proposing topics and/or authors for our program to pursue, or if you’re interested in participating yourself, please email C4SS’s Mutual Exchange Coordinator, Cory Massimino, at cory.massimino@c4ss.org. http://clubof.info/