#it's just that in addition to not being interested in it it's a lot of work

[lesbiansforboromir]

Alright, I saw too many posts about DA4 and the pressure valve on dragon age opinions burst so I'm breaking my silence about mage discourse.

One day someone at bioware, can't remember who, made the worst possible PR decision and openly declared mages as an allegory for mental illness. It has all been downhill from there. Quite literally I could not be less interested in treating mages and mental illness as even tangentally related. Within the canon of DA, mages are people who literally have demons speaking to them, can literally become possessed by demons, and who are literally dangerous in extremely real and unavoidable ways even without the demon stuff. Lobotomies not only exist, but also work, the 'tranquil' are no longer plagued by the demons, nor do they have the powers of fireball anymore. It's like they called the 1300's and asked a witch hunter to write this.

And I am absolutely certain this framing is extremely cathartic for some people to relate too. Themactically speaking, turning all the dials up on a social issue for a fantasy world will always resonate with many of the victims of that issue. There is something impactful about taking all the insane stereotypes society has created around your lived experience, deciding they're real in an imaginary world and then playing out scenarios where you deal with them. God only knows gay people love vampires and werewolves.

But in that case it also has to be understood that others will not like it, or find it cathartic at all. The sticking point for me is probably the fact that mages are immensely powerful, something I find so egregiously unrelatable that any possible power fantasy it might be tempting me into just evaporates. And then of course there is Tevinter, which if we're following the allegorical logic is a state ruled by the mentally ill whom have 'embraced their demons' and so are now ruling an empire built on the enslavement of the 'pure' and 'untainted undemonic' population. Which I feel like, if we're weighing the mage narrative on the merit of it's being a cathartic themactic framing, is stretching the concept quite thin.

So I've always experienced mage based narratives as entirely seperate from their irl allegories at least emotionally, even if cognitively I do understand the parallels. And when you look at it like that, so sorry, it actually is a grey moral issue. If there were people in real life who could, without any additional equipment or technology, just create a fire/lightning storm from thin air, that on it's own would be a problem society would have to grapple with solving. You could not just let people with such power live under the same rules as everyone else. Like Wynne as a child nearly burned a barn down and scarred another child. These are not hypothetical issues within the canon.

And somewhat unrelated side tangent but I've seen people say, without an ounce of irony, 'magic doesn't kill people, people kill people' as an argument against the need for magic control. Which is just a fascinating framing all by itself, given the only difference between guns and DA magic is that one is an external tool and the other is built into select people. AND given that witholding gun licenses from the so called 'mentally disturbed' is an often advocated for policy... it's just kind of ironic is all!

Anyway the POINT is this is kind of frustrating to me because technically the mages COULD be a fun little play pretend thought morality experiment. This IS a difficult problem to solve, DA rightly engages with the fact that any institution created to control a subsection of people will create an environment of horrific abuse and dehumanisation. And that is only doubled with the introduction of religious control. When presented neutrally this is a 'do you sacrifice the few for the sake of the many' quandary with a lot of interesting caviates. IS it for the sake of the many? Would the actual number of people harmed by mages really exceed the number of mages themselves? Are we not just sacrificing the peace and freedom of many people for a hypothetical? But IS it a hypothetical since the slaver empire ruled by mages exists? But the hypothetical in the other direction isn't a hypothetical either, since the mage rebellion also exists and arguably did greater harm than free mages might have otherwise! But is that true? What about all the years worth of people in history hypothetically saved from harm by the strict control over mages? Isn't pushing for a more ethical circle a better plan than total abolishion? But is an ethical circle even possible given the cultural position mages hold? But in that case are free mages really going to be able to lead peaceful lives anyway? Doesn't the circle also protect them? But that is a situation the circle created and enforced right? Or is it? Since, once again, Demons definitely exist and mages have become possessed by them for centuries, and other mages have used their powers to dominate and abuse others in the past!

Theoretically, two people with exactly the same humanitarian purposes could argue the opposite ends of this debate in good faith, which is a fantasy. Because in the real world no one is born with a body inherrently able to cause more harm than the majority of other bodies. In fact, the opposite is true, people are born with more vulnerable bodies than the majority and are oppressed for it, their vulnerability taken advantage of by the dominant states in order to further those state's agendas in some way or other. Oppression does not have a 'good reason' to exist that originates from the oppressed class, those supposed reasons are fabricated after the fact to justify oppression in the minds of the general populace whom hold themselves to moral standards that a State does not. So, inherrently, the mages in DA are a fantasy idea and should be thought of as such.

But, amongst many DA fans, this is not the case. We've all seen people argue without irony that NOT taking a moral stance on the side of the mages and against the circles reflects badly upon your actual IRL moral compass. And it's not just that you cannot be pro-templar, even being neutral about it or finding the pro-mage characters or the mage narrative uninteresting is treated as an immoral action. People will ask things like 'who would even side with Meredith?' or 'does anyone even save the templars in DAI?' as if the choices you make narratively in a game have to be a moral judgement! Which we all know is nothing new in terms of fandom discourse, but within the mage/templar discussion it is so pervasive and so volatile that it makes it worth noting.

And like, obviously 'people get too serious about fiction on the internet' is such a non-issue that it's barely worth talking about. But I do find it interesting nonetheless as it's been a major part of my experience of being in the DA fandom, which now spans longer than a decade of my life (screams).

People have told me that I shouldn't treat this narrative theme as debatable because they relate to mage struggles as an autistic. And at the time I was pretty young and didn't really have a response to that other than a vague but powerful sense of discomfort. Nowadays, when I'm pretty sure I'm also autistic, I realise I was made deeply uncomfortable by the idea that there was anything relatable for me within the mage narrative. I do not have magic powers and I can't blow people up with my mind, I can't even get out of bed most days. Most people feel like mages to me just for being able to work a job or take care of themselves without help. And narratives of oppression that surround people with inherrent powers that far exceed anyone else just do not resonate! Which ultimately is just a reinforcement of the concept that the way people engage with fiction is not equivalent to actual real social issues, and really should not be treated as such.

[nocturnowlette]

I’m unsure if someone’s asked you this already, but have you ever encountered any subjects who have had a very hard time responding to your inductions and suggestions, or just dropping in general? And if so, what did you do to create an environment in where the subject could more easily be hypnotized by you? (i.e. what methods did you change, what did you talk about with your subject when receiving feedback, etc.)

I realize the answer probably varies from subject to subject but I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this nonetheless.

This might sound a bit braggadocios. but I truly don't mean it like this: I have never found a subject that I failed to put into trance.

Hypnosis uses a bunch of functions of our minds that we use thousands to millions of times a day outside of trance, and we just utilize them intentionally. All the pieces are there outside of extreme exceptions.

That being said, some respond better than others, and each person requires a long pre-talk.

The method I almost always use is explaining my methodology and understanding of hypnosis while simultaneously doing it to them in order to demonstrate. It informs them of how it works which is cool, gives me an excuse to rant about a special interest, and clears up misconceptions that would create cognitive dissonance in the subject if it didn't align with what they were feeling.

It serves the additional purpose of giving a "proof of concept" as it were to the subject, showing that it's not some far off thing, and it's in fact very possible to drop into trance.

For new subjects, I stick to a few visuals or methods I know work for me.

One is a bubble visual, another is having them focus a lot on my voice and trying to "recreate" it in their mind to echo me, another is using the visual of forming focus into an orb in their mind that stirs their thoughts around.

I don't tend to form too many triggers the first time around, but I do explain the importance of memory recall in returning to trance, then use the visual of a polaroid camera to "snap" pictures of their state in their mind and store it in memory, making it far easier for them to return in the future.

[anghraine]

I've been moving and navigating further departmental nonsense etc (my pseudo-dissertation got approved for defending, though! l o l). But it was interesting to see the Worst P&P Takes poll I reblogged accumulating more results and the general tenor of responses in the notes.

I mean, the results are definitely to be expected if you're familiar with the side of Austen fandom doing a lot of the reblogging etc. But still, interesting!

Many Tumblr polls specify that they're asking about personal preferences that may be irrational—favorite/least favorite, coolest/most annoying, or something like that. This one, though, asked for the worst interpretation of P&P, not the most annoying one—and the current leader is "Darcy is never really proud, he's just shy and probably has anxiety" against some very steep competition on the Bad Takes front.

I was thinking about why that seemed a kind of tediously predictable choice even though I agree that the take is wrong, and realized that while I do disagree with the shy Darcy interpretation and I particularly disagree with the specific formulation where he is never proud at all, it ultimately feels to me like a failure of nuance rather than just completely wrongheaded like some of the others. And this is probably my fundamental difference with a lot of Darcy takes I see!

In my opinion, a character who is introverted and who feels awkward in various social situations and who doesn't like common social activities and who has to work himself up to talking to his crush and who is repeatedly suggested to behave very differently in contexts where he's more comfortable being interpreted as shy and anxious is not that big of a leap.

Yes, it's important that he is actually fundamentally confident and haughty, that he makes his personal feelings of discomfort other people's problem, and that he thinks he's such a unique and special butterfly that he doesn't need to even put in an effort outside his personal social circle. But it's a misreading that is easy to follow (and long predates the 2005 P&P, as I've mentioned before!).

The additional misreading that a shy and anxious Darcy is also never proud at all is a much more drastic leap, and in my experience, condemnations of shy Darcy interpretations rarely differentiate between "Darcy is shy as well as arrogant" and "Darcy is shy rather than arrogant" as interpretations (although their basic arguments are quite different). But even that as the worst possible misreading of P&P when Darcy is not even the main character is ?????????

I mean, for one alternative (not even the one I voted for!), the idea that Elizabeth is an author avatar Mary Sue seems a far worse misreading of P&P than basically anything to do with Darcy at all. The center piece of the entire novel is Elizabeth's epiphany of self-knowledge about her own shortcomings that do not particularly resemble Austen's at all, but were ethically a concern for her, and she's a complex, interesting character in general whom Austen correctly regarded as a major achievement. Inverting that into Elizabeth as an improbably perfect, reality-warping self-insert is deeply wrong and frankly pretty misogynistic as well.

(ngl though, it's a little funny to see such a blatantly terrible reading of Elizabeth rank so far behind the shy Darcy votes. I've gotten "does anyone actually think/say that?" so many times on my posts about Austen fandom's prioritization of Darcy's character development over Elizabeth's and yet...)

And even just going with the Darcy-centric misreadings, the idea of Darcy as a "bad boy" seems easily the most absolutely wrong take on him. His pride is at least complicated and the finer points can be fairly debated and it's a quality that actually changes somewhat throughout the novel, and you can have discussion over what happened when, whose testimonies should be weighted more, etc. But there is no point at which "bad boy" isn't utterly wrong for him. However, there's definitely a tendency in some wings of the fandom to find the idea of Darcy being misread too favorably more objectionable than him being read too unfavorably, regardless of the particulars, so it's not a surprise.

I suppose you could argue about what "worst" means in the context of variously bad interpretations. Like, is an interpretation that is about a fairly trivial aspect of the book but extremely wrong about it "worse" than an interpretation that is pretty bad but at least comprehensibly so about something very important?

[the-valiant-valkyrie]

comparing and contrasting them inside of my mind

[upsidedowngrass]

yknow i wonder HOW airy found out about bryce having thalassophobia. cus the existence of the database implies that, with the computer, airy had SOME sort of access to information about the contestants, and with a record of charlotte having been briefly jailed and the fact that hes able to make a site, id imagine it probably has to do with some sort of access to earths internet. even with the more confusing things that he found, like where people lived, they can be explained as the computer simply saying a persons location, maybe? and the pictures i simply imagine are whatever record anywhere he could find of them. still though, its mildly confusing. but bryces thalassophobia is the MOST confusing thing for him to know about any of the contestants, especially since airy seems to not read other peoples fears well, so even if he couldve somehow seen the contestants in their lives somehow before he brought them, theres no way he wouldve picked up on bryce not only having a fear, but i dont think airy would pick up on it being a phobia more specifically. but then how would he have found out about it? did bryce post about it somewhere? mention it somewhere? how much DOES the computer have access to things? i dont have answers to these questions but i sure think about it a lot

[falled-over]

since pepper was asking for it something that girls do that always makes me think 'cool gender' is not change their names despite it being historically masculine and re-defining the name through their identity and relationship to it.

[gideonisms]

I also think that maybe my idea of repression is a bit different than what sometimes gets presented as repressed because it's like. Repression refers to the process of holding back or ignoring things but what those things are varies wildly from person to person. For some people, if you got rid of the repression, there's a fun-loving, sensory stimulation seeking person underneath. But I think that a lot of times, what we repress has to do with what the people around us expect. sometimes what's under there is a really deep frustration, or a list of ways that the world is overwhelming and exhausting, or the realization that you've been seeking out experiences not because you want them but because they were a compromise between what you actually wanted and what you thought you could get. Anyway this post is basically the lead-up to saying that if harrow was less repressed, she probably wouldn't have metaphorically fucked ianthe in the first place. the fact that harrow isn't in touch with her feelings in htn is a big part of the reason the bone arm sex even happened

[ereborne]

Song of the Day: April 15

"Something in the Way She Moves" by James Taylor

[waterloggedtomorrow]

Okay so my finals are due mostly on Sunday and I am done with two of them except for some formatting + submission bc they are group projects. But I am done w them. Then I have the one paper that is done + also I should do some editing on it but it's not critical so I'm leaving that until after I have finished the Last paper which is the one I did all the other work in order to avoid + now have to Face.

I have been working on it for several hours now + am definitely making progress though I'm not yet halfway there. The other thing is that I basically know what I'm writing for the first half + have only the vaguest of ideas for the second. I think it should be pretty straightforward when I get there, but?

I am gonna eat some lunch + then finish the first section + look @ + outline the second section + then if I want to leave that for tomorrow I think probably that's fine.

[cosmicdreamgrl]

something i thought about after giffing the my time performance yesterday? the way everyone treats it like a thirst trap (ya'll think i don't see your tags when you reblog the set but i do) plays into the exact commentary it's trying to convey, and that's really sad tbh

[hexcitrine]

randomly looked at this account to update my age and holy shit it's been a while since i posted here..........i have a small pile of art i have yet to post but hbhbshdbshbd too lazy

[eastcoastkid]

Those of yall still bitching about the addition of the boys even after the cancellation are the weakest link

[incorrectskyrimquotes]

HUGE credit to the mod author of birthright for accurate runes.

[hiruzensux]

.

[cats-in-the-clouds]

it’s all been said before but the whole pronouns thing for some people is getting so ridiculous it’s honestly just sad

[homeinchaldea]

Took around 100 tickets and 400+ SQs, but I finally got the Gundam Archer.

One regret assuaged