#or ambiguous calls to action that seemed very unclear about what actions to actually take

[the-world-annealing]

This isn't meant as a sort of bright side to the predstrogen ban (a woman had her entire online presence blown up for spurious reasons, that's bad), but I do think that her ban... re-focused the surge in transmisogyny discourse that'd been going on for a while?

Like, in the days leading up to her ban you could watch, in real time, as people trying to talk about concrete issues got pushed aside in favor of increasingly contrived scenarios about whether X or Y combination of identity and lived experience counts as 'TMA', people were up in arms about that obviously fake 'Kelly' AITA, there was a renewed push to make TMA/TME standard bio labels (definitely not info that could ever be misused, right?).

And then Avery gets nuked and everything just shifts, all of a sudden there's an archetypical case for the discourse to focus on and all else falls away a bit; like I genuinely don't think I've seen a single person bring up that AITA since. And it's still online discourse, it's not like it's pleasant now, but at least there's now a sort of shared understanding about What Transmisogyny, The Dynamic At Hand, Looks Like, at least there's a specific case that can then be used as a bridge to other specific issues (callout posts, selective application of already-bad anti-kink norms) - issues that are important to talk about.

And the thing is that I'm barely seeing anyone acknowledge this! People just kinda segued into discussing the avery ban when before they were discussing 'transfem afabs' and act like this is The Same Sort of Thing because the same word describes both!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Games Workshop declares war on its customers (again)

There’s a difference between a con-artist and a grifter. A con-artist is just a gabby mugger, and when they vanish with your money, you know you’ve been robbed.

A grifter, on the other hand, is someone who can work the law to declare your stuff to be their stuff, which makes you a lawless cur because your pockets are stuffed full of their money and merely handing it over is the least you can do to make up for your sin.

IP trolls are grifters, not con artists, and that’s by design, a feature of the construction of copyright and trademark law.

Progressives may rail at the term “IP” for its imprecision, but truly, it has a very precise meaning: “‘IP’ is any law that lets me control the conduct of my customers, competitors and critics, such that they must arrange their affairs to my benefit.”

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

In that regard, it is a perfect grifter’s tool — a way to put you on the wrong side of the line for simply living your life in the way that works best for you, not the grifter.

Now, copyright and trademark’s framers were alive to the possibility that they might become this kind of weapon, and they wrote limitations and exceptions into each doctrine that were meant to safeguard the public’s right to free speech and free action.

But those limitations and exceptions are weirdly self-eviscerating. Both trademark and copyright’s limitations assume that they aren’t being weaponized by immoral sociopaths. Both collapse if they are.

Take copyright. Copyright has a suite of limitations and exceptions under various global legal systems, including US law. US law also contains a specific set of exceptions colloquially called “fair use,” a subject of much mystification for lay people.

Under fair use, someone accused of copyright infringement can ask a judge to find that their use of someone else’s copyrighted work is permissible because to deny it would be socially harmful.

The fair use law sets out four factors that judges MAY consider when considering such a claim. Note that these four factors are neither comprehensive (judges can weigh other factors), nor dispositive (failing to satisfy a factor doesn’t disqualify your use from being fair).

If that sounds confusing to you, don’t worry. It is confusing. As the lawyers say, “fair use is fact-intensive.”

The specifics of a use really matter: who’s making the use, what they’re using, why they’re using it, how they use it, and how much they use.

That’s why anyone who claims that “X is never fair use” (for example, commercial fanfic) are full of shit — as are people who say “X is always fair use”).

Commercial fanfic absolutely can be fair use. No less a body than the Supreme Court says so:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wind_Done_Gone

Despite all this ambiguity and nuance, IP grifters who want to force other people to arrange their affairs to their own benefit are laser focused on the four factors, reasoning correctly that if they show a judge that the factors favor them, they’re more likely to prevail.

Half of the four factors are out of the grifter’s reach. As a rightsholder, you can’t control “the purpose and character of the use,” or “the amount and substantiality of the portion used.”

But the other two factors are more readily within the IP wielder’s remit. As someone seeking control a work, you can frame “to the nature of the copyrighted work” by talking up how much creativity and originality went into it, which judges will weigh in your favor.

More importantly — and disturbingly — is the way that an IP holder can influence the fourth factor: “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

Think about that fourth factor for a moment here: if my use of your work doesn’t cost you any money, then it’s more likely that my use is fair.

The corollary: if you can bully some people into paying for something they’ve always gotten for free, then you can claim that the people who refuse to pay are ripping you off — that there is a “market” for the use, and that their failure to pay weakens that market.

This is effectively what’s happened to music sampling. Seminal albums like “It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back” were produced with thousands of uncleared samples — but at the time, no one was clearing samples.

https://memex.craphound.com/2011/07/08/creative-license-how-the-hell-did-sampling-get-so-screwed-up-and-what-the-hell-do-we-do-about-it/

Had the rightsholders to those samples dragged Public Enemy into court, they wouldn’t have had the fourth factor on their side. No one was paying for samples, so a failure to pay for samples had no “effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work.”

However, in the 33 years since Nation of Millions dropped, paying to license samples has become common practice — and the mere existence of paid samples makes not paying for samples more legally risky.

So say a rightsholder decided to aggressively license simple quotations — as the Associated Press did in 2008, when it offered to sell you a license to a 5-word quotation for a mere $12.50.

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010341.html

All other things being equal, a short quotation from a news article is likely to be fair use. But if the AP managed to terrorize enough bloggers into coughing up $12.50 for a 5-word quote, it could create a market for 5-word quotations.

That market would change the fair use argument for people who don’t pay — yes, they’re making a transformative, critical use, but they’re also undermining the market for the copyright, and a judge might find this change tips the scales away from fair use.

Even more importantly, the additional uncertainty might stampede more people into paying $12.50 for a 5-word quote rather than risk a $250,000 statutory damages award for copyright infringement.

The more people who pay for 5-word quotes, the sturdier the market becomes and the riskier it is to rely upon fair use.

The fourth factor looks like an escape valve for uses that harm no one.

But it actually rewards to bullies who intimidate others out of money they don’t actually owe — until they do.

Trademark has a similar gotcha. Trademark is very different from copyright. Fundamentally, trademark is about protecting buyers, not sellers. Trademark meant to help buyers avoid being tricked into buying an inferior product because it was deceptively named or styled.

If you buy a can of Coke, you want the true Black Water of American Imperialism, not an inferior brand of dilute battery-acid.

But if your Coke turns out to be a fake, you might shrug off the harm or balk at the expense of punishing the fast operator who mis-sold you.

So trademark empowers Coke — and other vendors — to punish third parties who trick their customers, acting as their customers’ champions. Trademark doesn’t exist to prevent Coke from losing money to a rival — it exists to help Coke drinkers get what they pay for.

Trademarks can be registered with the USPTO, who nominally weigh trademark applications to ensure that they’re distinctive and original. Practically, examiners are busy, sometimes careless, and ideologically inclined to grant, not deny, claims.

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/06/14/son-of-cocky-a-writer-is-trying-to-trademark-dragon-slayer-for-fantasy-novels/

But you don’t have to register a trademark to assert it. You can threaten or pursue legal action on the grounds that someone has violated an unregistered trademark, which is any distinctive graphic or phrase that is associated with your product.

Registered or unregistered, trademark enforcement primarily comes down to whether a “naive consumer” would be mislead by someone else’s use of a mark. That is, when you bought a Coke-branded sack of chicken feet, did you think it was blessed by the Coca-Cola company?

If there’s no likelihood of confusion, trademark holders struggle to enforce their trademarks.

This standard seems reasonable, but, like the fourth factor in fair use, it has a sting in its tail.

One of the ways you can induce confusion in the public is to gain a reputation for being a litigious bully. Say Coke is known far and wide for clobbering anyone that uses its trademarks, no matter how trivial the use and no matter how bad it made them look.

If Coke is truly notorious for its zero-tolerance policy, that will lead to a widespread public understanding that every time you see Coke’s marks, the use was blessed by a Coke lawyer — meaning a use that might not otherwise be found to be confusing can be made confusing.

“If that was any other company’s trademark, I’d assume that they had nothing to do with it — but since I know Coke has an army of baby-eating attack lawyers who destroy anyone who uses a mark without permission, that must be an authorized use.”

Like fair use’s fourth factor, trademark’s confusion standard rewards the most vicious and uncaring businesspeople with new rights that their more reasonable competitors do not enjoy. IP selects for sociopathy.

Now, IP — in the most sinister sense of the phrase — has pervaded every industry, but the contradictions of IP are felt most keenly in its spawning grounds: the culture industry.

Culture is in tension with the control of ideas, because culture is the spread of ideas.

Creators (and execs) are vulnerable to the pirate/admiral fallacy: “When I take from my forebears, that’s legitimate artistic progress. When my successors do it to me, it’s theft.”

This pathology, combined with ready-to-hand IP weapons, incentivizes all manner of wickedness. Remember when Marvel and DC teamed up in a bid to trademark the word “super-hero” so that no one else would be allowed to use it?

https://memex.craphound.com/2006/03/18/marvel-comics-stealing-our-language/

These perverse incentives are made tragic by the inherently participatory nature of culture.

It’s not merely that Marvel and DC wanted to steal the word “super-hero” right out of our mouths.

It’s that super-heroes are culturally important because of how we take and remix them in our lives. Marvel went on to use the law to stop us from pretending to be superheroes online, something Casey Fiesler called “Pretending Without a License.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277598023_Pretending_Without_a_License_Intellectual_Property_and_Gender_Implications_in_Online_Games

Which brings me, at last, to Games Workshop, a company that has consistently led the IP bully pack, indiscriminately terrorizing the Warhammer 40k fans who made it a massive commercial success.

Warhammer is a strategy/roleplaying game that is played with miniature creatures that players buy, modify and paint. If you’re not familiar with all this, maybe this sounds a bit like toy soldiers.

It’s a lot more interesting — not just because of the game rules or lore, but because of the incredibly, unbelievable, jaw-dropping virtuosity of Warhammer players when they paint and style those miniatures.

There’s a reason I look forward to Saturday morning’s weekly linkdump from Jonathan Struan of the week’s best Warhammer and other RPG miniatures:

https://www.superpunch.net/search?q=warhammer&max-results=20&by-date=true

and why I follow incredible painters like Aurelie Schick:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/110246635@N06

Warhammer is intrinsically participatory, co-creative and active — it’s not media you consume, it’s media you produce.

Games Workshop has become fantastically rich off of this…and they hate it, and they always have.

For years they’ve pursued fans for producing their own fan-made supplements and additions to the game:

https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/99301

The more Warhammer players complained about the indiscriminate censorship of their fan media, the harder GW cracked down on them, wiping out whole genres of creative work:

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/48933/games-workshop-files-purge-09

GW claimed it was only defending its rights, the grifter’s signature move, making you a crook for having the audacity not to put their shareholders’ interests ahead of your own.

Then Games Workshop claimed a trademark on “space marine,” a generic term that had been widely used in science fiction for decades, including, notably, in Heinlein’s classic “Starship Troopers” (1959).

https://web.archive.org/web/20130207002144/http://mcahogarth.org/?p=10593

They didn’t just go after RPGs that used the phrase — they used trademark claims to remove novels from Amazon for having the phrase in their titles.

“Space marine” is a generic phrase, but GW was betting if they were sufficiently, spectacularly brutal in their enforcement, they could create a proprietary interest: “Now, I know GW destroys anyone who uses ‘space marine,’ so this ‘space marine’ must be endorsed by GW.”

GW just launched a new set of terms of service, including: “individuals must not create fan films or animations based on our settings and characters. These are only to be created under licence from Games Workshop.”

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-WW/Intellectual-Property-Guidelines

Now, this isn’t how copyright works. There are many ways in which a fan film or animation could be fair use, no matter whether GW forbids or permits their production. But this isn’t mere overreach: it’s a direct play against the fourth factor in fair use.

If GW can establish that all animations and vids are produced under paid license, then any fanvid that doesn’t pay for a license has a weaker fair use case, because the fourth factor protects existing licensing markets.

Indeed, as Rob Beschizza points out on Boing Boing, GW timed the terms of service change to coincide with the announcement that they’re launching a subscription service including “cartoons, in-house hobby videos, access to a vault of ebooks and mags.”

https://www.pcgamer.com/now-even-warhammer-has-a-subscription-service/

This is bullying with a business-model, in other words. Fans have figured out how to have fun with each other for free, and GW wants them to stop and pay the company for its in-house version of that fun.

Warhammer creators are demoralized and disheartened. The creator of the hugely successful Oculus Imperia Youtube series posted a heart-rending message of surrender.

https://twitter.com/OculusImperia/status/1421136444437970949

Oculus Imperia also edits “If The Emperor Had A Text To Speech Device,” (TTS) another beloved Warhammer fan series. Alfabusa from TTS posted his own absolutely demoralized goodbye to his work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXljeaktnDA

Ironically, both channels would have a stronger fair use case if they mocked and criticized Warhammer, rather than celebrating it, as fair use tips favorably towards critical uses.

The fact is, they love their hobby and its community and they want to improve it, not tear it down.

Neither wants to get dragged into a brutal copyright case against a deep-pocketed corporation. Even people with great fair use cases balk at that:

https://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/

Now, some people might be thinking, what’s the big deal? Why don’t these creators just make up their own stories instead of remixing the ones that come from Games Workshop?

Those people are assholes.

*All* stories are fanfic of some kind or another. Every mystery novel is a remix of Poe’s Murders In the Rue Morgue. Games Workshop’s stories are the thrice-brewed teabags of many sf writers (remember “space marines?”).

Tolkien straight up ripped off his characters from the 1000-year-old Norse poem “Elder Edda,” which features dwarves named “Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, Oin, Gloin, Nori, Dori, Ori, Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur.”

https://musingsofatolkienist.blogspot.com/2015/07/hobbit-origins-catalog-of-dwarves.html

Culture is made of other culture.

GW made something wonderful with Warhammer — by plundering the stories that preceded it.

The sin isn’t in the taking, it’s in the pretense that it never happened, and the vicious grifting that punishes anyone who does unto GW as they did unto everyone else.

[shachihata]

me rambling about rejuv’s storytelling structure under the cut i didn’t edit this post so if i’m unclear well. That’s what you get

ok so basically as i do my *checks watch* third replay of rejuv, i’ve basically been putting together what i’ve been calling like... a “lore walkthrough” of it? essentially, i’m writing synopses of each of the “story beats” of rejuv in correlation with the “gameplay beats” of rejuv, as laid out by jra’s 100% walkthrough. which seems kind of nebulous, but i mean something like this...

where i’ve put the “story beat” next to, in parentheses, the one or more gameplay sections that they correspond to. and the way i’ve split up the story beats is, i’ll admit, pretty subjective. i’ve been sort of basing it off of the natural “flow” of events, with each chapter having some sort of exposition and then a main conflict/climax. for example, chapter 4 looks like this:

“goldenleaf town” sets up the exposition for the chapter conflict, while “wispy tower” is the main climax that provides some sort of resolution to this conflict. simple!

most chapters, i’ve noticed, are around 2 story beats long, with each story beat taking place in a different area from the last. chapter 4 is divided into the goldenleaf town exposition and the wispy tower conflict/climax; chapter 8 is divided into the magma stone exposition and the valor mountain conflict/climax; chapter 9 is divided into the past aevium exposition and the west gearen sewers conflict/climax. longer chapters sometimes break this flow by introducing what i call a “falling action” beat. an example of this would be chapter 5: from the pre-blacksteeple exposition of the disappearance of akuwa town, the blacksteeple castle conflict where you confront neved and madame x, and the terajuma island falling action where you’re introduced to the next main “hub area” of rejuv. i’m on chapter 12 right now, and the only chapter that’s been shorter than two “story beats” is chapter 3, one of the shortest chapters in the game gameplay-wise, anyway. the exposition and climax both take place inside of chrysalis mansion, and occur in such short sequence with basically no falling action to speak of; story-wise, there’s nowhere that feels “right” to split it up, if that makes sense.

now, i’ve noticed that what i consider to be the “weaker” chapters of rejuv actually are the chapters that have three story beats -- these chapters, as you might imagine, are the longer ones that tend to drag on in terms of their conflicts and resolutions. chapter 5 “naturally” ended with the ending of blacksteeple, but you have to sit through a sequence at terajuma island that imo breaks the mood of the chapter by introducing you to... a tropical jungle where everyone’s complaining about the heat, literal minutes after the INCREDIBLY intense sequence where melia reveals that she’s still alive, you’re introduced to who madame x even is, and madame x kills nancy. the conflict has come to its natural close, and yet you’re immediately thrown even MORE problems that DON’T have a natural conclusion with the end of the chapter. instead, they get “dragged on,” meaning that to end your gameplay session with the end of the chapter leaves you feeling “unsatisfied” with the few answers you’ve received: saki is missing and nowhere to be found, alex and sam reveal that angie is the next big bad guy of the terajuma arc, nim is getting weirdly sick and weak, a cutscene with ren shows him joining team xen... and so on.

obviously, in any story, there has to be an overarching plot and conflict that does span multiple chapters. like, i’m not saying that all the problems in a chapter need to be resolved in that chapter. i’m saying that the “weaker” chapters introduce multiple smaller conflicts that simply aren’t on the level of the main plot that don’t get addressed to any satisfying degree, which weakens the overall impact of the chapter’s conflict and makes it feel longer than necessary. if that makes sense!

it’s this tendency to “drag on” that makes rejuv’s storyline much weaker after act 1 (the ending at valor mountain), imo. chapter 8 was an incredibly strong chapter, definitely one of my favorite in all of rejuv -- magma stone exposition plus a powerful ending at valor mountain where a lot of subplots are either resolved or, at the very least, addressed in a way where the player’s reassured that they haven’t been forgotten about (just off the top of my head... crescent’s connection to the player, jenner’s love for melia, nim’s psychic powers and inhuman nature, zetta’s problems and disorders, team xen’s weird immortality-at-a-cost, etc etc etc). it’s a natural ending to the main conflict of act 1: Team Xen Has Problems And Wants Melia Soooooooo So Bad. you win! ...at a major cost. it provides satisfying resolutions to the problems that’ve been presented in the first half of the game, while still setting up the stakes of the next act (angie, team xen at large, Crescent’s Connection To The Player). you’ve got a pretty clear idea of What To Do Now and What The Plot Is Going To Address Next, but the main threat still on the table is Madame X And Co.

...and then act 2 comes in and starts muddying stuff up. the reason why act 1 works so well is because even though there are so many minor problems being introduced, the major problem is still hanging over your head at any given moment. melia dead? it’s team xen. keta’s dead? it’s team xen. aelita’s being tortured? it’s team xen. amber’s being kidnapped? You Guessed It, It’s Team Xen. there’s no ambiguity about what the overarching plot is, as opposed to the myriad of “overarching arc-spanning problems” that are introduced in each chapter in act 2. once again, off the top of my head: your role as the “interceptor,” the role of bladestar, kieran and clear, the puppetmaster, nim/lorna, angie, vitus/indriad, the stone incident... and team xen’s previously-monolithic strength is undermined by madame x’s role in the doomed future, as she becomes a semi-ally even though there was very little prior character development for her besides “evil lady who killed your mom and warned maria in the prologue and has some sort of goal that you’re unwittingly ruining.” their importance in act 1 is diminished by all of the new problems suddenly being thrown at you in act 2 that have arc-wide importance, even though you, as a first-time player, have no idea why so many problems seem to be having arc-wide importance.

expanding off of what i was talking about earlier with chapter 5: the problems “drag on”! a TON of problems are introduced with VERY little resolution in each chapter, and the previously-rigid story beats start falling apart, making the story less satisfying to play through even though you know there will be a resolution at some point in the future. take my (very very tentative) outline for chapter 11 so far:

i wasn’t... very sure how to split this one apart, tbh, because every beat has so many problems and so little resolution, everything ends up blurring together. the first beat, “grand dream city”: the missing rune. bladestar. valarie not recognizing you guys. alice and allen and karen and their connection to the theolias. cassandra’s connection to team xen. madelis’s new job. the second beat, “stone incident”: venam being turned into stone. isha and the hospital of hope. nightmare city. who the fuck is the puppetmaster. nightmare zetta. aelita’s problems and issues disorders. being the “interceptor.” the xenpurgis. the last beat, “rose theatre”: what happened to aelita. souta’s connection to the eldest. your crew being signed up for the festival of dreams tournament.

...how many of these are resolved by the end of chapter 11? uhhhhhhhhhhhh. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. yeah. compare this to how much “tighter” chapter 4 felt! the first beat, “goldenleaf town”: geara coming to intercept you in goldenleaf. ren’s connection to goldenleaf. narcissa’s problems with goldenleaf. mosely’s conflict with goldenleaf. the wispy tower incident. the second beat, “wispy tower”: mosely comes back to help you! you realize that the wispy tower is somehow connected to team xen/houses information important to team xen, and beat geara’s ass in the process! you beat narcissa in a gym battle, and goldenleaf changes their ways! ren tells you that he has problems with goldenleaf because it was his father’s last wish that he “save” goldenleaf! it sets up future conflict (ren’s dissatisfaction with the outcome, what sirius and co. were studying in wispy tower, geara meeting up with jenner/zetta/nim in the altered dimension), but there’s a clear main conflict that gets resolved and ties back to the main enemy, team xen. it’s clear-cut, it’s strongly written, it’s done.

yes, act 2 expands the scope and heightens the stakes of rejuv a lot, which is why so many problems Are Introduced At All -- but the main conflict gets very heavily muddied with all of the minor problems that are thrown at you with every single conversation, it feels. i’m only on chapter 12 but from what i remember, this “dragging on” problem happens a lot throughout act 2 (although there are some sections i think are very strongly written, don’t get me wrong). that’s why chapter 15 is so good, in comparison: it provides so much fucking resolution. it’s a “return to form,” in a sense -- conflict is set up and resolved in that chapter, while questions from previous chapters are brought back and answered (to... some “vague” degree of “clarity”). this is very much opposed to a lot of the chapters in act 2 imo, where a bunch of problems are set up with no resolution in that chapter at all. idk. my memory of them is kinda fuzzy and i gotta just keep chugging through the game, it’s interesting just to break down how all this stuff works in a meta storytelling sense ig :T

[selkiewife]

I know i’m late on this but I wanted to talk about The Dragon Demands videos based on the Game of Thrones Season 8 blue ray commentary and the original archived scripts for Game of Thrones, Season 8.

Basically, YouTuber, The Dragon Demands went to the Writer’s Guild Library where he was able to see the archived scripts of Season 8 of Game of Thrones. Both the archive scripts and commentary on the blue ray confirms that most of the destruction in King’s Landing was originally supposed to be caused by the caches of wild fire left by Aerys being accidentally set off by Drogon and not because Daenerys herself “went mad.” The script says that civilians being used as human shields are caught in the crossfire as Daenerys is targeting Lannister soldiers in a strategical maneuver right before she heads to the Red Keep to enact revenge on Cersei. However, Daenerys is never described as specifically targeting innocent civilians needlessly.

My thoughts under the cut:

I have to say, that this makes me feel slightly better in a strange way. I mean, it doesn’t erase the bad writing, the ridiculous way the war against the white walkers ended, the misogyny, the inconsistency, etc etc ETC... but this crucial plot point was the one I just couldn’t let go of because it was just baffling to me. With other controversial plot points, I would disagree with them, but I could at least understand what they were going for and what the motivations of the characters were. But Daenerys turning on innocent civilians was truly baffling to me because it comes out of nowhere, is entirely out of character, her motivations are incredibly unclear, and was not set up at all. But with all the fandom discourse, I had really started to think that maybe I am lacking comprehension skills or something. But no, there is actually a reason it made no sense. The “madness” plot line was added later. Emilia Clarke was never given the opportunity to portray Daenerys as mentally unstable. Emilia was portraying grief and revenge on Cersei (as the original script and directors told her to do) in contrast to D&D’s final editing which was portraying the “mad queen.” No wonder it came across as completely false and bewildering- before we even get into the discussion of whether or not this is in character or not.

I think this is definitely more than just a theory that the script was changed pretty late in development because of all the evidence- it is confirmed by Emilia’s commentary, the Visual Effects team member’s commentary, and also the original concept art. But even if there wasn’t all that evidence, there is also the fact that the original ending makes so many other confusing things in Season 8 suddenly make SENSE.

For example, when Jon confronts Daenerys in the throne room and he talks about the women and children that were burned, Daenerys responds with “She used their innocence as a weapon against me.” Which makes total sense for Daenerys to say if she thinks she is talking about civilians that were used as human shields that died in the crossfire. But it doesn’t make any sense if she carpet bombed the city- although it does make her seem delusional, which is probably why Dave and Dan kept those lines in- hoping it would make her appear “mad,” since Emilia was never actually given the opportunity to portray Daenerys as mentally unstable.

There is also the scene where Jon asks Tyrion, “Was it right?” to assassinate Daenerys and Tyrion responds, “Ask me again in ten years.” There is really no reason for them to have that dialogue if Daenerys really did target and massacre innocent civilians. That is the kind of dialogue they would have if they were discussing someone who had done something more morally ambiguous.

Then there are the lines that are out of place in the final version but that would have made complete sense in the original wild fire version, such as Jon saying “now and always” as he stabs Daenerys. “Now and always” as any Theon fan will tell you, is a phrase that belongs to Theon and Robb and what they said to each other when Theon was pledging loyalty to Robb. Having Jon say this to Dany as he is killing Daenerys represents the ultimate betrayal but also calls back to Theon’s struggle and how difficult it is to chose between loyalties- between families. In this case, Jon is choosing the Starks over the Targaryens. Kit Harrington even says that this is motivation in an interview he gave with winteriscoming.net. But given the fact that in the final edit, Daenerys massacred innocent children and civilians on purpose, Kit’s motivation for Jon seems like a relic of an earlier script:

Kit Harrington: “Jon essentially sees it as Daenerys or Sansa and Arya, and that makes his mind up for him. He choose blood over, well, his other blood. But he chooses the people he has grown up with, the people his roots are with, the North. That’s where his loyalties lie in the end. That’s when he puts the knife in.”

And Yara Greyjoy’s lines. She surprisingly remains completely loyal to Daenerys, despite the fact that she massacred the entire city for no reason:

Yara Greyjoy: I swore to follow Daenerys Targaryen.

Sansa Stark: You swore to follow a tyrant.

Yara Greyjoy: She freed us from a tyrant. Cersei is gone because of her, and Jon Snow put a knife in her heart. Let the Unsullied give him what he deserves.

This kind of conversation only seems plausible if they are discussing Daenerys taking out Cersei after she had surrendered and killing human shields in the process, something I can see Yara completely defending- since she was always in favor of attacking King’s Landing as seen during her war counsel scenes in Season 7.

There is also the Emilia Clarke quote in the behind the scenes video HBO put out after the episode where she explains that Dany was targeting Cersei herself:

Emilia Clarke: “It’s just... grief. It’s hurt. And she has this ability to make that hurt a little bit less just for a minute. And here she is, sitting on this ridge and there’s the emotion and there’s the feeling and the feeling is to fucking kill her.”

Note that she does not say “the feeling is to fucking massacre the city,” or “the feeling is to target innocent civilians.” She says “the feeling is to kill her” as in Cersei Lannister- who is responsible for the death of her dragon and Missandei- and who massacred countless innocents herself when she blew up the goddamn sept lol.

Not to mention all of the set up lines between Cersei, Tyrion, and Varys about Cersei using “human shields” which never came to fruition in the final edit, now make complete sense:

Cersei: Keep the gates open. If she wants to take the castle she’ll have to murder thousands of innocents first.

Varys: Tens of thousands of innocents will die. That is why Cersei is bringing them into the Red Keep

And yet, lol, we never actually SEE Daenerys attacking the Red Keep. We never see innocent civilians inside the Red Keep. We only see civilians being massacred in the streets.

I also remember people who had seen the post Season 8 Game of Thrones Live Concert saying that Ramin switched to footage of the other wildfire scenes in past Game of Thrones seasons during his Bells sequence, instead of showing the massacre of innocent civilians by dragon fire. I use to think he did that because Daenerys was his favorite character. But given what we now know about the original ending, he probably chose to show the wildfire scenes because that was what he had specifically written music for before it was changed- the destruction of Kings Landing by wildfire.

I really wish they had kept the original script the way it was. It still would have been an incredibly controversial ending. Daenerys still goes after soldiers and a Queen who is surrendering- and that action unintentionally leads to the destruction of the entire city. Jon Snow still assassinates his lover and betrays one part of his family for the other. But, it would have at least made logical sense. People would have gone back and forth over whether it was in character or whether it was a good ending. But it would have been something people would be able to actually debate on an intellectual level- the way we debate Daenerys crucifying the slavers (who themselves crucified children) or Jon Snow executing Olly... It is a very grey and tragic ending with a lot of moral questions. It still might have gone over like a lead balloon. But... the ending we have is so much worst because it’s nonsensical.

The only reason I can think that they changed it was to make Jon and Tyrion appear less morally grey for plotting Daenerys’ assassination. They probably knew that the ending would be very problematic and were trying to smooth that over by turning Daenerys into a super villain. Yet they did this too late in the process after already showing Daenerys to be heroic in fighting with the north and then having Emilia Clarke finish her filming still believing she was playing a complex and at times ruthless character but not “mad” or “evil.” And then, there is also the intensely problematic issue with them conflating mental illness with mass murdering super villain. Even if it had been clear throughout the entire season that Daenerys was losing her grip on reality and becoming more and more mentally unstable, it still would have been incredibly controversial and I am not entirely sure it would have made the men look any better anyway.

Even though it is tragic af, at least with the original wildfire ending, all of the characters are incredibly complex and morally grey and you can understand the motivations for everything they do, even if you don’t agree with them. For example, if Daenerys attacks Cersei after she surrendered, it is wrong, but it is also completely understandable. And in my opinion, it’s even more understandable when you remember that Cersei cannot be trusted. She can’t be trusted to send her armies to the north- why should Daenerys trust her to surrender in good faith? This kind of ending would also have said something very powerful about unintended consequences. Even though Daenerys did not intend for so many people to die needlessly, they did because war is horrific. And that message becomes even more powerful if her motivations are understandable. But yeah, this kind of ending would have still been hated and debated but... at least the debates would have been more about the story itself rather than everyone trying (and failing) to make sense of what the story even is.

[kinetic-elaboration]

November 2: The Wanheda Tape, Writer’s Commentary

Today, some notes on The Wanheda Tape, my take-off of The Blair Witch Project.

This was my first idea for Chopped Choice: Horror, and the one I initially thought was more developed/easier, because I had the whole general structure for it: Octavia finds a tape, the tape has a ghost-hunting adventure gone wrong it, scary stuff happens, the end. As opposed to what became Mad Women, which was just two unconnected images at that time. But when I realized the Blair Witch idea was a literally a story in a story in a THIRD story and that I didn’t have any concrete ideas for the innermost story, the legend upon which the main ghost-hunting story would be built, I backed away and decided to work on developing Mad Women instead.

Then I finished that fic earlier than anticipated. And I still really liked my Blair Witch idea because I love the super cliche, traditional horror stuff: ghosts, witches, woods, autumn, etc. Sci fi horror was fun but it didn’t scratch that particular itch.

So one day after work, I took a walk, and suddenly all of the disparate, scattered ideas I’d been having for The Wanheda Tape came together, and I knew I just had to write it.

The big problem so far had been, as I said, the legend. I’d already decided I wanted to include Princess Mechanic exes as one of my tropes, and I wanted the legend to relate to them in some way, even just as a thematic parallel. I wanted the witch of the legend to have a lost love, too. I also figured the legend would have to be fairly old. And I toyed early on with the idea of like a utopia/commune/separate woods-y community that goes wrong.

The canon legend Wanheda was an immediately attractive option to base the rest of it around, because what’s creepier than a witch who controls death, a witch in some way associated directly with death? Plus I like canon parallels in modern au fics. But Clarke was already in the story, so that seemed impossible. I set it aside.

I thought about using the Grounders, and paralleling the woods-y community/main town war with the inter-clan wars of the canon. Perhaps Lexa as the witch, and Costia as her lost love? This was plausible but it didn’t seem to fit right, I think in part because Lexa isn’t a minor community leader; she’s not a separatist. She is the main one in charge, the Official Commander. Plus, it seemed complicated, trying to parse out Grounder drama and turn it into a legend that would then parallel a modern delinquent au.

What suddenly fit into place for me was using Wanheda, not despite Clarke’s presence in the modern au, but BECAUSE of it. The parallel between the two would then be immediately obvious, with really no work at all on my part, and it would allow me to try to do a story with multiple interpretations. I’m not the biggest fan of ‘maybe it was supernatural, maybe it was all in x character’s head’ but this was the sort of story that lent itself to ambiguity, plus I could always heavily imply that the supernatural reading was right.

So in other words, modern!Clarke and Wanheda would be paralleled, connected in the text, and it would be unclear if the creepy things happening were directly the witch’s doing, the witch through Clarke, or directly Clarke. Then Jasper, Monty, and Octavia would summarize the three possibilities in the final scene, to make it more clear. Octavia sees her as the mastermind of everything: she lured her friends to the woods, killed them, escaped herself, and got away with it. Jasper sees her as a tool used by the witch, even if his version doesn’t quite sound properly supernatural: something happened to her, through her, in the woods, and that broke her. And Monty sees her as a victim of the witch just as surely as the other three were. (I admit the three weren’t quite as separate as I’d wanted...and this was after re-writing!)

I’m not sure if all three possibilities are really equally convincing, but I do like to think they’re plausible, even that Clarke was somehow doing everything: going to the woods was her idea; she was in charge of navigation, and could have gotten them ‘lost’ on purpose; she was the last person to see Miller, and she wasn’t with Murphy and Raven when they saw the fire. And then of course Murphy sees her chanting in the woods--or he sees someone who he identifies in dialogue to be Clarke, and who seems to be her based on dress, although I was careful not to have the neutral observer of the camera actually name her, because--is it her? Really?

But still, there are distinctly unnatural phenomena going on, and distinct witch-iness. And Clarke’s involvement seems undeniable. That she either innately has or has created a connection to Wanheda is clear. To what extent the witch works through her, uses her body, and to what extent the witch exists as a completely separate, even physical, presence is what I hoped would be ambiguous. Is the figure Murphy sees a possessed Clarke, or the actual Clarke, or a bewitched Clarke (like Miller in the final scene)? Is the person holding the camera in the end a possessed Clarke? The witch herself? If the latter, where is Clarke? Dead? Still lost in the woods?

Wandering the streets of Arizona?

Does it matter that I chose to include four figures in the woods in Monty’s memory, and not five?

I didn’t answer all of my own questions, but I do have ideas that I worked off of, mostly to keep continuity.

First, Clarke imo is very good at lying and doesn’t mind lying if she feels she has a good reason to do so. So she is a liar in this fic, on at least one occasion. When she takes the book from the tree, it is not empty. She keeps it for the writing inside.

Another possible lie: that she doesn’t know why she thinks the witch is real. I think it’s plausible she’s been to the woods before and had weird things happen to her, or felt some inexplicable presence, in which case she is manipulating her friends by not being forthright about what they’re doing. Alternately, this is her first woods-y expedition, but her inherent connection to Wanheda allows her to ‘feel’ a presence the others cannot.

Second, the general outline of Wanheda’s journey and Clarke’s are the same: both using magic they cannot control and shouldn’t be messing with to defend/protect their loved ones, perhaps particularly motivated by residual feelings for lost loves (Wanheda’s need to avenge her lover in particular, Clarke’s need to protect Raven in particular), and both face consequences for their actions.

Wanheda was always a witch, and benevolent magic allowed her community to thrive, as the village believed. But after the villagers attacked, she turned to black magic for her revenge. It was successful, but the price she paid was that her community never thrived again. (Yeah this is kinda a moralistic story lol.)

Clarke tries to use witchcraft too, when she sees her friends being threatened--like Murphy, she reads the strung up dolls as a warning. So on the second night, after reading the book, she tried to protect the group using the circle of stones. It wasn’t successful, but the more magic she tried, the more caught up in it she became, losing herself in the process. Whether she was the active tool of the witch or a more general casualty, like Miller, I left open.

I didn’t think too much about the gender dynamics of it--except for the Wanheda legend, which is obviously about Competent/Independent Women Being Threatening, and the chaos that comes from men’s reaction to that--but now that I’ve rewatched the actual Blair Witch Project, I kinda want to poke at that more. Not totally sure I’ll like what I’d find in my own work lol. A tale of two women punished for their hubris? Maybe.

Still, it’s more problematic if women are punished where men are not. At least Wanheda and Clarke actually did something. At least they tried. Wanheda made a deal with the devil (perhaps literally) out of understandable rage and sorrow, and Clarke, called to that history, the physical manifestation of that memory, flew a little too close to the flame. To the extent that she and her friends are punished for their curiosity--this is just a trope of horror, which is in so many ways about allowing us to imagine what we cannot really see, and showing us the worst case scenario of the curiosity we can’t satisfy in real life.

[smallhatlogan]

Why Nonbinary Borderlands Fans are Mad About Zer0′s Pronouns, In a Timeline

2012

Zer0 was introduced in Borderlands 2 as a character meant to be absurdly mysterious in almost every way.  Zer0 is apparently not their real name, they seem not to be human (but it’s unclear if they’re an alien, robot, or something else entirely), no one knows where they came from, etc. Still, in Borderlands 2, they defaulted to he/him, and was assumed male.  It’s worth noting that Borderlands 2 also featured Bloodwing, Mordecai’s pet alien bird. In the original Borderlands Bloodwing was referred to as he/him, but switched between games to she/her. This is explained outside the game by Burch, who says that Bloodwing’s species changes gender halfway through life.

2013

Gearbox released the Diamond Plate Loot Chest. In it was the “Pandoran Gazette” an in-universe newspaper. It included an “Ask Doctor Tannis” advice column, the last question being:

Dear Doctor Tannis,

I have heard you are acquainted with the vault hunter known as "Zer0". I have been meaning to ask - that's not really his true name, is it? Hell, maybe Zer0 isn't even a "he". Do you have any details on this mysterious figure?

- Curious in Old Haven

Dear Curious,

I am indeed acquainted with the towering stack of leather and poorly-written poetry that so many refer to as "Zer0". As you have correctly noted, "Zer0" is not the Vault Hunter's true name. Zer0's actual name and gender are (CONTINUED ON PAGE 9)

Page 9 was not included. To my knowledge, this was where it was first seeded that Zer0 may not be male. 

November 2, 2014

 In a panel titled “Playing as a female character panel - Does it Matter” during PAX Australia, Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford discussed Zer0’s gender:

“The other things that’s interesting to me is sometimes when there’s characters that don’t have a gender or have an ambiguous gender I’ll choose them...In Borderlands 2 we left Zer0’s identity very ambiguous. What gender is he?” *crowd laughs* “We need better pronouns, don’t we? Don’t we need better pronouns?” (Timestamp) 

“What’s the gender of Zer0?….That says more about me than it does say about Zer0, the fact that I use the pronoun he when I describe Zer0. In fact, um, we purposely have left Zer0’s gender ambiguous. There’s a lot of folks at Gearbox that like to think that maybe Zer0’s of a particular species that doesn’t have gender- That is more androgynous.”  (Timestamp) 

(Timeline continues under cut)

November 25th, 2014

The first episode of Tales From the Borderlands was released. Anthony Burch answered this question on his Ask.fm: 

To my memory, tumblr blew up with excited nonbinary fans. Prior to seeing screenshots of this, I really didn’t have interest in Borderlands. The idea of a cool nonbinary character who used they/them pronouns, admist a virtual desert of representation, made me play through the entire series as fast as I could so I could catch up in time to see these pronouns in action. For a long time afterwards I’ve seen other nonbinary people expressing the same sudden interest in the series after learning this about Zer0. Because, yeah, it was a pretty big deal. 

2015: 

Zer0 appeared again in episode 5 of Tales, released almost a year later after the first. Their voice had changed to one that sounds more ambiguous in terms of gender, but Zer0 was still being referred to as “he/him”. Anthony Burch was one of the writers on this episode. Afterward, he answered this on his ask.fm:

Since he claimed it was honestly a mistake, nonbinary fans held out hope. There were posts going around tumblr clarifying that yes, Zer0 was still nonbinary, and still was meant to use they/them pronouns. It was just a mistake made by a thoughtless cisgender man. Of course, then some presumably-cisgender fan goes to Burch, and validates him, because clearly a character can’t just up and CHANGE pronouns! It’s not like anyone ever does that in real life! 

It’s not a fair point. It’s a dumb point from someone who has no stakes in this.  (Another thing worth noting is it has only been other characters who referred to Zer0 as he/him. Zer0 has never made a point of standing up for their own pronouns.) After this Burch just kind of gives up on the whole idea. 

This statement about characters being “progressive enough not to misgender someone” is weird, because the characters, even the sympathetic ones, in Borderlands have often blatantly failed to be progressive. The original Borderlands has the worst of it, it’s your basic 2009 edgelord shit. There’s blatant misogyny, not to mention the extremely homophobic joke surrounding Mr. Shank (and within that the transphobic joke about his girlfriend being a man in a wig). Burch only started writing for the game in Borderlands 2, however. It’s a huge step up, but there’s still a lot of bigotry. Captain Scarlett makes a “no fatties” joke. Mr Torgue fat-shames Ellie. Mr Torgue uses the R-slur. Multiple characters slut-shame Moxxi. Incest jokes surrounding Scooter, who also is implied to be a huge creep towards women.  Heck, there’s the entirety of Sir Hammerlock’s Big Game Hunt DLC is a racist, colonialist mess. Its antagonist is implied to be gay, one of two gay male characters introduced thus far, and he’s a pathetic, creepy stalker.  This is the game series where there are two common enemy types whose names are straight up ableist.  So citing characters as being “too progressive” rings hollow with this context.  Besides, trans people are often misgendered, even by people who’d otherwise be considered progressive.  Burch left Gearbox the same year, so he’s not entirely to blame for what anything afterwards. He just set a pretty bad precedent.

2019:

Gearbox did seem to take the “make a new nonbinary character” thing to heart.  They give us Fl4k, again a nonhuman character, who uses they/them pronouns. And okay, I love Fl4k, but like most nonbinary people I’m tired of all nonbinary characters being robots, aliens, or otherwise non-human in appearance (a trope that yes, Zer0 falls into as well). Still, Fl4k is cute and having a nonbinary playable character who uses they/them pronouns is cool! I definitely plan to play as them. Many nonbinary fans were suspicious though, it seemed likely that Fl4k might be meant to appease us and they could keep on using he/him for Zer0. We were proven right when they released the gameplay preview on May 1st. We hear Zer0 called “he”. None of us are surprised, but it still hurts, we felt like we’d been baited with Zer0.  Besides, why can only one character at a time be nonbinary? Why can a bird change pronouns but not a person? Why was a writer allowed to go out and promise this if it wasn’t going to be followed through on (yes, he didn’t use the word “promise” but telling a marginalized group something like that isn’t something you can just “forget” without people feeling betrayed)?

And that’s where we’re at, as of me writing this. I feel like there are some comments I’m bound to get on this, so I’ll answer them here: Why are you making such a big deal about this?

Me typing a few paragraphs isn’t making a big deal. But I feel misled and baited. After a few years of no clarification after Burch promising us they/them Zer0, a lot of people hung on to hope. A lot of people became big fans of Zer0 because they’re a fun, badass, nonbinary character. Their design is really, really rad! And heck, they were (at least for a time) the most popular playable character in Borderlands 2. Telling everyone, in-game, “actually Zer0 was never really a he, they’ve been a ‘they’ this whole time” would have been HUGE. Like how Blizzard made Overwatch’s poster girl, Tracer, canonically a lesbian, and then revealed their badass gruff guy (who fills the roll of your basic FPS protagonist), Soldier 76, to be a gay man. They/them are still not widely accepted pronouns. For us who use them, it’s difficult to convince people not to default to something gendered. Especially when we fail to appear completely androgynous. I’ve been told Zer0 can’t possibly be nonbinary because they have a deep voice and “masculine” body shape. But real nonbinary people come in all shapes and sizes with all kinds of voices! 

What about Fl4k?

As I said, I’m very happy about Fl4k. They fall into some problematic tropes even more than Zer0 (as Fl4k is verified beyond a doubt to be a robot, and has an “acceptable” androgynous shape to them). I don’t know their voice yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if it also fell into the category of “acceptably androgynous”. Fl4k is new and already “they/them”. Zer0 is an established character who already has a lot of fans among a bunch of different groups of people. There’s definite value in demonstrating a character can switch pronouns, since pretty much every nonbinary person who uses they/them haven’t used those pronouns their entire life. Besides, there can and should be more than one nonbinary character.  Fl4k being nonbinary but not Zer0 kind of feels like Gearbox expects us to shut up and be happy with what we’re given.

What about nonbinary people who use he/him pronouns? Can’t Zer0 be that?

Those people are real and valid.  However, we’re talking about real people versus a fictional character. I admit I’d feel better if it was stated, in-game, “Yeah, Zer0 is nonbinary and uses he/him”. But even then, it’s REALLY EASY for cisgender people to ignore that information and write Zer0 off as male (And knowing gearbox, they’d put it somewhere easily missed. I’ve surprised so many straight people who’d played through Borderlands 2 with the fact that Sir Hammerlock is gay, simply because it was only verified in a side quest). And you know, we were promised they/them, so like, not doing that kind of sucks. Also I think it’s really important to normalize they/them.

So what are we supposed to do about this? What do you expect to change, anyways?

Honestly? I don’t expect Gearbox to fix this so late. In all likelihood, that’s way too much dialogue to re-record. But I still think it’s worth making our voices heard. We shouldn’t silently put up with this kind of thing. Other people will pull the same shit, being either unsympathetic or unaware of the harm they do. And heck, it’s unlikely, but maybe Gearbox will at least acknowledge their wrongdoing.

Also, it’s maybe worthwhile to ignore canon, and keep referring to Zer0 as “they/them”, or if this whole thing is news to you, it’s not too late to start. It would mean a lot to nonbinary fans, and make a point about how Zer0 is regarded.

[svynakee]

Promare thoughts/impressions

Watched Promare. Overall, enjoyed it very much and it was everything I expected it to be (extremely TRIGGER, basically). A visual feast that definitely satisfied my shonen action hunger. In summary though, I really wish it’d been a 12 ep anime.

Spoilers ahead.

LIKES

Visuals: Loved the stylisation. The vivid, pastel flames and the polygonal ice made a nice contrast and it looks so different not only from other anime films but also from other animations by the same studio? Brilliant.

TRIGGER being themselves: Illogical story with a grand scope, bombastic action hero, easily distinguishable character designs.

Hiroyuki Sawano: His music is just what you’d expect from someone of his calibre. Absolutely floored; also, quite a range in the soundtrack! I remember especially when Galo starts talking about the Japanese firefighters the music shifts to something more traditional.

Galo not being racist: Well, not being prejudiced. While its pretty par for the course to have a protagonist learn to overcome his prejudices in this sort of story, the fact that a person in the rescue ops doesn’t, you know, hate the victims who cause the disasters he’s meant to respond to is very logical.

Kiss follow-up: The no-homo fake out. Not gonna lie, they had me in the first half when Galo recoiled and seemed disgusted. But it would’ve made no sense because like he said, it was a medical procedure he’s been trained to do. Putting his mouth on anyone, regardless of gender, should not have grossed him out. And it didn’t! Being unhappy that he ‘started a fire’ makes more sense because his entire job (passion) is about stopping Burnish. There’s a real lack of hetero-signalling here actually. Promare’s not afraid to let its viewers decide how Galo swings.

Female gaze: Yeah sure there’s that shot where Aina’s butt is on display but the camera sure seems magnetised towards Lio’s crotch.

Lio’s refreshing morosexuality: Once they start working together in earnest, Lio is quick to just indulge in Galo’s quirks. He trusts the guy easily but not to the point that he stops calling him out for stupidity. Very movies end with me knowing that characters from opposing sides have a strong friendship ahead of them. Promare is one. I might talk more about Lio’s match with Galo more elsewhere, but for now, I do like how he isn’t shutting Galo down/constantly arguing which is what you usually see when a serious character has to work with a boisterous one.

DISLIKES

So most of my dislikes come from the fact that it’s a movie. There’s no way they could’ve done otherwise in a 1:51 timeframe, but knowing what the studio’s capable of, I can’t help but wish I saw their full potential.

Character development: Nobody really grew. Not every story needs it and not every character needs to change, but the lack of flaws addressed hurt Galo and Lio’s memorability I think. I kept expecting Galo’s impulsiveness to bite him in the ass. Didn’t see it much except for his confrontation with Kray. I even thought the ‘don’t pose and focus’ thing might come back, notably during the Lio de Galon fight when Kray keeps justifying his robot’s weaponry as terraforming equipment. Galo and Lio are just the type to shut him up and point out ‘If it’s being used to hurt people, it’s a weapon! If you hurt others, you’re a villain! Nothing can justify that!’ since it fits thematically into that fight as well.

Streamlined plot: TRIGGER has been shown to have a good grasp of story pacing. It can feed you one bit of ridiculousness at a time until they bring out something awesome but extremely stupid, knowing that they’ve tempered you enough it’ll just be epic. In this timeframe, that just didn’t happen. Not enough foreshadowing, too many crazy concepts introduced too late, and there was more than one Deus Ex Machina if you know what I mean. Instead of a proper build up that ended on a strong final note, it felt like a brief but sudden blaze that flickers out to leave darkness.

Less dynamic camera: Made it hard to follow the action sometimes. In a way it’s like the plot; too much momentum and not enough time to process it. A good spectacle is worth nothing if there’s no chance to digest it.

Flat supporting cast: Again, this is because TRIGGER’s animes have been strong in this aspect. The movie timeframe means limited screen time, but Mad Max Fury Road had only ten more minutes and managed to set up its supporting cast well. In Promare, they’re mostly reduced to archetypes. What are their relationships? Motivations? They feel more like talking props, like the NPCs you have milling about the map shouting flavour text. There might be more in the supplementary material but for the movie itself, I didn’t like most of the characters not named Lio or Galo. In fact-

Don’t like Galo: Or rather, don’t find him compelling. Unlike Ryuko or Simon, I don’t think he could carry a series. He lacks depth and drive beyond ‘I am a firefighter’. Sure, he’s stupid and loud, but those are personality traits, not a personality. Being nice, determined, having a love of pizza…these all feel so generic and TRIGGER is capable of so much more. Galo feels like an alright lead in a movie where a lot is happening, so he doesn’t have to carry anything in terms of emotion or drive, but he’d be boring in a full-length series. Or even a movie trilogy.

Don’t like Lio?: While I don’t agree that every conflict has two equal sides, I dislike how squeaky-clean Lio is. He feels more like the shonen protagonist than Galo sometimes. He’s caring, skilled, honourable, intelligent, determined. His flaws? If you shoot him then try to commit genocide he’ll knock on your door and ask to fight you. It’s unclear if there’s any casualties during his rampage, which makes sense because we know his flames can be harmless (by his choice) and he was specifically threatening to destroy Kray’s city unless Kray listened. On the other side you have Vulcan and Kray. He could’ve afforded a bit more ruthlessness and still come out clearly heroic. It would have given him more intensity to better contrast Galo.

WHAT I WANTED

In summary? Promare as an anime instead of a film. I’d give up smooth fights and shiny CGI any day for stronger writing and characters with impact.

Longer timeframe in-universe: The plot essentially takes place over a week, which limits how much development characters and relationships can undergo. Lio feels too ready to trust Galo. Galo can’t process Kray’s betrayal. The sisters’ story is just kind of shoved on you like unwanted vegetables spooned out by a health-conscious mother. Dr. Exposition suddenly comes in and starts tying up loose ends so abruptly I had to check my phone to see if the movie was almost over. The short timeframe means Promare feels like a marathon-length sprint.

More moral ambiguity: The Mad Burnish are still righteous and try to minimise damage. However, their plans don’t always work. They leave escape routes but fail to account for impaired mobility. Young Burnish lose control while they’re on the run, endangering ordinary humans. Lio is forced to make tough choices. He becomes more jaded, which leads up to the betrayal where he can truly break and begin rampaging. I’m not saying he needed a full Satsuki Kiryuuin thing, but damn do I miss her sheer badass aura. Lio lacks that dangerous feeling. You know he’s apologising inside if he steps on you.  

Galo’s popularity: Galo is shown to have great PR and love playing the crowd. Kray has good PR. The Burnish have bad PR. Instead of Prometh looping a vid with his hacking powers, Galo could’ve convinced the city of Kray’s evil the traditional way: a big speech about humanity and believing in yourself (and not Kray because Kray is evil).

Promare: Lio tells us the fire is alive. Interesting. Prometh says the fire is actually aliens from a parallel dimension whose prime directive is to burn also they feel pain if the Burnish are hurt. My reaction is like Galo’s: I sleep. The entire concept of the promare…I just don’t like it. Maybe I don’t like how they al disappear at the end and fix the Burnish.

In my ideal Promare, the things I love TRIGGER for would all be present. Strong supporting cast. Multifaceted characters. Build up that just gets more ridiculous and epic at a steady pace. Good fights but also quieter breather moments. More jokes.

More Promare, basically.

[tsukiprotranslations]

[Translation] Machine Elements - Glossary

QUELL Profiles were supposed to be next and then VAZZROCK but because a lot of terms come up that are a bit too technical and world-exclusive, I decided to go ahead with the glossary first ^^

Also, thank you so much to Deea for the scans and for helping with the editing for the previous Machine Elements posts~!

※ Please don’t re-post and re-translate this interview under any circumstances. If you want to translate it to your native language, I can provide the kanji I transcribed from the scans ^^

Under the cut, enjoy~!

꧁GLOSSARY꧂

☐ RUINS

① The wreckage of a place filled with the remains of seemingly complex machinery made with technology much advanced than the current civilization’s capabilities.

No one knows where it came from, who made them, and what they were used for.

But, there is no doubt that those ruins existed together with humans 3000 years ago and that they were related in some way.

From what is known, there are legends that human life and other forms of vegetation were cradled in this thing called the [Ruins], a legend known to a lot of people that it came from the Heavens. Though a lot of scholars have studied it and have made plausible explanations, important questions still remain.

One, why did mankind suddenly abandon all those advanced knowledge and skills?

Two, why is there no record left of the Ruins aside from the ones from 3000 years ago?

② The Ruins are scattered everywhere. There are records of it being seen deep under the sea, deep in the highest mountains, and even in the deep forests that not even people from before have explored. What is known is that it was dotted with a lot of different kinds of regions everywhere.

In other words, there are still a lot more things left to be discovered.

☐ RUINS (continued)

③ It is understood what kinds of knowledge and skills these Ruins possessed but how they were put to practical use and what worth they had remains unfathomable.

Because it is academically and monetarily valuable, the Ruins are regarded as one part of a certain existing country, protected by its national laws. However, since some of the borders existing remain ambiguous, a lot of other countries continue to fight over some of the Ruins’ borders. It is not an uncommon occurrence for these countries to continue fighting for ownership.

The reports about the Ruins were disseminated to the public societies and so, the relics are being illegally dug and are being scattered all over. The poor preservation state is also becoming a problem.

Because of all that’s mentioned, the way of trying to solve the mystery of the Ruins is becoming more rugged than ever.

 ④ Each Ruin has their own untouchable space called a [SPIRIT].

Most theories dictate that hidden inside the structure probably lies the Ruin’s core mechanism. It’s because of the external action interference that it was called SPIRIT (SPIRIT = Mind, Body, and Soul).

The SPIRIT is covered by a particularly strong metallic material. The planet’s current technology can’t disassemble or move it so it’s impossible for them to be able to take a look inside.

Many scholars have attempted to solve this mystery but so far, none has made successful progress.

There are theories that say that it’s the SPIRIT’s powers that make it possible for the Ruins to move while some theorize that the SPIRIT is where each Ruins’ religious place lies and that it is hiding a god inside of it.

 ⑤ For a long time, it was believed that Ruins were only sighted either above ground or underwater but recently, because of a certain incident, Ruins that move in the sky have also been discovered.

However, with the current technology, there exists no machinery that can take humans up to the floating Ruins. Since no one has managed to step foot inside of one, no one knows what they could look like within.

☐ MACHINE ELEMENTS

① Just like the name suggests, they are the world’s foundations, invisible elements.

In old texts, what was written inside was [Foundation] but, as time passed by, it unknowingly turned into [Machine Elements]. (1)

It seems that this was because of all the machine relics that were being excavated from the Ruins around the world.

 ② The Machine Elements are roughly divided into four: [Fire] [Water] [Wind] and [Earth]. However, in the recent years, relics which contained two additional Elements called [Light] and [Darkness]. It became a huge topic of interest.

However, those relics suddenly disappeared.

Since there was a lack of evidence, and as people gradually forgot about it, it was never officially recognized.

 ③ The nature of the materials makes it possible for the Machine Elements to be operated as long as they share the same Element. As such, each Ruins’ foundation has their own Element.

For example, coal that is imbued with its natural Machine Element of fire will make it easier to burn and ignite.

Medicinal plants that holds its natural Machine Element of water will make its healing properties more effective… et cetera.

Among human beings, there are those that are born with an affinity for handling their natural Element. As such, those people go on to work as Craftsmen.

 ④ While the Machine Elements are something that people are familiar with, there are many who do not know or are unsure of it because they are not seen by the eyes.

What decides whether one is good at handling their Machine Element or not?

Where does the variation in the Machine Element’s material come from?

Are the Machine Elements limited or infinite?

What exactly is a Machine Element’s composition?

The only thing that is certain is the fact that humankind lives with these Machine Elements as their world’s [Foundation] despite it being vague and unclear to them.

☐ GUILDS

① A Guild is a group of Craftsmen that have the privileged status to use special skills and special techniques.

Each Guild has their own specialty. There are guilds that specialize in engineering machinery, there are guilds that are specially skilled with handling their natural Machine Element, the Foundation of their world. Then, there are guilds that focus on fighting, there are guilds that specialize in market and trade, and many other kinds.

 ② The Guilds vary with the number of its members and what kind of activities they do.

The 12 leading Guilds are known and named after the 12 regions where their bases are located at and so, they have come to be known as [The Twelve Regions]. They are strongly independent and do not take orders even from the National States. Not only that, but they also have exceptional capabilities and are very influential.

Thus, if one person becomes a Guildmaster, he is treated like a world-level VIP, the same way the rulers of the National States are treated.

These [Twelve Regions] make up the Guild Federation (traditionally just called the ‘Federation’), which organizes the guilds all over the world. In order to be called a guild, it is a must to get the Federation’s approval.

The rule of the Federation is that there will be no hierarchy within the guilds, that all guilds are to be equal. In the present day, as well as in the past, all guilds were of equal status and power. The way of decision is done by majority voting.

 ③ It has been closely related to the people’s lives for a long time that some people are more devoted to their guilds than their own nations.

Since the Guilds generally respect the nation where their bases are located, it is believed that there has never been a confrontation between Nation and Guild.

 ④ It is often misunderstood but, not all Guild members are Craftsmen nor does it mean that all Craftsmen are Guild members.

There are members in charge of clerk work, people who are in charge accounting… There are also those in charge of business matters. A lot of normal, non-Craftsmen people can also be members of Guilds.

According to the latest statistics, about half of the Craftsmen population work for guilds while the other half do independent work.

While being a Guild member might bring special privileges, they also come with unique restrictions. There are many Craftsmen who are aware and therefore dislike the idea of being in a guild.

 ⑤ Establishing a guild is surprisingly easy.

If a representative Guildmaster sends a letter of notification to the Guild Federation, it is possible for them to get their certification as quick as the next day after as long as they pass the Federation’s examination.

It is not possible for a guild to be established if there is no Craftsman present. As long as there is one, be it the Guildmaster or not, it is possible to be approved even if the rest of the members are ordinary people.

There are a lot of cases where a skilled Craftsman or a world-class Meister create their own guild with just their students and disciples. However, if this Craftsman retires or dies without a successor to follow him, the Guild is automatically deleted from record.

 ⑥ The proof of being a Guild member varies from Guild to Guild.

There are guilds that wear matching ornaments, guilds that use tattoos as proof, guilds that didn’t know proof were needed, and even guilds who decide not to have any at all.

Though it is rare for a member to use that proof to do evil acts and taint the Guild’s name, it is usually judged by a National Agency. But, before they actually come to hold a judgment, the concerned member will already receive punishment from the Guild.

Whether the punishment will be a personal one or whether it will be pardoned is also another proof of the privilege of being a Guild member.

 ⑦ In order to protect the public order of a guild whose base is located in huge cities, only the Guild itself and the Guild Federation will be keeping a strict watch on the guild members’ activities.

Though guilds do their activities with guaranteed independence, if what they do is essentially against public and moral standards then, the Guild Federation will have to interfere.

There is a guild that specializes in watching over those guilds and they do so by sending spies  (often called the “Doves”) to guilds all over the world,

☐ CRAFTSMEN

A title given to those who have mastered a certain technique or skill.

A degree or a qualification.

Twice every year, awards are given to those who performed exceptionally in the simultaneous testing that the Machine City of Suzaku does.

Those who are recognized as exceptional Craftsmen are given silver rings as proof of their accomplishments.

Although the title and the ring itself have no special powers, it does grant a higher social status, providing credibility and making it easier to find employment and job promotions.

Since having a skilled Craftsman is vital to the survival of a guild, it has become a special feature for the famous guilds from all over the world to come to the testing site to be able to scout those that perform exceptionally.

By the way, whether a skilled Craftsman decides to join a guild is of his own volition. And although forcing someone to join a guild is an offense, there are still reports of it happening in the present day.

☐ MEISTER

It is a title given to a Craftsman who has exhibited astonishing abilities.

There are only a few of them in the world, a genius among geniuses, and as such they are always the focus of public attention.

They don’t particularly like the attention so there are some Meisters who live while concealing their title.

While personal achievements are a must to be considered a Meister, they also need to be referred by someone from the Twelve Regions and in addition, their qualification needs to be agreed upon by the majority of the Guild Federation. As such, only very few people hold the title.

☐ TWELVE REGIONS

The twelve Guilds representing the world.

Though not necessarily large, there are guilds that kept the name of their guild from its long history.

Guild names like Procellarum, Fluna, Seleas, SOARA, VAZZY are some of them.

Though there are the independent and well-known established guilds, there have also been relatively new guilds coming into light and there have been voices of concern regarding their detachment from the current situations.

☐ TENSION BETWEEN NATIONS

Though there is continuous tension with the national borders, there has never been an armed clash between nations for at least 50 years.

However, the recent phenomena of the discovery of the [Light] and [Dark] Elements, as well as the appearance of the floating Ruins has caused a great upset to the already decades-long established concepts. The tension between major powers have recently started to grow as well.

The floating Ruins in particular have been suspected of being a new weapon that a certain nation has developed. And though it has been ruled out as a possibility, the tension still continues to rise.

Translator’s Notes:

(1) The kanji characters for “Foundation” are 「基礎」and the kanji characters for “Machine Elements” are 「機素」 They’re both pronounced “kiso” so over the years, the writers of the olden texts replaced “Foundation” with “Machine Elements” to further suit the machine relics that they use as the foundation/basis to maintain their world.

※ Please don’t re-post any of these translations without permission. Please just like/reblog them instead.

If you like this, please consider buying me a ko-fi here to support my work. (o^▽^o)Thank you!!

[skylights422]

Thor 1 Rewatch Commentary

Having recently seen Avengers: Endgame, I was feeling the need to reminisce and revisit the beginning of my mcu obsession, which started and was most prominent with the first Thor film. The thing that stood out to me most during this rewatch was something I’ve always been fairly aware of, and that is the frankly excess ambiguity surrounding many of the character and world building elements of the film, most notably everything around Asgard and Loki’s character arc, so that will be the focus of this review. Before I dig into it though, I want to briefly go over my other reactions to seeing the film again:

- I forgot how fun Jane and co. were. They were all plenty likable, their actions made sense, Jane was a real go-getter and Darcy and Selvig both filled their roll well, and Jane’s scenes with Thor were actually pretty nice! Sure the pacing and generally confused focus of the film meant that their plot and development sometimes felt a little... jarring or slow? But that is more of an issue with the film’s structure in general and not so much an issue of how the characters were used/portrayed.

- THE MUSIC WAS SO EMOTIONAL AND GOOD OMG. It really made the atmosphere strong, and added a distinct kind of feeling to a lot of the scenes that seemed more...emotionally charged than the stuff that came later? At least from memory, I still need to rewatch the other stuff they’ve been in.

- My goodness have I ever missed how Thor was written in this film, I forgot how much I loved the more old-fashioned speech style that was kind of dropped Ragnarok onwards, and how much I enjoyed Thor as the well-meaning but arrogant prince who learned like, so much in a very short amount of time (maybe too much for 3 days lol but in fairness they were some fairly extreme days from Thor’s perspective and it can be read as being evidence of how much inherent goodness Thor actually had as well how spoiled he must have been for a few days of normal expectations and consequences to bring out such a difference)

- I missed Sif and the Warriors 3 being characters that were like! Acknowledged! 

- I already knew this but this film really is more focused on character drama than action, but like it’s all scrunched up and/or alluded to character drama a lot of the time due to the short run time and aforementioned ambiguity so it really gives a kind of weird tone/feel to the film where a lot of the time you’re kind of just like, “huh????”. Or at least that’s how it was for me.

Okay! General thoughts out of the way, now on to the analysis, which I will put under a read more because the general thoughts got longer than I expected.

Alright. So from the beginning, a few basic things are made known. Jotunheim exists, Jotunheim once invaded Earth for Reasons Not Given, and Asgard exists as a realm that observes/protects the other realms (or at least Midgard) from the Jotuns/other threats but really the jotuns because at this point they are the only threat discussed as being a Thing. Then we obviously see Thor and Loki as kids; they themselves don’t really interact with each other in the scene, but they interact with Odin and a few generalizations can be made. Thor was more confident and aggressive/assertive while Loki was more nervous/insecure and more observant (he asks for more info about the Jotuns, Thor makes a quick decision about what to do about the Jotuns). 

So far so good as far as intros go - but then things first start to dabble in ambiguity, both from a ‘first time watching’ perspective and ‘in hindsight’ perspective. First off, the first time viewing perspective: Odin says Thor and Loki were ‘both born to be kings’; is this...metaphorical, and supposed to be comforting to Loki as the second born that he can be a king in spirit? Is it supposed to be a world-building element to show Asgardian monarchies have their children compete for the throne instead of automatically assigning it to the first born? It’s unclear, but which it is definitely influences how you perceive the later parts of the film (did Loki have a real chance at the throne in theory but Thor was still always talked about in a ‘when he is king’ way, making the supposed favoritism seem more blatant?  Or did he know from the get go he wasn’t meant for the throne due to tradition and only really ever competed for Odin’s approval, which leaves more room for the favoritism to be more perceived/due to miscommunication)

Now the ‘in hindsight’ part of the scene that is kind of ‘???’. First off, Odin nowhere corrects Thor on the Jotuns being monsters (he wouldn’t have had to get angry or anything, it would have been easy to fit in a correction with his general ‘don’t seek war’ message), which when you first watch it is like ‘okay these are the Generic Bad Guys of the film so we aren’t supposed to feel anything for them, suspension of disbelief sure they’re evil ice monsters got it’ but when you know that Loki is a Jotun and that his trying to kill the Jotuns is supposed to be the big thing Thor stops him from doing at the end of the film it just seems weird. 

On the character building front it doesn’t make Odin look great and shows that Loki didn’t get his later anti-jotun sentiment from thin air I guess, but from the narrative perspective why the heck would you introduce a group of people as ‘evil cuz evil’, have one of the main characters learn he was born one, and then have said main character’s primary villainous act be getting rid of the ‘evil cuz evil’ group of people without doing anything in the film at any point to humanize the supposedly evil group or prove to the viewers that Odin and Asgard was actually wrong in their view of them. Like, it is a no-brainer that genocide is an atrocity, full stop, but despite that being Loki’s worst crime in the film objectively it’s the one that evokes the least amount of feeling and the one that almost no one in the film gets mad at him about or betrays him for. Thor tries to stop it in the end, but this like a Fresh Hot Take for him and apparently the rest of Asgard too, because when Thor was banished it wasn’t for killing dozens of Jotuns for no reason, it was for bringing war to Asgard - because then Asgardians would suffer. Only that’s not really addressed and no one in Asgard is ever called out for thinking of the Jotuns as monsters, and when 80% of the good-guys are on board something and nothing contradicts them, it’s kind of hard to get mad at the villain for doing the same thing even if you know by all means you should. (Also another reason the film needed to be longer, we see Thor learn humility and it is done very well, but there’s no real conversation about seeing other species as lesser unless we assume it was covered with the blanket statement of ‘I had everything backwards’)

The next point of ambiguity I want to bring up in keeping with a loose chronology of the film is ‘Loki in part 1 of the film, also, Sif and the W3′. The first real scene we see adult Loki speaking is when he talks to Thor after the coronation is ruined - before that he just observes all of Thor’s conversations with Odin. Here it is pretty much impossible to say with any Real Certainty if Loki was trying to edge Thor on into making an extra stupid decision or if he was just trying to be placating and actually get things to calm down afterwards, because there’s loose evidence to support both interpretations. On one hand, we do eventually find out Loki let the Jotuns in in the first place, so it isn’t far-fetched to assume this was part 2 of Proving Thor Needs To Not Be King Right Now. But on the other hand, at this point Loki had already basically achieved his goal - the coronation was postponed, and Odin told off Thor for poor ruling decisions which kind implied Odin was reconsidering the idea of crowning him so soon - and we know Loki wants to be validated by his family so it also makes sense to assume he was trying to just stay on Thor’s good side (this is, admittedly, a more likely assumption to make with the extended version of the scene where Loki much more obviously reacts to being included by Thor and then stands to voice his support of him, but it can still be drawn from the scene as is in the film as well).

On the subject of the W3 and Sif, since we see almost no other Asgardians outside of the royal family and Heimdall, I assume they are supposed to represent a bit of what the average or majority of Asgardians think/how they view things. This is important mostly because they make a few view-points clear in regard to how they (and so presumably People) see Thor and Loki. First off, they do tease/belittle Loki a number of times, and again due to lack of context it’s wildly unclear on if this is well-intentioned teasing that Loki takes too personally (since the W3, esp in deleted scenes, do rib each other quite a bit) or if it comes from genuine disrespect/malice (Loki IS a prince and most of the other ribbing doesn’t end in the teased one falling silent, so it is possible but again, unconfirmed). Secondly, they clearly worship Thor a bit and don’t see anything wrong with his arrogant and violent behavior (they don’t really see anything wrong with Thor starting a war other than inconvenience, and they want Thor back from Earth right away even though that would fix pretty much nothing, maybe they thought they needed their best fighter for the war but that is never brought up so it comes off more as them just being unhappy with the sentence in general). They also blatantly distrust Loki - they assume he is a traitor because he has magic and because... he’s Loki, I guess, but especially as a first time viewer it just seems like total paranoia since we haven’t seen anything to support their view.

Which leads me to a specific line of theirs: ‘Loki’s always been one for mischief’. Most writing advice says to ‘show, not tell’, and while there are obviously moments where telling is fine or even better than showing, this is an instance that would have been infinitely better to show rather than just tell. Mischievous how? To what extent? Since when? Kid Loki seemed obedient and quiet. Everything about Adult Loki we see in the film is either reserved or desperate, not mischievous (deceitful absolutely, but that isn’t the same thing). In fact unless you include the deleted scene where Loki makes wine into snakes to spook a servant that was laughing at him (which, is a pretty minor, albeit petty, instance of mischief), Loki doesn’t actually do anything for the sake of mischief at all in the movie. It just seems like a really weird decision to write a character known broadly for being mischievous, have him not act out of mischief once in the film, but still include a single line telling us that actually is mischievous, really, so suspecting him of treason makes sense, yeah?

Like, Sif and the W3 literally betray Loki, who was supposedly their friend(-ish) and currently their rightful king not because they have any proof of misdeeds (they only suspect him about the Jotun thing, they don’t know about Loki lying to Thor, and this is BEFORE the Destroyer was sent or Jotunheim was being destroyed, which we don’t even have hard evidence that would have bothered them) but because...they don’t like Loki and Really Don’t Like that Loki won’t bring Thor back, I guess? The way it’s framed they might also be assuming he did something to Odin and/or Frigga to get the throne but like...where the heck would that assumption even come from??? There’s nothing on-screen to back that up other than the ominous camera-work (and again, the deleted scene provides possible textual evidence that Loki was given the throne by Frigga after Odin fell asleep and did not expect to gain anything throne-related to de-crowning Thor). Also I am really unclear on if Heimdall deciding to behead his current king for tricking him/messing with inter-realm defenses is culturally appropriate or not, but from an uninformed viewer’s perspective it seems like a wild overreaction, which is another thing that could have been built on (in general Asgard’s culture could have been explored more like, a lot).

As for the second half the film/the final battle, my main question in hindsight was ‘what...exactly was Loki OR Thor expecting to gain from their confrontation???’ because Thor entered the arena basically just going “What the heck? What the heck!?!?!?!?!?” and Loki was in full-scale mental breakdown mode so I kind of don’t think he was planning anything coherently at this point, aside from maaaaybe stalling Thor long enough to let Jotunheim be destroyed (except, he didn’t really see that as something that could even be done and was visibly shocked to see Thor trying to break the Bifrost, so probably not even that). It just makes, narrative-wise, for a really weird final fight where neither combatant has any real Desired Outcome (Thor is kind of trying to talk Loki out of his freak out while also wanting to talk/argue about the whole Destroyer thing, but is too out of the loop and hot-headed to do a very good job at this and Loki I think just wants to vent/panic/finish his plan). And I mean part of that does play into the tragedy element of the story, but it also plays into the overarching ambiguity of the entire film.

I think...those are the main points I wanted to cover? More or less. Conclusion: I love the film to pieces but it is a structural dumpster fire that leaves way too many major character and world-building elements up to interpretation. And yet also this was the golden days and I miss them and have too many thoughts about these characters. But still, narrative anarchy at least half the time. SO THAT’S THAT.

If I missed anything or you want join the discussion or ask me anything regarding Thor, Loki, and their arcs absolutely feel free to do so!  

[solacefruit]

What’re your thoughts on the trope of a former antagonistic or villainous character changing sides (let’s say not because their ideals/what they’re fighting for changes, but because their ideas about what the best way to achieve that have changed)? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, as it’s something I struggle with at times with a character of mine (her starting off on the side of the villains, and then changing sides to join the heroes is super important for her arc). Thanks a bunch!

Hello there! Thank you for asking. This is such a fun question! 

I usually get a real kick out of antagonist-becomes-friend (or at least becomes temporarily or occasionally non-antagonistic) tropes. I personally think you can split the trope a few ways, depending on specific iterations of it. For example, there’s the complete change of heart, where someone goes “oh damn I was evil and I don’t want to be anymore,” and then there’s the enemy of my enemy is my friend approach, where an antagonist teams up with the protagonist–or at least doesn’t act antagonistically–because they share a common, greater threat, but could lapse back into old habits as soon as that passes. 

I’m not entirely sure what sort you’re talking about–it’s a little unclear from your wording–but I’m going to guess you mean they’re a little more anti-hero than outright villain, given that their ideals apparently line up with the protagonist’s, but their methods previously didn’t. Unless you mean the ideals–i.e., “doing bad things,” or whatever–stay the same, but the character hides those intentions and acts like they’ve given up on that? I would say that latter one is actually not the trope at all: that’s just plain villainy and deception. Anyway! A lot more underneath the cut.

At the moment, my partner and I are watching Buffy (I’ve never seen any of it before), and this is a real timely question, because that series has a great example of both kinds of “villain becomes friend (becomes villain again)” tropes in action using vampires. On one hand, you have Angel, who is originally just a normal guy, turned into a vampire with a talent for being wildly sadistic, and then as punishment for that, he gets given a soul. That returned humanity and enforced sense of morality overwhelms him with guilt for all his past crimes, so then he chooses to do good things to make up for it. Of course, throughout the show, his soul flip-flops due to magic shenanigans and he reverts to evil version a bit, but I think that’s an interesting counterpoint to the other vampire: Spike.

He’s just a solidly bad dude, albeit often not a very capable one, and most of the time he’s an antagonist–except for in circumstances where his goals (typically not dying, getting his girlfriend back, whatever) align with the protagonist team’s. We’ve just got up to the part where he’s been fang-neutered, for lack of a better word, so he’s been sulking about unable to bite anyone and turned essentially into everyone’s weird, sullen, harmless roommate (which has been extremely fun). Once he realises he can fight–and kill–other demons, however, he perks right up and actively and voluntarily wants to participate in protagonist team’s world-saving duties, because it lets him be awful again, as long as he’s only awful to demons. 

What I like about these two is that they seem to represent two different conceptualisations of morality, but within the same show! Angel is thoroughly a deterministic case: when he has a soul, he is good, and when he has no soul, he is evil. There’s never any wavering either way–he never has a “but what if I chose to be good?” moment when he’s full demon (the implication for the entire show until that point being that vampires can’t and won’t make moral choices), and he never finds vampire sobriety a challenge as a souled being and is overall a soft, sweet guy. Angel is essentially two entirely separate people in one form: a “good” self and a “bad” self, both of which are more or less externally triggered by whoever is cursing him at the time. ***ooh, someone please ask me about Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde sometime, please, I can talk on that topic for a century***

Spike, by contrast, is a representation of morality as a forever shifting spectrum of choices. I think this is why I find Spike to be a more interesting character than Angel (although don’t get me wrong, Angel is nice and I like him). I like that Spike has such a wide range of emotions and motivations he’s allowed to experience and express, rather than being dictated his sense of self by fate and destiny, so on, and that–at least where we’re up to at the moment in this show–he’s doing “the right thing” (trying to kill bad dudes who want to destroy the world) for “the wrong reasons” (he enjoys the killing way too much and also is bored) and for now that’s working for everyone so everyone’s rolling with it. That’s just so fun to me. But I do tend to really enjoy moral ambiguity in general.

I think two other interesting case studies (I guess?? I guess we can call it that) for this is of course Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender and also I feel several characters from Steven Universe, but primarily Peridot! They’re great examples of why characters “switch sides” and how to do that in a way that’s convincing and true to character, which I think lines up pretty well with what you’ve mentioned wanting to do? In both the instances, there is very little personality shift, especially to begin with. Eventually, character growth occurs, but personality doesn’t change a whole lot, and I feel this is really effective for a lot of reasons but mainly that you don’t lose that character and have to replace them with a new one. You don’t Angel-ify them, is what I’m saying. 

Peridot and Zuko have a really similar major turning point for their shift in team: confronting an authority figure they trusted and revered. Recognising the imperfections in the person they idolise causes them both to massively question their own worldview, and their place in the world, and resultantly their role in what’s going on. Peridot rejects Yellow Diamond’s leadership and joins the rebels; Zuko rejects Ozai’s leadership and joins the avatar. What I like so much about this is what I like about Spike: it’s about choice. For Zuko and Peridot, it’s a choice to reject determinism and destiny and instead take on moral responsibility. And they do that without changing who they are. 

I feel like that’s vital for a successful team-switch story: the catalyst for their change should be something that changes their perspective, not their personality. Whether it’s an external threat that drives them to realise they’re in the same boat as the protagonist whether they like it or not, or it’s a major realisation about someone else/the state of the world and their culpability in it, I feel like a really good catalyst should–if at all possible–come about because of who a character is. 

For example, Peridot’s devotion to logic and reason is a signature character trait. When Yellow Diamond, the ruler she adores and believes to be the pinnacle of this way of being, blatantly acts in total disregard of logic and instead behaves foolishly out of emotion, Peridot renounces her. The other approach is more similar to a self-fulfilling prophecy, really: Zuko’s (albeit longer realisation) comes from a comparison between his father and his uncle and also from his experiences seeing how the world really is versus his father’s lies, all of which happens because Ozai banished him. Zuko’s sense of honour (which is from the beginning far more honed than his father’s!) can’t coexist in peace with the hypocrisies he’s witnessed in his family and nation, so he is drive to actually choose the real honorable path–which is to turn traitor to the Fire Nation.

I think these kinds of set-ups make for the most satisfying bad guy-to-good guy narratives, personally. I hope this has been an interesting read for you!

[pomegranate-salad]

Seeds of thought : Wicdiv #38

Hey guys ! It’s August and I’m bored out of my mind ! Luckily, I got some exciting projects coming up and plenty reasons to stress out. In the meantime, we’ve got ourselves an issue to comment, and it’s a doozy. Let’s dive in ! Special thanks to @theoddathenaeum.

Thoughts and spoilers under the cut.

WHAT’S A GOD TO A NON-BELIEVER ?

 Waaay back, there was a girl who wished for nothing more than recognition and success, and who suddenly rose to be a superstar among her peers and became one of the key players of the Wicdiv story. That girl is of course me, and I owe much of my fame and fortune to an essay I wrote back in 2016 titled “A game of You(th)” in which I posited that the relationship between wicdiv characters and their god-persona mirrored and substantiated the relationship between the self and the constructed identity, and examined the characters’ various flaws when approaching this problem. But that’s focusing on the result, not the process. Luckily, this new issue gives us another opportunity to reflect on identity and on what it rests. So let’s go back to this grid of analysis : godhood as a metaphor for constructed identity, and see what more Wicdiv has to say about the topic.

 And let’s start with the first mark of individuation : names. This issue has Ananke giving her name, Robert Graves giving his, Nergal changing his name just like Laura did a few issues earlier. “Names are only as meaningful as we choose” says Ananke, which seems to mean that if we do not control our name, we can control how much it defines us. It’s because we tie our name to part of our identity that changing it or not is significant : Baphomet going back to being called Nergal is meaningful because he chose his fake name specifically to evoke a certain identity, an identity he has no need for anymore now that the person he wished to communicate this identity to is gone. But that also goes to show the ambiguity of the line : names are only as meaningful as we choose, implying one person cannot imbue their names with meaning on their own. Our names gain meaning in communication : Laura wanting and then not wanting to be called Persephone is about more than what she’s called, it’s about how she wants to be seen and in turn, how she want to see herself.

Here is a first aspect of identity to consider : how much it involves the other’s gaze. We shape ourselves in part from the image the others send us. Identity is not entirely self-constructed, but also built from the positioning of ourselves vis-à-vis others. The Morrigan defined Baphomet, just like Robert Graves went on defining “The White Goddess” to the world. Wicdiv then widens that notion by suggesting that the gods’ entire identity is built not on their self-given notion of who they are, but on the premise that someone else (Ananke) has bestowed upon them. It is a “prize” that someone else gave them, it is not really theirs. Yet, they build identities out of it. How so ?

 Here is what I think Wicdiv’s answer is : because they believe it. They are handed the basis for an identity and run with it because they believe this identity to be theirs, when in fact it only becomes so because of this identification. This is where we have to try and decode the references to Robert Graves’ White Goddess concept, and more specifically the “no muse-poet can grow conscious of the muse except by experience of some woman in whom the muse-power is to some degree or other resident” line. Now I could probably write an essay on this sentence alone, but I’d have to actually read The White Goddess and I don’t wanna. But basically, what I understand of this theory is that poetic inspiration (in the purest sense : a divine influence or action on a person believed to qualify them to receive and communicate the sacred revelation) comes from the worshipping of an Ideal, the White Goddess, the muse. Now what’s interesting is that while “a woman” is needed for the poet to become aware of the muse, she is distinct from the muse : she only has some “muse-power” whereas the poet is referred to as “the muse-poet” who need to “grow conscious” of the muse. The muse is not possessed by the woman, she rests within the poet as Ideal and the role of the woman is only to ignite belief in the existence of this Ideal. To translate all that in Wicdiv terms, we have a triangular relationship : the gods are the muse, Ananke is the woman holding muse power, and the pantheon members are the muse-poets, and it’s thanks to the action of Ananke that the poets get to discover the Ideal that was within them all along. Or, more precisely, that they get to believe in an Ideal that was only a potentiality within them before. Identity is realized through belief ; belief is the active means of identity construction.

 But that means something else : that the belief can be rejected, and the identity reconstructed. I think this is the sense of Laura’s realisation : Nergal tells us “whatever I do, don’t” which helps her consider godhood not as a status but as the result of an action : she is a god because she believes it. Because she accepted being one. To put it another way, identity is performative : it’s through our active belief in our own identity that this identity is fledged. If you extract belief in your identity, you deconstruct the latter. That’s why Laura “knowing what she’s not” is so important : if she doesn’t actively believe in her identity, she stops performing that identity, hence, she stops being that identity. In the Wicdiv plot, with godhood as a metaphor for identity, it means godhood disappears when this identity is questioned. “Persephone doesn’t exist” because Laura stopped believing in Persephone as an identity. Identity is forged in the performative belief in an image of ourselves reflected by others.

 With all that in mind, let’s talk about Ananke.

 Ananke and Minerva’s respective identities have remained a mystery for much of the Wicdiv run, because they were both hiding behind a “fake” identity in that it was built to trick others rather than define themselves. But as we see them as they are and as they interact with each other in this issue, we can start to get a sense of who they believe themselves to be. The first mark of that identity seems to be of one who is above the whole narrative she created. She is the one that orchestrates belief, not the one who falls prey to a handed identity. Indeed, others “can’t resist it”, and names “are only as meaningful as we choose”. Ananke has torn down the veil of belief : she doesn’t believe she is, she knows she is.

But on the other hand, let’s consider this : this is the woman who called herself the White Goddess. This is the woman who named her other self Minerva. Minerva is the goddess who spawned fully armed from the head of her father ; this father had swallowed her mother whole after it was predicted that a son born from her would dethrone him. Minerva is what happens when you take control of fate. According to Minerva, “there is no luck, there is just us”. Names are only as meaningful as we choose ; well, Ananke chose her names, and she chose them to evoke the all-encompassing hand of fate, the one who wanders around, the narrator. She pretends she doesn’t fall prey to the belief in that identity, that she can see past it, but is that really true ? Let’s examine her reaction Graves’ speech. According to her, he “heard what he wanted to hear and made up the rest according to his self-serving purposes”. Now it’s at this point a common trope of Wicdiv interpretation that when a character is criticizing someone else, they’re most likely projecting their own shortcomings. Indeed, here is what I think really bothered her in Graves’ take on her myth : who was the focus of it. In Graves’ interpretation, the triangular relationship serves the muse-poet in their quest for inspiration ; in Ananke’s interpretation, it serves the woman who profits from muse-power. To put it in diagrams, Graves sees the relationship like this :

 While Ananke sees it like this :

 Ananke is not discontent because Graves misunderstood what she said, it’s because she is no longer the focus point of the story. To her, the White Goddess story cannot be dismissed as “an affair” or “unsolicited enlightenment” because despite all her posture, she does believe in it. It is her identity. The one who is above, the one who doesn’t get tricked. The one who controls and uses. She believes it because she has to believe it. Because unlike Persephone, if she walks away from that identity, she has no other identity to fall back to. Back in issue #34, her sister asked her if she would “do this forever” and indeed, Ananke has to keep “doing this” forever : she put herself in a situation where she has no exit, nothing to do except try to avoid a nightmarish great darkness. If she stops doing, she stops being. She has to keep believing in that identity, to keep performing that identity. To stay alive. Of course she believes it.

The pantheon are not the ones trapped in this story ; Ananke is. And out of this prison she put herself in, she built an identity. She chose to believe, so she wouldn’t have to endure. But the varnish is about to crack, and all that’s left is a very sad woman. Building temples to herself.

 WHAT I THOUGHT OF THE ISSUE

 There are some issues that just feel big. Big ideas, big events, big words. Issues that almost demand that you think about them, that don’t let you walk out of your reading by just registering what happened. This is one of them. I think this issue is the most outright-philosophical Wicdiv has ever allowed itself to be, an issue that doesn’t make sense from a narrative perspective unless you consider the underlying concepts that are being studied here. At first glance, this issue is rather clunky : the temporality is unclear, the first and second parts don’t really connect to each other, and the issue as a whole is made of small vignettes that give a scattered vibe. But really, that doesn’t matter : this is an issue that declares high and loud that it’s about more than what it is, that almost dares you to understand what it’s all about. Which is one very clever way of cramming more information without it feeling too overbearing. The flashbacks are short, but they are unexpected, and they’re a welcome breather in an arc that didn’t really have much of those. As for the Nergal storyline… I’m not sure how I feel about it, I guess I’ll let it develop. For now, it gave us a cool visual and the definitive stance that this storyline is not by any means resolved, so that’s that. The scenes with Woden and Cassandra are I think the weak link of the issue : they serve essentially to further the plot and foster too much artificial conflict, which makes them feel flat as a whole. The absolute core of the episode is course Laura’s monologue, which takes us back to the Wicdiv days or yore in more ways than one. Compared to issue #37, which was essentially a capsule issue, this one feels like it opens doors for a fantastic end of arc. But of course, the reason the entire issue holds is because it resonates emotionally, whereas last issue mostly felt like an exercise in plot tying up. Laura’s monologue is an absolute powerhouse of emotion, simply yet masterfully written and illustrated. The moment with Nergal feel much heavier than the entire last issue did, and Ananke/Minerva are an absolute delight to hate.

The Wicdiv team is decidedly very good at penultimate issues, perhaps better than they are at actually ending their arcs. For now, it made me wish I held the entire staff of Image hostage so I could demand to read next issue immediately, so we’ll call that issue a success. Well done stuff, interesting stuff, and perhaps most of all, daring stuff.

[lhs3020b]

I could attempt to do another Diary of a Disaster, but the TL;DR is, I no longer have any clue about what’s going on (except that it all seems bad). I don’t think anyone else has a clue, either, including most of the people in Parliament and the Cabinet.

One thing I do note, though, is that the quoted numbers for the ERG seem to be drifting downwards. Last year, there were supposedly about 80 of them. Then numbers in the 60s became more fashionable. Then we started seeing estimates in the 40s. And then along came yesterday’s grand guignol bonkers nut-fuckery, the proposed rebellion on banning .50-calibre guns ... which is apparently attracting a census of 35. Either the ERG’s membership has been grossly over-stated, or the careerists are starting to slip away. One possibly-related data-point: the continued failure to actually trigger a Tory leadership ballot. Either they’re not really trying - in which case, why should we care about their empty and meaningless lives? - or they don’t have the votes - in which case, why should we care about their empty and meaningless lives?

Whichever case is true, it ain’t looking good for the ERG.

Of course, nothing looks good for Mrs May either. Nothing looks good for the pro-EU Tories either. And things at the moment aren’t exactly rosy for Labour either. The truly-fascinating aspect of our current situation is that there are no winners. Everyone involved is losing.

Things also aren’t looking good for today’s “People’s Vote” march. In theory, I probably should be more sympathetic to them. The thing is, though, there’s several critical problems. First of all, another referendum would certainly need primary legislation. There is no standing procedure for referendums within British law - all three of the ones we’ve ever held have been ad hoc affairs. Also, if one were proposed, you can guarantee that the Brexiteers would fight it tooth and nail through every committee and every debate in Parliament. Even in ideal circumstances, it would probably take about a year to pass the needed laws - and we’ve got barely six months. Plus, Mrs May absolutely will not ever call a second referendum - if she tried, her own party might No Confidence her.

Also, hypothetically, I can imagine a second referendum making things worse. Suppose legislation gets steam-rollered through the House and the Lords, somehow. So none of it’s been properly scrutinised or improved, and the whole thing is a bungle. A confusing question on the ballot paper, chock-full of double negatives and ambiguous language. Inadequate funding and poor co-ordination - boxes of ballot papers going missing or not even getting printed, officials getting posted to the wrong polling stations, counting staff not getting paid on time, the potential for a shambles is there. It’s a situation which might end up delivering a muddled and unclear result, which in turn just fuels further instability. And such chaos would also make it very easy for the losing side to play the “electoral fraud” card.

Lastly, the key political problem with a second referendum is that Hard Remain haven’t given any thought to how to handle the campaign. You want people to vote again and deliver a different result - OK, but how are you going to persuade them to do that? What’s the selling-point of staying in the EU? Yes, I fully agree that leaving will be a disaster - but, how do you communicate that to someone who’s in a minimum-wage zero-hours-contract job and living a damp moldy bedsit in an urban-apocalyose town like Luton? (Sorry, Luton.) A person in that situation probably doesn’t feel like they’ve got anything to lose, after all. And this isn't helped because what a lot of vaguely-Remainy centrists in the media seem to want is to set the clock back to May 2016 - i.e. unending Tory austerity, decaying public services, stagnant wages and continual bloviating about how misfortune is all your personal fault because the private sector are gilded perfect wealth creators, dontcha know! It’s ... hard ... to see how that could be leveraged into an election-winning platform, especially given what 2017 showed us about the electorate’s true balance of opinion.

As far as I can tell, the second referendum campaign organisers haven’t even thought about these political problems. I think they should think about them.

(Want to know what I’d do? OK, that’s a reasonable question given the above rant. I’d give voters a story they can understand, with clear emotional resonance. Perhaps a campaign on the theme of “Don’t Abandon Your Friends”, with strategic reminders of things like Churchil wanting a European federation, Spitfires poiloted by Polish airmen and so on. Yes, I know the war nostalgia thing is utter bunk, but cultural myths are powerful things and have their uses. Lousy as it was, what Vote Leave did worked, and it worked for good reasons. They gave people a clear, emotionally-resonant narrative. And people love a good story.)

((I’d also keep the statsplaining centrists as far away from any such campaign as possible. No-one really wants to hear about 0.23% of GDP spread across 45 years, after all. And arguments based on economic counter-factuals are ropey - they could be true, yes, but for all you know, other events would have intervened anyway.))

(((Ideally, I’d like Brexit tossed out via a general election, as I think that would end up being decisive. The other danger of “second” referendums is that it might end up implying a third referendum in five years’ time - and do we really want to keep going back to this mill, forever? “I have seen the future, and it is covfefe!”)))

In a totally-unrelated piece of news (but one that feels weirdly Brexitty, in its own way), apparently Facebook has now hired Nick Clegg. As far as I’m concerned, if they want him, they can have him. It will end badly for both of them. Clegg can destroy the remaining shreds of his reputation on trying to whitewash Facebook’s many obscenities. Facebook can enjoy the dubious services of a man who cost a British political party 86% of its MPs and scared off 2/3rds of its former voters. It’s worth noting that his period as Deputy Prime Minister saw the first net fall in life expectancies since the Industrial Revolution. (He seems quite firm in his belief that he did nothing wrong, of course. His sort never do see any doubt in their own actions. The unreflectiveness is partly how they get into these messes, actually.)

In a way, Clegg/Facebook is both completely-apt, and also the truest NOTP ever.

[thenightling]

Cain’s psychosis (An in-depth look at the character)

Today Cain of DC comics turns fifty-years-old so I have decided to focus a few posts on him, especially since the season finale of Lucifer is this Monday and there has been some confusion about the comic book version of the character as opposed to the TV show and to his true nature.  

The Lucifer solo comics version of Cain is very, very different from the verison in the Lucifer TV series.   But no, unlike the versions in New 52 (the 2011-2015 failed DC “Soft” reboot) neither Cain nor Lucifer are truly evil in the comics.   

(Cain from Lucifer Volume 2, issue 4 from 2016-2017)

(Cain AKA Marcus Pierce from the Lucifer TV series Season 3, 2017 to 2018)

Somehow someone here on Tumblr mistakenly thought the New 52 “I... Vampire” comics version of Cain was the one from the Lucifer comics.   I suspect this has to do with the poorly written entry in the Wikipedia page about DC’s Lucifer that neglected to mention that the Cain and Lucifer in that story are not from the continuity where Lucifer quits ruling Hell and were the result of a misguided attempt to reinvent the characters in 2012.

The version of Lucifer that quit ruling Hell and the version of Cain that has interacted with him have since been restored to canon.

This post is going to be discussing and even defending the comic book incarnation of Cain.  For those new to the character, first you need to ignore the New 52 version of Cain. 

 First, iI am sorry to tell some of you that if the version of Cain you have been reading about is this guy... 

“Cain, Sire of all Vampires” 

then you are reading about the wrong character.  

I repeat, the image above, is the wrong version of Cain!

The version of Cain that appears in Lucifer’s solo comics is from The House of Mystery, The Sandman, Lucifer, and all comics labeled “Sandman Universe.” 

The version of Cain in New 52 titles such as “I... Vampire” is NOT the right version of Cain.  

The Cain from the lore where Lucifer quit ruling Hell, is NOT a vampire, nor was he ever “destroyed” by Constantine and dragged to Hell.  In fact, the version of Cain who appears in the Lucifer comics, has only been to Hell once, and that was to relay a message.  

The cain that appears in Lucifer’s solo comics is this one.

Cain is skinny with auburn (or brown) hair parted to resemble horns, a funky and slightly excessive soul patch beard (without a mustache), wire rim or pince-nez spectacles and he has slightly pointed ears.    

 Fifty-years-ago Cain made his first comic book appearance in The House of Mystery issue 175, published for DC in the summer of 1968.

For those who don’t know about the DC / Vertigo version of Cain and Abel they are loosely inspired by the biblical characters.   They may or may not actually be them. They could be Nightmare incarnations of the characters created by Morpheus (the ruler of The Dream Realm).  It’s a bit ambiguous to if they are the original Cain and Abel or if they are dream versions of The Characters. 

One thing is certain though.  Lucifer respect’s Cain’s mark as if he is THE Cain.  

Though acknowledged, Cain’s mark is rarely shown in the comics, but is apparently hidden under his hair over his forehead.  Like in the Lucifer TV series it is an “O” shape but it is not on his forearm.

Even if Cain is only a Nightmare incarnation of the Biblical character the mark is respected and for this reason it was Cain that Morpheus (The Dream Lord) sent to Hell to relay the message that he would be paying Lucifer a visit to rescue a soul he wrongfully left in Hell centuries before. This was in The Sandman comics during the storyline called Season of Mists.

When Cain returned to The Dreaming (The realm of Dreams) to tell Morpheus that Lucifer was awaiting his arrival, poor Cain was scared out of his wits (Lucifer had taken delight in deliberately terrifying him).  Lucifer is the only thing Cain is afraid of.

It was when Morpheus arrived in Hell that he soon found out that Lucifer had quit.  This is the basis for the Lucifer TV series. 

Cain and Abel’s original purpose in DC were as hosts for the horror anthology series House of Mystery and House of Secrets.  Cain was the caretaker of the House of Mystery and Abel was the caretaker of The House of Secrets.  The two often intersected, reading scary stories to an audience (comic book reader) much like The Crypt Keeper, Old Witch, and Vault Keeper of the old EC comics. 

In the late 1980s Neil Gaiman scooped them up and made the duo Nightmare residents of The Dreaming (The realm of Dreams) in the Sandman comics of the late 1980s into the late 1990s.  It was a play on the punny idea that after the murder of Abel, Cain went to The land of Nod (which is another term for Dreamland).

Cain habitually kills Abel fairly regularly with ghoulish Crypt Keeper style puns.  Abel revives and heals within a day and the cycle begins a new as they are both more or less immortal beings.  Sometimes Cain seems remorseful about the murders of his brother and the murdering might be an unavoidable compulsion while other times he seems to take vicious glee in the act.  This could be because they are actually personifications of what people anticipate of the famous Biblical characters. 

The best way to describe Cain is he’s like a cross between The Crypt Keeper, Vincent Price, and Alfred Hitchcock with Abel as his recurring and only victim.  Cain is usually a gracious host to most other people.

Abel is more sweet and timid by nature.   A perpetual victim.    

In the Sandman comics they are loyal to Morpheus, AKA Dream of the Endless, AKA the Sandman.   Morpheus is the very entity that Lucifer left the key to Hell to and the one who helped Lucifer by cutting off his wings for him with Mazikeen’s blade when Lucifer quit Hell.

In the older House of Mystery comics Cain has a pet black cat named Oskar and a pet large green Gargoyle that behaves rather dog-like.  The gargoyle is named Gregory and is still with him in The Sandman comics.  If you’re familiar with Disney’s Gargoyles, Gregory is a bit like Bronx.

Abel has a little baby golden gargoyle named Goldie (Originally he wanted to name him Irving but Cain insisted Gargoyles have G names).  Cain gave Abel the egg that Goldie hatched from as a present.

The name Goldie was ultimately chosen after Abel’s old “imaginary friend” who may or may not have been an actual ghost haunting The house of Secrets, also by the name of Goldie.

The house of secrets (Abel’s House) contains all the secrets one might learn in Dreams.   The house of Mystery (Cain’s House) contains every mystery one might dream up.  Cain is excessively melodramatic and loves a good story.

Abel has a permanent stutter, probably from being murdered so often.  

When they first appear in Sandman, Morpheus (Dream / The Sandman) has returned to his realm but he collapses on his way to the castle.  This is shortly after Morpheus has escaped from nearly a century of captivity at the hands of mortals.  It’s Cain and Abel who nurse him back to health after Cain’s dog-like gargoyle, Gregory is who had found Morpheus barely conscious.

 Despite their dysfunction Cain actually does love Abel and even pleaded with Daniel (Dream’s newest incarnation) to bring him back when “The Kindly Ones” killed him (Abel only comes back from the dead when Cain kills him).  And yes, he does bring Abel back for Cain.

During the Sandman comic storyline Season of Mists, Morpheus sends Cain to Hell to announce he is coming to retrieve a soul.  Morpheus intends to rescue a woman he wrongfully left in Hell centuries before.  He figures Lucifer won’t hurt Cain but Lucifer terrifies the old Nightmare anyway without actually hurting him, and Cain returns trembling and mortified.  Morpheus calms him and rewards him with a pleasant sleep.  

To Morpheus’ surprise, when he arrives in Hell, that is when Lucifer is shutting everything down because he has quit.  (basis for the Fox TV series).

There was a brief attempt to allow “Cain, Sire of all vampires” to co-exist with Cain, The Caretaker, with the claim that the vampire was the “Real” Cain and that the one in The Dreaming was a Nightmare creation, but I believe that has since been dropped and it is best to pretend it had not happened, after, the comic book where “Cain, sire of all vampires” appeared only lasted twelve-issues whereas Cain of The Sandman Universe has existed for fifty-years as of today. 

The House of Mystery / Sandman Universe version of Cain also appeared in the 2016 Halloween episode of the animated series, Justice League Action to narrate the story Trick or Threat.

In The Bible Cain murdered his brother, Abel.   They were the children of Adam and Eve.   Eventually Eve had another son, Seth, but that came later.   Cain murdered Abel out of jealousy because it was implied that God liked his animal sacrifice better than Cain’s sacrifice of a good autumn harvest (I guess the Bible writers don’t appreciate the hard work of agriculture).

When God asks Cain where Abel is he answers “Am I my brother’s keeper?”  When it’s revealed that Abel was murdered by Cain (the very first murder) Cain is cursed with immortality and left to wander. A mark is put upon him by God to protect him so that no one will harm him for his crime lest they suffer seven (or in some versions three) times the harm done to Cain.  

In most versions Cain ends up in The Land of Nod, which Neil Gaiman took to mean the realm of Dreams (playing on the pun since Land of Nod is used to mean dream land in British childrens’ literature).  

It’s unclear if DC’s Cain is THE Cain of The Bible or a version of the character created by the Dream Lord (Morpheus AKA Dream of The Endless).

  But in any event Cain’s compelled to kill his brother every so often.  And both men are now guardians of two houses in The Dreaming.  The House of Secrets (Abel) and The House of Mystery (Cain).   Both houses can and do appear in the human world as if on their own accord and are bigger on the inside.   They are usually together though sometimes The House of Mystery is seen alone.

Now here’s where I will give Cain a little defense.

Lucifer is not listed as evil in the comics. He is listed as neutral.  The same can be said of Cain.  He’s not actually evil either.  Cain does murder his brother fairly regularly but if he is ever lead to think that Abel will not revive he is devastated by the idea.  

In The Sandman comics storyline called The Kindly Ones, the Greek Furies arrived, and one of their acts to get Morpheus’ attention, was to murder Abel.  Cain was heartbroken and could not bear to carry on with his usual ghoulish theatrics.  As soon as the dust settled in the storyline called The Wake, Cain barged into the castle demanding that his king, Dream of The Endless, raise Abel from the dead. 

 When it is not Cain who kills Abel, it requires the ruler of Dreams to bring him back. This adds to the theory that he may not literally be Cain and Abel may not literally be Abel, but that they are both dream entities inspired by the cultural collective idea of the two characters.

  They are even referred to as “Nightmares” in the comic book series called The Dreaming.

(Issue 59 of The Dreaming.  Warning, This particular version of The Dreaming comics is no longer canon as the series is set to be rebooted this summer.)

Cain’s compulsion to kill Abel has been used as everything from an uncomfortable metaphor of an abusive domestic relationship to a dark version of Obsessive Compulsive disorder.  But a few things are clear.  He cannot bear the idea of Abel’s death truly being permanent.  And Cain has (as far as I know) never killed anyone other than Abel.        

In general Cain is actually a relatively harmless and good natured guy.  He’ll invite you in for tea as long as you’re willing to listen to one of his scary stories.  Just think of it as being invited in by Gomez Addams.   He believes in justice and has taunted the villains of his own stories when he feels they deserve it.  He is also surprisingly good with children.

 Cain might be a liternal Nightmare representation of the Biblical character, which accounts for the bulk of his behavior.  LIke a citizen of Halloween Town from Tim Burton’s Nightmare before Christmas his very nature is to scare but not necessarily do harm.  He is most satisfied when he has given an adequately scary story. 

Even if Cain was created by Morpheus he would still have his own personality and autonomy.  Morpheus’ creations are usually self-aware individual entities.  

Unlike the Lucifer TV show version of Cain, the Cain of The Sandman Universe (the lore where Lucifer’s solo comics come from) likes who and what he is.  He’s actually quite content with his existence despite the compulsion to kill his brother (which he sometimes does not seem to like while other times he does).

 And if Cain ever thinks Abel is in danger he can become surprisingly and fiercely protective.  (Only he gets to kill his brother!) 

  Cain will avoid crossing Lucifer if he can help it after his brief visit to Hell (During Sandman Season of Mists) where Lucifer taunted him by holding him by his hair over Hell as he flew before finally setting him down.

Cain, naturally, kept his distance when Lucifer paid a visit to The Dreaming (realm of Dreams)  in 2016.

 Also how can you hate a guy who sounds like Vincent Price?

Honestly, I love this asshole.

He can also be bribed with cookies.

[selkiewife]

I know i’m late on this but I wanted to talk about The Dragon Demands videos based on the Game of Thrones Season 8 blue ray commentary and the original archived scripts for Game of Thrones, Season 8. 

Basically, YouTuber, The Dragon Demands went to the Writer’s Guild Library where he was able to see the archived scripts of Season 8 of Game of Thrones. Both the archive scripts and commentary on the blue ray confirms that most of the destruction in King’s Landing was originally supposed to be caused by the caches of wild fire left by Aerys being accidentally set off by Drogon and not because Daenerys herself “went mad.” The script says that civilians being used as human shields are caught in the crossfire as Daenerys is targeting Lannister soldiers in a strategical maneuver right before she heads to the Red Keep to enact revenge on Cersei. However, Daenerys is never described as specifically targeting innocent civilians needlessly. 

My thoughts under the cut:

I have to say, that this makes me feel slightly better in a strange way. I mean, it doesn’t erase the bad writing, the ridiculous way the war against the white walkers ended, the misogyny, the inconsistency, etc etc ETC... but this crucial plot point was the one I just couldn’t let go of because it was just baffling to me. With other controversial plot points, I would disagree with them, but I could at least understand what they were going for and what the motivations of the characters were. But Daenerys turning on innocent civilians was truly baffling to me because it comes out of nowhere, is entirely out of character, her motivations are incredibly unclear, and was not set up at all. But with all the fandom discourse, I had really started to think that maybe I am lacking comprehension skills or something. But no, there is actually a reason it made no sense. The “madness” plot line was added later. Emilia Clarke was never given the opportunity to portray Daenerys as mentally unstable. Emilia was portraying grief and revenge on Cersei (as the original script and directors told her to do) in contrast to D&D’s final editing which was portraying the “mad queen.” No wonder it came across as completely false and bewildering- before we even get into the discussion of whether or not this is in character or not.

I think this is definitely more than just a theory that the script was changed pretty late in development because of all the evidence- it is confirmed by Emilia’s commentary, the Visual Effects team member’s commentary, and also the original concept art. But even if there wasn’t all that evidence, there is also the fact that the original ending makes so many other confusing things in Season 8 suddenly make SENSE. 

For example, when Jon confronts Daenerys in the throne room and he talks about the women and children that were burned, Daenerys responds with “She used their innocence as a weapon against me.” Which makes total sense for Daenerys to say if she thinks she is talking about civilians that were used as human shields that died in the crossfire. But it doesn’t make any sense if she carpet bombed the city- although it does make her seem delusional, which is probably why Dave and Dan kept those lines in- hoping it would make her appear “mad,” since Emilia was never actually given the opportunity to portray Daenerys as mentally unstable.

There is also the scene where Jon asks Tyrion, “Was it right?” to assassinate Daenerys and Tyrion responds, “Ask me again in ten years.” There is really no reason for them to have that dialogue if Daenerys really did target and massacre innocent civilians. That is the kind of dialogue they would have if they were discussing someone who had done something more morally ambiguous. 

Then there are the lines that are out of place in the final version but that would have made complete sense in the original wild fire version, such as Jon saying “now and always” as he stabs Daenerys. “Now and always” as any Theon fan will tell you, is a phrase that belongs to Theon and Robb and what they said to each other when Theon was pledging loyalty to Robb. Having Jon say this to Dany as he is killing Daenerys represents the ultimate betrayal but also calls back to Theon’s struggle and how difficult it is to chose between loyalties- between families. In this case, Jon is choosing the Starks over the Targaryens. Kit Harrington even says that this is motivation in an interview he gave with winteriscoming.net. But given the fact that in the final edit, Daenerys massacred innocent children and civilians on purpose, Kit’s motivation for Jon seems like a relic of an earlier script: 

Kit Harrington: “Jon essentially sees it as Daenerys or Sansa and Arya, and that makes his mind up for him. He choose blood over, well, his other blood. But he chooses the people he has grown up with, the people his roots are with, the North. That’s where his loyalties lie in the end. That’s when he puts the knife in.”

And Yara Greyjoy’s lines. She surprisingly remains completely loyal to Daenerys, despite the fact that she massacred the entire city for no reason:

Yara Greyjoy: I swore to follow Daenerys Targaryen. 

Sansa Stark: You swore to follow a tyrant. 

Yara Greyjoy: She freed us from a tyrant. Cersei is gone because of her, and Jon Snow put a knife in her heart. Let the Unsullied give him what he deserves. 

This kind of conversation only seems plausible if they are discussing Daenerys taking out Cersei after she had surrendered and killing human shields in the process, something I can see Yara completely defending- since she was always in favor of attacking King’s Landing as seen during her war counsel scenes in Season 7. 

There is also the Emilia Clarke quote in the behind the scenes video HBO put out after the episode where she explains that Dany was targeting Cersei herself:

Emilia Clarke: “It’s just... grief. It’s hurt. And she has this ability to make that hurt a little bit less just for a minute. And here she is, sitting on this ridge and there’s the emotion and there’s the feeling and the feeling is to fucking kill her.”

Note that she does not say “the feeling is to fucking massacre the city,” or “the feeling is to target innocent civilians.” She says “the feeling is to kill her” as in Cersei Lannister- who is responsible for the death of her dragon and Missandei- and who massacred countless innocents herself when she blew up the goddamn sept lol. 

Not to mention all of the set up lines between Cersei, Tyrion, and Varys about Cersei using “human shields” which never came to fruition in the final edit, now make complete sense:

Cersei: Keep the gates open. If she wants to take the castle she’ll have to murder thousands of innocents first.

Varys: Tens of thousands of innocents will die. That is why Cersei is bringing them into the Red Keep

And yet, lol, we never actually SEE Daenerys attacking the Red Keep. We never see innocent civilians inside the Red Keep. We only see civilians being massacred in the streets. 

I also remember people who had seen the post Season 8 Game of Thrones Live Concert saying that Ramin switched to footage of the other wildfire scenes in past Game of Thrones seasons during his Bells sequence, instead of showing the massacre of innocent civilians by dragon fire. I use to think he did that because Daenerys was his favorite character. But given what we now know about the original ending, he probably chose to show the wildfire scenes because that was what he had specifically written music for before it was changed- the destruction of Kings Landing by wildfire.

I really wish they had kept the original script the way it was. It still would have been an incredibly controversial ending. Daenerys still goes after soldiers and a Queen who is surrendering- and that action unintentionally leads to the destruction of the entire city. Jon Snow still assassinates his lover and betrays one part of his family for the other. But, it would have at least made logical sense. People would have gone back and forth over whether it was in character or whether it was a good ending. But it would have been something people would be able to actually debate on an intellectual level- the way we debate Daenerys crucifying the slavers (who themselves crucified children) or Jon Snow executing Olly... It is a very grey and tragic ending with a lot of moral questions. It still might have gone over like a lead balloon. But... the ending we have is so much worst because it’s nonsensical.

The only reason I can think that they changed it was to make Jon and Tyrion appear less morally grey for plotting Daenerys’ assassination. They probably knew that the ending would be very problematic and were trying to smooth that over by turning Daenerys into a super villain. Yet they did this too late in the process after already showing Daenerys to be heroic in fighting with the north and then having Emilia Clarke finish her filming still believing she was playing a complex and at times ruthless character but not “mad” or “evil.” And then, there is also the intensely problematic issue with them conflating mental illness with mass murdering super villain. Even if it had been clear throughout the entire season that Daenerys was losing her grip on reality and becoming more and more mentally unstable, it still would have been incredibly controversial and I am not entirely sure it would have made the men look any better anyway.

Even though it is tragic as fuck, at least with the original wildfire ending, all of the characters are incredibly complex and morally grey and you can understand the motivations for everything they do, even if you don’t agree with them. For example, if Daenerys attacks Cersei after she surrendered, it is wrong, but it is also completely understandable. And in my opinion, it’s even more understandable when you remember that Cersei cannot be trusted. She can’t be trusted to send her armies to the north- why should Daenerys trust her to surrender in good faith? This kind of ending would also have said something very powerful about unintended consequences. Even though Daenerys did not intend for so many people to die needlessly, they did because war is horrific. And that message becomes even more powerful if her motivations are understandable. But yeah, this kind of ending would have still been hated and debated but... at least the debates would have been more about the story itself rather than everyone trying (and failing) to make sense of what the fuck the story even is.

[gambhirs-blog]

Influence-The Psychology of Persuasion

by Dr. Robert Cialdini 

What are the factors that cause one person to say yes to another person and which techniques are used to bring about such compliance? Why it is that a request stated in a certain way will be rejected, while a request that asks for the same favor in a slightly different fashion will be successful? These are questions asked and explained in Robert Cialdini’s book “Influence”. 

Lesson 1: Contrast

Today’s works moves at a fast pace. We need to absorb, process and act on information constantly. When we need to make a decision, we often resort to using shortcuts in the decision making process. One such shortcut is the contrast principle. The contrast principle affects the way we see the difference between two things that are presented one after another. Simply put, if the second item is fairly different from the first, we will tend to see it as more different than it actually is. This “weapon of influence” as Cialdini calls them does not go unexploited and its greatest advantage is not only that it works but also that it is virtually undetectable. Have you ever been shopping for clothes, selected a fairly expensive suit or dress and then been persuaded to accessorise with a shirt, shoes or bag? I have – at least with the suit, shirt and shoes! That’s the contrast principle in action. It is much more profitable for the salesperson to present the expensive item first, not only because to fail to do so will lose the influence of the contrast principle; to fail to do so will also cause the principle to work actively against them. If we the first thing we buy is comparably cheap the more expensive seems – more expensive. Do you want fries with that?

Lesson 2: Reciprocation

The second of Cialdini’s weapons of influence is the rule of reciprocation. The rule says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us. A large number if not all of us have been taught to live up to the rule, and know about the social sanctions and derision applied to anyone who violates it - moochers, freeloaders, spongers. Because there is general distaste for those who take and make no effort to give in return, we will often go to great lengths to avoid being considered one of their number. Cialdini suggests , one of the reasons reciprocation can be used so effectively as a device for gaining another’s compliance is its power. The rule possesses awesome strength, often producing a “yes” response to a request that, except for an existing feeling of indebtedness, would have surely been refused. As a marketing technique, the free sample engages the reciprocity rule. The promoter who gives free samples can release the natural indebting force inherent in a gift while innocently appearing to have only the intention to inform. A person can trigger a feeling of indebtedness by doing an uninvited favor. The rule only states that we should provide to others the kind of actions they have provided us; it does not require us to have asked for what we have received in order to feel obligated to repay. Most of us find it highly disagreeable to be in a state of obligation. It weighs heavily on us and demands to be removed. Consequently, we may be willing to agree to perform a larger favor than we received, merely to relieve ourselves of the psychological burden of debt. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Lesson 3: Top Lining

Cialdini’s third weapon of influence is the top lining technique. This is easy to state: first make a larger request of me, one that I will most likely turn down. Then, after I have refused, make the smaller request that you were really interested in all along. Most likely I’ll oblige. Here is a commercial example. You go to buy a new Laptop. The sales assistant, Bob, invariably shows you the deluxe model first. If you buy, great for Bob. He’s just made a bigger margin. However, you’re likely to decline – after all you don’t need the bells and whistles. Bob counters with a more reasonably priced model. You’re hooked, you buy. Bob wins again, after all a sale is a sale. This technique happens all the time in retail. Tomorrow, count the rejection and retreat offers you encounter. I expect there are more than a handful.

Lesson 4: Consistency

Cialdini tells us something fascinating about people at the racetrack: Just after placing a bet, they are much more confident of their horse’s chances of winning than they are immediately before laying down that bet. Of course, nothing about the horse’s chances actually shifts; it’s the same horse, on the same track, in the same field; but in the minds of those bettors, its prospects improve significantly once that ticket is purchased. This is Cialdini’s fourth weapon of influence: The force of consistency. Quite simply, once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we encounter pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. We fool ourselves to keep our thoughts and beliefs consistent with what we have already decided. But because it is in our best interests to be consistent, such consistency can also be exploited by those who would prefer that we don’t think too much in response to their requests for our compliance. Take toy manufacturers wanting to increase sales in January or February. They start prior to Christmas with attractive TV ads for certain special toys. The kids, naturally, want what they see and extract Christmas promises for these items from their parents. The manufacturers undersupply the stores with the toys they’ve gotten the parents to promise. Most are forced to substitute other toys of equal value. The toy manufacturers, of course, make a point of supplying the stores with plenty of these substitutes. Then, after Christmas, the companies start running the ads again for the other, special toys which are now in great supply and as a parent we need to be consistent to our promise and hey presto. Double toys, double expense.

Lesson 5: Compliance

“How are you doing today?” The caller’s intent seem to be friendly and caring. But it has a cutting edge. There is a sales pitch approaching. The theory behind this tactic is that people who have just asserted that they are doing fine—even as a routine part of a sociable exchange—will consequently find it awkward to appear stingy in the context of their own admittedly favored circumstances. You’ve fallen into the compliance trap. Cialdini tells us to be very careful about agreeing to trivial requests. Such agreements not only increase our compliance with similar, larger requests, it can also make us more willing to perform a variety of larger favors that are only remotely connected to the little one we did earlier. Whenever you take a stand that is visible to others, you are driven to maintain that stand to look like a consistent person. Commitments are most effective when they are active, public, and effortful. So how are you doing?

Lesson 6: Social Proof

Like Seinfeld? Ever join in the laughter while on your own? To discover why canned laughter is so effective, we first need to understand the nature of yet another of Cialdini’s weapons of influence: the principle of social proof. The principle applies to the way we decide what constitutes correct behavior. We view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the extent that we see others performing it. Advertisers love to inform us when a product is the “fastest-growing” or “largest-selling” because they don’t have to convince us directly that the product is good, they need only say that many others think so, which seems proof enough to us. In general, when we are unsure of ourselves, when the situation is unclear or ambiguous, when uncertainty reigns, we are most likely to look to and accept the actions of others as correct a phenomenon called “pluralistic ignorance.” We will use the actions of others to decide on proper behavior for ourselves, especially when we view those others as similar to ourselves. We like people who are similar to us. This fact seems to hold true whether the similarity is in the area of opinions, personality traits, background, or life-style. Consequently, those who wish to be liked in order to increase our compliance can accomplish that purpose by appearing similar to us in any of a wide variety of ways. Which leads nicely onto the next lesson

Lesson 7: Liking

An important fact about human nature: We are phenomenal suckers for flattery. Although there are limits to our gullibility—especially when we can be sure that the flatterer is trying to manipulate us—we tend, as a rule, to believe praise and to like those who provide it, oftentimes when it is clearly false. Liking: Cialdini’s next weapon of influence. A host of examples is possible. Most are familiar, like the new-car salesman who takes our side and “does battle” with his boss to secure us a good deal. In Olympiad years, we are told precisely which is the “official” hair spray and facial tissue of our Olympic teams. The linking of celebrities to products is another way advertisers cash in on the association principle. Professional athletes are paid to connect themselves to things that can be directly relevant to their roles (sport shoes, tennis rackets, golf balls) or wholly irrelevant (soft drinks, popcorn poppers, even after shave).

Lesson 8: Scarcity

The scarcity principle: opportunities seem more valuable to us when their availability is limited. Whilst in conversation we are routinely interrupted to answer the ring of our cell phone. And we answer rather than continue talking. In such a situation, the caller has a compelling feature that our face-to-face partner does not: potential unavailability. If we don’t take the call, we might miss it (and the information it carries) for good. Cialdini suggests people seem to be more motivated by the thought of losing something than by the thought of gaining something of equal value. For instance, homeowners told how much money they could lose from inadequate insulation are more likely to insulate their homes than those told how much money they could save. As a rule, if it is rare or becoming rare, it is more valuable. A variant of the deadline tactic, much favored by some face-to-face, high-pressure sellers, carries the purest form of decision deadline: right now. Customers are often told that unless they make an immediate decision to buy, they will have to purchase the item at a higher price or they will be unable to purchase it at all. Incidently, scarcity is a also a primary cause of political turmoil and violence. Revolutionaries are more likely to be those who have been given at least some taste of a better life. When the economic and social improvements they have experienced and come to expect suddenly become less available, they desire them more than ever and often rise up violently to secure them. When it comes to freedoms, it is more dangerous to have given for a while than never to have given at all. So remember once delivered you can’t take it away.

[filmista]

Out Of The Past (1947)

“Nothing in the world is any good unless you can share it.”

French director, Jacques Tourneur's ‘Out Of The Past’ has over the years become what’s considered the best Film Noir ever made, though it somewhat disputes over that title with ‘Double Indemnity’, a lot of people find one of the two the best. 

I have however during the time that I’ve been participating in Noirvember (there’s more to cover), obviously quite a few films in the genre, and I can instantly say without hesitation that ‘Out Of The Past’ has been my favorite one that I’ve watched so far.

It’s also save to say that outside the context of Noir and Noirvember, it’s simply one of the best films I’ve had the pleasure of watching, just one of those films that quite simply put leaves you feeling like you’ve just watched something spectacular and well crafted.

it makes me regret that I didn’t take the decision to participate in Noirvember earlier, anyhow it’s wonderful to immerse yourself fully in a genre, discover and learn about it and obviously watch a few films of it.

And Out Of The Past was along with Double Indemnity one of the films that my Cinema History book kept mentioning (probably one of the first books I’d try to save in a fire) and various corners of the internet kept recommending to me. By now I was immensely curious about the film, even so much as its film poster somehow exuded a certain cool.

So later I sat down to watch it. And I think it speaks very positively of the film, that I watched it with someone who’s absolutely not a fan of anything that’s not in color and so-called Classics, but she claims to have had as much fun with this one as I did.

When we were about ten minutes into the film, and the picture starts to craft an air of mystery and intrigue and you already know something’s wrong, she said “I love this”, “It’s already so suspenseful, it’s like one of those cheap detective books”.

And with that, she pretty much hit the nail on the head. I found out that Noir works closely with pulp fiction, which is actually nowadays usually considered quite cheap entertainment, the thing that’s considered a guilty pleasure to read; but they did sometimes have interesting themes in them, and filmmakers saw that and could work with it.

Noir’s a dark and pessimistic genre, it literally means black in French, that its name is European also has its reason, it’s what French critics started to call the genre, but it fits perfectly.

It originated in a pessimistic period, before and until after World war two, many of its directors and stars, we’re Europeans that fled Europe, so while it’s an American genre, it’s safe to say that it’s a genre in which both continents held each other’s hands.

War doesn’t bring out good qualities in humans generally, but even during wartime, people have been known to undertake courageous and goodhearted actions. And the genre, some films more than others reflect that.

Most of them very clearly seem to say the world is rotten and the people, even the ones that don’t know it are bad, sometimes they become forcedly so; but it very has the idea that everyone has the potential to become a bad person, a person capable of double-crossing and murder, murder seems to be written in capital letter M all over the genre.

Yet under all that seeming bleakness, pessimism, hopelessness and darkness, there are glints of hope and hints at the possibility of a happy ending, the tragic thing about the genre is that it’s acknowledged but it doesn’t go there, sometimes because it’s characters just can’t take that route, they just aren’t able to connect, and chose to either save their own skin or will take a route that’s going to going to endanger them.

And what I loved so much about ‘Out Of The Past’ is that it very much has those elements, and becomes in a way almost a retelling of a tragic, doomed to fail love story, only it shouldn’t have been doomed, the characters made it so themselves.

It very much plays with what other  films in the genre also play with, ambiguity between good and bad, and it has as I’ve mentioned all the elements of the genre, a troubled protagonist whose past comes back to haunt him, character’s smoking like chimneys, a femme fatale, pretty night scenes, and a large part of the story taking place in an urban environment.

But still something about this one is unique; as many people have recognized, out of all the Noir I’ve seen in November this is the one that’s really engraved in my memory. Some people say it doesn’t even seemingly look like Noir, at first sight.

It’s too bright and too sunlit, too much of it takes place in sunlight and in pretty surroundings, that have nothing to do with seedy, crime-filled streets of some films in the genre.

Still agreed it’s agreed that it is Noir, as it has in its storyline and in its cinematography typical elements.

But when I myself thought about it more deeply (and I’m not the only one) you can almost say that the film has two parts, one that looks less typically Noir and one that’s more typically so, night scenes, fights, double-crossing, playing with shadows. But amazingly it watches like one cohesive whole.

It might be somewhat of a lighter one in its genre, literally in its lightning, but also as in that it really builds your hope up and for a moment when you’re watching for the first.

You think everything even after the characters has been double-crossing each other like crazy, you still think it’s two lovers have a chance of being together, but then the film makes sure to remind you what kind of film you’re watching.

And that’s what I found so great about it, that it’s two lovers have moments of happiness and you see what could be there, and because of their own doing, it doesn’t happen, and it’s tragically and sublimely sad.

What I truly loved about this one is watching the relationships between characters, and watching Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer act opposite each other, there’s a ton of other actors in there (amongst them Kirk Douglas) but Mitchum and Greer compliment each other perfectly and it’s a joy to watch. Its storyline doesn’t even really matter too much, and it’s a challenge, to sum up...

Mitchum Bailey is a private detective who tries to say goodbye to his job after a few nasty experiences. As a garage owner, he tries to start a new life with his girlfriend Ann (Virginia Huston). His anonymity, however, is short-lived when thug looking Joe Stephanos (Paul Valentine) manages to trace him on behalf of professional gambler Whit Sterling (Kirk Douglas).

Whit was shot some time ago by his beloved Kathie (Jane Greer). Since then, she has disappeared from his life, as well as $ 40,000. Whit wants her and his money back and asks Jeff to go and investigate. Somewhat cautiously, Jeff takes the job, old habits die hard I guess.

He meets Kathie in Mexico. She tells him exactly what’s going on but nothing about the disappeared money. Jeff believes her, falls for the charms of this femme fatale and tells Whit that he was unable to find her. Soon, however, Kathie doesn’t seem as sweet as she looks anymore...

Does Kathie really care about Jeff? Does she love him despite her inability to endure difficult situations for him and despite her fatalistic attitude towards love? 

And how sincere is Jeff towards her? Has he succumbed to her again? These questions haunt your mind while seeing 'Out of the Past'. 

As traditionally in this genre, the riddles around a fateful love remain unclear. Who is lying, who is honest? Nobody can be trusted and that makes watching a film noir of this level is so irresistible.

And as it should be; you don’t get clear answers to all of these questions, and thus as I’ve seen in a lot of reviews, people speculate and come to their own conclusions when watching the film.

You see two interesting directions: In some Jeff is the victim. An innocent man, forced to make bad choices but who didn’t enjoy them, but who fell victim to the whims and seduction of a femme fatale, to them Kathie’s a monster, that tormented an innocent man, and there’s no real effort to look any further.

No one in the genre is entirely innocent, Jeff’s aware he’s being played but still consciously chooses for the woman he knows is no good, he still acted out of free will, no one really forced him into anything.

And then the femme fatale herself, a monster? Or just a flawed human being that made mistakes? As I mentioned when it comes to that, you see people mostly veering in one of these two directions.

Personally I think she’s one of the most brilliant characters in the film; Greer portrays her in a subtle yet confident way, that’s almost dizzyingly exciting to watch, she infuses her role with confidence (the kind of confidence of a woman who knows how beautiful she is) but at other times also a deep vulnerability and even fear.

Throughout the film she’s in a world that surrounds her with violent men she’s afraid of the man that she stole the money from, she believes he’d never leave her alone and would almost certainly come after her, and she turns out to be right. 

You can understand why she stole the money even, she hated the guy's guts and wanted to get away from him, and if you’re running away from a dude with anger issues, why not do it in a place with an agreeable climate? I certainly wouldn’t like hearing this: 

“You're gonna take the rap and play along. You're gonna make every exact move I tell you. If you don't, I'll kill you. And I'll promise you one thing: it won't be quick. I'll break you first. You won't be able to answer a telephone or open a door without thinking, 'This is it.' And it when it comes, it still won't be quick. And it won't be pretty. You can take your choice.”

The exciting element in Greer’s performance comes from, how composed seemingly even cold she seems throughout much of the film, but when you look closer there’s intense emotion, and she remains a riddle, a mystery.

I spent much of the film trying to read her, and she very much has both bad and good at her, she doesn’t regret shooting a man, and when Jeff fights another man, after she speaks the words “why don’t you break his head, Jeff?” she seems almost aroused watching the two men fight, which certainly indicates some twisted personality trait.

But then she also ultimately seems to really love him, as she later in the film goes back to Jeff and gives herself fully over to him, as she chooses to trust him fully, but he is at this point deceiving, maybe still in love with her, but certainly not willing to die for her, and he’s posing himself as more in love than he really is.

But at this time; Jeff has already decided she can’t be trusted, as he told her:  “You can never help anything, can you? You're like a leaf that the wind blows from one gutter to another.” and he’s unwilling to give her a second chance or to forgive, and on that tragic note, both their loveless fates are sealed. So it can also be regarded in my eyes as a tragic love story, maybe Jeff could even be seen as a coward in his inability to forgive in love. 

The big joy in the film, however, is how good Mitchum and Greer are (that and how beautifully filmed it is), while Greer seems to do not much else than bat her big doe eyes with their luscious lashes at Mitchum and make him fall head over heels with her, she has as I said a subtle emotionality, there’s depth to this femme fatale if it isn’t clear, I loved her performance.

And Mitchum’s Jeff has an air of indifferent, unforced cool, and seems to come across almost as if he doesn’t give a damn about anything or anyone that surrounds him, as if he’s somehow outside of present events, he only seems to care about either Kathie or ultimately himself.

Mitchum portrays this figure almost perfectly. Like Humphrey Bogart (who was considered for the role, but not even Bogie could be at two places at once ...), he has a certain inner peace about him, which gives him independence and self-confidence.

The man behind this film is French director Jacques Tourneur, who made his name in the United States in 1942 with both the artistically and commercially successful 'Cat People' (which is noted on my list of stuff I want to see). Tourneur was a master in creating the right mood and atmosphere and that skill came in handy when he made 'Out of the Past'.

The typical film noir look - with striking use of shadows and contrast - is certainly present here (the fight scene is a beautiful playing around with shadows as well as the scenes on the beach) but less dominant than in, for example, 'Double Indemnity' (1944). It makes 'Out of the Past' a film that looks pleasant and easy and literally and figuratively is somewhat lighter than its genre and contemporaries. 

Out of the past is a dark, cynical treat with an intelligent script, razor-sharp dialogues and a finale that stays with you. Highly recommended!

“If you're thinking of anyone else, don't. It wouldn't work. You're no good for anyone but me. You're no good and neither am I. That's why we deserve each other.”