#not that reflections about good or bad are limited to the religious context

[wouriqueen]

Wondering how much the fact that Louis partially consented to enter vampirism fueled his distress about the nature of vampires (am I of the Devil). Obviously this all comes from his religious upbringing as well but knowing he at least partially chose this, as opposed to having forcefully been brought into it, and knowing he did it to be with a man who murdered Lily and Father Matthias, the latter in front of him - how much would this have amplified his upset.

[swordpen]

On Criston/Alicent and Queerness

I think the biggest surprise of House of the Dragon for me wasn’t the gore or the truly batshit political decisions some of the characters make—it was how much I connected to Criston and Alicent’s relationship as a queer person.*

(*Standard disclaimer that my personal experience isn’t universal, queer people aren’t a monolith, I’m just analyzing this relationship within a context.)

Of course, when you think about queerness and HOTD, I’m sure Criston/Alicent is the last thing on your mind. In fact, in the parts of the fandom that interpret Alicent as queer/a lesbian, Criston/Alicent is basically the embodiment of compulsory heterosexuality. It’s two people violently clinging to the roles assigned to them: as knight and queen, man and woman, heterosexual and chaste. Criston especially is toxic masculinity walking around in armor, an incel who puts Alicent on a damaging pedestal and becomes bitter and violent when Rhaenyra refuses him.

I think this reading is pretty valid (although that last part is vastly oversimplified, and—well, we don’t have time for that). It’s probably what the show wants us to take away. But metaphorically, I saw a lot of my own struggles with queerness reflected in Alicent and Criston.

For all the power they wield relative to the smallfolk, Alicent and Criston both lack the privilege afforded to Rhaenyra: Alicent as a woman, and Criston as a lowborn knight sworn into the royal family’s service. Unlike Rhaenyra, when things get tough, they cannot leave—they must hide their feelings and continue to work within society. When Rhaenyra has sex with Criston, she holds a damning secret over his head, and while Viserys might forgive her, outing Criston will get him killed or worse. Alicent saves him, and he becomes the person she puts the most trust in, a second parent figure to her children. But if they do have romantic feelings for each other, they must keep that effectively closeted, while Rhaenyra and Laenor fairly openly pursue anyone they want. There’s also the whole underlying thread of religious guilt and repression, which is of course not limited to queerness at all, but is a dimension of Alicent and Criston’s relationship that hits home all the same--as does the ambiguity around Criston's celibacy and desire for sex, with the narrative making it clear that their bond is meaningful without it.

In all fairness, courtly love as a trope has always felt especially queer to me, even for how blatantly unhealthy it is: unfailing devotion that can never really become a relationship, deep feelings cloaked in several plausible deniability layers of “duty” and “honor.” And as someone incredibly careful and anxious, I really can’t imagine being as brazen as Rhaenyra. (I also have a bad habit of getting attached to characters other people don’t like as much.) It’s probably no wonder I connected to Criston and Alicent in a different way than Alicent and Rhaenyra. 

Both relationships are tragedies: Rhaenyra and Alicent are two girls whose love for each other is twisted by the patriarchy, yes, but also the wildly different positions they hold within the power structure. As much as they love each other, their conflicting philosophies and experiences have made it almost impossible for them to truly understand each other. 

Criston and Alicent also hold wildly different positions in the power structure, but their philosophies and experiences align far more. They do understand each other, the roles they have to play, the powerlessness they have to combat. They’re good at it. Their tragedy is that it still will not be enough.

[interwebsfamous]

What Is Owed

I recently caught up with an old friend’s musings, when he published an essay about Rod Dreher in Slate. He is a friend from a time when I had very sincere and deep Christian metaphysical beliefs. I used to work very hard to protect these beliefs from the constant doubts and anxieties of the biochemistry of my own overly rational brain. Giving up my religious beliefs was one of the most unpleasant and uncomfortable things I have ever done. However, it has given me the peace and understanding that Christianity always promised, yet failed to deliver.

I turned to the Unitarian Universalist tradition as a place to safely detoxify from theism. That tradition gave me an affirmation that helped me find peace with myself. This is the idea that I am simply a human being subject to the normal limitations of my species. I am not fundamentally flawed or sinful. I am simply the normal amount of bad and good that gets crammed into the bodies that evolved from my hominid lineage.

In fact, I have since come to understand everything, including ideas of bad and good, as contingent, i.e., totally dependent on the sum total of their context.  Buddhists may recognize this principle as sunyata, i.e., the principle of emptiness. This is the idea that nothing can be absolutely true since everything is connected and depends on everything else for an explanation. As Hamlet told us, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” The truth is that badness and goodness are ideas that arise out of our own minds. As a product of biochemistry, these ideas are defined by the evolutionary pressure on members of our species to persist and replicate.  

However, there is another key truth that I have clung to. I made this realization after reflecting on an apologetic I heard in my religious days that always rang hollow. This argument is usually presented along the following lines. Since humans crave moral truth, an explanation for the universe that fails to provide moral truth is inherently incomplete. The terse rebuttal that my brain formed more than a decade later has become a mantra of mine. “The Universe does not owe me an explanation.”

The essence of this observation is that our desire for a universe that coheres or has meaning is simply a desire. As Mother Goose taught us, “If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.” I could continue standing by the roadside of the universe with a sign that says, “Will work for sense of purpose.” Otherwise, I could simply accept that what I want I may not be able to have. 

A sense of purpose is often described as a fundamental human need by many, including Rod Dreher himself. However, I can always make my sense of purpose myself. The older I have gotten, the more I have embraced the idea that doing nothing is always an option. Doing nothing may have received a bad reputation over the course of human civilization. However, if you look harder, you can find places it is enshrined in our collective moral traditions. Taoists might recognize this principle as wu wei, i.e., the principle of non-action. The principle may take its most famous form in Hippocrates’ admonition to do no harm. However, In a quasi-inverse form, Napoleon is alleged to have said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” 

Also, I truly believe that the most harmful and dangerous people are those who are convinced that they have absolutely correct moral answers. Rod Dreher’s vicious homophobia and transphobia are a perfect example of the dangers of moral certitude. That said, imagine how much money we spend on insurance adjusters to deny ourselves access to healthcare. We do this to ourselves even when we could just embrace universal government care at a fraction of the price most of us pay for an ever-declining quality of care. 

As a recovering alcoholic, I can certainly see that my desire for love and acceptance is perfectly healthy and adaptive, but filling my perceived lack of love and acceptance with alcohol is deleterious and dangerous. In a manner comparable to the opioid crisis, embracing white Christian nationalism is literally killing its most fervent adherents. I don’t have to have any absolute answers about right and wrong to recognize that as a bad. In fact, recognizing that as bad, but not absolutely so, helps me understand that white Christian nationalists will not accept help until they are ready to do so on their own terms. This is just as it was with my own addictions.

I do think that Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic (W.E.I.R.D.) societies have gone too far in suggesting that no one owes anyone else anything. We are regularly told that if something or someone is too unpleasant or inconvenient, we should simply abandon it or them. This is a recipe for leaving ourselves bereft of the rich social relationships necessary for our well-being. However, recognizing that no one owes us anything may also help us to refocus our own efforts in avoiding harm and learning compassion.

[thevalleyisjolly]

Hi there! If you feel up to it, would you be willing to expand a bit more on the idea of white creators creating poc characters who are ‘internally white’, especially in a post-racialized or racism-free setting & how to avoid it? It’s something I’m very concerned about but I haven’t encountered a lot of info about it outside of stories set in real world settings. Thanks & have a good day!

Hey, thanks for asking, anon!  It’s a pretty nuanced topic, and different people will have different takes on it.  I’ll share my thoughts on it, but do keep in mind that other people of colour may have different thoughts on the matter, and this is by no means definitive!  These are things I’ve observed through research, trial and error, my own experiences, or just learning from other writers.

The first thing I guess I want to clarify is that I personally am not opposed to a society without racism in fiction.  It’s exhausting and frankly boring when the only stories that characters of colour get are about racism!  So it’s a relief sometimes to just get to see characters of colour exist in a story without dealing with racism.  That being said, I feel like a lot of the time when creators establish their settings as “post-racial,” they avoid racism but they also avoid race altogether.  Not aesthetically -they may have a few or even many characters with dark skin- but the way the characters act and talk and relate to the world are “race-less” (which tends to end up as default white American/British or whatever place the creator comes from).  Which I have complicated thoughts on, but the most obvious thing that springs to mind is how such an approach implies (deliberately or not) that racism is all there is to the way POC navigate the world.  It’s definitely a significant factor, particularly for POC in Western countries, but it’s not the only thing!  There’s so much more to our experiences than just racial discrimination, and it’s a shame that a lot of “post-racial” or “racism-free” settings seem to overlook that in their eagerness to not have racism (or race) in their stories.

A quick go-to question I ask when I look at characters of colour written/played by white creators is: if this was a story or transcript I was reading, with no art or actors or what have you, would I be able to tell that this character is a character of colour?  How does the creator signal to the audience that this is a character of colour?  A lot of the time, this signal stops after the physical description - “X has dark skin” and then that’s all!  (We will not discuss the issue of racial stereotypes in depth, but it should be clear that those are absolutely the wrong way to indicate a character of colour).

This expands to a wider issue of using dark skin as a be-all-end-all indication of diversity, which is what I mean by “aesthetic” characters of colour (I used the term “internally white” originally but upon further reflection, it has some very loaded implications, many of which I’m personally familiar with, so I apologize for the usage).  Yes, the character may not “look” white, but how do they interact with the world?  Where do they come from?  What is their background, their family?  A note: this can be challenging with diaspora stories in the real world and people being disconnected (forcibly or otherwise) from their heritage (in which case, those are definitely stories that outsiders should not tell).  So let’s look at fantasy.  Even the most original writer in the world bases their world building off existing things in the real world.  So what cultures are you basing your races off of?  If you have a dark skinned character in your fantasy story, what are the real world inspirations and equivalents that you drew from, and how do you acknowledge that in a respectful, non-stereotyped way?

(Gonna quickly digress here and say that there are already so many stories about characters of colour disconnected from their heritage because ‘They didn’t grow up around other people from that culture’ or ‘They moved somewhere else and grew up in that dominant culture’ or ‘It just wasn’t important to them growing up’ and so on.  These are valid stories, and important to many people!  But when told by (usually) white creators, they’re also used, intentionally or not, as a sort of cop-out to avoid having to research or think about the character’s ethnicity and how that influences who they are.  So another point of advice: avoid always situating characters outside of their heritage.  Once or twice explored with enough nuance and it can be an interesting narrative, all the time and it starts being a problem)

Another thing I want to clarify at this point is that it’s a contentious issue about whether creators should tell stories that aren’t theirs, and different people will have different opinions.  For me personally, I definitely don’t think it’s inherently bad for creators to have diverse characters in their work, and no creator can live every experience there is.  That being said, there are caveats for how such characters are handled.  For me personally, I follow a few rules of thumb which are:

Is this story one that is appropriate for this creator to tell?  Some experiences are unique and lived with a meaningful or complex history and context behind them and the people to whom those experiences belong do not want outsiders to tell those stories.

To what extent is the creator telling this story?  Is it something mentioned as part of the narrative but not significantly explored or developed upon?  Does it form a core part of the story or character?  There are some stories that translate across cultures and it’s (tentatively) ok to explore more in depth, like immigration or intergenerational differences.  There are some stories that don’t, and shouldn’t be explored in detail (or even at all) by people outside those cultures.

How is the creator approaching this story and the people who live it?  To what extent have they done their research?  What discussions have they had with sensitivity consultants/readers?  What kind of respect are they bringing to their work?  Do they default to stereotypes and folk knowledge when they reach the limits of their research?  How do they respond to feedback or criticism when audiences point things that they will inevitably get wrong?

Going back to the “race-less” point, I think that creators need to be careful that they’re (respectfully) portraying characters of colour as obvious persons of colour.  With a very definite ‘no’ on stereotyping, of course, so that’s where the research comes in (which should comprise of more than a ten minute Google search).  If your setting is in the real world, what is the background your character comes from and how might that influence the way they act or talk or see the world?  If your setting is in a fantasy world, same question!  Obviously, avoid depicting things which are closed/exclusive to that culture (such as religious beliefs, practices, etc) and again, avoid stereotyping (which I cannot stress enough), but think about how characters might live their lives and experience the world differently based on the culture or the background they come from.

As an example of a POC character written/played well by a white person, I personally like Jackson Wei and Cindy Wong from Dimension 20’s The Unsleeping City, an urban fantasy D&D campaign.  Jackson and Cindy are NPCs played by the DM, Brennan Lee Mulligan, who did a good job acknowledging their ethnicity without resorting to stereotypes and while giving them their own unique characters and personalities.  The first time he acted as Cindy, I leapt up from my chair because she was exactly like so many old Chinese aunties and grandmothers I’ve met.  The way Jackson and Cindy speak and act and think is very Chinese (without being stereotyped), but at the same time, there’s more to their characters than being Chinese, they have unique and important roles in the story that have nothing to do with their ethnicity.  So it’s obvious that they’re people of colour, that they’re Chinese, but at the same time, the DM isn’t overstepping and trying to tell stories that aren’t his to tell.  All while not having the characters face any racism, as so many “post-racialized” settings aim for, because there are quite enough stories about that!

There a couple factors that contribute to the positive example I gave above.  The DM is particularly conscientious about representation and doing his research (not to say that he never messes up, but he puts in a lot more effort than the average creator), and the show also works with a lot of sensitivity consultants.  Which takes me to the next point - the best way to portray characters of colour in your story is to interact with people from that community.  Make some new friends, reach out to people!  Consume media by creators of colour!  In my experience so far, the most authentic Chinese characters have almost universally been created/written/played by Chinese creators.  Read books, listen to podcasts, watch shows created by people of colour.  Apart from supporting marginalized creators, you also start to pick up how people from that culture or heritage see themselves and the world, what kind of stories they have to tell, and just as importantly, what kind of stories they want being told or shared.  In other words, the best way to portray an authentic character of colour that is more than just the colour of their skin is to learn from actual people of colour (without, of course, treating them just as a resource and, of course, with proper credit and acknowledgement).

Most importantly, this isn’t easy, and you will absolutely make mistakes.  I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that you will mess up.  No matter how well researched you are, how much respect you have for other cultures, how earnestly you want to do this right, you will at some point do something that makes your POC audience uncomfortable or even offends them.  Then, your responsibility comes with your response.  Yes, you’ve done something wrong.  How do you respond to the people who are hurt or disappointed?  Do you ignore them, or double down on your words, or try to defend yourself?  Just as importantly, what are you planning to do about it in the future?  If you have a second chance, what are you going to do differently?  You will make mistakes at some point.  So what are you going to do about them?  That, I think, is an even more important question than “How can I do this right?”  You may or may not portray something accurately, but when you get something wrong, how are you going to respond?

Essentially, it all comes down to your responsibility as a creator.  As a creator, you have a responsibility to do your due diligence in research, to remain respectful to your work and to your audience, and to be careful and conscientious about how you choose to create things.  It’s not about getting things absolutely perfect or being the most socially conscious creator out there, it’s about recognizing your responsibilities as a creator with a platform, no matter how big or small, and taking responsibility for your work. 

In summary:

Research, research, research

Avoid the obvious no-no’s (stereotypes, tokenization, fetishization, straight up stealing from other cultures, etc) and think critically about what creative choices you’re making and why

Do what you’re doing now, and reach out to people (who have put themselves out there as a resource).  There are tons of resources out there by people of colour, reach out when you’re not sure about something or would like some advice!

Responsibility, responsibility, responsibility

Thank you for reaching out!  Good luck with your work!

[awed-frog]

“The big flaw with this is that it completely misunderstands who JK Rowling is and why she wrote the books. Simply put, this novel is a Christian tale. You miss that, you miss the entire point of everything it has to say.” Elaborate? Sounds interesting and I haven’t heard that before.

Well - I love this to bits and sort of wrote my thesis about it, so here we go.

Basically, you’ve got several kinds of heroes, but ‘left-wing hero’ is almost a contradiction in terms (more on this later). There’s your average Greek hero, whose status as a hero is more of a social class than it is a job and who generally doesn’t have any morally redeeming qualities (have you met Theseus?). Then there’s the medieval Christian hero - he comes in different flavours, but what’s relevant here is the Perceval model: basically the village idiot, whose only power is his good heart and who has no desire to challenge the status quo (because kings are divinely ordained and also poets tend to work for them, so ‘That vassal guy of yours has rescued yet another damsel’ story is going to be better received than ‘Your tax system is corrupt and this knight will now implement direct democracy’). Next you have the modern superhero, who was born in a very different historical context (the vigilantism of 19th century US) and as such has very different priorities. Namely: in his world, there is no higher authority and it’s up to him to use his superior skills to be judge and executioner so he can protect the most vulnerable. This understandable but toxic narrative will later get mixed up with WW2 and then the rampant capitalism of the last 30 years, resulting in the current blockbustery mess.

Anyway - if you’re a Western writer, it’s basically impossible to escape these three shaping forces we’ve all grown up with (classical Antiquity, Christianity, and US-led imperialism/capitalism), so most books and movies of the last forever decades can be analyzed through this lens. In the case of JK Rowling, what you have is a Christian author who openly used her YA series to chart out her own relationship with God. This is not a secret, or a meta writer’s delusion, or anything: she’s discussed it in several interviews. Her main problem, which is most believers’ main problem, is how to reconcile her faith in a benevolent God with the suffering in her daily life; and something she’s mentioned more than once is how her mom died when she was 25, and how this was very much on her mind especially when she was writing Deathly Hallows.

Now, I don’t want to write a novel here, so I won’t analyze the entire series, but what it is is basically a social critique of British society, mixed up with Greek and Roman elements in a cosmetic way only, and - crucially - led by an extremely Christian hero. 

In every way that matters, Harry Potter is a direct descendant of Perceval: he’s someone who’s grown up in isolation as the village idiot (remember how he was shunned by other children because he was ‘dangerous’ and ‘different’), randomly found a more exciting world of which he previously knew nothing (he’s basically the only kid who gets to Hogwarts without knowing anything about the magical world, just like Perceval joined Arthur’s court after living in the woods for 15 years), and proceeded to make his mark not because of his innate powers or special abilities (he’s average at magic, except for Defence against the Dark Arts), but because he’s kind and good and humble. And in the end, he willingly sacrifices himself so everyone else can be saved: a Christ-like figure who even gets his very own Deposition (in the arms of Hagrid, the closest thing to a parent his actually has). 

(This, by the way, was the only reason why Hagrid was kept alive. JK Rowling had planned to kill him, but she absolutely wanted this scene - one of the most recognizable and beloved image in Christian art - in the books.)

And even if he ultimately survives his ‘death’ (like Jesus did), Harry refuses the riches and rank he was surely offered and chooses to spend his days in middle-class obscurity as a husband and father (if I remember correctly, Harry and Ginny’s house isn’t even big enough for their three kids). And no, of course he doesn’t stand for anything or challenges the status quo: that’s not his job. His job, like Jesus’, was to defeat evil by offering himself up in sacrifice; and the entire story - especially the last book - is a profound, intimate, and very moving reflection on faith.

(“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's”, remember? It’s not your job to change anything in the temporal, material world; your job is to nurture your immortal soul and prepare it for the true life that comes after death.)

Like - I don’t know how it was for younger readers, but for me, reading Deathy Hallows as an adult, it wrecked me. Even as an agnostic, I read it over and over again, and I kep finding new meaning in it. The whole thing is basically a retelling of the Book of Job, one of the most puzzling and beautiful parts of the Old Testament. That’s when Harry’s faith in God Dumbledore is tested, when his mentor, the cornerstone of his world, disappears; when Harry has to decide whether he’ll continue to believe in this absent, flawed figure despite all the bad things he keeps uncovering or give up his faith - and thus his soul - completely. The clearest, most startling moment exemplifying this religious dilemma is when Harry decides not to go after the wand. Getting it is the logical thing to do, the only way he can win, but Harry - while mourning Dobby - decides not to do it. That’s when he recovers his faith, and starts trusting his own kindness and piety (whatever happens, he will not defile a tomb) over everything else.

Another key moment is King’s Cross - here, and once more, Harry forgives his enemy, thus obeying Jesus’ commands. He sees Voldemort, the being who took everything from him - and he pities the pathetic, unloved thing he’s become. This is what sets him apart from everyone else and what makes him special: not his birth, not his magic, not some extraordinary artefact - but simply, like Dumbledore puts it, that he can love. After everything that’s bene done to him, he can still love; not only his friends, but his enemies. He forgives Voldemort, he forgives Snape, he forgives Malfoy, he forgives Dudley; and I see so many people angry about this, ranting about abuse victims and how hate is a right, but I think they’re missing the point. This is a Christian story; from a Christian perspective, your enemies need love more than your friends do. 

(“It is not those who are healthy who need a physician” and all that.)

And in any case, a hero is inherently not left-wing. The whole trope relies on three rock-solid facts: the hero is special, and he can do something you can’t, and that gives him the right or the duty to save others who can’t save themselves. Whether it is declined in its Christian form (the hero as self-sacrificing nobody) or in its fascist form (the hero as judge and king of the inferior masses), that is is the exact opposite of any kind of left-wing narrative, where meaningful change is brought about not by individual martyrdom or a benevolent super-human, but by collective action.

So, yeah - Harry changes nothing and is not the leader of the revolution, but it’s unfair to link this to JK Rowling’s politics. It’s just how the trope works. And, in fairness to her, many kind and compassionate authors who write books concerned with social justice tend to lean towards this kind of hero because the only workable alternative - the fascist super-hero - is way worse. Had Harry been that, for instance, he would have ended up ruling the wizarding world. Would that have been better for its democracy? A 19-year-old PM who knows nothing about the law or justice or diplomacy? A venerated war hero drunk on power? Instead, JK Rowling chooses the milder way out: Harry and his friends do change the system - little by little, and within the limits of the genre. Hermione becomes the equivalent of a human rights lawyer, while Harry and Ron join the Aurors (and I know there’s a lot of justified suspicion towards law enforcement, but frankly having good people in their ranks is still the only way to move things forward. It’s been years and I still haven’t heard a practical suggestion as to how a police-less nation would work). As for the government, it is restored to a fairer status quo - again, not the revolution many readers wanted, but also not the totalitarian monarchies or oligarchies or the super-hero’s world.

And as to how one can write a story that’s actually revolutionary - I don’t exactly know. Some writers rely on multiple narrating voices to try and escape the heroic trope; others work on bleak stories which point out the flaws in the system and stop short of solving them. I guess that, in the end, is one of the problem with left-wing politics: they’re simply less eye-catching, less cinematic. On the whole, it’s dull, boring work, the victories achieved by committees and celebrated with a piece of paper. From a literary point of view, it just doesn’t work.

[togglesbloggle]

So, @argumate is up to some more prosocial atheistic trolling.  As is usual with such things, the conversation isn’t particularly elevated, but it does make me nostalgic for the old bbc days.  So I thought I’d be the Discourse I’d like to see in the world.  This is the post that kicked things off; correctly noting Platonism as a philosophical foundation underpinning most versions of Abrahamic faiths.  And it’s probably the most useful place for me to target also, since hardly anybody just identifies as a Platonist but most westerners are one.  So, without further ado, a halfhearted and full-length defense of Platonism:

Well, strike that.  A little bit of ado.

I’m not a Platonist myself, so this is a devil’s advocate type of thing.  Or maybe you could call it an intellectual Turing test?  As I discuss here, my philosophical commitments are mostly to skepticism, and for instrumental reasons, to reductionist materialism.  That combo leaves me some wiggle room, and I find it fairly easy to provisionally occupy a religious mindset, so I can generally read and enjoy religious polemics.  I also have a fairly deep roster of what are often called ‘spiritual experiences’; I’m probably in the set of people that are by nature predisposed to religion.  I am not religious, and I approve of Argumate saying things like ‘God is not real’ a lot.  This is in no way a retread of the arguments in The Republic or Plato’s other writings; you can go read those if you want, but I’m going to play around with stuff that I think is better suited to this audience.

Attention conservation notice: yikes.  This got pretty long.

Anyway, on to the argument.  Argumate’s main point is pretty clear, I think: ‘forms’ in the Greek sense are a function and product of the perceiving mind.  Birds don’t conform to bird-ness; instead brains naturally produce a sort of bird-ness category to make processing the world easier, and to turn a series of wiggly and continuous phenomena into a discrete number of well-modeled objects.  Basically, we impose ‘thing-ness’ on the wavefunction of reality.  And there are some good reasons to think that it might be true!  Our understanding of categories gets a lot sharper when reality conveniently segregates itself, and whenever that boundary gets a little blurry, our ability to use categories tends to break down.  If the recognition of animal-ness came from contact with a higher plane of reality, you wouldn’t necessarily expect people to get confused about sponges.

But.  While there’s certainly plenty of support for Argumate’s position, it doesn’t strike me as anything near self-evident, or necessarily true.  So what I’ll argue is that Platonism isn’t obviously false, and that if we ever converge on a true answer to the question of our reality, then that truth could plausibly be recognizably Platonist.  My opening salvo here is, predictably enough, mathematics.

‘Mathematical Platonism’ is a whole other thing, only distantly related to Classical Platonism, and I only really mean to talk about the latter.  But nonetheless, mathematics really actually does appear to be a situation where we can simply sit in a chair, think deeply, and then more or less directly perceive truths.  Basic arithmetic can be independently discovered, and usefully applied, by almost anybody; ‘quantity’ comes naturally to most humans, and the inviolable laws of quantity are exploited just as often.  It’s also very hard to argue that these are ‘mere’ linguistic conventions, since fundamental natural behaviors like the conservation of mass depend on a kind of consistent logical framework.  In most chemical reactions, the number of atomic nuclei does not change, and the atoms added to a new molecule are perfectly mirrored by the loss of atoms in some reactant; this remains true in times and places where no thinking mind exists to count them.

There are a lot of debates about what math is, fundamentally.  But inevitably when we study math, we’re studying the set of things that must be true, given some premise: we’re asking whether some proposition is a necessary consequence of our axioms.  The so-called ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’ suggests that the phenomena that Argumate mentions- hotdogs and birds and whatnot- are observed only within the auspices of a sort of super-phenomenon.  Loosely speaking, we can call this super-phenomenon self-consistency.  

We treat phenomena as having a natural cause.  Platonism, at its crunchy intellectually rewarding center, represents a willingness to bite the bullet and say that self-consistency also has a cause.  Plato himself actually provided what might be the most elegant possible answer!  Basically, posit the simplest thing that meets the criterion of being A) autocausal and B) omnicausal, and then allow the self-consistency of the cosmos to follow from its dependence on (in Platonist terms, its emanation from) that single, unitary cause.  The universe is self-consistent for the very straightforward reason that there’s only one thing.  Any plurality, to the extent that plurality is even a thing, happens because ‘the only real thing’ is only partially expressed in a particular phenomenon.  To skip ahead to Lewis’ Christian interpretation of all this, you’d say that humans and moons and hotdogs are distinguished from God not by what they have, but by what they lack.

And for present purposes, I do want to take a step back and point out that this does feel like a reasonable answer to a very important question.  Materialism fundamentally has no answer to the question of self-consistency and/or the presence of logic and order, and that is (for me) one of its least satisfying limits.  We’ve got things like ‘the origin of the universe’, sure.  But we probe the Big Bang with mathematical models!  That’s a hell of an assumption- namely, that even at the origin of our universe, self-consistency applies.  It’s not like materialism has a bad explanation.  It just remains silent, treats the problem as outside the domain.  If we’re adopting the thing for utilitarian reasons, that’s fine.  But if we’re treating materialism as a more comprehensive philosophy, a possible approach to the bigger questions, then it’s a painful absence.  In that domain, far from being self-evidently true (in comparison to Platonism), materialism doesn’t even toss its hat in the ring!

Which, uh, gets us to the stuff about Forms and shadows in Plato’s Cave and all that- the intermediate form of existence between the omnisimple core of Platonism and the often chaotic and very plural experience of day-to-day life.  And frankly, we’re not especially bound to say that the forms are exactly as Plato described them, any more than atomism is restricted to Democritus.  Whether there is some ‘bird-ness’ that is supra- to all extant birds might be contestable; however, it’s easier to wonder whether ‘binary tree’ is supra- to speciation and the real pattern of differences between organisms that we map using Linnaean taxonomy.

But, this is an attempted defense of Platonism and not Toggle’s Version of Platonism that He Invented Because it’s Easier, so I’ll give it a try.  Fair warning to the reader, what follows is not fully endorsed (even in the context of a devil’s advocate-type essay), except the broader claim that it’s not self-evidently false.  And on the givens we came up with a couple paragraphs ago, this is a reasonable way to tackle what necessarily follows.  So let me see how far I can defend a very strong claim: in a self-consistent (or: mathematical) cosmos, beauty cannot be arbitrary.

Remember that Plato never argued that his Forms were arbitrary, or even fully discrete as such; their apparent plurality, like our own, emanates from the unitary Thing What Exists.  And so, bird-ness is treated as a contingent thing, not an absolute.  It’s just not contingent on human experience.  And so for us to believe in ‘bird-ness’ is to believe that there exists some specific and necessary pattern- a Form- which any given material bird must express.

Let’s take an obvious example: any flying bird will, for fairly simple aerodynamic reasons, tend to be symmetrical.  Usually, this means two wings.  In theory, you could… have one in the middle?  Maybe?  Even that seems rather goofy to try to imagine, but you could probably get away with it if you were extremely creative biologically.  And if we see a bird with only one wing (without a prosthetic or other form of accommodation), then we will tend quite naturally to recognize that something awful is in the process of happening.

A fully materialist explanation of our reaction here would say: we think of the one-winged bird as problematic because A) we have been socialized to recognize and appreciate two-winged birds, and spurn deviations from that socialization, or maybe B) because natural selection has given us a set of instincts that recognize when a body plan has failed in the past, so things like ‘being crippled’ or ‘being sick’ are recognizable.  

Platonism, I think, would offer a third option, that C) we recognize (as emanations of The Real Thing) that a one-winged bird body is insufficiently reflective of The Real Thing, and that accordingly it lacks the ability to keep existing.  Plato had some… basically magical ideas, about how Forms are recognized, but here I’ll point out that ‘deduction’ is a completely serviceable kind of magic for our purposes.  It is, after all, our direct experience of the self-consistency of the cosmos, which follows from the fact that we are ourselves an expression of that same self-consistency; it meets the criteria.  

Materialists, obviously, would agree that deductive reasoning could allow a person to recognize the problems inherent in a one-winged bird, but as I said a few paragraphs up, their(/our) explanation of this process is rootless.  “Yes, logic and a few high-confidence assumptions let you assume that a bird with only one wing is in trouble,” they might say.  And we might ask- “what makes you so sure?”  And then the materialist must respond, “Well, let me be more clear.  It always worked in the past, and my Bayesian priors are strongly in the direction of the method continuing to bear fruit.”  True enough, but it’s not an explanation and doesn’t pretend to be.  The universe just does this weird thing for some reason; it works ‘by magic’.  So why not call it that?  Theurgy for all!

So, consider.  We recognize (deductively, let’s say for the sake of argument) that a one-winged bird is on the road to becoming nonexistent, absent some change in circumstances.  It may keep going for a little while, but it’s not in homeostasis.  And if we reasonably admit this very basic duality to our thinking- things which can persist, and things which cannot- then we start to recognize a sort of analogy between physical phenomena and mathematical propositions.  A lemma can be right or wrong, albeit sometimes unprovably so.  Basically, it can follow- or not- from the axioms we’re working with.  And in a softer but very real sense, that one-winged body plan is wrong analogously to the lemma’s wrongness.  Not ‘wrong’ as in ‘counter to cultural norms’, but ‘wrong’ as in ‘unstable given the premises, given the Thing That Exists Most’.  Look up research on fitness landscapes, if you’re so inclined- actual biological research isn’t totally unacquainted with the notion.  There exists a surprisingly discrete ideal or set of ideals, both for flying birds as a whole and subordinately for any given flying bird species.  And we have discovered this using magic.

Insofar as beauty is something to be admired, or pursued, or is otherwise desirable, then our sense of beauty must necessarily correlate with those abstract, and dare I say supra-real, qualities which allow things to persist, and which can therefore be understood deductively.  And that set of qualities does, effectively, meet the Platonic criterion of a ‘form’.

The immediate materialist objection is: hey, wait a minute.  The supposed ‘objective’ criterion of a bird is contingent, not absolute!  It follows from the strength of gravity, the thickness of the atmosphere, the availability of food sources, and on and on.  This is one of the most important reasons why genetic drift and speciation happens in the first place, because the ‘ideal’ bird depends on an environment that’s in constant flux.

True enough.  But!  How do you think the atmosphere got there?  It’s an old trick in religious discourse, but in this case I think a valid one.  The rightness of the bird depends on the atmosphere, the rightness of the atmosphere depends on the planet, the rightness of the planet depends on the solar system, and ultimately it all depends on that necessary self-consistency which (we proclaim) implies our unitary Most Real Thing.  This does mean that we can’t really think of Platonic forms as wholly discrete objects, unconnected to one another and without internal relation among themselves- unfortunately, that’s part of the original Plato that I don’t see as defensible, even with maximum charity.  But there’s such a thing as a ‘ring species’, and if we admit Platonic Forms of that type, a kind of dense network of paths being traced through higher-dimensional spaces that correspond to the shadow of That Than Which There Is No Whicher, then it’s more than salvageable.  It’s both satisfying to imagine and, I think, quite consistent with the spirit of the original philosophy.

One thing this doesn’t mean.  Even if we were to accept all of this, we aren’t obliged to resign ourselves to the lot of that one-winged bird.  Indeed, if anything this gives us a rich language by which to justify a prosthetic wing or other form of accommodation: we can talk about ‘making the bird whole’, and can see how our compassion for that bird might lead us to create the conditions of homeostasis once again.  But it does mean that if we take a position on the merits of existence- if we’re in favor- then we don’t treat a one- and two-winged bird as coequal scenarios.

Anyway, this has gone on hideously long already for what’s basically an intellectual exercise, so I won’t dive into immortal souls or any of the other ancillaries.  I mostly want to reiterate that, far from being obviously false, I do think that (some forms of) Platonism are quite defensible, and can provide coherent answers to questions that I A) care about very deeply and B) can’t resolve to my own satisfaction.  Of course, it is not obviously nor trivially true, either.  But one can be Platonist without being willfully wrong.

[streets-in-paradise]

I want to talk about some of the main family relationships in Troy

As I already told once in one of my posts, I adore to overanalyze family relationships in the media I consume. I’m still in the process of writing another one as a second part to my sibling relationships post talking of more family relationships from various of my fandoms but, since that one is taking me too much time to finish, I'm writing now this shorter one for my Troy appreciation series. 

I already started this ramble in the same post I referenced. There I talked about my favourite family bond in the entire film, the sibling relationship of Hector and Paris. Still, there is a lot to discuss about family dynamics in the story this movie tells. Even since I was writing that post I kept thinking on how many family related story arcs this movie has and how, if you pay close attention to those, you can capture the essence of the characters. Because of this, I decided to dedicate a separate post to the main family relationships portrayed there and the important role they play in the development of the story. I will try to skip the ones i already talked about before. This are, for most part, the relationships inside the trojan royal family. Since i already discussed those, most of this will be about family bonds of the greek characters. 

As i stated in previous posts, this is a talk about the characters and actions in the movie. I’m not talking from an adaptation” movie vs book” point of view. I can occasionally mention some of the differences but there would be more references than comparisons. 

As always, i apologise for any possible mistakes in my writing. I’m still in the process of getting used to writing long texts in english. Also, I give proper credits for the images to the original sites hosting them. 

Agamemnon and Menelaus 

The movie establishes them clearly as the main antagonists. Precisely, one of the many scenes I love in this movie is the one in which they show up to the gates of Troy commanding the greek army and they argue with the trojan princes over the terms of the combat between Paris and Menelaus. The first thing I always notice in that one is how alike Hector and Paris look when they get down from their horses, it reminds me of the actual part of the Iliad in which it is said that Paris gets confused for a brave man because of his looks. Going back to my point, in that scene I get the vibe of opponents these characters have just by the display of the dynamics between siblings. 

Agamemnon is using his brother’s problem as an excuse for a war highly profitable for him. Menelaus is aware of this and he doesn’t care because he is too consumed by his wish for revenge and, it seems that this mutualistic beneficial goal is what sticks them together. Their first scene together, when Menelaus goes to Mycenae asking his brother for help, summarizes their relationship in a great way. Menelaus seems to have a rather servile attitude towards his brother and Agamemnon clearly takes advantage of that, having in that particular time a perfect excuse to attack an enemy he had wished to conquer for a long time. If you think about it, this is the exact opposite relationship of Hector and Paris. I love how well this scene fits as a contrast to the argument in the ship scene of Hector and Paris . In both, Menelaus and Paris are basically asking for the help of their older bros, one doing it on purpose and the other one half aware. Their family relationships are established so well by those two scenes. 

Going back to the one scene I mentioned first, the exchanges between characters are awesome. Not only because you can appreciate directly how this differences play a role in the conflict, but also because you can totally appreciate how every character involved is the exact opposite of the one who challenges. The exchange between Hector and Agamemnon is fantastic. I love how Hector cuts the crap on Agamemnon’s cocky bullshit, their short interaction is priceless.Also, i almost feel bad for Paris because “ the sun was shining when your wife left you” is his best line in the entire movie and he gets his ass kicked by Menelaus immediately afterwards. I like how, despite being a coward, Paris is a sassy little shit. 

Something i need to add about these brothers is that the Director’s Cut adds a better perspective on Agamemnon’s care for Menelaus. There are many short hints, especially after Menelaus’s death, that show how he actually cared for him. I think that this small glimpse should have stayed in the final version. Even when Agamemnon is a piece of shit of the worst kind and his brother was not very different, it is nice to see him caring for something else than his own imperialist desires from time to time and to get a real family vibe from those two.

Achilles and Patroclus 

Before starting with this two i want to clarify that i am fully aware of the very different interpretation their relationship got in this movie. I heard that the romantic approach was explored in Troy: fall of a city. I haven’t watched it yet, it is on my to watch list and at some point i will do it. Now, speaking of what we have seen in the context of the movie, i have to say that i love the adorable family bond they have since the first scene they share. This is by far my second favourite family bond in the film. 

As i said before i have a weakness for family relationships and tragedies regarding them are the biggest pain i can imagine. I don’t have anything against romantic Achilles x Patroclus, i just enjoy a lot the family approach it took here. First, i think it happens because i saw the movie far before reading any piece of trojan war related fiction and second because I happen to enjoy seeing family bonds more than romantical ones. My basic example for explaining this is the complaint I had over Kili x Tauriel and how it kinda shifted the focus of the previously established family story of the Line of Durin. If i have to choose between  a family or a romance story of any kind, I will always end up more interested in the first option because i relate to and enjoy those better. 

In this version, they are cousins with a very brother like relationship. I feel like here Patroclus acts like a little bro that hero worships Achilles. We know that his parents died and Achilles took care of him but we don’t know when that happened. What we do know is that his protection is the only aspect Achilles feels responsible for in his life. His bond with him reflects the best and the worst of him. It displays his softer and his most terrible side. Without paying close attention it looks like the romantic subplot with Briseis is the part of the plot that is supposed to show his soft side and, partially, it does but i think that job is already done earlier with the introduction of Patroclus. The story with Briseis serves mainly as support of what was already established there. The kindest, more human side of Achilles is clearly there when you look at his interactions with Patroclus. 

One of the main reasons why i enjoy this relationship so much is because, plotwise, it serves as a perfect point of encounter for the two main heros’ characterizations. Despite all the effort the storytelling makes in pointing out the many differences between Hector and Achilles, these two apparently opposite men share the same limitation. Hector’s goal is to protect his country, Achilles’s goal is immortality through fame, but both find themselves lost when their reckless younger relatives endanger themselves and both react the same way. When Paris was at instants of dying by the hands of Menelaus Hector had to choose between saving him or letting him get killed for the good of Troy. The man who serves as paradigm of honesty and sacrifice, the most noble hero of the story, broke the agreement and killed Menelaus. He broke a pact and gave his enemies an even better excuse for war that will doom Troy because his brother’s life was at risk. Achilles’s madness over grief for Patroclus fits so well family related in this particular narrative because it originated in the same feelings. Paris and Patroclus may be opposites, one being a coward and the other the embodiment of reckless courage, but both become the limit of tolerance for Hector and Achilles. At the end, both heros are driven by love for their families. In this version where Hector and Paris have this strong bond that works perfectly as a mirror for Achilles and Patroclus, it fits so well for them to be family. The chain of deaths unleashed with Patroclus’s death becomes a natural response to the bonds previously mentioned between the four characters involved. Everything becomes a big family tragedy and that is devastating. 

One more comment i will make about them is that i also love how some of Achilles’s friends add some more sweet or happy hints to some scenes. Eudorus, despite the formal servant-like way in which he speaks to Achilles, gives me a long time friend who is almost family vibe. Of course, i have to mention Odysseus here as well. Patroclus and Achilles sparring scene has an amazing chill domestic fun tone and he adds even more fun to the moment once he arrives. They are the most likeable greeks of the movie and you get such a friendly feeling of them. I live for these guys. The main scene they shared is the happiest of the film. 

Bonus mentions 

The Director’s Cut has a lot of scenes that help you understand some of the characters' motivations and lots of them are family related. One small scene I wish really hard the should had kept is the one in which Priam explains the reasons for his deep religious devotion. He listens to the high priest’s terrible advice and ignores his son’s wiser words not because he is a nice but dumb and inept king. He believes Apollo saved Hector from a disease when he was a baby boy. There is a reason for his blind, sometimes naive, faith in Apollo’s protection.Other cut out moment with a similar meaning is the one in which Andromache tells Hector she lost seven brothers in a previous war. She is tired of losing people, her husband is all she has. Having this in consideration her story turns even more tragic. 

I could mention a few more characters and moments but this is getting too long so i will end it here. I think it is enough for the topic i wanted to write about and the only main character i feel i skipped a bit here is Priam but i had talked enough about the trojans and how much i love them so i think it is enough. 

I enjoyed writing this, as fast as i can i will upload the general post for family relationships i’m working on and i’m thinking of making a special one like this for lotr.  @hrisity12​  I tag you as i always do in all my Troy content. 

Thanks for reading this ramble i intended to keep short but, as always, ended up longer than i expected. 

[whatiwillsay]

submission: Hello I Did A Giant DWOHT analysis for you to share

Looking at it through a lens of it being about Kaylor but with the context of Swiftgron: (you can put the Read More wherever you want)

I loved you in secret1

First sight2, yeah we love without reason

[1]

Wildest Dreams: “I said ‘no one has to know what we do’”

Ready For It: “I-island breeze and lights down low / no one has to know”

Dress: “Our secret moments in a crowded room / They’ve got no idea about me and you”

King of My Heart: “Late in the night, the city’s asleep / Your love is a secret I’m hoping, dreaming, dying to keep”

Secret love is a theme that seems explicitly connected to Karlie. There’s not much mention of it in any 1989 song except for Wildest Dreams, which I’d argue, was written early into Karlie and Taylor’s flirtationship where, after Dianna, Taylor was unconvinced that her love with another woman would lead to anything long-term. Wildest Dreams talks about her seeing her relationship with Karlie as a temporary thing that has to end eventually. Ready For It connects to this almost word for word. 

Dress talks about being in a situation with someone where you are both friends, and possibly hooking up, but that line between friendship and relationship hasn’t explicitly been crossed yet. I’m assuming the connection between “say you’ll remember me, standing in a nice dress” and “I only bought this dress so you could take it off” is on purpose. Taylor was making the most of their limited time together, still not seeing it going much further.

King of My Heart is clearly about Karlie, if not just for the connection to the city. It also connects to the timeline of how they got together, detailed in various songs across reputation and Lover, where they sit on the roof and have a serious conversation before they fully jump into things. 

So first line = about Karlie.

[2]

illicit affairs: “It’s born from just one single glance / but it dies and it dies and it dies, a million little times”

I haven’t been through illicit affairs thoroughly enough yet to confirm that it’s about Karlie, but I would say the song leans that way. 

However, “without reason” seems to connect to Wonderland in so many places, but especially given the context of the line before, specifically to “Didn’t they tell us ‘don’t rush into things?’ / Didn’t you flash your green eyes at me? / Haven’t you heard what becomes of curious minds?”

So, with that in mind, this line could refer to either Dianna or Karlie, but I’m going to go with Dianna, based on the line that follows:

Oh, twenty five3 years old

Oh, how were you to know? And

[3] Taylor was twenty five when Kissgate happened. However, Dianna was also both twenty five when she started dating Taylor, and twenty five when Shirtgate happened. I think this line could be taken as her talking to either herself or Dianna. 

However, it should be kept in mind that Taylor rarely refers to the ages of her lovers in her songs, preferring instead to refer reflexively to herself – “I don’t know about you, but I’m feeling twenty two” “I’m only seventeen, I don’t know anything” “When you’re fifteen” “It’s like I’m seventeen, nobody understands.”

The “how were you to know” also seems to imply a sense of youthfulness and naivete. Whoever was twenty five wasn’t old enough to know what would happen. Perhaps here she’s reflecting on the fact that now, at the same age that Dianna was when they began dating, she seems to know just as little. While Dianna may have seemed older and more worldly to her when they started dating, now at the same age, Taylor has made the same mistakes she did. I think here she is talking both to Dianna and to herself.

My love had been frozen4

Deep blue, but you painted me golden5

Oh, and you held me close

Oh, how was I to know?6 I-

Okay, there is so much work that metaphor is doing in these three lines here, so let’s go through them one by one.

[4] Ice and frozen-ness as a theme doesn’t really show up until reputation. However, knowing that Dianna is often associated with water/a storm throughout Red and 1989 makes this line interesting. On one hand, Taylor could be saying here that whatever water/storm that was her love for Dianna had stopped moving, which is backed up by the fact that throughout the Speak Now album, Taylor refers to someone being “cold” when they are at a low point, or a relationship is dying. 

On the other hand, there’s the whole metaphor of the “fishbowl” from the Lover music video and that being a representation of glass closeting. 

Taylor confirmed that this room represents the 1989 Era.

Because of this, the water metaphors get a little tricky, ESPECIALLY as it connects to the songs New Years Day and Paper Rings, because an icy pool also shows up in those stories:

Paper Rings: “In the winter, in the icy outdoor pool / When you jumped in first, I went in too”

So jumping into a pool seems to be a symbol for commitment, Karlie and Taylor jumping into glass closeting together… except that makes no sense for the timeline. Kissgate happened nearly two months before this pool jumping incident. So that leaves us with two options:

New Years Day (and by extension, Paper Rings) are about Calvin Harris, who she was dating at the time this story takes place.

Taylor lied about this pool story. It isn’t real, but it IS a metaphor.

This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: “It was so nice throwing big parties / Jump into the pool from the balcony / Everyone swimming in a champagne sea”

TIWWCHNT explicitly connects the year 2015 to Taylor throwing wild parties and “feeling so Gatsby,” as Taylor looks back on it as a time before Kissgate or #TaylorSwiftIsOverParty where she was having a carefree amount of fun and didn’t have to face consequences for things.

For me, this suggests that the pool/balcony story/metaphor takes place in 2014/15 rather than 2016, that it IS about glass closeting during the 1989 era, and that, metaphorically, it refers to jumping into things while Taylor was still grieving the loss of Dianna (hence, why the water is icy and cold).

[5] As we know from the song Red, losing Dianna the first time was a blue like Taylor had never known. While many people say blue is a romantic color representing Karlie/Joe, I don’t think this origins of the theme can be ignored, especially since Taylor brings the red/gold metaphor throughout even her most recent work. The “but” in the line is also doing a lot of work here, referencing some sort of contrast between the blue and what happens next. This gives this line two interpretations:

Taylor was still feeling the blue of losing Dianna when she met Karlie, but started dating her anyways.

Karlie herself was blue over something, but still found it in her to paint Taylor gold anyways.

I’m inclined to believe the first interpretation, as that lines up the most with the idea of Taylor’s love being frozen.

[6] Here Taylor repeats the sentiment, only this time referring to herself. To me, this means that the first “25” was indeed referring to Dianna, which I think confirms that the events of Kissgate made Taylor look back either on her relationship with Dianna and how it started OR, possibly, Dianna’s experience during Shirtgate, where afterwards she had to be shoved far back in the closet. 

This makes there a parallel set of questions here:

How were you (Dianna), at twenty five, supposed to know what would happen if you dated me/wore that shirt onstage?

How was I (Taylor), at twenty five, supposed to know that my glass closet with Karlie Kloss, who had healed my hurt from Dianna, was going to come crashing down so quickly?

Could’ve spent forever with your hands in my pockets

Picture of your face in an invisible locket7

You said there was nothing in the world that could stop it8

I had a bad feeling

[7] While some wild Kaylors think this may refer to an actual locket, I think more likely this is a reference to glass closeting, as it is immediately juxtaposed with the image of someone’s (Karlie’s) hands in her pockets. This is a specifically physical gesture, and one that can be seen by other people. What is hidden is the romantic aspect of it, which is represented by the one locket Taylor can’t wear (a good metaphor considering she has matching necklaces with all her beards). This is the reality in which Taylor wanted to spend forever. 

[8] What I think is most interesting about this section of lyrics, though, is that it seems to imply Karlie was telling Taylor everything would be fine, despite Taylor worrying that what happened with her and Dianna (gossip mags outing them and them having to break up) would happen here. I think this is likely because Karlie’s one other big relationship, with Toni Garrn, was also done in a big glass closeting way, and Karlie was now with her (likely permanent) beard Josh. Karlie assumed things were going to be fine. Taylor, who had alternative bad experiences that ruined her relationship with Dianna, had a bad feeling.

And darling, you had turned my bed into a sacred oasis9

People started talking, putting us through our paces

I knew there was no one in the world who could take it10

I had a bad feeling

[9] This is nearly the exact same phrasing as in Ready For It: “Island breeze with lights down low, no one has to know.” The connection between those lyrics and this song implies that the events preceding Kissgate were still early in their relationship (more proof that there was some overlap with Dianna).

The word “scared” here also continues to play into Taylor’s obsession with deconstructing Christian/religious imagery (ex/ Don’t Blame Me). 

[10] Once again, this suggests Taylor is looking back on her relationship with Dianna here. She knows there is no one in the world who can take it, because she’s already been through it with someone else.  So, when whispers started up before Kissgate (keeping in mind Taylor’s team probably knew as soon as the L Chat started talking about them), Taylor could feel things start to go downhill again, despite what Karlie said.

But we were dancing

Dancing with our hands tied11, hands tied

Yeah, we were dancing

Like it was the first time12, first time

Yeah we were dancing

Dancing with our hands tied, hands tied

Yeah, we were dancing

And I had a bad feeling

But we were dancing13

[11] This imagery is so connected to the “invisible locket” in the first verse. I do not believe the first chorus refers to Kissgate specifically (I agree with Cam’s assertion on the podcast that Kaylors have this big tendency to assume Taylor is speaking about public moments in her songs). Rather, I think them “dancing with their hands tied” refers to having a relationship while glass closeting. They are doing something fun and wild, but not quite free, still limited in certain ways. However, after keeping her relationship with Dianna so (relatively) private and it still falling apart, I can see how glass closeting so openly with Karlie would’ve felt like “dancing” in comparison. 

[12] Here again is the implication of naivete. Taylor knows it is not the first time. She has experiences that tell her this is not wise, and indeed her intuition is saying the same, and yet she is acting as if she has learned nothing from her relationship with Dianna, or even Emily, for that matter. Once again, think back to Wonderland: “Didn’t it all seem new and exciting? / I felt your arms twisting around me / I should’ve slept with one eye open at night.” Taylor has already been through this with Dianna, caught up in the excitement, unable to listen to her intuition, going into things too quickly.

[13] This confirms that statement. Taylor’s intuition is telling her that they are getting too reckless in their glass closeting, but she is having too much fun dancing, despite the limitations, to really listen to it. And this is where the Kissgate imagery comes in, because with Josh Kushner (Karlie’s insurance) literally standing right behind them the whole night, the 1975 concert becomes the perfect (and public) representation of this, which is perhaps why Taylor chose dancing as a metaphor to begin with:

I loved you in spite of

Deep fears that the world would divide us14

So, baby can we dance

Oh, through an avalanche?15And

Say, say that we got it?

I’m a mess, but I’m the mess that you wanted16

Oh, ‘cause it’s gravity

Oh, keeping you with me,17 I–

[14] Here Taylor displays some awareness that outside circumstances had quite a lot of a role to play in the end of her relationships. This especially reminds me of how she framed her relationship with Dianna in Wonderland. It is no one’s fault. It is the circumstances of their relationship, and yet, despite that, they “pretended it could last forever.” 

Taylor admits this, too, in the 1: “If one thing had been different / Would everything be different today?” To me, this implies that it was not their incompatibility that broke them up, but the one circumstance of the setting of their relationship (whether it being gay – think Taylor’s laments in The Man – or them both being celebrities, you take your pick). 

[15] So, with the things that drove her and Dianna apart in mind, Taylor returns to the metaphor of the snowglobe from You Are In Love (“You two are dancing in a snow globe, round and round”), which itself is another representation, like the fishbowl, of a glass closet. Here, Taylor asks Karlie if they can keep dancing once the snowglobe is shaken and the snow starts flying. Think again of the metaphor of the New Year’s Eve party – Taylor associates their early glass closet relationship with snow and frozen-ness because thoughts of Dianna were still lingering, even up to this point. Even in little tiny frozen flakes, the water was still there.

[16] I think this line may refer to a conversation between Karlie and Taylor before Kissgate, where Taylor voiced these fears, a “mess” of anxiety, and became scared Karlie would leave her (think The Archer). 

This could also refer to Taylor still being “a mess” about Dianna when she got together with Karlie.

[17] Karlie is the sun. Taylor is merely orbiting. Throughout this song, the implication is that Taylor has been listening to Karlie, taking cues from her, following her plan, despite her own intuitions. Think hoax – “You knew you won, so what’s the point of keeping score?” – despite the games Karlie and Taylor were playing early in their relationship, and despite Taylor still having feelings for Dianna, Taylor fell for Karlie harder and faster than Karlie fell for her, and most likely this was why she jumped in headfirst without listening to her intuition.

[Pre-Chorus and Chorus repeat]

I’d kiss you as the lights went out18

Swaying as the room burned down19

I’d hold you as the water rushes in20

If I could dance with you again

[18] Reference to the supposed kiss during the 1975 concert. Now, while I don’t believe there was actually a kiss that night, I think here Taylor is lamenting that, in her regrets and in her mind, she wishes she actually had kissed Karlie openly that night, as the rest of these metaphors are merely hypothetical.

[19] Okay, so here we go. Karlie as the “fire” time! Let’s look at this progression of lyrics that lead up to this song, not looking at when these songs were written, but just how the metaphor progresses:

This Is What You Came For: “Lightning strikes everytime she moves”

Dress: “And, if I get burned, at least we were electrifying”

Wildest Dreams: “You see me in hindsight / tangled up with you all night / Burning it down”

I am not including Call It What You Want here and the most obvious metaphor, because that one clearly takes place post-#TaylorSwiftIsOverParty. 

Either way, it seems clear that Taylor saw their early relationship as something dangerous and electrifying, that the room “burning down” was an inevitability in Wildest Dreams (think Blank Space’s “So it’s gonna be forever, or it’s gonna go down in flames”). Here, it is almost implied that Taylor didn’t sway with her as the room burned down, that they both actively distanced themselves from “the room” and avoided getting burned:

[20] This line puzzles me the most, because immediately, in context, it reminds me of Clean, but clean wasn’t about facing media scrutiny with Dianna, Clean was about getting over Dianna. In Clean Taylor doesn’t hide away from the water the way she seems to have in the fire metaphor above. She let it wash over her. 

Perhaps a case could be made that the situation of Clean was something that needed to happen due to media scrutiny, and that then here Taylor references getting ready to be separated from Karlie and get over her, but that doesn’t work because the line specifically says she’d hold her as the water rushes in. Same works for applying any sort of metaphor for it to Dianna. 

However, I will admit that Wonderland’s “You held on tight to me / ‘Cause nothing’s as it seems / And spinning out of control” does paint a nice parallel to this lyric. Still, in Wonderland there was the difference of Dianna holding onto Taylor as things got out of control, whereas in this song, Taylor wishes she had been able to hold onto Karlie. This makes sense with the timeline, as Taylor didn’t consider herself “over” Dianna until nearly a year after their supposed February 2013 breakup date, and Style was certainly written somewhere in that year. Dianna kept trying to make things work, even after the article came out about them. Taylor wishes, in the aftermath of Kissgate, that she had done that too with Karlie.

So, perhaps, this is a metaphor for the fishbowl/snowglobe breaking? Certainly Kissgate shattered their glass closeting. The grieving theme of Clean could still work here, as Taylor grieves what was her relationship before that night happened, only this time the relationship doesn’t have to end, it just gets to evolve. If the glass closet breaks, the snow globe shatters, they would’ve been out of the closet. Taylor seems to regret that here, saying that, were she to have another chance, she’d come out with Karlie then, instead of the bearding with Calvin Harris that followed.

To me this also implies that this song was written with a lot of hindsight to that moment. We have no idea when this song was written, but I would guess it’s sometime in 2016 or late 2015, after Calvin entered the picture and Taylor was shoved back into the (non-glass) closet. I think that moment is what makes the most sense for why she would’ve been reflecting on Dianna so much, as she was back in a similar situation as she was when she was with Dianna bearding-wise.

So, in conclusion, I would say this song describes the beginning of the push and pull that would eventually break Karlie and Taylor up. Taylor looks back regretfully on the glass closeting and wishes she could return to those times, if not come out herself. Karlie, on the other hand, reveled in the glass closeting specifically because she had Josh as an airtight escape plan. Obviously this would all break them apart later, when Karlie chose that escape plan over dancing with Taylor again.

And then there’s the Dianna piece of it. In reflecting on her past relationship with Dianna, I think Taylor came to the conclusion (based on the parallels with Wonderland in this song), that Dianna would have also held onto her as the water rushed in. While I think it’s unlikely this would happen, the conclusion of Taylor’s fantasy here seems to imply that Dianna would’ve been more open to coming with Taylor in the way Karlie could/would not so in conclusion… Dianna is the red rose in the lakes confirmed?

I loved you in secret

First sight, yeah we love without reason

  [1]

Wildest Dreams: “I said ‘no one has to know what we do’”

Ready For It: “I-island breeze and lights down low / no one has to know”

Dress: “Our secret moments in a crowded room / They’ve got no idea about me and you”

King of My Heart: “Late in the night, the city’s asleep / Your love is a secret I’m hoping, dreaming, dying to keep”

  Secret love is a theme that seems explicitly connected to Karlie. There’s not much mention of it in any 1989 song except for Wildest Dreams, which I’d argue, was written early into Karlie and Taylor’s flirtationship where, after Dianna, Taylor was unconvinced that her love with another woman would lead to anything long-term. Wildest Dreams talks about her seeing her relationship with Karlie as a temporary thing that has to end eventually. Ready For It connects to this almost word for word. 

  Dress talks about being in a situation with someone where you are both friends, and possibly hooking up, but that line between friendship and relationship hasn’t explicitly been crossed yet. I’m assuming the connection between “say you’ll remember me, standing in a nice dress” and “I only bought this dress so you could take it off” is on purpose. Taylor was making the most of their limited time together, still not seeing it going much further.

  King of My Heart is clearly about Karlie, if not just for the connection to the city. It also connects to the timeline of how they got together, detailed in various songs across reputation and Lover, where they sit on the roof and have a serious conversation before they fully jump into things. 

  So first line = about Karlie.

  [1]

illicit affairs: “It’s born from just one single glance / but it dies and it dies and it dies, a million little times”

  I haven’t been through illicit affairs thoroughly enough yet to confirm that it’s about Karlie, but I would say the song leans that way. 

  However, “without reason” seems to connect to Wonderland in so many places, but especially given the context of the line before, specifically to “Didn’t they tell us ‘don’t rush into things?’ / Didn’t you flash your green eyes at me? / Haven’t you heard what becomes of curious minds?”

So, with that in mind, this line could refer to either Dianna or Karlie, but I’m going to go with Dianna, based on the line that follows:

  Oh, twenty five years old

Oh, how were you to know? And

  [1] Taylor was twenty five when Kissgate happened. However, Dianna was also both twenty five when she started dating Taylor, and twenty five when Shirtgate happened. I think this line could be taken as her talking to either herself or Dianna. 

  However, it should be kept in mind that Taylor rarely refers to the ages of her lovers in her songs, preferring instead to refer reflexively to herself – ��I don’t know about you, but I’m feeling twenty two” “I’m only seventeen, I don’t know anything” “When you’re fifteen” “It’s like I’m seventeen, nobody understands.”

  The “how were you to know” also seems to imply a sense of youthfulness and naivete. Whoever was twenty five wasn’t old enough to know what would happen. Perhaps here she’s reflecting on the fact that now, at the same age that Dianna was when they began dating, she seems to know just as little. While Dianna may have seemed older and more worldly to her when they started dating, now at the same age, Taylor has made the same mistakes she did. I think here she is talking both to Dianna and to herself.

  My love had been frozen

Deep blue, but you painted me golden

Oh, and you held me close

Oh, how was I to know? I-

  Okay, there is so much work that metaphor is doing in these three lines here, so let’s go through them one by one.

  [1] Ice and frozen-ness as a theme doesn’t really show up until reputation. However, knowing that Dianna is often associated with water/a storm throughout Red and 1989 makes this line interesting. On one hand, Taylor could be saying here that whatever water/storm that was her love for Dianna had stopped moving, which is backed up by the fact that throughout the Speak Now album, Taylor refers to someone being “cold” when they are at a low point, or a relationship is dying. 

  On the other hand, there’s the whole metaphor of the “fishbowl” from the Lover music video and that being a representation of glass closeting. 

  Taylor confirmed that this room represents the 1989 Era.

  Because of this, the water metaphors get a little tricky, ESPECIALLY as it connects to the songs New Years Day and Paper Rings, because an icy pool also shows up in those stories:

  Paper Rings: “In the winter, in the icy outdoor pool / When you jumped in first, I went in too”

    So jumping into a pool seems to be a symbol for commitment, Karlie and Taylor jumping into glass closeting together… except that makes no sense for the timeline. Kissgate happened nearly two months before this pool jumping incident. So that leaves us with two options:

  New Years Day (and by extension, Paper Rings) are about Calvin Harris, who she was dating at the time this story takes place.

Taylor lied about this pool story. It isn’t real, but it IS a metaphor.

  This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: “It was so nice throwing big parties / Jump into the pool from the balcony / Everyone swimming in a champagne sea”

  TIWWCHNT explicitly connects the year 2015 to Taylor throwing wild parties and “feeling so Gatsby,” as Taylor looks back on it as a time before Kissgate or #TaylorSwiftIsOverParty where she was having a carefree amount of fun and didn’t have to face consequences for things.

  For me, this suggests that the pool/balcony story/metaphor takes place in 2014/15 rather than 2016, that it IS about glass closeting during the 1989 era, and that, metaphorically, it refers to jumping into things while Taylor was still grieving the loss of Dianna (hence, why the water is icy and cold).

  [2] As we know from the song Red, losing Dianna the first time was a blue like Taylor had never known. While many people say blue is a romantic color representing Karlie/Joe, I don’t think this origins of the theme can be ignored, especially since Taylor brings the red/gold metaphor throughout even her most recent work. The “but” in the line is also doing a lot of work here, referencing some sort of contrast between the blue and what happens next. This gives this line two interpretations:

Taylor was still feeling the blue of losing Dianna when she met Karlie, but started dating her anyways.

Karlie herself was blue over something, but still found it in her to paint Taylor gold anyways.

I’m inclined to believe the first interpretation, as that lines up the most with the idea of Taylor’s love being frozen.

  [1] Here Taylor repeats the sentiment, only this time referring to herself. To me, this means that the first “25” was indeed referring to Dianna, which I think confirms that the events of Kissgate made Taylor look back either on her relationship with Dianna and how it started OR, possibly, Dianna’s experience during Shirtgate, where afterwards she had to be shoved far back in the closet. 

  This makes there a parallel set of questions here:

How were you (Dianna), at twenty five, supposed to know what would happen if you dated me/wore that shirt onstage?

How was I (Taylor), at twenty five, supposed to know that my glass closet with Karlie Kloss, who had healed my hurt from Dianna, was going to come crashing down so quickly?

  Could’ve spent forever with your hands in my pockets

Picture of your face in an invisible locket

You said there was nothing in the world that could stop it

I had a bad feeling

  [1] While some wild Kaylors think this may refer to an actual locket, I think more likely this is a reference to glass closeting, as it is immediately juxtaposed with the image of someone’s (Karlie’s) hands in her pockets. This is a specifically physical gesture, and one that can be seen by other people. What is hidden is the romantic aspect of it, which is represented by the one locket Taylor can’t wear (a good metaphor considering she has matching necklaces with all her beards). This is the reality in which Taylor wanted to spend forever. 

  [2] What I think is most interesting about this section of lyrics, though, is that it seems to imply Karlie was telling Taylor everything would be fine, despite Taylor worrying that what happened with her and Dianna (gossip mags outing them and them having to break up) would happen here. I think this is likely because Karlie’s one other big relationship, with Toni Garrn, was also done in a big glass closeting way, and Karlie was now with her (likely permanent) beard Josh. Karlie assumed things were going to be fine. Taylor, who had alternative bad experiences that ruined her relationship with Dianna, had a bad feeling.

  And darling, you had turned my bed into a sacred oasis

People started talking, putting us through our paces

I knew there was no one in the world who could take it

I had a bad feeling

  [2] This is nearly the exact same phrasing as in Ready For It: “Island breeze with lights down low, no one has to know.” The connection between those lyrics and this song implies that the events preceding Kissgate were still early in their relationship (more proof that there was some overlap with Dianna).

  The word “scared” here also continues to play into Taylor’s obsession with deconstructing Christian/religious imagery (ex/ Don’t Blame Me). 

  [2] Once again, this suggests Taylor is looking back on her relationship with Dianna here. She knows there is no one in the world who can take it, because she’s already been through it with someone else.  So, when whispers started up before Kissgate (keeping in mind Taylor’s team probably knew as soon as the L Chat started talking about them), Taylor could feel things start to go downhill again, despite what Karlie said.

  But we were dancing

Dancing with our hands tied, hands tied

Yeah, we were dancing

Like it was the first time, first time

Yeah we were dancing

Dancing with our hands tied, hands tied

Yeah, we were dancing

And I had a bad feeling

But we were dancing

  [2] This imagery is so connected to the “invisible locket” in the first verse. I do not believe the first chorus refers to Kissgate specifically (I agree with Cam’s assertion on the podcast that Kaylors have this big tendency to assume Taylor is speaking about public moments in her songs). Rather, I think them “dancing with their hands tied” refers to having a relationship while glass closeting. They are doing something fun and wild, but not quite free, still limited in certain ways. However, after keeping her relationship with Dianna so (relatively) private and it still falling apart, I can see how glass closeting so openly with Karlie would’ve felt like “dancing” in comparison. 

  [2] Here again is the implication of naivete. Taylor knows it is not the first time. She has experiences that tell her this is not wise, and indeed her intuition is saying the same, and yet she is acting as if she has learned nothing from her relationship with Dianna, or even Emily, for that matter. Once again, think back to Wonderland: “Didn’t it all seem new and exciting? / I felt your arms twisting around me / I should’ve slept with one eye open at night.” Taylor has already been through this with Dianna, caught up in the excitement, unable to listen to her intuition, going into things too quickly.

  [3] This confirms that statement. Taylor’s intuition is telling her that they are getting too reckless in their glass closeting, but she is having too much fun dancing, despite the limitations, to really listen to it. And this is where the Kissgate imagery comes in, because with Josh Kushner (Karlie’s insurance) literally standing right behind them the whole night, the 1975 concert becomes the perfect (and public) representation of this, which is perhaps why Taylor chose dancing as a metaphor to begin with:

    I loved you in spite of

Deep fears that the world would divide us

So, baby can we dance

Oh, through an avalanche? And

Say, say that we got it?

I’m a mess, but I’m the mess that you wanted

Oh, ‘cause it’s gravity

Oh, keeping you with me, I–

  [3] Here Taylor displays some awareness that outside circumstances had quite a lot of a role to play in the end of her relationships. This especially reminds me of how she framed her relationship with Dianna in Wonderland. It is no one’s fault. It is the circumstances of their relationship, and yet, despite that, they “pretended it could last forever.” 

  Taylor admits this, too, in the 1: “If one thing had been different / Would everything be different today?” To me, this implies that it was not their incompatibility that broke them up, but the one circumstance of the setting of their relationship (whether it being gay – think Taylor’s laments in The Man – or them both being celebrities, you take your pick). 

  [3] So, with the things that drove her and Dianna apart in mind, Taylor returns to the metaphor of the snowglobe from You Are In Love (“You two are dancing in a snow globe, round and round”), which itself is another representation, like the fishbowl, of a glass closet. Here, Taylor asks Karlie if they can keep dancing once the snowglobe is shaken and the snow starts flying. Think again of the metaphor of the New Year’s Eve party – Taylor associates their early glass closet relationship with snow and frozen-ness because thoughts of Dianna were still lingering, even up to this point. Even in little tiny frozen flakes, the water was still there.

  [3] I think this line may refer to a conversation between Karlie and Taylor before Kissgate, where Taylor voiced these fears, a “mess” of anxiety, and became scared Karlie would leave her (think The Archer). 

  This could also refer to Taylor still being “a mess” about Dianna when she got together with Karlie.

  [3] Karlie is the sun. Taylor is merely orbiting. Throughout this song, the implication is that Taylor has been listening to Karlie, taking cues from her, following her plan, despite her own intuitions. Think hoax – “You knew you won, so what’s the point of keeping score?” – despite the games Karlie and Taylor were playing early in their relationship, and despite Taylor still having feelings for Dianna, Taylor fell for Karlie harder and faster than Karlie fell for her, and most likely this was why she jumped in headfirst without listening to her intuition.

  [Pre-Chorus and Chorus repeat]

  I’d kiss you as the lights went out

Swaying as the room burned down

I’d hold you as the water rushes in

If I could dance with you again

  [3] Reference to the supposed kiss during the 1975 concert. Now, while I don’t believe there was actually a kiss that night, I think here Taylor is lamenting that, in her regrets and in her mind, she wishes she actually had kissed Karlie openly that night, as the rest of these metaphors are merely hypothetical.

  [4] Okay, so here we go. Karlie as the “fire” time! Let’s look at this progression of lyrics that lead up to this song, not looking at when these songs were written, but just how the metaphor progresses:

  This Is What You Came For: “Lightning strikes everytime she moves”

Dress: “And, if I get burned, at least we were electrifying”

Wildest Dreams: “You see me in hindsight / tangled up with you all night / Burning it down”

  I am not including Call It What You Want here and the most obvious metaphor, because that one clearly takes place post-#TaylorSwiftIsOverParty. 

  Either way, it seems clear that Taylor saw their early relationship as something dangerous and electrifying, that the room “burning down” was an inevitability in Wildest Dreams (think Blank Space’s “So it’s gonna be forever, or it’s gonna go down in flames”). Here, it is almost implied that Taylor didn’t sway with her as the room burned down, that they both actively distanced themselves from “the room” and avoided getting burned:

  [4] This line puzzles me the most, because immediately, in context, it reminds me of Clean, but clean wasn’t about facing media scrutiny with Dianna, Clean was about getting over Dianna. In Clean Taylor doesn’t hide away from the water the way she seems to have in the fire metaphor above. She let it wash over her. 

  Perhaps a case could be made that the situation of Clean was something that needed to happen due to media scrutiny, and that then here Taylor references getting ready to be separated from Karlie and get over her, but that doesn’t work because the line specifically says she’d hold her as the water rushes in. Same works for applying any sort of metaphor for it to Dianna. 

  However, I will admit that Wonderland’s “You held on tight to me / ‘Cause nothing’s as it seems / And spinning out of control” does paint a nice parallel to this lyric. Still, in Wonderland there was the difference of Dianna holding onto Taylor as things got out of control, whereas in this song, Taylor wishes she had been able to hold onto Karlie. This makes sense with the timeline, as Taylor didn’t consider herself “over” Dianna until nearly a year after their supposed February 2013 breakup date, and Style was certainly written somewhere in that year. Dianna kept trying to make things work, even after the article came out about them. Taylor wishes, in the aftermath of Kissgate, that she had done that too with Karlie.

  So, perhaps, this is a metaphor for the fishbowl/snowglobe breaking? Certainly Kissgate shattered their glass closeting. The grieving theme of Clean could still work here, as Taylor grieves what was her relationship before that night happened, only this time the relationship doesn’t have to end, it just gets to evolve. If the glass closet breaks, the snow globe shatters, they would’ve been out of the closet. Taylor seems to regret that here, saying that, were she to have another chance, she’d come out with Karlie then, instead of the bearding with Calvin Harris that followed.

  To me this also implies that this song was written with a lot of hindsight to that moment. We have no idea when this song was written, but I would guess it’s sometime in 2016 or late 2015, after Calvin entered the picture and Taylor was shoved back into the (non-glass) closet. I think that moment is what makes the most sense for why she would’ve been reflecting on Dianna so much, as she was back in a similar situation as she was when she was with Dianna bearding-wise.

  So, in conclusion, I would say this song describes the beginning of the push and pull that would eventually break Karlie and Taylor up. Taylor looks back regretfully on the glass closeting and wishes she could return to those times, if not come out herself. Karlie, on the other hand, reveled in the glass closeting specifically because she had Josh as an airtight escape plan. Obviously this would all break them apart later, when Karlie chose that escape plan over dancing with Taylor again.

  And then there’s the Dianna piece of it. In reflecting on her past relationship with Dianna, I think Taylor came to the conclusion (based on the parallels with Wonderland in this song), that Dianna would have also held onto her as the water rushed in. While I think it’s unlikely this would happen, the conclusion of Taylor’s fantasy here seems to imply that Dianna would’ve been more open to coming with Taylor in the way Karlie could/would not so in conclusion… Dianna is the red rose in the lakes confirmed?

[rockofeye]

Spiritual Colonialism and the Doctrine of Discovery

On the eve of the annual US celebration of the colonial occupation and settlement of Indigenous lands and the long-term, still-unfolding process of eradication of Indigenous cultures and nations, it’s important to think about how this came about, how the concepts of the Doctrine of Discovery have harmed Indigenous spiritual systems, how these concepts are still alive and well among spiritual seekers, and how to divest ourselves and our spiritual communities of this specific flavor of spiritual violence.

The Doctrine of Discovery was primarily established by the Roman Catholic Church in the 15th century, and was utilized as a means of conversion of discovered peoples in what European nation-states saw as unclaimed territories. As government structures in that time period and for quite awhile after that were very mixed with religious structures (the pope was considered equal to or above sitting monarchs), this bled from missionary activities to government-funded explorations of previously unknown territories. Cristoforo Colombo/Christopher Columbus is a good example of this; his funding coming from the Spanish crown, which in turn had sought the approval of the papal state. The Conquistadors (literally ‘conquerors’) were missioned out in the same way: sail for new land, claim it for the monarch, and convert and enslave anyone already living there. The Crusades were similar: claim/re-claim primarily the Holy Land/Jerusalem for the Church (and other territories later) from Muslim rule (interestingly, participation in the Crusades was considered as an indulgence of sorts--the Church promised remission of sins for going to slaughter Muslims).

As most of us know, all of these ‘undiscovered lands’ were already populated with complex societies that had all the trappings of European city-states: government structures, division of labor, technological pursuits, family structures and units, and, perhaps most important in the quest for land as funded by the Church, spiritual and religious beliefs and systems. All of these European invaders showed up to Indigenous nations and, by most early accounts, were welcomed warmly. In return, these invaders brought diseases that killed wide swaths of the established societies, used interpersonal and large-scale violence to control and conquer, and did what we know as colonialism: seized land, declared it belonging to someone else, and essentially did a pop-up of European culture on the spot. 

The thread that kept this alive in European culture and religion was the belief that these pre-existing cultures were inferior to European thought and belief. What was present was clearly not the same as European culture but instead of being able to use higher thinking skills and reason out that what is different is not inherently evil, colonizers under the direction of religious monarchs declared these differences as spiritually poisoned, demonic, and uncivilized. This brought forth what quickly became an overculture of white supremacy that declared all non-European influenced thought as in need of conversion and erased differences in European cultures.

At the same time, missionaries had been spreading into the Kongo basin region of Africa. Christianity had been present in northern Africa essentially since the very beginning; many early figures in Christian history were recorded as being from Africa, three early popes were recorded as being Black, and the first recorded established Christian monastic community dates to the early 1100s in modern day Algeria. But, in the 1400s, the Portuguese arrived and spread inward. Many accounts from the Kongo region talk about Catholic beliefs being folded into Indigenous beliefs without real issue (and this is reflected in a lot of Kongo art from that period) and a significant number of folks from the Kongo region were already aware of Catholicism--and in some cases willingly converted--before the Middle Passage and Age of Enslavement began. 

But as the Age of Discovery waned, the Doctrine of Discovery did not. Instead, it has continued to play out in interactions between religious bodies and Indigenous communities as well as government entities and Indigenous communities. It is almost 2020 and the Roman Catholic Church has still not done with with the Doctrine of Discovery, as published and supported in many papal bulls/documents issued by a pope re: official Church policy and belief.

In the US, we see this in the continual denial of basic rights to Indigenous individuals and nations. Treaties are still not honored, the sitting government still gets to decide who is an ‘Indian’ and who is not, blood quantum has been enforced by government entities and trickled to nation governments, and individuals and groups continue to suffer at the hands of colonialist rule. To even determine if you can be called a Native American, you must consult the Dawes Rolls/Final Rolls, which was essentially a census of individuals associated with five recognized Indigenous nations in the US, to determine if an ancestor of yours was named there. Given that there are currently 573 recognized tribal groups and nations in the US, the problem with this is obvious...and that does not even take into account the number of tribes and nations who cannot receive federal recognition due to low membership, blood quantum debates, or lack of financial resources to fight the colonialist government. Indigenous government services are some of the lowest funded services in the US, and the statistics of poverty, hunger, murdered and missing Indigenous woman, and substance use among Indigenous individuals is staggering...all of which can be related to lack of funding and support.

This doesn’t even account for the historic--and present--reality of ‘Indian schools’ in the US and Canada that were essentially re-education camps aimed at stripping Indigenous children of their cultural identity and family, and indoctrinating them with Catholic beliefs. There’s a lot of blood of a lot of hands about that, and it is shameful that the Church has not taken an official stance of removing the doctrines that support these crimes against humanity.

In Haiti, the Doctrine of Discovery has taken an interesting and insidious new turn. The Catholic Church is very present, but in a lot of ways has become somewhat socially neutered..there are a lot of services provided by Catholic orgs that DEFINITELY express some of the racist ‘noble savage’ arguments and engage in a lot of voluntourism, but the real problem is the Protestants.

In the last 10-15 years, the presence Protestant missions and missionaries have exploded in Haiti. Almost to a fault, they incite social and cultural violence towards practitioners of the Indigenous religion of Haiti (Haitian Vodou), and they utilize American-derived prosperity gospel ideals twisted to really disgusting ends: convert and we will give you food. In a nation where food insecurity and malnutrition are literally life and death issues, this is an outright abuse of essential human rights. Religious gatekeeping of what people need to survive is beyond words (this also plays out in the US via orgs like the Salvation Army).

One of the most painful things I have ever watched was a Haitian megachurch pastor in Port-au-Prince promising abundance if only people would denounce their Vodou practice and be exorcised of their ‘demons’. The footage of this aired on CNN, and what CNN didn’t know was what was being said by the woman being exorcised was not speaking in tongues, but a spirit who had mounted the head of the sèvitè begging not to be sent away and for this to be stopped. This particular megachurch is backed by American missionaries, and their Haitian partner-pastors know exactly what they are doing.

Protestants can’t stop at that sort of stuff, though...they engage in outright violence as well. I have heard first hand accounts from family members of being assaulted on their way home from ceremonies because they were wearing white clothes (standard dress for most ceremonies), and Protestants show up to LOUDLY protest ceremonies often with cars that have large speakers hooked up to broadcast music and messages of damnation/redemption. I’ve seen and heard that myself, with Protestants standing outside my mother’s compound during my initiation and other ceremonies and confronting house members about their presence there. They desecrate sacred spaces and are generally awful.

This has American roots in that this style of Protestant religion and engagement directly grows from the hellfire and damnation style of Southern US conservative Protestantism. It’s a not-so-subtle insertion of white supremacy couched as religious belief.

In all of this, the Doctrine of Discovery lives and thrives and gains ground; the work of Protestants on the island--both American-influenced Haitian groups and awful American voluntourists in matching tshirts that I see EVERY SINGLE TIME I fly to or from Haiti--is to repress culture, convert people, and grow a militant power base.

But, the current iterations of the Doctrine of Discovery and how they interact with Indigenous religions is not limited to actual in-person missionary encounters. The internet has made this particularly insidious via the ease of access to some information about the religions. Many people discover that Vodou (and other Traditional or Diasporic religions) is actually a real-deal non-tourist thing on the internet, which is not in and of itself a bad thing.

It becomes bad when it starts getting scooped up out of context and re-packaged to fit other agendas. What does this look like? Sometimes it’s neo-pagans trying to cast the lwa as cartoonish, toothless figures who are only present to bring us thing and do our bidding--all of these ‘Ezili Freda amulets’ and ‘Ogou elekes’ and Legba-as-a-candy-swilling-devil things and backyard pup-tent ‘kanzos’. Sometimes it is stripping Haitian Vodou of it’s inherent Haitian-ness and repackaging it in a pan-Africanist light, where Hathor is Ezili Freda is Oshun is Mama Chola and it all descends from thoughts and feelings about what ancient Egyptian culture was. Sometimes it is trying to drag the lwa into hoodoo, rootwork, and conjure as beings who can be sent out to do work with no license to ask for that, no ceremony, and no understanding of the dynamics of the religion. Sometimes it is the ascertain that Vodou is really just about what you think or feel connected to, not a continuous line of historical, lineaged practice. Sometimes it is the idea that elders are irrelevant and someone can improve upon what they are taught or do it in a way that they feel is more authentic. Sometimes it is casting the lwa as vegetarian/vegan because animal sacrifice doesn’t feel marketable. Sometimes it is treating the religion as a treasure chest that can be mined--pay what is conceived of as an ‘entrance fee’ and then collect all the information that is thought to be important while ignoring what the religion actually is.

The internet has created this brand of self-appointed experts who use their own discovery of Indigenous practice as a means to feel or present themselves as some sort of spooky without actually bothering to speak to the people who carry the culture and religion. This isn’t dependent on skin tone or background, and it isn’t dependent on initiation or not; plenty of non-white folks do this and plenty of folks who initiate into the religion use it like a vending machine and point at their initiation as a reason why they can do that or as a way to say that what they are doing is without fault. 

It all relates back to the Doctrine of Discovery as an assertion of ‘we know better’. It’s become more insidious because it can be couched in language and images that look right to folks who may not know how to look at the religion, but it’s still the same old thing. 

So, what to do?

There’s no real easy solution to spiritual colonialism because there is no one prevailing Indigenous religion anywhere with one central governing body. It’s not as simple as ‘don’t provide access’ and ‘don’t document’ because that is contrary to what the lwa of Haitian Vodou have largely expressed that they want, and it’s not as direct as going toe-to-toe with folks we feel are being exploitative because, frankly, it would be an unending battle and practitioners have too much stuff to do as it is.

There are ways to engage and explore our own internal biases and colonial attitudes, though, and steps to take if we have begun a process of determining whether an Indigenous religious community might welcome us or if we are simply interested in knowing more:

Do the homework. Research and reflect. While Indigenous practices do not live in books, books can be useful for gaining historical understanding and cultural context for folks who did not grow up in the Indigenous practice they are in contact with or want to learn more about. Compare and contrast what you are reading and push at the differences--why does this author say that? What is their source material? What is the general opinion of their source material? Who are their informants? What is their personal history, if any, with the religion? Read the bibliography, and go find those sources. The Columbusing of Indigenous religions and fraudulent folks bank on the idea that people are uneducated and won’t look further. Read critically. Question influences.

Ask questions. Find elders and culture bearers of the religion and ask if they might have a little time to chat with you about their experiences and practice of their religion. Many, MANY elders and practitioners are quite happy to share what their religion means to them with a respectful party. Be prepared to compensate them for their time and energy.

Ask questions, again. If folks are presenting themselves as knowledgeable or are presenting things about the religion that seem somewhat out of touch (see Do the homework), ask them where they learned these things and who their elders or authorities are. These should not be hard questions to answer, nor should anyone tapdance around them.

Learn the language. If a religion has a written body of knowledge, it will likely be in the cultural or liturgical religion which, if you are allowed to access that body of knowledge, you will need to learn. Many Indigenous religions are passed orally, and so the language is a must as many important things are lost in translation. With Vodou, when folks claim there is no good written information about the religion this inevitably points to them only looking for information in English, as there is an IMMENSE body of solid work in Kreyòl ayisyen, French, and, surprisingly, German. If you are welcomed to participate somewhere, learning the language is a must. For instance, in Vodou, all services are conducted in Kreyòl with bits of French, and it is a mark of respect to work towards fluency and it is necessary if one wants or needs to travel to Haiti for ceremony.

Support the communities. Spend your money with Indigenous groups or orgs...make donations that support communities and buy products and services from legitimate practitioners. If there are public events and/or political movements by Indigenous religious groups, attend them and/or boost the visibility of them. Ask how you can help (and be prepared to be told you cannot without getting offended) and listen/observe what is being said and taught.

Decentralize experience. Personal experience IS central to religion and spiritual practice, but when folks are being invited to ceremony or into an Indigenous practice, it is not just about our experience...there is an entire community that is drawn together and has it’s own means. methods, and reality. We can center the community without losing our own experience, and that’s good practice towards undoing to colonial influence that places Self at center stage at the expense of the broader Us.

These are places to start, but the whole of the work will unfold as steps are taken forward. It is the labor of outsiders to do this, versus expecting the insiders of the Indigenous practice to carry the burden of unpacking bias along the lines of the Doctrine of Discovery. Rejecting colonial actions and filters means doing the heavy lifting, which everyone is capable of if we remain willing to engage in this way.

On the day of celebration of colonialism and destruction of Indigenous communities, I challenge folks to explore their own internalized colonialism towards the othered Indigenous communities of our local areas. What are our attitudes towards Indigenous communities? What do we think about and feel when we see commentary that tells the truth about what Thanksgiving is? How do we engage with the idea that our current lives are built on the colonization of lands and communities that were already established before we got here? How do we engage with the idea that we continue to benefit from colonialism as non-Indigenous individuals living in settler states? What definitive actions can we take to contribute to reparitive attitudes and actions that recognize the reality of colonialism in our current societies?

Writing from illegally occupied Massa-adchu-es-et land, and bearing benefits from illegally occupied Nipmuck lands and un-ceded Taino territory, I wish you a thoughtful and reflective Day of Mourning and research-driven National Native American Day.

[thanksjro]

Telefunken, A Prequel to Eugenesis: The Future Is Obsessed With Making Babies

OR

All These Materials, And I Still Had To Keep The Wiki Open The Whole Time

This short story was included with the secondary publication of Eugenesis, which happened in 2007, six years after the first run. Yep. He had multiple publication runs. Back when you had to actually go and talk to people about what you wanted published instead of doing everything online. For a novel-length fan fiction about murdering space robots and then having them give birth to tentacle monsters.

I wish I had the friggin’ brass balls Roberts does.

Telefunken as a term doesn’t mean anything in any language, but that doesn’t mean we can’t gain any sort of understanding using context clues.

Tele- as a part of Greek, means “from a distance.” So whatever’s happening is far off. In the future, perhaps? The pre-story quotes certainly seem to imply such a thing.

A couple hundred years into the future, actually. With a list like that, one has to wonder just who the hell can get into Maccadam’s these days.

Funken itself actually is a word- it’s German for spark. So “from a distance” + “spark”. Alright, let’s see where this goes.

Is… is this someone trying to convince someone else to read Eugenesis? Is Roberts making the space robots read this batshit story? Is he threatening them? Because making someone read an entire book’s worth of slaughter of their race sort of feels like a threat.

Okay, moving on to actual story, our narrator starts the day by blinding himself. He turns the input on his optics all the way up and stares at the sun.

I don’t know why.

Once he’s done that, he reflects on the nature of change, and how some things just can’t be fixed.

I see we’ve hit our fascist phase. Because they’re only allowed to enjoy the rejuvenation of the planet if they’re wearing Prowl’s face on their chest, right?

Our narrator seems to have an alternate take on the walls, though- seems more like they’re trying to keep the citizens in as opposed to the ruffians out.

Scene jump, and we’re in the middle of a conversation between two folks about some guy who killed an Autobot and fled. Yeah, no one with dialogue has been properly identified as of yet. All I know currently is that one of the conversationalists is a commander. Something tells me Nightbeat’s involved with the scene.

But that’s just a hunch.

So, looks like the Transformers had a little more room for the war buffet after all, because they’ve had at least two named squabbles in the last couple centuries. Hence, our narrator is off to try and corroborate a rumor that Galvatron is still kicking around.

He heads through the religious sector to get downtown, lamenting that Iacon’s been reduced to a military city-state in order to keep some façade of peace going on. He didn’t go through the hell that was the Eugenesis Wars for this.

Ooh, a dash of fantastic racism to really bring out the acidic taste of Orson Welles 1984. Maybe this is Prowl, actually, which would explain why he hasn’t been explicitly named. Would kind of ruin the whole end of the novel, wouldn’t it?

I’m not saying it’s Prowl because of the racism. More the clean dividing of folks into categories and statistical data.

Our narrator walks through the throng, ignores a homeless veteran, and passes by a crowd of Creationists on pilgrimage, and with that he’s off to Autobot City 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Meanwhile, back with the guys reading this account- yes, turns out they’re outside of this particular story- more details are being revealed.

The Turning, you say.

Vampire robots it is, then.

Back with the narrator, he’s just found what he’d been looking for- an Autobot badge, close enough to the real thing to work for his purposes. He heads inside something called an “ingestion tank”- I’m imagining the fucking eating chairs from IDW2- and oh-so-sneakily adds a few screw-looking bombs to the badge.

Hmm. I’m thinking my guesses are just a bit off-base.

Back at the narrative, our narrator has just arrived at the Ministry, where Sideswipe and his boys are truly living up to the ACAB lifestyle- Sideswipe is literally unloading clips into a crowd of protestors. Apparently this isn’t anything new.

Oh-kay. So. Back in the epilogue for Eugenesis, Wheeljack made an offhand comment about Rodimus wanting to look into streamlining the biomorphic reproductive process, using the power of science. This was something Ratchet really wasn’t thrilled about- he’s the Transformer-equivalent to being child-free, I guess- and let me tell you something: if Ratchet thinks something is a bad idea, it almost absolutely is. But it looks like Rodimus got his way, if our narrator’s cryptic statements are to be believed.

Let’s get fucking weird for a second.

Millions of years ago the biomorphic process was decided to be too slow for the colonial ways of the Cybertronian Empire, so morphing centers were created, where protoforms were basically injected with false memories to kickstart their lives. Think MTO programming from IDW, but more mechpreggy. This practice died out when the shortage of energon caught up with everyone, and was left behind for the most part.

EXCEPT FOR THIS. Turns out that Kup actually wasn’t all that old, he just thought he was. Why did they do this? Assumedly for the preservation of their research. Does it factor into anything ever for Kup? Nah, not really. Also:

🄹🄰🄼🄴🅂 🅆🄷🄰🅃 🅃🄷🄴 🄵🅄🄲🄺

Telefunken really is what makes the director’s cut of Eugenesis. This is where all the really weird shit is. If you ever fucking read this nightmare of a book, you better make sure Telefunken is included, because you will be reeling.

Anyway, the planet can’t handle more than a few hundred thousand robots, energon-wise, so the Treaty of Antimorphism was signed- a sort of “no more mechpreg” agreement between the Autobots and Decepticons. Not sure how they’re going to stop someone’s torso from vomiting up a goo baby, seeing as the process appears to be completely random, but they probably know more about the process than I do.

Yeah, that treaty is broken almost immediately. I mean, come on, we know who’s writing this story, it’s amazing that the idea was even remotely considered.

The Autobots decided that they were going to start underground biomorph rings, where Lifers- y’know, the guys who can actually do this sort of thing- spit out protoforms on command to supplement the Autobot forces, in case more war broke out.

They can give birth on command.

I-

I just-

How-

Okay. Sure.

BUT HOW-

Of course, a lot of people had a problem with this, seeing as they already had a solution to the problem of a limited population, in the copies of everyone’s brains Rodimus had commissioned after the events of Eugenesis. Yeah, that’s the root of the problem right there: it was unnecessary. Certainly not the violations of the free will and rights of the poor bastards who got chained to a table and told to start pumping out new robots at what was probably gunpoint in the basement of some bombed out building. Nope! Just that the whole thing was superfluous.

That was about the time that the Anticopyist protests started- how convenient- and the mind crystals were buried, never to see the light of day. Of course, Star Saber might have had a hand in quietly recovering the crystals, but that’s just hearsay.

It’s all going down the tubes, really- High Commands gearing up for the inevitable civil war that’s about to break out amid all this bullshit. Prowl and Nightbeat are trying to put a stop to things, but what are two guys with crippling depression going to do against all this crap? Not much. Especially now that there are Neogens discovering that they aren’t who they think they are.

The slogan is “maximum speed, maximum efficiency.” I’ll let you take a wild guess as to what these weirdos call themselves.

Sideswipe and his goons get done with killing civilians, and our narrator can finally get on with their mission- an interview with Rodimus Prime, who is dying. Again. We just can’t keep our Primes alive, can we? Can’t keep ‘em dead either, but that’s not the point.

But I thought Cyclonus was key.

…I’m sorry, that was dumb.

Anyway, our narrator gets through security, bombs undetected, and prepares to finish his thesis.

These outside conversationalists are kind of morbid, aren’t they? Still, we wouldn’t have the narrative if they weren’t, so thanks? I guess? For being weird voyeurs of terrorist activities?

The narrator makes his way to the basement, where they’ve got Rodimus stashed.

But how are his tiddies? Are they ridiculously huge? Does he breast boobily down the hall towards you? Too bad First Aid’s dead, he’d be all over this behemoth.

You know, last time we saw Springer, his sole purpose in life was getting high. Wonder how he got to this point in just a couple hundred years. That’s nothing to these guys. Guess he traded in the space-heroin for juicing.

Springer, because I guess he’s kind of an asshole in this story, threatens our narrator, saying that he’s got a joor- pretty much an hour- to talk to Rodimus, and one second beyond that he’s throwing his ass out the door. He makes this point very emphatically, and repeatedly. Springer needs to take a chill pill.

With that, our narrator double-checks that his rigged badge is still there- how many times are we going to blow up Rodimus Prime?- and enters the medvault.

Rodimus isn’t doing so hot.

Despite the obvious lag in his brain, Rodimus is happy to be of service to a young student, and invites the narrator to sit and stay awhile.

Now that’s just cruel, Roberts. You gotta give Rodimus something, you already killed his best friend and most of his comrades. No wonder he’s depressed in every continuity, all the writers are mean as hell to our boy Rodders.

Our narrator starts off by asking about Scorponok, and Rodimus takes so long to answer he wonders if the guy just went ahead and died. But Rodimus, ever a good sport, does eventually answer. He talks about all the major Decepticon players, and our narrator smiles and listens, waiting for the point where Unicron is mentioned. He really wants to hear about Unicron, and can practically taste his presence in the room, seeing as Rodimus is still possessed.

You see, our dear narrator is a space-satanist.

Unfortunately, when Rodimus finally utters the name of the robot-devil, nothing happens.

No, see, if the Transformers had Plan B, none of this mechpreg stuff would be fucking happening.

This is where our outside conversationalists come more into play, revealing themselves to be Star Saber- finally entering the story proper- and Great Shot, who I can’t seem to find anything on. We get treated to the security footage from this point on, getting a lovely scene of our narrator yelling at a dying old man, as the two discuss the Turning. It’s a major point of concern for a lot of the troops, and we’re shown why, as Rodimus starts having a Reagan-from-the-Exorcist-level fit about the same time as our narrator drops his bomb. The room explodes, and our narrator escapes out into the world.

From here on, all of the narrative comes from out narrator’s internal recording. He keeps running, beyond the walls of the city and into the Rad Zone, until he hits Eocra. Eocra is where that chunk of space rock from Liars A-to-D was housed. I guess we’ll find out if it’s still there.

He requests an audience with Servion from a member of the Brotherhood of Chaos whom he doesn’t recognize, and is ushered inside.

Into an underground room with a window showing the stars and just packed with Decepticons. Even Blitzwing’s there- I’d figured he’d been one of the POWs who kicked the bucket, but apparently not. Turns out that door he went through was a teleport. They want our narrator’s thesis. He hands it over immediately.

Go for it, guys, his resume from today alone is beyond impressive. He’s done more in the last six hours than most of your top guys have done in their entire careers.

The Decepticons say that they’ll be in touch, and with that they shove him out of the room. Well, that’s that. Guess it’s time to go and see if the rumors about the losers in Kalis are a bunch of bunk after all.

And that’s the end of his datalog.

Back with the ‘Cons, the boys are gossiping about their new hire. Turns out he’s one of theirs anyway- a Neogen, and his name is Tarantulus.

I checked, it’s a valid alternate spelling of his name.

Over with Galvatron- did you honestly think he was dead?- the edgy bastard’s preparing for the Final Purge. Turns out he’s still under Unicron’s thumb, even after all this time. He’s pleased to hear that Rodimus is dying, and recalls being able to corrupt the Lifecode when he needled the Prime during other desperate moments. He decides he’s going to do that again.

Back with Start Saber and Great Shot, the boys are cooking up some tasty treats in their politically-powered lie kitchen. As far as the public knows, Tarantulus was shot to death by the guards when he approached the wall. Prime’s Turned, which sucks for him, but might work out in Star Saber’s favor. Just too bad that that one guard got in between Rodimus and the bomb blast.

So I guess Star Saber being less than piously heroic is just a Roberts thing. Alrighty then.

That’s the end of Telefunken. This answers as many questions as it presents, leaving us at a net-neutral for understanding just what the fuck is going on. Awesome.

[dxmedstudent]

On contraceptives and medicine...

Occasionally you come across threads online where people seem to think that contraceptives are some kind of medical conspiracy. There’s a narrative that ‘medicine doesn’t know ANYTHING about women’s problems so medicine is useless and doctors don’t know anything’. There’s still been a lot of research; not enough but that’s true of many conditions. Whilst there’s a very real gap in research and accommodation when it comes to women, how it is depicted is often simplistic.  We do need more research, but in the meantime we need to encourage people to make use of what we have now to empower themselves. As a woman, I have to make do with what we have now, whilst I encourage medicine to do better.  Science and medicine hasn’t always served women, but it’s something that is slowly being addressed. Yes, contraceptives also have a checquered past. A lot of medicines have a dodgy and far from illustrious past; we can’t realistically throw out everything in history with a less than perfect past. On an individual level, some people have horrible experiences with doctors. We need to hold people to account if they are failing their patients and work on better training for new doctors if current training is lacking.  I, too, haven’t always been ideally served as a patient. As a woman and doctor, I think this is harmful because it dissuades people from seeking help. If you keep hearing that nobody is any good, and that nobody knows anything anyway, why would you bother? We need to encourage people to educate themselves and empower them to look for doctors who can listen and help, not spread the idea that it’s useless.  So there are a few ideas that I think it would help to clear up: Asking about your sexual health is part of holistic healthcare It is wrong for a doctor to assume that a young person (or person of any age) should be sexually active. I’ve had chats like that as a patient when I was younger and it’s awkward because you shouldn’t have to explain why you aren’t sexually active; it’s enough for that to simply be a choice you’ve made. And it shouldn’t be treated as a weird thing. However, it’s not wrong for a doctor to ask if someone is sexually active; sexual health is part of holistic care. I’ve seen people literally say ‘doctors asume we’re all sluts’ or ‘doctors are patronising by assuming I don’t know all about sex’.  I can’t argue if someone feels that their doctor took a patronising tone they need to improve on. But asking if someone is having sex of any sort is not assuming that you’re promiscuous, and it does not inherently have to be a value judgement. It’s covering the fact that many (actually most) people are sexually active at some point, and the vast majority of people are sexually active before marriage. A good healthcare professional shouldn’t care at all whether you are having sex before marriage (or at all); it should be a neutral topic to them. Their only care should be; does what you are doing fulfil you, and how can they make it as safe as possible. If a doctor is being judgemental, that’s on them, and that’s bad care. But being judgemental is not an integral part of the process. And that’s part of your health care that especially needs covering if you go to see a doctor about your reproductive organs. It’s also important for healthcare professionals not to assume how much you know about your reproductive tract, sexual health or contraception. We all have a different amount of knowledge and different experiences; if their manner is off, that’s frustrating and they need to work on that, but that does not make it wrong to try to ensure that you’re starting from a good foundation. I’ve talked to patients with a very wide range of understanding of their bodies - our jobs as clinicians are to ensure that whatever someone’s baseline knowledge is, we can relay information in a way that suits them, rather than with jargon.

PIV is not the only form of sex We also need to abolish this idea that there is ‘the Sex’ and ‘everthing but’ as if they are two wholly separate patterns of behaviour. Sex of any sort is part of the spectrum of sexual behaviour. It doesn’t matter if the P hasn’t hit the V; sexually transmissible infections are still a thing, as long as any bits get anywhere near genitals and body fluids have a way of getting... everywhere. Sex, even playing around, is a messy process. I’ve definitely seen a few posts in these threads with the theme of ‘well I wasn’t virginal, but I was technically a virgin’ -  it doesn’t matter and you shouldn’t have to explain yourself in terms of how far you did or didn’t get. Holistic care would still recommend the discussion of contraception and limiting the risks of infection transmission, if you have any sexual activity with someone. You can still be a ‘technical virgin’ and be at risk of STIs, and therefore in certain contexts that’s still an appropriate discussion for clinicians to have with you. That’s not to say that people don’t often have important reasons for enjoying different kinds of sexual activities at different times in their lives; you’re not accountable to anyone for your choices and it’s your body. But I feel that in some of these posts I detect an underlying theme of ‘ well, what I was doing wasn’t real sex, so don’t lump me with those slutty people having premarital sex’.

I mean, it’s pretty weird - someone could be playing around with their partner and as long as they stop short of PIV, it’s considered acceptable, but PIV is taboo - but all the other things are also pretty intimate, and, also well, still sex. You can put yourself through all sorts of mental gymnastics about ‘real sex’ versus ‘everything else’ to justify things, but in the end it’s all pretty similar. You’ve got intimacy and body fluids going on.

You don’t have to have Sex (TM) to be at risk of infections. And infections aren’t something to be ashamed of, or a sign that you’re promiscuous, or even that your partner has been promiscuous; all it takes is for them to have been with one other person in their lives. And frankly, it’s ridiculous that someone can have had sex with exactly (1) other person in the context of a loving relationship and be labelled slutty.  I know these threads are often in the context of US conservative Christian marriages, but sex outside of heteronormativity exists, and protection is still very necessary even in those situations. Most people these days are having extramarital sex, regardless of their orientation, and medical care needs to reflect that. So you may be asked questions about the other kinds of sex you are having, if it’s relevant. Vaccines are important and STIs don’t come with warning labels. The HPV vaccine is important. I’m glad my GP told me of a prescribing loophole through which she could prescribe it for me; I was a little older than the cut-off, but I had never been sexually active, and she knew that it was important to protect as many people as possible. The vaccine itself isn’t 100% but it’s better than nothing, given that HPV is almost ubiquitous. 8/10 people will catch it, and condoms are only about 70% successful at preventing spread, so if you have sex with anyone, there’s a good chance you might get it. Saying “I don’t need the vaccine because I only ever plan to have sex with one person” is risky and badly thought out.  Because it relies on that other person never having had sexual contact with anyone else, ever, and I don’t think it’s fair to place that expectation on a partner. And if they know there’s that expectation, what’s to stop them from lying? Anyone is entitled to refuse vaccination, of course. It’s a free country. But refusing a vaccination is never without risks, which are almost always greater than those of the vaccine themselves. Cervical cancer is horrible and people can die young, and treatments can affect your ability to carry pregnancies. Plus, genital warts are nasty, and if you can decrease the risk of both, why not?  The cervical cancer vaccine carries a stigma specifically because it relates to sexual activity. Whilst we’re at it, there’s no such thing as ‘I know my partner doesn’t have STIs’. This simply does not exist. You can’t 100% know for certain that your partner has never had sexual contact with another person - if you’re in a cultural situation where people expect their partner to be a virgin, you’re also in a situation where people are motivated to lie if they fall short of this expectation to cover their reputation. And if they have been with anyone, then you don’t know if they could have caught something. Hey, I’ve seen a lot of penises and vulvas, and although I can say that someone looks healthy or normal, that’s not guarantee of not having infections. For example, chlamydia and gonorrhoea are often symptomless but can damage fertility, and HIV can often go years without any symptoms or problems. Unless someone has tested negative (and they haven’t slept with anyone new in that incubation window period), then you just don’t know.  You also can’t 100% know that your partner isn’t cheating or has never cheated. Now, on a personal level, we all have to believe our partner is honest; that’s how relationships work, through trust. So I’m not going to tell you to assume your partner is doing the dirty on you.  But on a statistical level? Cheating partners cause significant spread of sexually transmitted disease, particularly if they have sex with sex workers. This is something that happens around the world, in conservative as well as liberal environments.  So even if you never plan to sleep wth anyone else, sometimes you can still suffer the consequences of someone else’s risky behaviour. It’s not fair and it’s not nice, but in healthcare we have to deal with that reality. That’s also why the vaccine remains relevant even in conservative communities. On a statistical level, even in communities where promiscuity or sex outside marriage is discouraged, it isn’t nonexistant. Contraceptives are valid medical treatments, but nobody HAS to use them. Particular kinds of hormonal contraceptives tend to be effective and frontline treatments for hormonally treating particular conditions; for example PCOS, endometriosis, fibroids. It’s perfectly fine to want to explore the options, from doing nothing, to managing as conservatively as possible, to considering operations (if possible), to hormonal treatments, etc. You’re allowed to decide to not do something, or to choose how aggressively you want to treat something. Some people seem to be frustrated that doctors can’t offer many non-hormonal treatments. But that’s partly because many problems relating to the gynaecological system are affected by your hormonal cycle. A lot of what goes on with that system is closely tied up with our hormones. The way we make endometriosis less bad is by stopping periods. The way we make PCOS less of an issue is by managing hormones.  Depending on the problem, sometimes there are non-hormonal treatments that can help with symptoms (for example, there are medications for painful or heavy periods, or acne that aren’t hormonal), but they can’t inherently change what is going on there.

I know there’s a lot of concern from some people about the effect of hormonal contraceptives, and I think that concern about the longterm effects of any treatment is reasonable. There are risks associated with hormonal contraceptives. And more research on long term effects of any medicaiton should always be welcomed.  But I do wonder in this case how much of that concern is tied up with the taboo surrounding sex, particularly if it’s ‘consequence free’ as some people describe it.

There are lots of reasons why people might not want to use hormonal contraception, and in the end nobody has to. They are simply a choice. Some people can’t get on with the side effects, some don’t like the risks involved, some have religious objections, some people just don’t want to take tablets or stick things into their bodies. It’s your choice, and it’s all valid. But it’s not valid to trash that choice for other people, or to imply anyone who lives differently is degenerate. There’s a lot of judgement in these threads.

Contraceptives do not turn women into a sex object. Contraceptives do not objectify women by turning them into a sex object. I’ve seen people suggest that they only exist so women can be consequence free receptacles of sex for men and are therefore inherently tools of the patriarchy. For people claiming that contraceptives objectify women, these people are literally embodying women as semen receptacles with no agency of their own and having the audacity to pretend they are feminist. Women have agency. They are people. They do not become sex objects because they choose to have sex. They do not become sex objects because they have ‘conseqence free’ sex. Regardless of whether that sex is in marriage, or not. And with one partner, or many. The funny thing is that initially ontraceptives were only prescribed to married women with their husbands’ permission; society very clearly didn’t want to give women the ability to control their own reproductive choices. Even historically, they weren’t about turning women into objects, but allowing married women the ability to choose when to plan their family. Nowadays, contraceptives allow anyone with a uterus/ovary combination the ability to control if they menstruate or are likely to get pregnant. That’s it. They don’t force you to have sex or dictate the kind of relationship you have with penis-havers. You know what happened before we had contraceptives? Women still had sex. Men, when they wanted to, still pressured women into sex and raped them.  Husbands still had sex with their wives. Women still had sex outside of wedlock, sometimes willingly, sometimes through force. They just... didn’t have as many options to prevent pregnancy or prevent the transmission of disease, so they had to deal with the stigma of having sex outside of marriage, or carrying an illegitimate child; consequences that men never had to deal with. And that doesn’t seem to have stopped many men through the years doing what they like, no matter what the social consequences were for women. It didn’t stop men failing to look after their illegitimate children or the women who birthed them. It didn’t stop life-threatening abortions. It just created an atmosphere of shame and secrecy; of unwed mother’s institutions and babies disappearing or quietly being given away. Even in the context of loving marriages, many families struggled to look after the many children that ensued; imagine if they had the knowledge or resources to pace out their children so they could afford to look after them. So arguing that contraceptives mainly benefit men is completely disingenuous. Sure, perhaps men get to have a bit more sex now because women feel more happy to have sex knowing they are a lot less likely to get pregnant. Men can still be deadbeat or missing fathers if they choose. But women have benefited far, far more, despite the side effects and risks because historically, having sex and giving birth have always been risky for women. It’s not that birth control is an easy, fun choice, it’s that the choices have often been dire. For many women around the world, the choices are still dire. Lack of access to contraception means many girls and women around the world still bear children they do not want to have, and catch infections from the men who have sex with, or rape them. A woman who can’t recognise that other women around the world might desperately need to stave off having kids or protect themselves, just because they themselves don’t feel this particular method is for them, is not acting as a feminist. By forgetting the situaiton that women around the world are still dealing with, we’re letting our own privilege get the better of us. To be honest, commentary like this  makes me pretty suspicious of the underlying beliefs of some posters who otherwise purport to be feminist. Since these people believe they have the agency to choose to have sex (it’s implied this is within marriage, almost always, in these threads) it’s clear that what is being attacked when they criticise contraceptives here, is the agency of women who choose to have sex in a context these people disapprove of.  Having safe, ‘consequence-free’ sex is not dirty, or immoral. It does not, in itself, turn you into a sex object, because women are grown human beings with agency and the ability to want and enjoy sex on their terms. I hate the term consequence free sex, because it implies sex ought to come with consequences - what? Risks? Punishment? Diseases? Babies? The consequences of sex can be fun, intimacy, enjoyment, bonding and an expression of deep love. For many people, it’s an integral part of relationships and often, ultimately marriage if that’s what they want.

And if a woman doesn’t have agency or is being coerced or pressured into sex, that is not her fault. And in such a situation, contraceptives may still play a vital role because they prevent people from falling pregnant in dire situations. In such a situation, contraceptives are not the bad guys, and the woman would likely be coerced regardless of whether she was protected. But it’s disingenuous to claim that doctors are pushing an agenda without reflecting that the people telling you hormonal contraceptives are bad or that you shouldn’t be having premarital sex etc are also pushing an agenda. The largest critics of hormonal contraception have historically been those in power in conservatively religious communities who have strict rules about what women are and aren’t allowed to do. And that those rules have very rarely been empowering for women. Allowing people to break free of those rules hands the choice back to us. What people do with the freedoms that contraception allows them is up to them. And feminism will always be about giving people the knowledge and the choice to do what is best for them. If that’s not having sex, good for you. But that may equally mean having sex for someone else. Disclosure of interests: I don’t get paid by manufacturers of contraceptives, I don’t even prescribe them on my current job. Before anyone caims that I’m a proponent of ‘hookup culture’ who just can’t ‘get’ people who don’t want to have sex, I don’t personally do ‘hookups’ and waited til I was ready. I’ve spent a ton of time single. I really don’t care if people wait until marriage or have sex with 10 people every day. I don’t believe people should be stigmatised for having sex, or not having sex. It simply is not a reflection of anyone’s worth or morality.

[pretty-bun]

Which Clover Is Best? - An Analysis By Me

First and foremost, you must all know by now how much I love Clover. I mention her way too much on this blog, and here is my magnum opus – a comprehensive guide on Clover’s character in each version of the story, and my ranking of which Clover is best. Is this excessive? Of course, but I have no other way to use my Tuesday night. Do I have any idea how to analyse characters? Hell no, I’m using Wikihow to help me. Am I going to use my knowledge on Feminist literary theory? Fuck yeah I am.

But here we go. Here is my over analysis of Clover. Heart emoji, rabbit emoji, clover emoji.

_____

The Novel

“Four rabbits were crowded against the wire, pressing their noses through the mesh. Two – Laurel and Clover – were short-haired black Angoras. […] Clover, the Angora doe – a strong, active rabbit – was clearly excited by Hazel’s description and asked several questions about the warren and the downs.”

Clover in the context of the novel has no real role – she has been given no time for characterisation, as the only doe with any kind of real role is Hyzenthlay. However, Clover plays an importance part of the warren dynamics; she is the first rabbit to bear a litter in Watership Down.

This is a monumental moment for the warren, instantly assuring the rabbits that the warren will continue, if just for a little while, after they pass.

Using the concept of stock characters in fiction, you can attribute the character of “farmer’s daughter” to Clover. These stock characters are portrayed as desirable and naïve, and these characteristics can be seen in the above quote, and often the farmer’s daughter character will be community minded, a concept that is visible in that she is to breed and dig runs for the rest of the warren. But to limit her to such a simple standard can lead to detrimental readings of the story.

The language of the Watership Down novel is highly phallocentric, a term used by the post-structuralist theorist Jacques Derrida, and the phallocentric nature of the novel determines that the meaning is derived from masculine agenda, and the importance of it means that feminine jouissance – a feminine language derived from the French word for the female orgasm – is a deconstruction of the phallic language, threatening to shake the stability of it. The phallocentric culture is derived from binary opposites, such as male/female, language/silence, presence/absence etc., with the first word having meaning over the other. Feminist readings of the novel will note this, and this leads back to Clover in that she is the binary opposite from the masculine characters in the novel – where they have language and presence, she instead has silence and absence; she is only in the novel for a moment to birth the first litter of the down, and then she becomes a static character.

But the novel iteration of Clover is a realistic portrayal of rabbits in nature, so maybe its unimportant to focus on the feminist aspect of the novel, and in nature it is the does role to breed and dig.

However, in the context of each version of the story – novel, film, series and miniseries – Clover’s role is important, and that importance is told to the audience.

 The Film

In the film, Clover has an extremely brief role in the film, and so there is not much to be said about her. The film counterpart of Clover is only added to further the plot of Hazel, rather than to further the plot of the film.

Her scenes could easily be taken from the film with little consequence, the only part which is needed is the part in which Hazel gets shot. In this version, Clover does not escape her hutch, and once freed from it, is immediately caught.

But her design is much cuter, in my opinion. Her white fur and sweet voice is once again indicative of her naïve curiosity to the outside world, with white often being used to describe characters of innocence and purity, but in some instances can be used to represent faith. As she is the reason why Hazel gets shot in the first place, the faith aspect could possibly be representative of death, especially considering how religious the Lapine world is.

 The Television Series

Clover in the children’s series gets more characterisation than the version that exists in both the novel and film, although her characterisation is still limited.

Clover seems to be rather motherly, as she is seen comforting both Pipkin and Blackberry on differing occasions. But her main role is, once again, to be a love interest. This is a reoccurring concept with her character, however in this version, her love interest is Hawkbit, and this is only touched upon in the last season.

She is much more feminine in this version, mostly by virtue of the story revolving more around human characteristics of the characters, and her outward physic is much more sexualised than the other iterations of her design, but this is not necessarily bad, and is more an artistic choice to take. Once again, this is because she is a stylised character in this version compared to the realistic version seen in the novel and film.

Clover has a girl next door kind of quality to her, with a sense of basic wholesomeness as her main focal point; she isn’t a bad character, however is not a good character either. This was likely not intended, and probably the result of no characterisation set for her.

Clover is not the focal point of any larger plot, and mostly sticks to expanding on her friendship with Blackberry and her romantic intentions for Hawkbit. She is just above the film in terms of actual character, however on my own personal opinion, I find her to be the second best designed Clover out of the four, with the films version the best. I think her design is reflective of her character; she is bigger and softer looking than the other rabbits, which leads back into her originally being a hutch rabbit, and her proportions are much more pleasant than some characters (coughcoughprimrosecoughcough), although she does fall victim to the season 3 design change.

Her original colour is a soft peachy pink, which doesn’t feel at all like it clashes with the rest of the colour palette (not in the way I feel Pipkin did), but her season 3 design is a much harsher yellow. It was not at all a good change, and felt totally out of place. Season 3 also took out many of her softer features, such as her slightly rounder physic, and the tufts of fur which gave her a fluffier look.

Season three introduced a much better pacing to the overall show, but failed in the design aspect miserably, and it’s a shame that Clover fell victim to it.

 The Miniseries

Clover in the miniseries is both better and worse than all the other versions, but the things the miniseries did better will come before the things they did worse.

Clover received a lot of characterisation, which finally placed importance on her once again. Although she is not stated to be the mother of the warrens first litter, her importance comes from a different and more empowering source – she helps plan the escape form Efrafa. In a story filled with minimal roles for females to play, changing the narrative to incorporate strong female leads who act independently is fundamental. Alongside this, it also adds something that has never been in the other adaptations. By doing this, the miniseries becomes its own work and not just a CGI version of the film.

Her design is also interesting and different; the muddy browns of her coat give her a much more realistic feel, while still making her separate from the other designs of her. Her coat patterns are beautiful as well and give the audience a tell that she is not a wild rabbit in the same way the plump look of the television series Clover tells the audience she is from a hutch.

That is where the praises stop.

While she received much more characterisation in the miniseries than any other version, her characterisation is almost for the worst. Almost. She and Hazel fall into the trap of archetypal Lovers – this aspect of both of their characters could have been a good dynamic if the writers hadn’t taken them a step too far. The importance scene in all the other adaptations where Fiver finds Hazel after he is shot, a scene to highlight their deep relationship as brothers, is replaced with Clover finding Hazel in the drain. They barely had any interaction up to this point, so Hazel playing damsel in distress to his girlfriend comes off as incredibly cheap as it completely disregards the bond of Hazel and Fiver. Hazel’s motive to take does from Efrafa becomes less about liberation and more about saving his girlfriend, which completely undermines Hazel’s original character. This goes for Hyzenthlay, too; by having Clover take her place in most of the scenes in Efrafa, it makes Hyzenthlay a static character who doesn’t help free the rabbits in an act of mercy.

The writers could have had their lifted characterisation of Clover and kept Hyzenthlay as she is supposed to be if they had just held back from taking Clover too far.

 So which Clover is best?

Based on my own personal opinion, I believe that the television series Clover is best – her design is cute for most of the shows life, and she gets a level of character while still letting the lead characters lead. In basis of character and impact on the story, the film’s Clover comes in last (although if this was based on aesthetics, she’d be first). The difference between the novel and miniseries isn’t much; they’re almost on par with each other, but it bugs me that Clover’s miniseries version takes so much away from the original characters so she comes in third.

With that, here’s the final ranking:

1. TV Series

2. Novel

3. Miniseries

4. Film

[yaoipaddlestar]

OK SO EVERYONE

I finished reading Educated by Tara Westover (...a while ago. I just never posted this lol) and it is absolutely magnificent. Such a powerful memoir. Her life is really, really unconventional (that's an understatement btw) and not in a good way. >_>

Reading Tara's development and growth outside of her bubble, and her struggles with family, imposter syndrome, and her own self worth were both deeply moving and something I resonated a lot with.

Her relationship with her dad was something in particular that I connected the most with. Just bad dad things!

Westover's writing is both very reflective and very succinct. I love her writing and it's definitely what makes her story so impactful.

Some of my favourite excerpts under the cut! (Spoiler warning, if it wasn't already implied)

Apologies for the quality of some of these! I'm literally just taking pictures of the pages as I read them. Click for better quality!

If you know anything about me (it's implied earlier in this post lol) you can guess why I like this. Context not super needed, the last paragraph is what I like. If you want it, clarification is that her older brother, Shawn, cracked her neck bc it was so stiff she couldn't move it.

This is one of those moments that just made my jaw drop. Nothing particularly poetic that drew me to it, it's just kind of crazy to read and realise this actually happened to her.

This moment is after Tara took her brother to a hospital when he got in an accident. Her parents, being devoutly religious Mormons and distrusting the government, wanted Tara to bring Shawn home to their mother could treat him with various oils and herbs. Tara did not, and she is grappling with the shame of not following the wishes of (primarily) her father.

This is about Tara reflecting on her journal entries after a particularly bad moment of abuse from her brother, Shawn (yes same Shawn from earlier). She's reflecting about how she chose not to let herself be gaslit (or rather, admit that she doesn't trust Shawn as he attempts to gaslight her).

You can probably guess but this is about Tara watching her father's presumed last moments (he does not die). The part where she talks about expecting some grand resolution to their conflicts (and realizing she won’t get one) struck me a lot. Not going to overshare too much but oh boy if that’s not one of my biggest fears in the whole fucking world!

Those three excerpts were all separate but focus on Tara's imposter syndrome and anxieties, so I'm just grouping them. She goes through much of it as she goes through college. I think context can be gathered.

Another one about Tara and her father. In this scene, Tara's father visited her at college to and coax her into "forgiving" her brother for abusing her (which is to say, pretend it never happened). Her family believes that Tara has been bewitched by a devil or something and that's why she is acting "like this." I resonate a lot with the last line. My father is not a religious sort of man, much less like Tara's, but the idea of her father wanting to "cast" her out rings very true to me and my own experiences. No need to explain further than that lol >_>

This is another one. Tara is visiting her family for the last time and realising that she needs to make a choice about her future (by cutting them off) lest she doom herself to the same life she'd lived thus far. Again, the very last lines are what speak to me.

And that's the photo limit so I can't post more. Maybe in a reblog if I ever feel up to it. Tara talks a good bit about her experiences learning about the truth or her family circumstances and the world around her (she didn't learn about things like the Holocaust or the Civil Rights Movement until she was 17.) Her ability to reflect on her past and tell this story is so incredible. The writing is amazing, the "story" is unbelievable, and Tara is such a strong woman that there's nothing about this memoir that I don't adore. Definitely one of my favourite books I've ever read. Could not possibly recommend it enough.

[starship-imzadi]

S5 E16 Ethics

"maybe next time you should bring a deck that's not transparent to infrared light" ah ha!! I've seen speculation as to why Riker wins at poker when he plays an empathy, an android, and someone with "x-ray" vision and at least for the last one, now we know you just need cards that aren't.... transparent to infrared light. I don't know what that means from a practical stand point, but there it is.

It's kind of odd which injuries in the Trek-verse can or cannot be repaired...I understand there has to be a limit but it's not really clear what can or cannot be done.

It 100% sounds like Jonathan has either bad allergies or a head cold. I.e. he sounds really stuffed up.

So... Klingons sound very ableist. Assisted suicide is one thing, for degenerative disease, but paralysis is by no means an end of quality for life.

"I've been experimenting with DNA based generators" now, the idea of this technology was fairly futuristic for the 1980's and 1990's, not to say it was inconceivable but rather that it was outside of the contemporary scientific technology of the time. But now, just over thirty years later, growing specific kinds of tissue outside of an organism is something scientists are legitimately working on. It's still an impressive ambition, but it doesn't feel like in the 24th century it should still be an unusual, cutting edge pursuit.

Okay good, Picard and Riker are discussing the whole assisted suicide/apparently ableist Klingon culture....thing. And Riker is absolutely right, he does really well with keeping an open mind. (Even just in reference to Klingons we have "a matter of honor" as a testament to it.) It's interesting that Riker went to Picard not as his captain but for counsel as his friend. I think I would react very much like Riker. If a good friend asked me to help them, if they were dying without cure and in pain....I think I would do something to help. It would be so incredibly hard... but if a friend asked me to do that when they weren't in physical pain, weren't immediately dying.... I don't know how that could be excusable regardless of how they viewed the context for it. And even if Worf's request reflect his trust in Riker....does he realise what he's asking him to do? Riker is being asked to shift his paradigm...but Worf doesn't have to make any such concession.

Damn!....way to go Troi! (She kind of just did to Worf what Riker did for her in "The Loss" almost.... I have more respect for her loss of empathy than for Worf's loss of honor and she was looking to end her career not her life....Worf is so extra sometimes.)

Worf puts so much pressure on his son. In a way I can see this being a little moment, knowing Deanna and Worf date for a bit in season 7, where Worf has allowed Deanna to see him vulnerable and, for him, that's a notable intimacy.

This woman...needs her credentials checked.

"Beverly" he used her first name!

This really does bring up a bigger question. Riker's struggle is with being asked to help Worf commit suicide. But Beverly is set on stopping Worf from commiting suicide all together. In certain religious contexts suicide is considered reprehensible, and assisting suicide is illegal in most counties (even for medical purposes). At what point is someone's life their own to do with as the please, to live or die? If someone wants to die is there an obligation to the people around them to force them to live?

I really like Patrick's acting

Damn! Now it's Riker's turn! (If I ever need any sort of intervention...I want friends like Will and Deanna.) Riker did his homework!

Now hang on a minute! Alexander said they started doing multiplications in class....but that kid in "When the Bough Breaks" was friggin upset and complaining to his dad about doing calculous. CALCULOUS. What happened to that?!

Worf respects Deanna....that's one of the nicest things he's probably ever said to a woman. Okay but that actually is sweet, as is Troi's response and acceptance of the request. (But it also sets up the main reason Worf likes Troi: because of her help and connection with Alexander)

They brought back the lobster suits! Aww....I hate those. (Those these look different....less....red)

I kind of love this relaxed tension as Picard and Riker sit together, going over trivial bits of work, both trying to ignore their anxieties, distract each other, and offer companionship, as they wait. It's really gotten to the point where there's not a whole lot of separation between their personal and professional lives.

This kid is a bit annoying...but he's not a bad actor. Marina really sells the scene though.

Damn, do not get on Beverly's bad side. I have so much respect for her here.

[madewithonerib]

Redeeming Jealousy | Erik Thoennes [7/15/19]

THE GLORY OF GOD’S EXCLUSIVE LOVE

ABSTRACT: To many people, the word jealousy is laden with negative connotations. In SCRIPTURE, however, we read that “the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous GOD.”

GOD is rightfully jealous for HIS OWN glory & for the devotion of HIS covenant people. Holy jealousy also characterizes the most godly men & women, from David & Elijah to JESUS & Paul.

      Hear the word jealous, & images of an insecure, abusive       husband may come to mind. Indeed, sinful human       jealousy has been the cause of countless difficulties &       heartache in human relationships.

      For many today, the word jealousy is always a bad one.

      It can be perplexing for Christians, then, when they come       across a passage like Exodus 34:14:

            “You shall worship no other god, for the LORD,             whose name is Jealous, is a jealous GOD.”

      How could a perfect, loving, patient GOD call HIMSELF       jealous? Is GOD insecure? Do passages like this simply       represent a primitive, OT idea of GOD that is thankfully       done away with by the time we get to the NT?

      Maybe this is just a human way of talking about GOD       that should not be taken seriously, or perhaps jealous       is a bad translation of a Hebrew word that could allow       for a less troublesome English word?

      Despite confusion & aversion to this attribute of GOD,       we must not reject or neglect this important aspect of       GOD’s character.

      The jealousy of GOD is an attribute that pervades the       pages of SCRIPTURE & is an essential part of GOD’s       covenant love.

      To understand why GOD would call HIMSELF jealous,       & even intensify this description by turning it into one       of HIS divine names, we need to see Exodus 34:14 in       its biblical context.

      This is also true for the hundreds of other times GOD       declares or displays HIS jealousy in the BIBLE.

Jealousy & Envy

      While all human words are frail & limited in describing       GOD, we need to allow GOD’s verbal revelation to       hold the power & meaning HE intends for it to have.

      Jealous is actually a very good English word to translate       the Hebrew word kana in Exodus 34.

            Kana [as well as the Greek equivalent zelos]             could be translated as zeal or envy in other             places in the BIBLE.

            Zeal is a general strong feeling             to see something come about.

       ●   Envy is a desire to gain possession of something that             does not belong to you, & it is always sinful.

       ●   Jealousy is a strong desire to maintain relational             faithfulness that you believe does belong to you.

      Jealousy can be sinful if it is unwarranted or expressed       in wrong ways, but it can also be an entirely appropriate       & righteous emotion.

      We don’t usually make any distinction between envy &       jealousy, which contributes to the public-relations       problem jealousy has.

      GOD’s jealousy is HIS righteous & loving demand of       exclusive faithfulness from HIS covenant people.

      Because GOD rightly loves HIS OWN glory, & graciously       loves us, HE demands that we worship & serve HIM       above all.

            In human history, GOD is most glorified by the             undivided devotion of HIS redeemed people, &             HIS ultimate jealousy for HIS glory demands             this devotion.

      If HE does not care when we love idols more than HIM,       HE would allow HIMSELF to be dishonored & let us       settle for so much less than HE intends us to have       from life.

      GOD’s jealous love demands the best of us & our       relationships.

      In Exodus 34, GOD is giving Moses the central       demands of relating to HIM as HIS covenant people—       a covenant HE compares repeatedly to a marriage       [Isaiah 54:5; Jeremiah 2:2–3; Hosea 2:2].

      GOD is the husband of HIS people, & we are HIS bride.

      This metaphor only intensifies when we get to the NT       [Matthew 9:15; Ephesians 5:22–33; Revelation 19:6–9]

            To worship any god but the true GOD             is spiritual adultery, & any husband who             does not care that his wife committed             adultery most certainly does not love her.

      Right at the heart of the laws of the covenant, GOD wants his people to know that this covenant relationship is permanent & exclusive. He wants them to realize that he is a personal GOD establishing a personal relationship with his people, & that his people should relate to him as he is, not as a more user-friendly god of their own making.

GOD’s Jealousy for His Own Glory

Throughout the BIBLE, GOD is rightfully jealous when he is dishonored, as we can see in the reason GOD gives for the 2nd commandment:

You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your GOD am a jealous GOD, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the 3rd & the 4th generation of those who hate me. [Exodus 20:3–5]

GOD demands the fidelity of his people because he loves them, but ultimately because he is most glorified when they ascribe to him the honor that belongs to him alone. GOD achieves this goal of making himself known so that people will acknowledge, fear, worship, & obey him as the one & only LORD. Every key stage of salvation history points to this supreme aim. GOD’s covenant love & compassion are no less operational than his jealousy; he is jealous for the devotion of his people because he has the loving heart of a father, but ultimately because he desires to protect the honor of his name.1

GOD has a unique right to seek his own glory, a right none of us should seek to take for ourselves. Only GOD deserves absolute honor, worship, & glory, & he reacts with jealousy & anger when those he has created do not ascribe it to him, or when they desire it for themselves. GOD is righteous & therefore values above all else what is of ultimate value. He loves most what is most worthy of being loved, which is his own character, being, & perfections. Therefore, GOD’s jealousy for his glory does not conflict with his love. Indeed, his perfect justice & love necessitate his own self-exaltation.

We see the same jealousy for GOD’s glory in the ministry of JESUS. The portraits we often get of JESUS tend to be limited to his attributes that we find comforting, like his compassion & mercy. JESUS certainly is compassionate & merciful, & tells his followers to turn the other cheek & love their enemies [Matthew 5:39]. But what do we make of JESUS flipping over tables in the temple [John 2:14–15]? That doesn’t seem to be the JESUS most hear about on Sunday morning! The godly jealousy of JESUS stands behind his righteous indignation as he drove out the money-changers with a whip. His disciples recognized this attitude as the same one that drove David. They recalled his words from Psalm 69 after JESUS cleansed the temple: “His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘zeal [zelos] for your house will consume me’” [John 2:17].

JESUS is often thought of as very different from the GOD of the OT. But he spoke often of hell, & one of the last images we have of JESUS in the BIBLE is so terrifying that unrepentant people are crying out for rocks to fall on them rather than face “the wrath of the LAMB” [Revelation 6:16]. JESUS is indeed gracious & loving, but his grace & love are ultimately driven by GOD’s glory. His jealous love caused him to hate sin & all that dishonors GOD so much that he gave his life to vanquish evil & idolatry once & for all.

Jealous with GOD’s Jealousy

The prevalence of a consumer mentality & human-centeredness in contemporary society easily leads our agendas & takes greater priority than GOD’s glory. A desire to be relevant & attractive can encourage a marketing mentality in the Church that lacks jealousy for GOD’s honor. The heavy influence of secular psychology, with its therapeutic, self-centered approach to ministry, also can detract from GOD’s glory being the supreme objective when Christians gather. These influences can lead the Church to become a pragmatically oriented self-help group rather than a GOD-glorifying community.

On the other hand, when GOD’s people deeply desire that he be glorified so that nothing competes with him for our devotion & worship, they should experience a godly jealousy that mirrors his. The BIBLE includes many examples of godly people who are jealous for GOD’s honor. Whenever religious reform & revival was brought about in Israel, behind it always stood a jealous leader. Whether it was Hezekiah smashing the sacred pillars & cutting down Asherah poles [2 Kings 18:3–4; 19:15–19], Jehoiada tearing down the house & altars of Baal [2 Kings 11:17–18], or Josiah removing the high places [2 Kings 23:19], jealousy on behalf of GOD’s name, & his exclusive right to receive worship & covenant fidelity, was a primary motivating emotion.

Among the many examples & individuals who express godly jealousy, 5 of them stand out as the strongest: Phinehas, David, Elijah, JESUS, & Paul. The key passages that epitomize this attribute for each of them are Numbers 25 [Phinehas], Psalm 69:9 [David], 1 Kings 19:10–14 [Elijah], John 2:13–17 [JESUS], & 2 Corinthians 11:1–4 [Paul]. Each shows his intense desire for the preservation of GOD’s honor in the face of a challenge to that honor.

Consider Phinehas, for example. Phinehas is not a well-known OT figure today, but he should be. He killed an Israelite man & a Midianite woman who were flagrantly rebelling against GOD in the midst of Israel’s repentance for rampant unfaithfulness [Numbers 25:6–9]. GOD responds by saying that Phinehas atoned for the sins of the people, stopped a plague, & saved many lives because he was jealous for GOD’s honor in a way that reflected GOD’s jealousy [Numbers 25:10–13]. He stands as a CHRIST type when it is said that he is given a perpetual priesthood in addition to being a source of atonement [Numbers 25:13].

Different Weapons GOD calls Christians today to feel the jealous anger & indignation that all of the godly leaders in the BIBLE [like Phinehas] experienced. However, in this day of terrorist attacks in the name of GOD’s honor, we will be quick to acknowledge that there are significant distinctions between the OT saint, operating under the law-based theocracy, & the NT Christian, operating under the new covenant & the lordship of CHRIST. In addition to the roles of men like Phinehas, David, & Elijah, their theocratic context was based on OT law-covenant & direct commands of GOD. This limits the bloody expression of their jealousy to their historical situation. Phinehas’s killing of Zimri & Cozbi, David’s killing of Goliath, & Elijah’s destruction of the prophets of Baal were appropriate manifestations of their godly jealousy for their contexts, but they no longer represent GOD’s methods under the new covenant.

In the NT, we still see GOD himself taking drastic, physical action on those who dishonor him [Acts 5:5–10; 12:23]. But when it comes to humans, a shift takes place in the NT where jealousy for GOD’s honor is now channeled through GOSPEL proclamation & is, in some measure, put on hold until GOD unleashes his final judgment [Romans 12:19–21]. JESUS himself frowned upon violent reactions to behaviors that were dishonoring to GOD. He rebuked Peter when he cut off Malchus’s ear [Matthew 26:52]. His response to James & John when they wanted to call down fire to consume the inhospitable Samaritans seems to teach the same idea. He rebuked them & said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the SON of MAN came not to destroy people’s lives but to save them” [Luke 9:55–56].

Paul provides the same perspective: “Though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds” [2 Corinthians 10:3–4]. And again: “We do not wrestle against flesh & blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the Spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” [Ephesians 6:12]. The godly Christian hates idolatry no less than Phinehas, yet CHRIST calls him to fight with different weapons. Phinehas’s spear has been replaced by Paul’s epistles. The enemies of GOD deserve the same bold indignation David felt, but righteousness, the GOSPEL of peace, & the sWORD of the SPIRIT have replaced his stones.

Christian leaders may think godly jealousy has little to do with most ministry endeavors, but central to our calling is that we abhor & denounce false teaching, even if we will be considered divisive, intolerant, & uncharitable [Titus 1:9; Romans 12:9]. Any distortion of the truth of GOD’s WORD among GOD’s people amounts to idolatry & spiritual adultery. A faithful pastor will react with godly jealousy, among other virtues [2 Timothy 2:22–26], whenever the clear teaching of SCRIPTURE is violated. In a proper effort to be irenic, gracious, & fair, it nevertheless will be impossible to remain ambivalent when GOD’s WORD is ignored or distorted, especially by those who claim to be his covenant people. GOD, whose name is Jealous, demands that his people remain devoted to the true GOSPEL without compromise. The Church is to be “a pillar & buttress of the truth” [1 Timothy 3:15], & its leaders are to “guard the good deposit entrusted” to us [2 Timothy 1:14], so its theological gatekeepers must remain vigilant in these efforts.

Faithful Bride What a staggering & wonderful truth—that the GOD who is perfectly self-sufficient [Psalm 50:12; Acts 17:24–25] has chosen to enter into an intimate relationship with his people to the point where he feels jealous anger if we are unfaithful to him! And what a blessed joy to know that, by faith in CHRIST, the only perfect covenant-keeper, we can rest assured that one day we will be presented to our LORD pure & conformed to his image [1 John 3:2–3].

Until that day, may the GOD whose name is Jealous be honored through the surprising faithfulness of his bride, even when she is prone to wander.

[toomanylokifeels]

Comparing/Contrasting Villains: Loki vs. Kylo Ren

Summary:

On what comparisons merit discussion re: the treatment of villains in narratives, and at what point do these comparisons limit analysis of their roles as villains situated within their own unique narratives. 

Disclaimers:

I know a lot about Loki as depicted in comics, movies, and in post-Christian interpretations of Norse mythos. I do not know a lot about Kylo Ren, because I’m not personally invested in Star Wars. What I know is second-hand.

My aim is not to make any judgments on what character(s) you choose to prioritize or invests yourselves in. This is simply my interpretation of the ongoing comparisons between these two villains. 

It has often been said that every story needs a good villain, and villains have come to represent many things within a narrative. Yet, even as they are very diverse in their narrative purpose, our fascination with villains has pushed many of us to draw similarities between them all. 

That is not necessarily a bad thing, which I will discuss. However, to some extent the depth and nuance of each narrative is lost when we try to make some villains to be too much alike. We may do this to garner villains sympathy, or we may do this to garner contempt for these characters. 

Either way, the narratives in which these villains are situated become muddied. 

Two villains in particular have become incredibly popular in recent years: Loki and Kylo Ren. Some enjoy both characters, some enjoy one over the other, and some don’t like either. My job here is not to convince you which option is best. I do want to discuss how they’re compared, though. 

You see, there are some surface-level issues that arise in fandom spaces when it comes to villains like Loki and Kylo Ren. These issues have some merit in that they highlight how we treat villains - in general - within a narrative, in both  sympathetic and unsympathetic ways. 

First, let’s talk about sympathetic reactions to villains as a whole.

There is a history in story-telling of coding villains with traits that also represent marginalized individuals, and for a long time this has further marginalized people with those traits. Things such as mental illness, disability, gender and sexuality, and race amongst other things have been used to literally villainize characters. 

As part of reclaiming those narratives, marginalized people have become more sympathetic to villains. However, this becomes a tough balancing act for people -- it’s impossible to extricate villains from their deeds, and thus fandoms have warred over how much sympathy is too much sympathy.  

Loki and Kylo Ren both have backstories. We could argue back and forth about the effectiveness of those backstories, but that’s not what I desire to do here. I do want to highlight that both have been used within canon works and by fandom to explain their evil misdeeds...

...and both have garnered them sympathy. That being said, those stories are not the same. Those stories have different implications that just so happen to bring both characters to the point of villainy. Still, problems do arise when we become too sympathetic which does merit discussion. 

As much as fiction and reality are separate, the way in which we view the world shapes how we tell stories. Religious mythos are powerful enough to guide the actions of others, and so are the stories we tell on the movie screen or in comic books. So, having too much sympathy for the devil so to speak can do harm. 

I could go on at length about the power of storytelling, but I want to remain focused here on what comparisons are worth making (in my opinion) and what comparisons miss the mark. Here, comparing sympathetic reactions to villains warrants discussion especially with regard to our personal and societal values.

Next, let’s talk about unsympathetic reactions to villains as a whole. 

While villains can be coded with marginalizing traits, villains undeniably reflect societal evils we have to grapple with. Villains may be oppressive dictators. Villains may be corrupt politicians. Villains may be self-serving opportunists. Villains represent everyone and everything that can do harm to us. 

Heroes were literally made to overcome these evils, and we in turn overcome them vicariously. So, as it is natural for people to be sympathetic to marginalized traits it is also natural for people to be unsympathetic to villains who represent the people and things that do harm to us now or in a historical context. 

Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to discuss some of these issues in a larger context using examples from various villain narratives even if the characters have glaring differences. In addition, the cult of personality created for these villains reflect the actual phenomenon of ‘cult of personality.’

(That is, creating an idealized public persona for an often evil individual, romanticizing their struggles and their achievements to the point of completely erasing the great harm that they have done to others or to their own people.)

Yet, the very fact that villains can have marginalized traits means that “calling out” the evils of villains to an excessive extent can do a lot to further push the associations between marginalized traits and villainy. Fans who identify with this feel more alienated and hated as a result. 

With all of this in mind, let’s discuss the problems that arise when narratives are conflated for either the purpose of sympathy or the purpose of contempt. Mainly, the meaning behind each individual character’s narrative is lost when we conflate characters like Loki and Kylo Ren too much.

The reaction to villains like Loki and Kylo Ren feel similar to a lot of people, and maybe there is some merit in saying that people can be over-sympathetic to villains who are, for example, white, male, and powerful in some other regard such as wealth or status. These discussions may be worth it. 

On the other side of it, people may see marginalized traits coded in these villain characters that they themselves identify with. This may involve disability, mental illness, LGTB+ status, and so on. Therefore, discussions re: these codings may warrant further exploration. 

However. 

At the end of the day, these characters are situated in different contexts. Their roles are different. They have different histories. They have different backstories, which can’t be firmly connected by vague associations such as “they were just neglected” or “someone lied to them.”

In conflating them, people overly sympathize with traits that they mistakenly think related to both of these characters or all villains they encounter, or people may be overly contemptuous to the point of hating people who may identify with villains based on marginalized traits or interest in their nuance.

(I don’t think I should have to state this reminder, but I will in case it comes up -- if you enjoy a villain’s narrative it does not mean you sympathize with it nor does sympathizing with an element in their narrative mean you would or should sympathize with or excuse their actions etc. etc. etc.) 

You can find that general themes span across multiple villain narratives, but the specific messages associated with those themes are firmly connected to the specific narrative contexts these villain characters are situated in. Thus, it does us no good to say they are the same. 

Nor, should we assume people love or hate villains for the same reason.

When you take a villain like Loki and conflate him with Kylo Ren or vice versa, the nuance in their experiences and history disappears. For example, Loki comes from a rich history spanning hundreds of years and the villainization of Loki has been hotly debated for hundreds of years. 

You simply cannot take another villain character like Kylo Ren and compare them on that level, even if trends in reactions to villain characters may be able to be generalized by looking at both these characters. In terms of their historical value, though, these two cannot be compared. 

We also have to consider motivation and alignment of values. Villains may often desire power, but how they go about doing that and why they desire it vary greatly. Villains may feel maligned, but why they feel maligned and how they express that vary greatly as well. etc. etc. etc.

For example:

Kylo Ren is a villain who is situated in an ideologically based conflict. He does not want to be who he was groomed to be, and thus he created an identity for himself based on idolizing and mimicking those who have garnered power and control through violent and fascistic means. 

Sure, there are some ideologically based issues that arise in some narratives Loki is in but not all. We could talk about them, but doing so says more about society than it does about Loki in some of those narratives. There’s a lot about Loki that can’t be said in a more political narrative. 

Loki is largely a free agent who cannot be bound by any obligation to anyone. He has a chaotic nature that involves frequent change and transformation. Due to this, he’s not always aligned with evil even if his existence is constantly in conflict with the world(s) around him. 

It could be argued that both characters grew up in a privileged world, which lends to a sense of entitlement. This isn’t necessarily wrong. However, there are some things that marginalize Loki that are largely ignored when he’s conflated with villains who don’t share these traits with him:

Loki is a product of transracial adoption that comes with notable identity challenges. The nature of his adoption was not normal either, as Odin’s actions align with imperialism. While Kylo Ren’s identity may be forcibly shaped by those around him, Loki’s identity was hidden or openly maligned by those around him. 

Beyond that:

The villainization of Loki’s particular traits, rather than his actions, also reflect the effects of imperialism and the marginalization of queerness throughout history. The reinterpretation of Norse Mythos through a Christian lens has also done much to erase the significance of Loki and other Norse gods and goddesses.

Again -- the historical context between Loki and villains like Kylo Ren is just not comparable, and while we can certainly draw similarities in regards to general themes e.g. “identity issues”, “ideological differences”, “desire for power”, etc. these associations hold together in a flimsy and vague manner. 

To some, villains highlight modern day problems such as why people find identity in politically dangerous movements and how certain groups of people become entitled. To some, villains highlight the conflict between our society and the marginalized traits that we often sympathize with. 

I think there’s truth in both of these things, but...

While comparisons between villains like Loki and Kylo Ren may be merited when there are larger themes to discuss and/or when the reactions to villains seem similar, conflations of their narratives and personalities devalue their narrative purpose and simply don’t hold water.

Both characters make less sense if you think they’re essentially the same.

It’s always helpful, to me, to think about how two or more villains may interact with one another upon meeting, to discern differences in personality and motivation. For example, contrasts can be immediately seen between Loki and other villains when he chooses to ally with them. 

They simply do not have the same motivations, the same backstories, the same reasons to by sympathetic, the same reasons to hate them, etc. etc. etc. and it’s immensely boring to view characters as one dimensional representations of larger problems instead of nuanced in their own right.

So, whether you love them or hate them please -- for the love of good stories -- stop suggesting they’re the same when doing so completely erases the importance of their differences. Villains and antagonists are an important part of our history, of human stories, for multiple reasons. Not just one.