#like someone makes a theory on twitter and society goes wild

[paladin-n-cleric]

“new theory (eddie is alive) goes viral” and byler tumblr has had hundreds of brilliant theories for 5 years

[justmairead-stuff]

Harry and Meghan

So I’ve just finished the Oprah interview (from the UK) and have so many thoughts and feelings that I want to share. Since all other social media platforms are currently on fire I feel like this is a place where I can freely share my thoughts. So here goes...

The first thing I’ll say is that I may be a little biased. As Irish catholic I wouldn’t exactly call myself pro-royal, and I only watch the crown because it exposes some truth on the shit show that is the royals.

My overwhelming reaction to the interview is anger. No one should have to go through what Meghan went through. The racism and stigmas she faced are abhorrent and vile, and the reaction that some of the British public and the media are currently displaying just shows that she wasn’t lying. Twitter is running wild with theories that this was all fabricated, and that she’s acting, but the way it’s being reported show’s you it’s not. I’m sickened that someone could be treated this way.

But then I remember Diana. Someone who was initially welcomed into the family, but after her Australian tour things changed. She suffered from bulimia, but was offered no support. And it’s not hard to see how, as Harry said ‘history was repeating itself’. Meghan was initially welcomed by the family, went on the Australian tour and then everything changed. She was vilified to the point of contemplating suicide, but also told she couldn’t get help. Say what you will about their motives to leave the royal family, but it is clear that Harry saw what was happening and chose to protect his wife the way his father hadn’t.

And now all the gammons on Twitter and Facebook are out in force saying how ‘it isn’t the right time because Phillip is ill’, ‘she’s acting, they’re doing it for money’ and Piers bloody Morgan basically calling her a liar. They all seem to think this was some attack on the royal family, when in fact the interview shows the opposite. Harry and Meghan still love their family, and want to continue and heal those relationships. They speak so highly of the queen and say they have a closer relationship with her now than they have in years. People who say this was all about attacking them are missing the point, because the interview brought up several key issues.

Mental health; Institutional Racism; Misogyny, and the ongoing onslaught of hate and vitriol from the British media.

These are all systemic problems in Britain that need to be addressed, but are constantly overlooked. Harry has always been an advocate for mental health, and here he is once again detailing how the media pushed him and his wife to the edge. Meghan was so brave to talk about her experiences with mental health, and today on international women’s day, social media is filled with hate for a woman who hasn’t done anything to deserve it. Our Prime minister calls Muslim people ‘postboxes’ and the royals denied an unborn child a title because they were worried about the colour of his skin. Anyone who says Britain isn’t racist is lying to themselves, and that’s before we even recognise our history of slavery and colonialism. Plus, the press are raging over Meghan and Harry leaving, but no one seems to want to discuss that Prince Andrew is literally a NONCE!! How is that not a double standard.

People will disagree, but I see this as a generational problem. My parents are the same- brought up thinking racism is ok and that women are less than. They too are expressing their hatred towards Meghan because ‘she turned harry against his family’ and ‘why does she need to expose them?’ The generations growing up now want a different narrative. We recognise that Racism, Sexism and stigmas around mental health are all wrong and things need to change. We change things by having conversations about these key issues, educating others that don’t understand, and ultimately bringing awareness to prejudice. And that’s what they did. They broke down barriers and started a conversation about what is fundamentally wrong with this country, so that we can look inward and start to make changes within our society because that is the only way we move forward.

Rant over.

[doodlingadventures]

BOTW2 Theory time!

I may have had a moment of galaxy brain (hours before the nintendo direct and I don’t remember typing it xD) over on twitter and I want to elaborate on the theory I have now that we could see the teaser!

Ok so, after seeing the trailer, I still don’t think it’s gonna be the whole time on the past, but I still think we’re gonna be mind-traveling back in time in some sections, using the memories sistem from the first game. Only, instead of experiencing it as a cinematic, you play through it as the “original character”. If you’ve ever played memories sections on a video game, or the first games of the Assassin’s Creed saga, you know how that goes: you’ve got a clear objective and a few things you cannot do because the character didn’t do them. Obviously Breath of the Wild stands out for the freedom it gives you in completing most tasks, so I think the limitations on this case would just be “don’t die” or “don’t fall from the sky” xDD

I think this because the trailer very pointedly differentiates the Link from the skies from the Link on the ground (or No-Ponytail link and normal Link) using the green garb and the champions garb.

If you check the trailer, you’ll notice that Sky Link always wears green and ground Link wears blue, even if skies Link’s boots sometimes change, both maintaining the “cursed arm” (have you noticed how we never see their face after the cave scene is over?). Maybe it’s because to do the sky stuff you need that special garb, but if you look at the tapestry from the original game

You’ll see that the ancient hero wears blue, white AND green (also the glowy yellow hand). This is why I think present Link is seeing the memories of the ancient hero trought the sky trials (to give them a name). In this case he is not proving himself, like he was during the Sheikah shrines, he is gaining the knowledge/power neccessary to seal Ganon once more. Obviously we’re playing through it, but by videogame logic, that’s how it was originally done because it’s the original character doing it, so we’re learning of it. Maybe we’ll even unlock cinematic memories as the trial is completed or in another way, seeing as that’s how the original also told us part of its story.

I also think green cloth Link is the ancient hero because of how Ganondorf looks.

No, not the dried bacon skin! xD I mean their clothes! They’re both that one shoulder free plus skirt style

You can see sky Link’s brown cloth under the green part. It’s more or less the same style of garb, with the difference of Ganon’s being longer, and more decorated with gold and stuff (which makes sense if Ganon the Gerudo King in this game too, nothing shows your status like jewels).

This detail would technically make sense if they’re from the same era, and, especially, if they’re from the same society/group of people.... <  <

Which takes me to my next part of my theory! And pure speculation territory xD

Ok, the green glow, the cursed arm, the ghost arm. What the hell is this (aside from the obvious substitute of the Sheikah slate) and why is it there?

There are small glimpses of it during the trailer, that the sky constructs seem to work with the same energy of the arm/seal of Ganon

(which, again, sheikah slate 2.0) but, why did it exist, why is just an arm what seals Ganon, and why does the depiction of the ancient hero show him with a glowy yellow hand? Is it their actual arm but with runes, or is it like a prosthetic?

Ok, so, my theory is that it is actually a sort of magic prosthetic. What if the ancient hero lost his arm for a specific reason, and the people that used this green magic (The Zonai maybe) not only gave him a new arm so that he could have two arms again, but for the explicit purpose of stopping and sealing Ganon. Something that seems it’s what’s going to happen to present time Link, the malice takes away his arm, and he gets it replaced by the seal arm.

Maybe, like with present Link, the reason Ancient hero lost his arm too was because of Ganon, but just not in a lost battle or something.

We’ve already seen on the first BOTW that each race and group of people, while living on the same period, they wear different and characteristic styles of clothing. Think the difference between the Hylians and Sheikah, the first wear a more medieval-european style of clothing (mostly) and the second it’s lightly inspired by traditional japanese (and the ninja theme). And when you look at the Gerudo, the Rito or the Zora (what little clothing they wear xD), again, it’s completely different from one another. So it’s not too wild to assume that maybe if Ancient hero and mummy Ganon have a similar clothing style, they were part of a same group. Which is curious because we know this Ganon is Gerudo, he wears gerudo symbols on jewels and clothing, and ancient hero was almost certainly Hylian, given what we know of him.

This could be because just like in Ocarina of Time Ganon feigns loyalty to the royal family of Hyrule to later seize power. OR, maybe it’s because (bear with me, I’m just having fun here xDD) ancient hero was part of Ganon’s army?

On the first trailer we could see a mural that shows someone marching on a horse, with long hair and the gerudo symbol on his back, followed by what looks like soldiers.

So it’s probably Ganon with his army traveling or conquering or other stuff. And maybe, Ancient hero was part of that army. What if, just like in the present Ganon’s malice takes away Link’s arm, Ganon took away Ancient hero’s arm?

Why tho? Well, maybe in his endless thirst for power, Ganon did something that collided with ancient hero’s morals, and he stood up to him?

(Sorry I’m using this one, but I don’t know how to better portray this idea. Also it’s much more juicy and dramatic if Link and Ganon were once friends xDD Just swap bravery for courage. Yes JKRO sucks for what she has said and done)

What if, at that moment, the triforce of courage showed on ancient hero’s hand (it has shown both in his right and left hand in diffferent games, so why not the right hand in this occassion), and Ganon, recognizing the threat, chopped off the ofending arm and left him for dead, prompting all the events that would lead to the sealing of the calamity?

Just a thought xDD

What do you think? Too far fetched? Maybe a bit of possibility? Will Zelda be allowed to DO STUFF INSTEAD OF HAVING TO EB RESCUED AGAIN??? Let’s see what Nintendo gives us, I can’t wait for 2022 to arrive!

[incarnateirony]

Belief and Reality

So with a recent shift in my asks -- in lieu of SPN content being widely available -- towards generalized witchery, a conversation that one of my witchy group chats was holding felt worth formalizing and sharing.

Arthur C Clarke was a fiction writer, but one that dreamed of the future and what technologies may come with eerie accuracy. Such a phenomenon in creative minds is not new, and to this day we speak of “Orwellian realities” or some-such almost daily.

He had several points about science against witchery, which modern thinking has tried to divide to the point of nonbelievers aggressively arguing points that witchy-folk blink, and nod along to, because it doesn’t in any way conflict with theirs -- with a wide chasm of understanding of witchery as somehow divided from science.

Clarke’s 3 Laws:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Now if left at this point, this reads as a feeble attempt to say “you can’t say my belief is wrong, neener neeee! All beliefs are equal! The unicorn in my basement says so!”, which is *not* the same. This is just the beginning of the discussion.

Law 3 is going to be the most pivotal here. I have a question folks... what do you think lithium batteries are? Why do you think houses use copper or other metals for their wiring? 

Because... science!

Right, okay, sure. But witches around the world were telling you these things worked for thousands upon thousands of years, to be dismissed as “just witchcraft.” The same goes for medicines, cures, and healing.

Are there parts of “witchcraft” that haven’t been scientifically tested? Absolutely. Are there parts that have? 

"I am sure many of you will be puzzled to know how the study of as morbid, mystical and exotic a subject as witchcraft can contribute to a better understanding of the foundations for the development of science. [...] ...Revolutionary paradigm-switches, analogous to the reorganization of the perceptual field noted by gestalt psychologies, are induced by the accumulation of anomalies, i.e. findings which cannot be reconciled with what may be expected to follow from the prevailing paradigm. New paradigms are sought in order to eliminate these anomalies, and they tend to be espoused by younger scientists less committed to the old styles of thought. One of Kuhn's opponents, Watkins, makes a perhaps distorted but nevertheless expressive contrast of Kuhn's position with Popper's when he affirms that Kuhn's view of the scientific community is of an 'essentially closed society, intermittently shaken by collective nervous breakdowns followed by restored mental unison', whereas Popper's view is 'that the scientific community ought to be, and to a considerable degree actually is, an open society in which no theory, however dominant and successful . . . is ever sacred' (Lakatos and Musgrave 1970: 26)"

--Witchcraft and the Epistemology of Science --M. G. Marwick Science and Public Policy, Volume 1, Issue 11, November 1974

These are things we all know and understand. Science is a changing field. Not so long in the collective scale of humanity, it was Stupid Witchcraft to have understood how gravity works, or that the world orbits around the sun and not the other way around, and yet for the love of all things holy, “witches” had been waving their arms for centuries telling you this.

Witches* built ancient batteries. Witches built ancient computers. Witches built starmaps centuries ahead of their time. Witches made ancient medicine. Witches did a whole bunch of shit.

*I am using “witches” as a general statement here as “practitioners of various forms of magic as was appropriate to their culture.”

Witches told of the principles of stones and crystals and all sorts of inorganic things long before someone else “okayed” it by having what was considered a Sufficiently Peer Reviewed(TM) Inorganic Chemistry Class teaching Crystalline Structure and Vibration Frequencies, which is then A-OK Atheist-Scientist-Approved!

Do you use a cell phone? 

Congratulations, you’re a fucking wizard, Harry. 

It’s a giant conduit of crystal cores and metallic wiring and stuff pulled out of the ground to retain a bunch of energy and even generate it to catch invisible waves of communication that can’t be heard until translated through the right device.

Sounds mystical and witchy as fuck when you put it like that, huh.

But “witches” have been telling you all about these things for thousands of years only for a “scientist” at the age, who would rather argue against it than test it to build a wall until there is enough pressure from a community to test it over and over again.

We have people dead-ass testing, scientifically, if the universe is conscious and debating what is considered consciousness from something in a scale that we can’t communicate with, but at what point to consider our limitations as just-that rather than demanding everything be limited to our communications.

“Traditionally, scientists have been stalwart materialists. But doing so has caused them to slam up against the limitations of materialism. Consider the chasm between relativity and quantum mechanics, or Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and you quickly start to recognize these incongruities.” -- PHILIP PERRY

THE UNIVERSE MAY BE CONSCIOUS, SAY PROMINENT SCIENTISTS” AT BIGTHINK, JUNE 25, 2017

Does that mean every idea made by every baby witch mindlessly regurgitating something they found on witchtok is accurate? Of fucking course not. Not any more than any random joe blow on twitter is a science wizard because he successfully passed highschool science classes. Neither know everything. The best, most famous scientists will tell you that they still know very little. The art is literally about experimenting and testing in things that you are uncertain about, and those who fail to consider, experiment and test are failing at the art.

So sure. Some things have been tested. Others haven’t, or at least not to a standard people trust yet. Nobody is saying you have to believe in all of the things, either. But the defacto division of “well there’s magic and then there’s science” as a hard cleaver dividing them is in direct opposition to what magic actually functions on.

Chemistry birthed out of alchemy. Medicine birthed out of herbalism. Conductive metals were in use by practitioners long before anybody ever flipped on a light bulb and rediscovered how to make batteries thousands of years later before deciding we were modernly smart as fuck. I find it wild that the same crowd that screams how much better natural marijuana is than overprocessed medicine has a segment of people that turn around and yell about how stupid and primitive other herbal uses are, then like go to an oxygen bar to use aromatherapy for happy smells to fix their mood or some shit.

So this is the issue I have whenever I hear someone break out “but SCIENCE!”-- hasn’t disproven anything. Science has actually proven, and even chosen to utilize, great portions of it. Science just hasn’t sufficiently tested everything, and if you don’t want to believe until it’s tested, that’s fine, but that’s the line between agnosticism and atheism; the line between not believing until you can study versus assuming nobody in the world has any form of experience or study that is valid simply because you don’t.

And it’s a very loud line.

[kent-ridge]

Is Japanese internet slang full of fish? - My washed-up linguistic theory.

A couple of weeks ago I was looking at a glossary of Final Fantasy 14 Japanese internet slang a friend had sent me, and I was struck by an idea: Japanese has a really wide lexicon of fish and fishing related words. Does Japanese internet slang also have more fish related words than English internet slang does? The idea made me laugh, and that was enough to want to try to pursue it. 

The Japanese lexicon does, in fact, have a very extensive vocabulary related to fish and fishing. Masayoshi Shibatani (1990) wrote, ‘The vocabulary of a language reflects the cultural and socio-economic concerns of its speakers, and the Japanese lexicon is no exception to this truism.’ He explains that fishing was one of the primary socio-economic activities in traditional Japanese society, and therefore the native Japanese vocabulary has a great number of words and expressions relating to fish. Of course, we have a fairly wide fishing vocabulary in English as well, but Japanese goes into further detail. Shibatani gives examples of 9 different Japanese words for a fish that we would refer to simply as ‘yellowtail’ in all cases in English - in Japanese there are different words for it depending on its size.

Another wonderful piece of evidence of the abundance of fish words in Japanese is a 1940s ‘Glossary of Japanese Fisheries Terms’ that I found on the American National Marine Fisheries Service Scientific Publications Office website. In March 1947, J. A. Krug, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior and Albert M. Day, Director of the Fish and Wildlife service, published a leaflet titled, ‘Glossary of Japanese Fisheries Terms.’ It is a dictionary of fishing terms and names of fish, including both Japanese to English and English to Japanese translations. 

The introduction reads, ‘Fish and fishing play such an important role in Japanese life that an extensive and complicated fisheries vocabulary has evolved. Each of the hundreds of kinds of fish, shellfish, and seaweed has several vernacular names, the wide assortment of prepared seafood adds many more words; and the variety of fishing gear has a large specialized nomenclature.’ Clearly, the vocabulary related to fishing in Japan was so specific that it didn’t do well enough simply to translate it to the closest English word - a specialised glossary was needed so that American fishermen could understand precisely what the Japanese fishermen were referring to. (If you, like me, are quite enamoured by historical, niche glossaries or dictionaries, you can read the Glossary of Japanese Fisheries Terms here.)

With this evidence that Japanese does have more words to do with fish and fishing than English does, I wondered if perhaps the extensive fish-related lexicon in Japanese affected the creation of slang terms, particularly internet slang terms. While there is no definitive corpus or complete dictionary of Japanese internet slang, several fish-related phrases came to mind. For example, 雑魚 zako, literally meaning ‘small fish’ is a commonly used phrase in casual Japanese which means ‘a wimp’ or an ‘unimportant person.’ This is also used in MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, e.g. Final Fantasy 14) lingo to mean ‘low-level NPC (Non Player Character) enemies.’ Of course, we have the word ‘small fry’ in English which has essentially the same meaning of ‘unimportant person’, but we do not use it in the same context in online gaming. (I have been informed that in English we might call these weak enemies ‘trash mob’ or ‘slimes’ - a reference to the slime blob enemies in the game Dragon Quest.) I also recalled that 鯖 saba - ‘mackerel’ is slang for the word ‘server’ - a lovely wordplay on the loanword sābā.

I then asked on twitter if anyone could help me to come up with some more Japanese fish-related internet words. I had a few interesting replies, suggesting 釣り tsuri (fishing) which means ‘trolling’, accompanied with 釣り師 tsurishi (angler) for ‘troll’, and エサ esa (bait) and 釣り針 tsuribari (fishhook) , which both refer to the content used by a troll to entice other users into replying angrily. Although we might also call this practice ‘baiting’ in English, and we of course have the famous term ‘clickbait’ for baiting people into clicking a link, the metaphor is further expanded upon in Japanese internet language. When a troll gets the responses they were hoping for, other net users may say something like ‘大漁だな’ tairyou da na - ‘That’s a big haul.’ 

I was also told about ウェブ魚拓 webu gyotaku (web fish printing), which is a method of preserving the content of a website in a snapshot, like the service Wayback Machine. Gyotaku is the traditional Japanese practice of dipping a fish in ink to create a print, which could record a fisherman's catch they are particularly proud of, or simply make a nice picture of a fish. (Incidentally, the web address for the website where one can access webu gyotaku is ‘megalodon.jp.')

This is not an incredibly extensive list, but I was pleasantly surprised with the number of responses I received. I also tried to come up with a list of fish-related English internet terms, but all I could think of was ‘phishing’, ‘clickbait’, and ‘catfish.’ None of these are slang as such, but created terms for phenomena that only happen online. (They respectively mean, ‘sending scam emails’, ‘using sensationalised or misleading content to entice users to click on something’, and ‘pretending to be someone else on online dating sites.’) I suppose at a stretch I could actually include ‘the net’ into my list of fishing-related internet vocabulary.

I don’t, however, think that this is enough evidence to suggest that Japanese internet slang does indeed have a larger proportion of fish or fishing-related terms than internet slang in other languages. Furthermore, even if it did, it does not necessarily prove that it is because of the wide fish lexicon that Japanese has in general.

I think my next step would have to be to explore whether other aspects of the Japanese lexicon are reflected in the creation of internet slang terms. Shibatani also mentions that Japanese has an abundance of words to do with nature, but not many body part words. (Even a novice Japanese learner will have noticed that ‘foot’ and ‘leg’ are both expressed with one word, 足 ashi, and that both ‘smile’ and ‘laugh’ are expressed with the verb 笑う warau.) 

The problem is, it is fairly difficult to linguistically analyse ‘Japanese internet slang’ as a concept, and to compare it to ‘English internet slang.’ There is no official online corpus of internet slang in English or Japanese, and it changes every day as new slang terms are created and older terms fall out of practice. The only way I can see to continue this research is to compile my own lists, either from spotting slang terms ‘in the wild’ online, or asking strangers on twitter to come up with any terms they can think of. 

Even if I could prove that the tendencies of the Japanese vocabulary are reflected in its internet slang, what would this actually demonstrate? That, somehow, the balance of this lexicon is engrained in Japanese minds and so it affects the creation of new slang terms and wordplay? Or just that there are a lot of fish words so people create fish-related associations? 

What kind of words are there more of in English than in other languages? Have we English-speakers developed a tendency to create internet slang based on… growing wheat… or… brewing… or whatever is that was traditionally engrained into English society, and therefore probably English vocabulary? Somehow, I don’t think so.

So, I was unable to come to a satisfying conclusion about my theory of fish-heavy Japanese internet slang. But I don’t think it was a complete waste of my time. It was my first foray into researching something just because I was curious and felt like it, and even though it didn’t lead me to any groundbreaking discoveries about the creation of new slang terms in Japanese, I had a lot of fun. It sparked some interesting conversations with friends and twitter strangers, and I got to read a 1940s fish dictionary. Some pretty good mental stimulation for a Wednesday afternoon in lockdown.

[letteredlettered]

Lettered my queen: why are your fics so funny? There I am, happily reading, when I suddenly lol, and then stare in confusion at the words. Where was the punchline? The set up?? This happened to me many times in ACT, and the requisite Wild and Wired reread after those lovely extra scenes you posted. Example from ACT: *Draco stared at him, and Harry realized that maybe Brazil seemed random. / “That was where it was from,” he explained.* Lettered. Why is this so hilarious?? Why did I laugh so  1/2

hard? I suspect you will be able to explain it perfectly. My best attempt at understanding: it's a lot about 2 people trying and failing at mindreading, but they try SO HARD to communicate anyway. and in that, there's Dramatic Irony, bc you always make sure the reader knows exactly what both are thinking. You also repeat things that become steadily more hilarious, like "skewed frame of reference". idk why it got more and more funny. i think i am owed an explanation for this sorcery. <3 u queen

Thank you! I’m really glad you find my fics funny.

While I love to pick apart writing and analyze why it works the way it does, I’m afraid this isn’t something I can explain perfectly. For one thing, people’s sense of humor varies. I’m not sure I find the thing you quoted particularly funny, just for instance. But since I can’t explain, I’ve written for a bit on my relationship to humor and offered some theories.

I don’t like comedy as a genre. Sitcoms, standup, funny movies--most media designed specifically to make people laugh really turns me off. I think it’s something about the setup--if I know you’re trying to make me laugh, I feel challenged, and being a contrary person, I shall not satisfy your intent. The same is true in person; if I go to standup, or someone says, “Hey, want to see a funny meme? Or hear a joke?” I’ll struggle to laugh.

When people are asked what they are looking for in a partner, the reply is often, “a good sense of humor,” or “they make me laugh.” While this answer is totally fine, I do feel some aversion to its prevalence. Laughter is fine, but wouldn’t it be nice to prioritize good moral character as a society? Shared values? Emotional honesty and kindness? As a result, for a while I went around saying that I didn’t care much about humor, which I apparently posted on Twitter. My gf, before she was my gf, was pretty disappointed about this Tweet, as she loves to laugh, and feared we wouldn’t really get along.

The hilarious part is, I laugh a lot in person, a tremendous amount. I make a lot of jokes, and do many silly things, and am, in general, a very large goof of a person. My gf and I often joke about how unimportant humor is to me, as we find it very funny. I told my girlfriend about this ask, btw, and she was excessively diverted.

I never set out to write humorous things, but I do sometimes write fic for canon that has funny characters. The first canon like that I remember writing for was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I remember watching episodes of BtVS specifically analyzing the humor, writing down lines I thought were funny, then trying to take them apart to understand what made them funny. A common refrain I found in BtVS was the use of idiomatic and common phrases, but with different endings, or added parts. The reason this is funny, as far as I can tell, is an expectation is set up by that which is familiar; when the expectation is not met, there is a dissonance that results in humor.

For example:

“I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away.” – Xander

“They were supposed to be my light at the end of the tunnel. I guess they were a train.” – Buffy

“Just because you’re better than us doesn’t mean you can be all superior.” – Xander

The repetition you mentioned actually employs this marriage of the familiar and unexpected. Once the phrase is used, it becomes familiar; then, if it is repeated in unexpected places, it can be amusing.

A commenter once mentioned that the repetition of the word “stricken” at the very beginning of Away Childish Things was amusing to them. I found this interesting, because my beta had suggested I remove the final use of that word in the first draft. I agreed with her, and so that final use was--you guessed it--stricken. I think that if I had not deleted the final usage the repetition would have been overdone and not nearly so effective. If you repeat something too many times, then it is no longer unexpected. If it is used too few times, it is not familiar enough. If it is used in the wrong place, the juxtaposition of the familiar and unexpected will not speak to each other. Therefore, timing is also important.

You’ll note in the quoted phrases above that the familiar part is short, as is the unexpected. This is so that the familiar juxtaposes very quickly against the unexpected, so you don’t have time for your expectation to change. “I laugh in the face of danger. But I do find it frightening, so then I hide until it goes away,” is not as funny, because “I do find it frightening” eases us into a new expectation in a gentler way. (Timing doesn’t always have to be quick to be funny. Sometimes things are funny simply by virtue of being long, for various reasons. Sometimes the length itself is unexpected, which makes a line/story funny.)

I think these reasons are why I tend to find comedic media and anything that is purposely trying to make me laugh unfunny. A joke that has a set up means a punchline is expected, and even if the content is unexpected, the formula and timing are too familiar for me to really feel amused. But real life is a morass with the familiar sprinkled with the unexpected, which I think is why I am, in general, so often laughing and making jokes. As you state in your example, Draco and Harry are attempting to communicate, but they cannot guess what is actually in the other’s mind. Since people are never able to enter each other’s minds, but do try to predict, an expectation is set up, and then when people behave like humans and do/say something completely different, if the timing is also right, it’s hilarious.

My writing--and my life, honestly--circles around the fact that we try but can never really understand any mind but our own (and sometimes we don’t even understand our own). Since I’m so often writing about the familiar (your own mind) meeting the unexpected (the rest of the world), it makes sense that sometimes when the timing is sharp, it results in something people find funny.

I think the line you pulled out is probably funny for exactly the reason you state. We are familiar with what Draco must be thinking--he is impressed that Harry was so powerful at such a young age. We also think we are familiar with what Harry is thinking, because we’re in his head. But due to timing, the reader has actually jumped into Draco’s head and is thinking about what Draco must be thinking, such that the sudden insertion of Harry’s assumption is unexpected.

[dearyallfrommatt]

Super Tuesday thoughts.

 I’ll go into more detail tonight when I write tonight’s Gibberish for the WordPress site, but I do want to get some things down while they’re fresh. In other words: feeling clever, might delete later.

 Anyhow. Joe Biden did what was expected; that is, win the Southern states involved in Super Tuesday. However, to the surprise of apparently a good number of people on Twitter, he gave Bernie Sanders a pretty decent thumping in states the man from Vermont might have should have won, like Minnesota and Massachusetts. We’re still wrapping our heads around last night, but certain things stand out as reasons why.

 For one, turnout. Turnout’s a big, big deal, a bigger deal than most people seem to understand. Sanders’ supporters are, no doubt, passionate about their man, but it appears the breadth of his support isn’t as great as it needs to be. A lot of people have a lot of explanations why this is - that we as a country don’t understand what “socialism” is but we love/fear it; he’s not a Democrat and has spent the past six years calling the Democratic Party corrupt and evil yet wants their votes; etc. - but the fact of the matter is he just didn’t get the support he wanted or needed or maybe even expected.

 Another thing that played a part that seems to be ignored election cycle after election cycle was the African American vote, which went overwhelmingly for Biden. I don’t have the info in front of me - and this is just being tossed off the top of my head, check the Gibberish tonight for more solid strokes - but Virginia, for example, had one of the highest turnouts in recent memory and Biden stomped the hell out of Sanders there.

 It was similar in Texas, where Sanders got a solid majority of the Latino vote but, again, Biden had the black vote fairly well wrapped up. Overall, Sanders took the “youth vote,” whatever the hell that is, but as seems to happen every single time, young people really didn’t turn out like people thought they would or should.

 It’s almost a cliche and it’s not quite true, but “Twitter is not real life”. Well, it is, sort of; you can’t slap people who talk like assholes like you can face-to-face but it doesn’t make a nice person an asshole. They just don’t bother to hide it. Regardless, it’s easy to get lulled into a complacency by online interaction and forget that not everyone spends as much time as you do balls deep in the web. This bit me in the ass in 2004, for example.

 White leftists don’t always want to admit it, but black Americans are, as often as not, conservative as anyone else can be. They just don’t go for the GOP because, as often as not, wants to return racial relations back to, at least, the 1950s, to not put too fine a point on it. White “progressives” also expressed shock and dismay that so many black people would vote for the guy who pushed the 1994 Crime Bill, but again, white people don’t always know what they’re talking about when it comes to trying to figure out what black people do and why they do it. I myself claim no insider knowledge, either, so there you go.

 I don’t know if the “electability” issue really had much to do with it. Whoever gets the nomination will be painted as the lovechild of Joe Stalin and Abbie Hoffman anyway by the GOP and conservative media, and the rest of the media will repeat it uncritically. This goes even for Joe Biden. Maybe people saw a sure thing in him as opposed to Sanders’ wild-eyed “radicalism” - even though in a sane world he’d be a slightly-to-the-left centrist - but again, I don’t think we have enough data to really judge that.

 I will say it seems like Sanders is doing himself no favors by being so caustic with people who didn’t vote for him, and the Sanders stans are making things worse with the temper tantrum they’ve been throwing since last night. You call someone a neoliberal stooge who wants poor people to die in the street, it’s not the best way to build that coalition you so desperately need.

 I will say one thing, though. There’s still plenty of voting to be done. Indeed, next week we’ll see another six states voting and the delegate count is still pretty close. I don’t know what Elizabeth Warren has up her sleeve but I don’t see a path ahead for her, so her votes up for grabs. However, the scorched earth policy of the Sanders fanboys seem to be intent on pushing those votes towards Biden, again calling her a “neoliberal stooge” and even going so far as to say she’s “killed the progressive movement”.

 Now, this is just me, but if your “progressive movement” is contingent on one man and it dies on the vine without him, I for one doubt your commitment to actually making a positive change in society. You’re just engaging in the “Great Man” theory and that shit never works. Whoever told you “you will bend the knee” would get the job done was not your friend.

 Look. We got another solid three months of primaries to wade through. As likely as not, it’s a two-man race and there’s absolutely no reason to toss in the towel nor does wailing about “being robbed” ring true. This is politics. It’s not fair. Get a helmet. Support your candidate. Vote for your candidate. Try to bring people into your fold (free hint: try something other than insults) and buckle down for the long haul. We knew this race was going to be contentious going in and if you were expecting a blowout one way or another, you’ve got no one to blame but yourself.

 And in the end, what really matters - the only thing that matters - is beating Trump and getting conservatives out of power. If that’s not enough for you, then maybe you’re less concerned with fixing things and more concerned with being on the “winning side”. If that’s the case, well, you are part of the problem, not the solution, regardless of what you think.

[ghostie-hoe]

Film Studies - Relationship between audience and production

The Princess diaries is a cult favourite amongst the younger demographic born in the early 200s and follows a young girl called Mia who is at the very bottom of the social ladder and finds out that she is in fact the princess of a small European country called Genovia by her grandmother. Films inflict feelings and impact onto audiences, in addition, audiences can impact the success of a film through fandom activities such as blogging, review writing, YouTube channels, writing fan fiction, websites, attending film premieres, collecting merchandise and being influenced to get into film production. Other films and shows can also help to promote a certain film by referencing it either directly or subtly that only fans of that film would understand. The Princess Diaries has been referenced in 90210, Orange Is The New Black, Bring it on and Miss Congeniality When the film was originally released in 2001, there would have been an active audience as social media wasn't as influential and part of everyday lives as it now. Audiences now would possibly be passive due to flourish in social Media, however, the timeless talent of Julie Andrews and the lighthearted humour would grip the audience and turn them into an active audience. The film is inspired by the popular Princess Diaries book series by teenage author Meg Cabot. Unlike most film adaptions of books, this film lives up to the expectations and standards of the books enough to satisfy the portion of the audience from the book series. However, some fans of the book series may not enjoy the slight change in the film. For example, in the books, Mia's father is alive but has testicular cancer and cannot conceive more children. Disney adapted the film and aimed it at families and therefore having her father be dead and her next in line to the Throne is easier for the younger demographic to understand and resonate with. The character of Mia's grandmother isn't supposed to be warm and friendly like Disney's Clarisse. However, as stated before, Disney adapts popular books into films and changes their origins to reflect on their family based audience and they wanted Julie Andrews for the part - someone who couldn't pull of the eccentric values of the original character - Julie's Clarice is much more toned down. In addition, Meg Cabot wasn't involved with the making of the film or the changes to the characters she created and I feel as though, the film would be far more satisfying if she were to have input. However, the books stay true to the tone of Mia being that she's resistant to take on Princess duties and just wants to get through her high school years. Despite Meg Cabots lack of contribution to the film, the following book after the release of the film references the film through the characters such as Lily being angry at the portrayal of her character, Lana being perfect and her Grandmother a warm and friendly soul. Not to mention the death of her father. Mia was Anne Hathaway's break through role and earned her many similar roles later on in her career such as Ella in Ella Enchanted and Fountine in Les Miserables, all films showcase Anne's vocal talent. Anne fit the character of awkward Mia perfectly through her clumsiness which was what actually landed her the role. The scene where Mia falls down on the bleachers wasn't in the original script, Anne herself fell and improvised and the producers decided to keep it in as it portrayed Mia's character perfectly. Apart of why the film fits the family genre is having Julie Andrews as Clarise. A huge portion of the audience would come from other classics such as The Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. Mary Poppins and Clarise are both warm and welcoming characters and therefore Julie was perfect for the role of Clarise. There is forms of intersexuality in this film as Mia goes from rags to riches in the beginning of the film after her makeover from normal girl to princess in relation to Sam in A Cinderella Story. Both of these characters have a glorifying moment where they walk down the stairs at an event and all eyes are on them. The Princess Diaries can be compared to both Mean Girls and Clueless as each of these films have the main character go through a transformation which changes the way they are treated in high school. Once bullied by viscous mean girls as they don't meet the expectations of social norms. Each of these films convey the struggle of being a teenage girl in high school. The producer, Marshall uses the same actors in his films and one who portrayed a waiter, Hector Elizondo quoted a line he used in Pretty Woman "It happens all the time." When Mia drops a grape at a dinner party and sets off a chain of laughter through the room. Social networking wasn't a huge factor in our society at the time and therefore films back then weren't widely discussed or advertised on social media. However, there were discussion boards and fan pages for the fans of the books. The film did have a trailer but that's the only involvement of social media within pre and post production. If the film were released now, there would be brand advertisement through Twitter including behind the scenes pictures and videos, trailers, fan made videos, Facebook pages, YouTube reviews, blog reviews, Tumblr fan accounts etc. The pre and post viewing of a film can be influenced by a few factors; how the individual watches it, where they watch it ect. If the audience member was dedicated enough to watch the trailers, read the books and interviews with the stars, it could raise their expectations for the film and the film could fail to reach their expectations - An example of this is Return to Oz, another Disney adaption. It failed to live up to the first film, starring a young Judie Garland - the film wasn't terrible - just incredibly dark and not suitable for children, in the sense that it would give them nightmares. The first film was a fun musical based comedy about friendship and adventure. In contrast, this film goes against everything the first film stood for and shows darker elements such as the character of Dorothy being in a state of depression - not being able to sleep after he first adventure in oz - and her Aunt Em puts her on a mental institution for electroshock therapy. Baring in mind, this is a Disney film. Dorothy's true agenda isn't addressed in this film, instead of being seen as a child with a vivid imagination, as most children are, her family are quick to identify her as mentally ill. This film is far more terrifying and sinister version of the original as Dorothy arrives in the ruins of Oz to find the people turned into stone by a woman who has a vast collection of woman's heads. The Demons of the story are psychotic wheelers, strange creatures with wheels in place of hands and feet. As I said before, the film wasn't terrible - just not what the audience was expecting. Trailers showcase the highlights and best points of the film - and sometimes this gives an expectation the film doesn't meet. Guardians of Galaxy 2, the second instalment to the franchise lived up to the hype and the incredible trailer. The film was gripping enough for me to watch it three times at the cinema. The storyline was incredible and the cinematic values - CGI, etc were phenomenal. Reading reviews of a film after watching it for yourself can be more giving than reading before to make a decision of wether to see it as the words of an individual can get into your head and affect your personal viewing pleasure. Reading reviews after can change your full prospective of the film. Viewing experience can impact the relationship between film and viewing - Watching a film alone on a phone or a tablet is a totally different experience to watching a film in a cinema with other audience members. The real experience is lost if watched at home as it doesn't have the same atmosphere as a cinema - especially if the film relies heavily on sound and picture. Watching at the cinema is magical as all sense heightened due to the darkness, screen size and sound. This adds to viewing pleasure. The audience also tends to be interactive wether that be laughing at humour or screaming at horror. The uses and gratifications theory suggest the four main pleasure viewers get from films such as personal identity, diversion, personal relationships and surveillance Most people watch films that reflect on their values or characteristics. Teenage girls may relate to Georgia from Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging as they struggle through high school in the boyfriend sector. Georgia is very relatable due to her awkwardness and being targeted by the villain of the film, Lindsey. Other people may watch films that reflect on a lifestyle they lead, for example, people who attend Universities or boarding schools are likely to watch films that showcase these things such as House Bunny or Wild Child. Diversion indicates audiences using cinema to escape reality. These types of audiences prefer supernatural or fantasy elements to their viewing pleasure, instead of a real life feel. An example of this comes from The Guardians of the Galaxy, Star Wars and Twilight. Some people may use films as a substitute for personal relationships. Films may contain a character that an individual would want to form a friendship or relationship with. Stories of friendship such as the Perks of being a wallflower is perfect for these kinds of audiences. Other audiences may find their viewing pleasure from surveillance, films that are education and breed information on a certain subject such as Saving Private Ryan which shows the struggles and triumphs of the war. As you can see from my analysis, the relationship between film and viewer are a complex one - yet one that is thoroughly engaging and fascinating