#subversion vs shock value

[yourwakingnightmares]

Subversion versus Shock Value

So there’s a massive difference between subverting a reader/watcher’s expectations, and doing something solely for the sake of shock value.

Subverting an expectation is a nuanced process; it’s either the result of several plots coming together, or it sets the plot off in a new direction. It might end a character’s arc, or a tragedy that sets them in a new direction.

For example, to use something well known: at the end of Season 1 of Supernatural, Sam, Dean, and John are left injured due to a truck coming out of nowhere and crashing into them. It’s shocking, yes, because moments before they’re just all riding in the Impala. But it sets us up for Season 2, with John’s death, the reveal of Sam’s abilities, and Dean starting to become his own person rather than a clone of his father. This is subversion. We didn’t expect a thing to happen, but when it did, it had meaning, and it set the stage for future plots, and character plots.

Compare that to Star Wars, where Ray, out of nowhere, lets loose with Force Lightning. It added nothing to the plot, it added nothing to her character; she could just do a powerful Force ability now, one that we never saw again. This is just shock value. It does nothing for the story, it does nothing for the characters, it just is. 

These are just two examples. But at the core of it, it boils down to...

Subversion is something that the reader/watcher doesn’t expect, but has an affect on the character, or plot. Shock value is something done just for the sake of making the reader/watcher shocked.

[queenvhagar]

The whole point of Fire and Blood is white supremacy. Viserys didn’t want Argon as king because his blood was not pure enough, he was of “Alicent blood”. So why, if they wanted a black and white moralistic show, they are on the side of white supremacy.

An important thing to recognize, that the writers and fans fail to see, is the fact that GRRM wrote the ASOIAF series as a subversion of common fantasy tropes. Good and just royals, chivalrous and honorable knights who protect the innocent, prophecies as a force for good, enlightened and benevolent magic race of beings, fairytale love stories and happily ever agrees, clear black and white stories of good vs evil... all of these things GRRM wrote to subvert in his books. Royals play their game of thrones and are concerned with their own power most of all, knights are not always good people or honorable and in fact are tools of an oppressive system, no race is inherently superior and believing this drives violence and destruction of those very people, people marry for duty and duty is the death of love, and there are no clear cut black and white conflicts in the real world, just complex and nuanced situations where both sides think they're right and do what it takes to reach their goals for their own reasons. This subversion of fantasy tropes and elements in favor of a realistic exploration of what the sociopolitics of those worlds would be is something that defines the ASOIAF series and sets it apart from the rest. The faithful adaptation of these books and maintenance of those subversions and the integrity of the underlying themes of the works is what made the early seasons of Game of Thrones such outstanding and praiseworthy television.

The writers of House of the Dragon do not see the truth of this. Instead, they have co-opted symbols of fantasy and other surface level elements present in the ASOIAF series and used them to construct a story more in-line with traditional fantasy stories. In their hands, the conflict is a black and white morality tale of good vs evil that presents a magical race of people as superior to others and presents prophecy as an uncritical force for good and justification for a devastating war. Sprinkled in are characteristic yet surface level shock value factors - like incest and extreme violence - that were present in Game of Thrones. Ironically, their writing is antithetical to the ASOIAF series and what GRRM set out to write with his stories. This is the fundamental issue with House of the Dragon and the ultimate failure of its adaptation.

Because the writers and fans have bought into an unsubverted fantasy story, they choose to support a race of people who believe themselves superior to all others and the violence they use to keep control of their subjects. The critical view of fantasy as a genre and stories set in medieval feudalism are entirely lost on them, beyond a surface level, modern viewpoint focusing on one isolated element of oppression that existed in those times. Because the story only focuses solely on the dimension of misogyny as a system of oppression and fails to acknowledge its intersection with other systems of oppression present - racism, classism, and ableism, namely, among others - it fails to fully explore the dimensions of power present in this society and therefore its politics feel limited and messages feel shallow. It's the focus on misogyny and setting aside of all other dimensions of oppression that firmly centers this show on a white feminist perspective, to its detriment.

All of this said, to the first part of your ask: I don't think that was really a reason for Viserys' decision to not make Aegon is heir. Even though it certainly is an instance of him othering his children by Alicent and viewing them as separate from Rhaenyra, he supports Rhaenyra as heir because she is his favorite child and the child of his first wife. The context of the line concerns when Alicent proposes a union between Aegon and Rhaenyra and Viserys dismisses the idea because he thinks her sole motivation is that she wants her own bloodline on the throne, which to be fair to Alicent is what anyone would want in her situation. It's not necessarily of him not having "pure" blood per se. If something like that was really an issue to him, he would have wed a Valyrian, and he did have the option to do just that; instead he married Alicent and has multiple children with her.

Aside from Viserys' wishes, Targaryen supremacy is absolutely linked to white supremacy. And so many choose not to see it in lieu of uncritically seeing Targaryens as actually belonging to a magical, exceptional, and superior race of humans. Their buy-in to this fantasy trope is in opposite to the actual intentions and goals of the original author.

[kylostantrums]

I hate this “no spoilers” culture that we live in right now. Producers and writers are so terrified of fans predicting the ending to their works to the point that they’re making nonsensical endings to their narratives. They’re messy, out-of-character, and outlandish, but, hey! at least they’re unpredictable!

Rian Johnson, The Last Jedi — completely ignored & disregarded the 3-film narrative arc J.J. Abrams has planned out for the sequel trilogy, and instead developed his own messy narrative full of subversions for the sake of subversion, and completely disrespected the legacy of Luke Skywalker’s character (Mark Hamill himself has reported several times that he doesn’t recognize the character).

Russos, MCU — give out fake scripts, actors play against green screens and are cut & pasted together in post, show fake/edited scenes in trailers, throw away previous character development (Thor, Ragnarok vs Infinity War and especially Endgame).

D&D, Game of Thrones — throw away a decade of foreshadowing and character development for shock value, not to mention they missed a whole ass Starbucks cup in a shot in 8x03 (either on set or in post, somebody should’ve noticed this).

I’m sick and tired of this. It’s not good writing, and it’s no longer entertaining to fans when the characters they know and love become complete strangers. There’s good shock value — “No, I am your father,” for example — and then there’s ignoring years of character development and turning a kind and caring character into a murderous maniac. There’s a difference, and I think writers still know what that difference is, but they’re pressured to create an ending that fans can’t predict because of this mass panic over “no spoilers”.

This needs to stop. Give me a happy ending. Who the fuck cares if we guess what comes next? That means the writers have done their fucking jobs. If we can guess what comes next that means the writers have successfully developed their characters and foreshadowed future events as you’re supposed to do in a well-written narrative.

No spoilers? Sure. I like to experience narratives without being spoiled. But don’t make the narrative unrecognizable by the ending. It’s just not good writing.

[ordinaryschmuck]

What I Thought About the First Season of--

Salutations random people on the internet who most likely won’t read this! I am an Ordinary Schmuck. I write stories and reviews and draw comics and cartoons.

When I first saw the sneak peek of--

...I...didn't...think it would be anything all that special. I love animation, and I love superheroes, so it would go without saying that I would love an animated series about superheroes. But the animation looked a little too stiff for my liking, and aside from featuring J.K. Simmons, there wasn't anything grabbing me when it comes to this show.

Then I heard some s**t goes down at the end of episode one. So, letting my curiosity get the better of me, I binged the entire series in a day to see what the fuss was about. And, um...Yeah. Holy s**t.

This is a series that will very much make you uncomfortable in all the right ways. However, it is a gigantic gorefest at times, so if you get queasy after a single drop of blood, DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW! Trust me, you will not be prepared for what this series has to offer.

At the same time, I highly recommend you watch this series before reading this review. I'm going to spoil major plot points and characters so I can appropriately discuss what I think about the season, so trust me when I say you should click away if you haven't watched it yet. It's one of those series that are better to go in as blind as possible. You can call it a cheap way to appeal to shock value, but I call it one of the best reasons why--

...Is a contender for best-animated series of the decade--That bit with the title card isn't going away anytime soon, is it?

WHAT I LIKE

The Guardians of the Globe vs. The Mauler Twins: This is the best possible way for the series to begin. The first fight scene is bright, colorful, and kinda fun. Thus setting the ultimate expectation subversion in making audiences think that will be the series staple. However, just because it has the energy of a harmless superhero fight, there is a sense of intensity as the Guardians give their all in saving others. Like that moment with Darkwing (Not the duck) as he rescues that woman without hesitation, despite knowing he might die because of it. Or Green Ghost, who just barely rescues all those civilians from that falling debris. It shows that you don't need intense scenes of violence to make a fight scene thrilling to watch.

Diversity Wins: I don't know how diverse the comics are compared to the show, but I'm impressed with how inclusive this series is. So many members of the main cast are people of color, with the main lead being half-Korean. And it's not just different races that the series shines a light on, as we also get the rare, but very much welcomed, animated male gay character. Who's thankfully isn't cliched in ten ways to Sunday...for the most part. It really does seem like writers are starting to grow up and that it's better to be as inclusive as possible instead of pretending certain people don't exist for the sake of "convenience." It might not solve oppression in general, but it certainly makes certain people feel better, even if it is briefly.

Mark Grayson: Mark is a pretty solid super-protagonist if you ask me. Sure, at first, he comes across as whiney...and even more so in later episodes, but he's really an endearing character at times. Mark nails the role of the relatable everyman that's also inspirational with his determination since he never gives up until beaten to the inch of his life. Seriously, while he might not entirely be--

...I guess that bit with the title card really isn't going away.

Anyways, while he might not entirely be invulnerable in the literal sense, he is very much so in the figurative sense. Mark, in so many ways, refuses to call quits once he finally gets the hang of being a superhero, which is what makes him so inspirational. Plus, it's funny seeing how much of a rookie he can be to the gig at times. Mark is far from a perfect lead but is still charming to a fault, and it's nice seeing him grow more heroic each episode. I hope to see him develop more in future seasons, as he has the potential to be ranked higher up as one of my favorite superheroes (it's hard to compete with Spider-Man and Batman, but he'll make me consider it).

Debbie Grayson: This is almost what I expect a mother and wife of superheroes would be. 

Your son is constantly crash landing in your yard? Tell him to knock it off because he's past his curfew. 

Your husband disappeared into another dimension to fight off invaders? Shrug it off and expect that he'll be late for dinner.

It's a ton of fun to watch, and I adore how supportive she is of Mark, despite how much danger he could be in as a superhero. But, what really endears me with Debbie is her complicated feelings with Omni-Man. There's not a doubt in my mind that she loved him with her whole heart, but she also isn't an idiot. She is quick to pick up how unheroic her husband can be at times, often scolding him for it when necessary. And when she finally starts investigating if he really did kill the Guardians, I love that she instantly comes up with every single plausible excuse she can, despite knowing the truth. Because she believes that she knows who Omni-Man is and refuses any possibility that he might be a supervillain. So when she finds out that there really is no other explanation and hearing him call her a pet (big ouch when that happened), you wanna know what she does? She cries. Not because the man she loved is gone forever, but because the idea of him is. And it's that level of emotional devastation that comes from those complicated emotions that make me think Debbie Grayson is the most complex and endearing character on the show. And I. Will. Stand by that.

Seeing the Guardians of the Globe on their down time: Wow, what a cute collection of scenes that are charming as much as they are heartwarming! A set of scenes that show how human these characters are with their close relationships with friends and family! I sure hope it's not followed up with a brutal emotional gut-punch of a scene that will be even more devastating after thinking back on these! Especially with that bit with Martian Man and the little girl, cause OOO-WEE, would THAT tear me up inside!

Omni Man destroying the Guardians of the Globe:...I'd follow through on my joke here, but holy s**t.

That's really the best way I can describe all of this. It is a brutal, I repeat, BRUTAL scene that will stick with you hours after watching it. Not only that, but it's one of the few instances when I was damn near speechless because I couldn't think of anything else to say other than, "Holy s**t." The only time another superhero property did that was Avengers: Infinity War, except with that, the only difference is that the characters come back. Here, except for The Immortal, the Guardians stay dead! There's no magic amulet or alternate versions from another dimension. No, they die and never come back. Thus setting up how serious the show can be. Because if these superheroes can stay dead, then so can others.

Plus, what makes it more impactful is how throughout the entire fight, there was a glimpse of hope that the Guardians can beat Omni-Man. I heard he got nerfed for the sake of drama, and I approve of that decision. Because if he was really--

...If he was really unbeatable, then the fight doesn't have weight to it. There wouldn't be a point in rooting for these characters to win when we already know they're going to lose. But, by showing there's a chance that they could win, it becomes all the more intense watching the fight and even more tragic seeing them lose. It is a masterpiece of a battle that proves once and for all: Batman is right. You need contingency plans.

Omni Man: J. Jonah Jameson has become the one thing he hates the most: A masked MENACE...Ok, I know Omni-Man doesn't wear a mask, so the joke doesn't work as well as it could. But it was served to me on a silver platter, damn it! I had to take it!

In all seriousness, though, Omni-Man might give Homelander a run for his money on best evil Superman. Because while Homelander might be terrifying in his own right with his style of evil, Omni-Man takes it a step up a notch with the mystery behind WHY he killed the Guardians of the Globe. We know right away that there's something off with him, but up until that point, we see multiple instances of Omni-Man doing the right thing rather than the wrong. Sure, he might come off as cold when interacting with people, but so does Batman and other great superheroes in comics. That doesn't mean he's evil. So when he does do something so incredibly heinous, we're left with this mystery as to why. Because there has to be a reason for it all, right? Like, maybe mind control or his family was threatened. Something and anything that means he was forced into killing the noblest of people. So when it turns out that his actions were intentional, it is already pretty devastating. But when we find out why he does these things, it paints how truly evil Omni-Man is, given how little respect he has for human life.

Plus, as terrifying as Homelander is, Omni-Man is ten times more of an engaging villain. With Homelander, what you see is what you get: A narcissist with a god complex. For Omni-Man, it's more or less the same thing, but it's something fed to him because of the conditioning from his planet. There is a tiny, molecule-sized part of him that genuinely cares about others. It doesn't change what he does, nor does it mean he deserves forgiveness (far from it), but it hints that maybe he's not evil because of his own ego. It's because of how he's trained to be. And judging by his pained expressions from Mark's words and the single tear he sheds when leaving everything behind, there's a chance that he might be willing to fight back that mentality.

Or he will stay evil, and that he'll return to do worse things in the future. I don't know. I haven't read the comics. But I feel like I don't need to read anything to tell you all that Omni-Man is up there as one of the most intriguing comic book villains of all time, and I can't wait to see what happens with him next.

This show is f**king Violent: I mean, I refer you back to that scene where Omni-Man destroys the Guardians of the Globe. But, unlike other shows that use violence to force that mature rating, I feel as though In--

...Title card. You were cute the first time, but now your novelty has quickly worn thin.

Anyways, I feel as though this show...uses gore more appropriately. More often than not, death and carnage get treated as a literal joke in adult cartoons because people are sick bastards, I guess. But with...the current series I'm talking about, it all has an impact. No one dies or gets mangled for the sake of shock value or for a laugh. Instead, every instance of this type of violence is to either make a point, set the tone, or prove just how dangerous a specific character is. It makes...the series more mature than most adult cartoons you'll find because it actually brings a worthy discussion for its violence rather than milking it to give the illusion of maturity. And I gotta respect the writers for doing that.

Cecil: This man is basically Nick Fury if he was overpowered but in a good way. There is just something about a man who knows superheroes are needed in the world but also trusts a "hero" like Omni-Man as far as he can throw him. Not only does Cecil have contingency plans for his contingency plans, but the guy also knows to send the right heroes out for the exact missions that require them. Plus, a man is an instant badass when he's stone-faced about a demon saying he'll go somewhere worse than hell and is calm when being face-to-face with an angry Omni-Man.

I don't make the rules. I just abide by them.

The title card gets bloodier with each episode: This is just a really cool gimmick. It proves how intense this show can really be and how the stakes get higher and higher with each installment. Also, I like to think the amount of blood that splashes over the title card reflects how brutal the episode will be, especially with episode eight, 'cause holy hell.

The plot structure: The way the story works is very similar to how a comic book series handles its overarching narrative. Even though the writers begin a new arc that continues for a handful of issues, the overall main plot still develops in the background of the current adventure the hero goes through. That's basically how--

>Intense inhale<

>Calm exhale<

That's basically how THIS SHOW operates. Each episode can be seen as its own story that's given a ton of room to develop with its forty-five-minute runtime (which blew my f**king mind when I started binging it). Despite that, there's still a great sense of continuity. Everything involving Omni-Man and the mystery behind his murder of the Guardians gets fleshed out throughout the season, even when it takes the background of Mark's escapades. It really does feel like sitting down and taking the time to read an entire volume of comics, which I like to believe is the intention. After all, what's the point of making a series about superheroes if you don't make it feel like a comic book at least once?

Dark Blood: I desire a series based on this character alone. I know it's probably just Hellboy, but I want it. 

The idea of a demon solving murder crimes to work off his debt in Hell is too much of a remarkable concept to strictly be a c-plot in one series. Give Dark Blood a spin-off, damn it!

The Realistic Portrayal of a Superhero world: Unlike certain superhero properties--*cough* DC *cough*--it's--

>Huff<

>Puff<

>HUFF<

>PUFF<

>HUFF<

It's. This. F**KING. SHOW! That really does an excellent job at portraying how much it would suck to live in a world of superheroes. Sure, you got the cool battles and awe-inspiring heroes with incredible powers, but do you know what else you get? Hundreds upon thousands of people dying from the very threats those heroes fight against. Not to mention all the realistic physics that come from people like Mark trying to save others. Just look at how mangled that old woman looked when he attempted to help her. It, uh...It sure did not look great. Don't get me wrong, I love superheroes and the worlds they live in. But when watching a show like...this one, it really makes me appreciate how I don't live in those worlds with them.

It’s Still Funny: This is something I appreciate the most. When most superhero shows go for the realistic approach, they go with the doom and gloom route, making everything so melodramatic about how serious the world is. But here's the thing: Superheroes are f**king stupid.

Don't tell me they're not because they are. Superheroes have cornball hero names, bright costumes, and logos on their foreheads, chests, belts, and what-have-you. Taking a superhero too seriously is the worst mistake you could make, which is why I love the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Say what you want about Marvel having "too many jokes," but at least they know it's for the best to laugh at themselves and embrace the weirdness. It's something similar with...you know what. Because while the series tells a serious and realistic story about superheroes, it's still a story about superheroes. So it tells some jokes and some pretty funny ones at that. Because while it's essential to include some drama in a story such as the one in...you know what, it's just as important to never forget to have some fun.

“Earth is not yours to conquer.”: Such a great line that gains an even greater meaning once we fully know who Omni-Man is. The main creditor for how effective it is goes to J.K. Simmons for making the line sound explicit yet implicit at the same time.

Allen the Alien: ...It is an absolute crime that this character only has about six minutes of screentime. Allen is such a bro, partially because of Seth Rogan's performance, that I would honestly be upset if he doesn't show up more often in later seasons. Seriously, bring him back for more.

The Mauler Twins: Thankfully, these characters get as much attention as they deserve. The banter between the Mauler Twins is always entertaining, often being the comedic highlights at times. On top of being funny, they also work as efficient villains who can come across as threatening at times.

But what I love most of all about these two is the explanation behind the cloning process. The reasoning of why neither character remembers which one is the cone is a brilliant idea that I'm surprised no one else did in the past (to my knowledge). It also provides some excellent fruit for thought in wondering if it really is better to live your life not knowing if you're a clone or not. The whole thing is great to watch, and it makes me really glad for their inclusion...too bad they had to be forced into a story that makes a character look like a reckless superhero and an inconsiderate jackass to his friend. Seriously, what was up with that?

“That Actually Hurt”: This just might be my favorite episode of the first season. Machine Head is both equally hilarious and devious, Titan might just be my favorite character due to how intriguing his allegiances and motivations are, that final fight was the perfect amount of brutal, and we get the biggest hint of the man Omni-Man really is. Having him simply watching Mark instead of flying in to help him actually shocked me the first time seeing it. It's not until we learn what a Viltrumite really is that it becomes clear as to why. He doesn't care about saving his son but instead seeing Mark reach the same potential Omni-Man did during that smash fest the planet went through to reach perfection. And something tells me he felt more disappointment than sadness after seeing his son get nearly killed by Tony the Tiger (I know he has an actual name...but this is funnier to me). It's such a solid moment with great implications that just so happens to exist in an even greater episode.

Eve deciding to just help people for the heck of it: I actually love this idea more for the potential it has rather than what actually happens so far. Because the main reason why heroes don't fly around and solve every little minute problem people have is that they need to learn how to act without help. If you suddenly make food appear out of thin air or stopping forest fires, you're doing good, but there's also potential harm that comes from it. I think back to that episode of The Powerpuff Girls, where the townspeople are so idiotic and complacent with having their heroes solve every problem that they really can't think or act for themselves. A similar thing can happen with Eve if she's not careful. Even worse, if she keeps trying to end famine for farmers, because she might get into a Supergirl situation with people building a cult around her. And, you know, that's not going to be fun.

But again, that's just the potential that this presents. We--Or the people who haven't read the comics--don't know if Eve will actually face this issue. Regardless, we still get some solid moments that proves just how much Eve is a true hero in this series as she has no other motive to help people other than she just wants to. And I actually think that's pretty cool.

The Immortal’s rematch: I gotta hand it to the guy. Not a second after being brought back to life, and The Immortal's already flying off to get revenge on the bastard who killed his closest friends in the world. Or, globe, I guess.

I respect that, to be honest.

(As a bonus, The Immortal causing Omni-Man's eyes to become bloodshot adds to how evil he'll be in the last episode)

Mark trying to snap his dad out of mind-control: Oh, I felt that.

I'm pretty sure we all felt that.

Ow...Big ow.

The Train Scene: ...This is the most horrific thing I have seen in entertainment. Seriously, while Omni-Man annihilating the Guardians left me speechless, this is another level. Because him using Mark's body to kill a train full of people ramming into them, leaving Mark all the more helpless to stop it, makes a scene that is so...so hard for me to describe how effectively f**ked up it is. It's one of those moments where just by seeing it, you know why it's awful in all the right ways. And I will never forget the look of shock and horror on my face when it reflected onto my laptop's screen after the scene briefly cut to black soon after the carnage. Because if that doesn't explain how unmerciful this moment is, I don't know what will.

Saving Mark after the fight: I really love this because as it flashes between still images of people carrying Mark away after his brutal fight with Omni-Man, it really feels like you're reading a comic from panel to panel. It’s pretty neat. I won’t lie.

WHAT I DISLIKE

The Animation isn’t that great: Now, in terms of action, the animation is fantastic. You feel the impact of each attack, there are some creative uses of powers, and the gore is better implemented because it's all animated. As for everything else...yeah, it kinda sucks. Movements are a little stiff at times, the CGI backgrounds could use a bit more polish, and don't get me started on the CGI crowds of people. I understand the shortcuts that need to be taken to make everything else more effective, but man, this series needed a little more time in the oven before being shown to everyone. It's never too bad, but it can be pretty distracting at times.

Amber: F**k Amber. Just f**k her. Everything people tell you that is wrong with her is one-hundred percent on point. She is easily one of the worst love interests, and to me, it has everything to do with the fact that she knows Mark is--

...That she knows Mark is--

...

...

...ThatsheknowsMarkisInvinci--

--BECAUSE IT INVALIDATES ANY POINT SHE HAS, GOSH DANGIT! I don't give a single S**T if she's upset that he's late all the time! If Amber was always unaware of it, then I would understand. But having her know means that she thinks her issues are more important than Mark, oh, I don't know, SAVING THE PLANET! I mean, the girl helps feed the homeless! You would think she would understand.

But fine. Maybe Amber's just upset that Mark's lying to her. Sure. That's understandable...BUT WHAT THE F**K IS UP WITH HER BLOWING UP IN HIS FACE FOR NOT HELPING ANYBODY AT THE COLLEGE WHEN SHE KNOWS HE'S HELPING EVERYBODY!? Even if it's her giving Mark one last chance to tell her the truth (which is a mile of a stretch, and you know it), did she really expect him to reveal his secret with tons of people watching? That is a crazy expectation that no one should live up to!

Amber is quite possibly the worst thing about this show. She was fine at first, and her chemistry with Mark was on point, but MAN, did she get worse later on.

And if I see one mother f**ker calling me a racist because I don't like this character who just so happens to be black...I'm going to be upset, not gonna lie. Because that is a cheap shot to dismiss any criticism, especially since her race has NOTHING to do with why people hate her...Or, at least, most people.

Edit (5/27/2021): Disregard the above. The long and short is that I don’t like Amber. She just doesn’t sit right with me for the reasons that her anger towards Mark just never felt entertaining to me in comparision to everything else. But saying her thoughts and arguements are invalid is not cool, and I’m sorry to both any readers who are black or especially female who would be upset by this.

Rex-splode: I understand the point behind Rex. He's a character who we're supposed to hate, so it becomes so much more satisfying seeing others s**t on him. But those characters are hard to get right if you’re not careful. Make them too irritating, then any suffering they go through will seem too little. Make them not annoying enough, and their punishments can be too harsh. Rex fits into the "too irritating" category. It's satisfying to see Monster Girl wreck his s**t after he started commenting how ineffective she might be, but with what he pulled with Dupli-Kate, I feel as though he might deserve worse. Although I will admit Rex gets slightly better in later episodes, showing at least a smidgen of character development. But I don't think it's enough to make his a**holeness worth it. Still, I hope he at least becomes above decent in the next few seasons, which is way more than what I can say for Amber.

(Seriously, writers, if she just disappears without an ounce of an explanation in the season premiere, I won't question it. You have my word.)

Edit: I no longer agree with what I crossed out, but I won’t delete it either. I want people to know the mistake I made so I can prove that I changed in the future.

Robot cloning himself to be with Monster Girl: ...Nope! 

Nope!

Changed my mind.

I am NOT touching that.

I will touch a lot of things, but I will not touch--That came out wrong.

Please forget you read anything.

Thank you, and goodnight.

Let’s move on

Transitioning to the title card: Here it is! The nitpickiest of all nitpicks! But, seeing how it happens in every episode, meaning that the writers have no choice but to commit to it, means it's one of those things that viewers are forced to get used to. And boy, is the transition to the title card hard to get used to! Oh, you thought it was annoying how it kept happening in this review? Well...fair enough. But trust me when I say it's much more aggravating in the show.

The funny thing is, I had no problem the first time it happened. It was a cute way to introduce the character as well as the title of the series. But having that be the basis for transitioning to the title card every time was a gimmick that got old real quick. Especially since every time that a character says the word--

--it always feels forced. What's even more annoying is that sometimes it interrupts characters as they're saying invin--

LIKE! F**KING! THAT! Because interrupting someone before they say something is one thing, but doing so as they're saying it shows a sense of bad timing. Not even that, because this is something that I feel like could have been the easiest to change in the series by having someone go, "Hey, maybe we should edit out this single second."

It's laziness that doesn't happen often, but it still grinds my gears a bit. Plus, is there really no other smoother transition the writers could come up with? Did they really believe this is the best way to do it?

Think, writers! THINK!

It's fine to have a gimmick, but this is one that really shouldn't have any follow-through on.

-------------

That's about all the issues I have with the show. It's far from perfect, but still, an A- is pretty impressive work. The stuff that this series does right not only outnumbers the mistakes but also heavily outweighs them. Besides, no show in the history of creativity has ever been perfect in its first season. There are always dents that need to get buffed out and improve upon for the subsequent seasons to come. Only then can a series truly be Invincible from all criticism.

...

...Oh, sure. 

SURE!

NOW it lets me say it!

GOSH, DANGIT, I HATE THAT TITLE CARD!

[itsclydebitches]

I think the rwby fandom is one of the more blatant examples of how the way the narrative frames something influences what the audience thinks about it, with the renora kiss only being the latest incident of it happening.

(You all are gonna see precisely how old some of these asks are based on which Volume 7 info we’re referencing LOL) 

But… yeah. Normally when I’m a part of fandom where the canon does something stupid there are two reactions I see: 

“What was THAT?” (Near unanimous acknowledgement that something went wrong. There are always outliers, but the prevailing reaction is a pretty unified “WTF.” Think last season of Game of Thrones and The Magicians) 

“Okay I personally thought this was horrible…” (Even-ish divide between those who are really upset with something vs. those who thought it was well done, or at least not as bad as others claim. It comes down to taste. Think The Sopranos finale or choices regarding what character to kill off, how, and when.) 

In regards to #1 specifically, the fandom is engaged and critical enough to form their own opinions outside of what the canon sets forth as fact. Or how the canon/the creators insist that you should feel about something. You tell us that Dany is crazy and needs to die but… that doesn’t fit with what we’ve seen over the course of this project. You tell us that killing off Quentin was poignant and subversive… but all we feel is offended. RWBY is one of the few (if possibly the only) fandom where huge chunks of the fanbase seem to take whatever is shown at face value. The story says Ironwood is an antagonist now? Okay! I buy it. No need to think through what we’ve seen before to form a potential contrary opinion, or to acknowledge at least that those who are upset with this decision have good reason to be (as is the case with reaction #2). Obviously this is a gross simplification given that numerous fans, myself included, post criticism in regards to lots and lots of aspects of RWBY… but there are still enough people that immediately change their opinion based on whatever the canon now says is true that I’m always a little shocked. Especially since so much of fandom is based in loving criticism. An odd way to put it perhaps, but I’m trying to acknowledge that transformative fandom exists because we want to change things. Even if you adored the canon completely, things like fic and headcanons and art are primarily born out of, “But what if we did this instead?” So having a fandom who so often takes whatever they’re given with no desire to question it---let alone theoretically change it---is always a bit jarring to me. 

[tomakeitbeautifultolive]

Hey I was just wondering on your interpretation of Jonerys in the books? Because according to the bad leaks we will get Jon killing Dany, but in the book version its pretty clear that these two will marry and I don't necessarily see how those two things jive with each other, unless we get a literal repeat of the Azor Ahai/Nissa Nissa bs with them🤷🏼‍♀️ Thoughts? Because I have given up hope for the show and need some reassurance on the books after reading all of them plus the history books,,

Look, anon. Even in the fucking show these two have been paralleled to death - in a way that inextricably links their lives together, as seen here and here and here. When you learn that when Ian McElhinney (Barristan Selmy) confronted D&D about how he thought it was too early to kill off his character, it made them want to kill him more, out of spite… it makes it pretty clear what D&D are doing.

In their effort to adhere to shock and subversion… they’ve left mounds of unused foreshadowing all over the place (I’m still working on a master post of unused foreshadowing and plot elements). As you might’ve guessed, Jonerys foreshadowing is among those casualties - such as Dany mentioning she may have to enter in a political marriage at the end of season 6 before setting sail for Westeros, or the four different instances that challenge Dany’s belief that she can’t have children, that her family hasn’t seen its end, and that Longclaw will go to Jon’s children after him. As of right now, none of the leaks indicate that any of this meant anything other than dialogue filler. If it was never intended to amount to anything, then the writers should not have included these lines at all, especially in a show that was cut down from ten episodes to seven. Way, way too much emphasis was put on challenging the notion Daenerys can’t have children. It’s what a good writer might call ‘trimming the fat’ from the story, otherwise, it does nothing but muddy up the story unnecessarily.

Jonerys aside, D&D have killed so much foreshadowing in the series just to make a shocking ending (which by the way, makes no sense at all). I was flabbergasted when I read this quote from 2013:

When I asked Benioff and Weiss if it was possible to infer any overall intentionality to the upcoming 10 episodes, they sneered. “Themes are for eighth-grade book reports,” Benioff told me.

Uh, what?

As you may have seen, I already recently covered why Jon shouldn’t care so much about the incest aspect - in the comments I received, there was a great point about how Jon has borderline romantic feelings toward his cousin Arya (who he believes is his half-sister), tending to think of her when he wonders what his love interest’s (Ygritte) body looks like under all those clothes. In the original outline for the series, Jon and Arya were supposed to end up together or at least be involved in a love triangle with Tyrion.

As you see, in the books, Daenerys has already been groomed for the reality of being wedded to her brother, so her nephew won’t be some grand depature from this. She’s a dragonrider, and if the shows are to be believed, Jon will be, too - and if the majority of fans are to be believed, then there might be something magical about Targaryen blood that makes them different or unique or magical, hence the incest.

When you look at just how finely crafted this book series by GRRM is… it makes it really hard to believe that he’d throw out all of his foreshadowing for shock value.

“It’s easy to do things that are shocking or unexpected, but they have to grow out of characters. They have to grow out of situations. Otherwise, it’s just being shocking for being shocking.”—George R. R. Martin

I think we can all agree that season eight of Game of Thrones is all about futility, shock, nihilism. So, check out this quote:

Q: Early on, one critic described the TV series as bleak and embodying a nihilistic worldview, another bemoaned its “lack of moral signposts.” Have you ever worried that there’s some validity to that criticism?

A: No. That particular criticism is completely invalid. Actually, I think it’s moronic. My worldview is anything but nihilistic.—George R. R. Martin

It was George who said we’d get a bittersweet ending, not D&D. It was George who said he wanted a LotR-style ending, not D&D.

While there are many conflicting quotes out there about GRRM’s ending vs. D&D’s… This recent article published right after episode 3 had some interesting lines:

“Of course you have an emotional reaction. I mean, would I prefer they do it exactly the way I did it? Sure. It can also be… traumatic. Because sometimes their creative vision and your creative vision don’t match, and you get the famous creative differences thing — that leads to a lot of conflict.”—George R. R. Martin

My interpretation currently is that yes, Jonerys is real in the books…

(just as it was in the fucking show until they decided to abandon all preestablished groundwork and foundation) …and has been thoroughly foreshadowed - and not in a tragic way.

First of all, the series is called ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ - while this stands for many things from literal to metaphorical, I’d say it absolutely encompasses Jon and Dany. I have some very unpopular ideas that ice actually represents Daenerys and fire, Jon. Whether or not I’m right about that, we have some hints that Jon will ultimately accept his Targaryen identity…

Subtle clue about who he is, in one of his true house’s colors:

“The next time I see you, you’ll be all in black.”Jon forced himself to smile back. “It was always my color.”

He idolizes historical Targaryens:

“Daeren Targaryen was only fourteen when he conquered Dorne,” Jon said. The Young Dragon was one of his heroes.

He’d pretend to be Targaryens while playing as a child:

“I’m Prince Aemon the Dragonknight,” Jon would call out.

For Daenerys, we get this curious line:

“Mother of dragons, bride of fire…”

Bride could also be metaphorical in some way, sure, but let’s just say it’s literal. Jon is the dragon, the fire.

Okay, so for the books, I’ll try to hit the bullet points:

First and foremost, the pair are incredibly similar, both stepping into positions of rule after immersing themselves into a foreign culture, adapting to their way of life before making allies. Both Jon and Daenerys make grave mistakes while wielding power, and they learn from their mistakes. They’re being shaped into rulers.

Both fall in love, yet still feel alone:

“Her captain slept beside her, yet she was alone.” / "Even with Ygritte sleeping beside him, he felt alone.“

Daenerys dreams of her lover:

“It was never Jorah Mormont she dreamed of; her lover was always younger and more comely, though his face remained a shifting shadow.”

Jon is described as a shadow:

“A shadow half-seen behind a fluttering curtain.” / “He would be condemned to be an outsider, the silent man standing in the shadows”

Daenerys also dreams of life as a wife and mother:

“In her dream they had been man and wife, simple folk who lived a simple life in a tall stone house with a red door.”

Both dream of children they will never have:

“I might someday hold a son of my own blood in my arms.” / "I will never have a little girl.“

From Jon’s first chapter, there are hints that Benjen knows his identity and that family might someday be important to Jon:

"You don’t know what you’re asking, Jon. The Night’s Watch is a sworn brotherhood. We have no families. None of us will ever father sons. Our wife is duty. Our mistress is honor. You are a boy of fourteen, not a man, not yet. Until you have known a woman, you cannot understand what you would be giving up.”

“I don’t care about that!” Jon said hotly.

“You might, if you knew what it meant,” Benjen said. “If you knew what the oath would cost you, you might be less eager to pay the price, son.”

We have those quotes from Maester Aemon, that hint that Jon might choose love or a child over duty:

“What is honor compared to a woman’s love? What is duty against the feel of a newborn son in your arms … or the memory of a brother’s smile? Wind and words. Wind and words. We are only human, and the gods have fashioned us for love. That is our great glory, and our great tragedy.”

While yes, Aemon hints that it is both glory and tragedy, we’re coming off a long, long line of tragic Targaryen love stories - the difference here being that one of these Targaryens is out to break the wheel that destroyed so many of these star-crossed, doomed Targaryens loves (Rhaegar/Lyanna, Duncan/Jenny, Daemon/Daenerys, Aemon/Naerys, etc).

Blue roses are linked to Lyanna Stark or even House Stark in general. In a vision, Daenerys sees:

“A blue flower grew from a chink in a wall of ice, and filled the air with sweetness.”

Meanwhile, there is foreshadowing that Dany will help Jon’s effort against the white walkers with lines like these:

“He might as well wish for another thousand men, and maybe a dragon or three.”

Daenerys, herself, has a weird moment with some ants while she wakes in the Dothraki Sea, brushing them off of her body as they swarm over a wall:

“To them these tumbledown stones must loom as huge as the Wall of Westeros. The biggest wall in all the world, her brother Viserys used to say, as proud as if he’d built it himself.”

Around the same time, Jon is killed, whispering to his wolf:

“Ghost,” he whispered. Pain washed over him. He gave a grunt and fell face-first into the snow. He never felt the fourth knife. Only the cold…

Meanwhile, after ‘opening her third eye’ with some berries, Daenerys hears the call of a wolf all the way over in Essos:

“Off in the distance, a wolf howled. The sound made her feel sad and lonely.”

We can extrapolate that this is, in fact, Ghost… as first, there don’t seem to be wolves in the Dothraki Sea, but also this line from Bran also provides context:

“Here in the chill damp darkness of the tomb his third eye had finally opened. He could reach Summer whenever he wanted, and once he had even touched Ghost and talked to Jon.”

Now that we know Jon’s true name (at least according to the show), this curious line from Daenerys also hints she might marry Jon:

“A crown should not sit easy on the head. One of her royal forebears had said that, once. Some Aegon, but which one? Five Aegons had ruled the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. There would have been a sixth, but the Usurper’s dogs had murdered her brother’s son when he was still a babe at the breast. If he had lived, I might have married him.”

Meanwhile, Jon is infatuated with Val, a woman who sounds an awful lot like a precursor to Daenerys, who is a warrior woman with silver-pale hair… Jon is also reminded of Val’s hips and breasts and that she’s 'well made for whelping children’…

“The light of the half-moon turned Vals honey-blond hair a pale silver and left her cheeks as white as snow. She took a deep breath. The air tastes sweet.”

“Lonely and lovely and lethal, Jon Snow reflected, and I might have had her.”

“A warrior princess, he decided, not some willowy creature who sits up in a tower, brushing her hair and waiting for some knight to rescue her.”

As for GRRM, he told a helpful clue to director Alan Taylor circa season one of Game of Thrones:

“Anyways, he alluded to the fact that Jon and Dany were the point, kind of. That, at the time, there was a huge, vast array of characters, and Jon was a lowly, you know, bastard son. So it wasn’t clear to us at the time, but he did sort of say things that made it clear that the meeting and the convergence of Jon and Dany were sort of the point of the series. So, I was happy that a big step forward was taken in the episode I got to do this season is where he has fallen for her both, you know, emotionally and politically I think.”

But that’s not all. I did write a meta about the mother goddess Danu and her parallels with Dany - and this, to me, rings much more true to who Daenerys is in the books rather than whatever impostor is parading around in Dany’s skin on screen in season eight.

There is a lot of proof that GRRM puts a LOT of thought and detail into his books - even down to the Starks ‘howling’ and ‘growling’ and the Lannisters ‘roaring’. I’ve uncovered a cool trend where many of the names he assigns to characters reflect their numerological gemstone house colors - and the names he chooses all shed some light on the characters they are given to, such as Bran meaning ‘raven’ or Sandor meaning ‘defender of man’ or Gendry meaning ‘son-in-law’.

I’ve done a lot of thinking about these things, and I just cannot see GRRM throwing out all of his foreshadowing or all of the clever little things he’s been hinting at since book once, all for the sake of shock value or subverting expectations… That’s not his style and he speaks out against it.

Bearing that in mind, the clear mad queen is Cersei, who shares virtually every parallel to Aerys Targaryen - the way she tortures parent and child chained just out of reach from one another, the way torture sexually excites her, the way she was tortured into madness, and straight down to her wildfire use. Daenerys better fits the archetype of an anti-hero rather than a straight villain. With only two books left and still no signs of madness… I just don’t see it going down this way in the books.

As for whatever just happened with Daenerys, I’ve been given a compelling argument that in the books, as she squares off with (f)Aegon Targaryen, or, Young Griff, in an effort to expose the Mummer’s Dragon, she might accidentally set off these wildfire traps that make her look just like her father, and perhaps she even goes a little mad with grief.

Especially considering that ASOIAF is so heavily based on Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, which share countless parallels, such as:

Norn (White foxes)  → The Others (White walkers)

Sithi (Dawn children) → Singers (Children of the forest)

Witchwood  → Weirwood

The Storm King → Night’s King

Ineluki → Azor Ahai

Sorrow → Lightbringer

Black iron → Dragonglass

Nisse → Nissa Nissa

Hayholt Castle → Winterfell Castle

Green Angel Tower → Winterfell Crypts

Simon Snowlock (secret heritage) → Jon Snow

Princess Miriamele (disguised as a boy) → Arya Stark

Warring brothers King Elias/Josua → Stannis/Renly

Tailed star → Red comet

Black priest Pryrates → Red priest Melisandre

Daenerys is suspected to be the Princess Maegwin figure, a woman who “is forced to watch as forces conquer her people and is eventually driven to madness in her desperation to save them.”

You make a good point about Fire & Blood and ASOIAF prehistory, too. Aside from the doomed Targaryen love stories I mentioned earlier, we get another history book that basically gives us a rundown of various Targaryen ladies who never got to be queen. I’d say this book has a strong feminist message - and might even hint that the last vestige of House Targaryen just might accomplish what her foremothers could not - finally becoming the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms.

Lastly, I’ll leave you with a clip from the man, himself, about Dany:

“From my mother’s stories, I always had this kind of sense that I was like disinherited royalty. Here was this dock that my great-grandfather built - it wasn’t ours anymore. Here was this house that my mother had been born in - we didn’t own this house anymore. We didn’t own any house, we had an apartment. So it was like, ugh, I came from greatness - like Dany! And I will take back what is mine with Fire and Blood! I think on some level, that must’ve gotten to me.”—George R. R. Martin

I could be wrong about all of this, of course… but that’s my current take. 🤷

[catharticboredom]

I did not have fun playing this game. Like sure the gameplay itself was fun, but there was an underlying sense of dread. And no not bc I knew how it was gonna end, or that Joel died, but bc 1) for Ellie’s campaign it is a dumb revenge plot and the journey itself was so morbid, yet still tried to pull off a lighthearted tone, vs the first game which had a sense of hope and a reason to keep playing. And 2) we played as Abby waaaaay too much, and I did not give a shit about any of her friends and WLF members, except for Yara and Lev.

For Ellie, it’s like “oh teehee I love bantering with my girlfriend, teehee...also I want to avenge my surrogate father and will stop at nothing to do so...teehee I love playing the guitar and singing”. I am not saying Ellie needs to be miserable, bc in this world you have to move on from your grief to keep surviving, but everything like there is a lighthearted moment I am just reminded that Joel is dead and that we are on a dumb revenge mission. And the flashbacks with Joel felt...idk off? Like I know their relationship has been tumultuous since the fireflies, but it felt jarring to be like “Ellie is suspicious of Joel” in the first scene of them together (where he plays her that song) and then to “Ellie and Joel are on good terms and are bantering” for the museum scene (which happens chronologically after), to “there is tension between them again” for the segment where we are accompanied by Tommy for a bit.

For Abby, they tried to make us sympathetic towards her, Owen etc, but I found all of them so boring, and also like we already hate them for killing Joel. And though I love Yara and Lev, it is such a transparent attempt to make us like Abby. Also idk why they thought it would be a good idea to have dumb relationship drama in this game, bc I do not care about any of these characters, and even if I did, a love triangle where a guy is cheating on his pregnant gf is not really something I can get behind. And going back to Y+L, it was just more torture p*rn for 2 characters of colour, and even more so for the trans character, where: he is deadnamed and called an abomination; his mother tries to strangle/kill him bc he is trans and he kills her out of self-defence; his sister had her arm amputated and then she just dies unceremoniously; and the ppl he grew up with are out to kill him (also there was the graphic shot of him and Yara having gotten hanged with their guts spilling out).

Also, as I have mentioned, the tone was all over the fucking place. From “these two wlw just got brutally beaten up” to immediately “oh look at the cute baby, oh so cute, let’s herd some fucking sheep!” to sudden PTSD (by this I mean Ellie didn’t have it before on her trek with Dina). And again, the awkward tone with the banter and the fact that it’s a revenge plot. I could probably come up with more examples but those are just off the top of my head.

Oh yeah 6 out of 6 black characters died. Sure Isaac was a bad guy, but did they really need to make the ruthless f*scist black? Also Jesse and Yara died unceremoniously, and they even had a shot of Yara’s corpse being shot up a bit by Seraphites shooting at the WLF or whatever.

The ending of this game sucked—it did not feel earned (ie Abby didn’t die) and it was very tacked on (after the theatre brawl). By no means did I expect a happy ending, but not one where the lesbian main character ends up alone (which is her biggest fear) and unable to play the guitar (her only connection to her surrogate father). Like the final fisticuff fight felt so one bc Abby literally didn’t even wanna fight and only did so bc of Lev. I get that he is her moral compass or whatever, but the fight felt so stupid bc again, one of them wasn’t even into it, vs if idk Ellie taunted Abby by reminding A of her last words to E (“I better not see you again” or w/e) or that E killed A’s friends.

And as I have stated in various other posts, I KNOW that the message is “ViOLenCe BAD, fAmiLy GOOD”...but the game literally has this perverse feel to it in the way that the death animations are extremely graphic, they intentionally wanted to make the player feel worse by the enemies calling out their friends’ names or w/e, have you kill dogs with their whining death noises, have skill trees + weapon upgrades designed to improve your killing ability, and having to kill to get through the game (sneaking around and not killing at all is too difficult).

What I wanted was a game to give me a sense of hope like in the first game. Neil keeps sucking his own dick by saying this game is subversive, but a revenge plot with a sympathetic villain is anything but. The FIRST game was subversive bc, at the time at least, with all these other AAA games (not all of them ofc) being edgy and such, it was so refreshing to see a game about grief and found family and hope and a father-daughter relationship (which is NOT to say the first game is flawless). This game is tour run-of-the-mill edgelord game that has stuff in it for shock value in place of a good story.

Basically fuck this game and fuck Neil Druckmann

[chid-sen-gan-blog]

Good Plot Twists/Subversions of Expectation vs. Bad Ones

A Good Plot Twist/Subversion of Expectation: 

Based on something pivotal to a specific storyline

Involves a character(s) who has long been tied to said storyline

Was foreshadowed/properly hinted at prior to the event

Follows an underlying theme and cohesive train of thought

Likely accompanied by an underlying lesson/message 

Uses nuance and subtlety to its advantage

Makes sense and feels earned 

Moves the story forward and/or wraps up loose ends/character arcs

Leaves the viewer feeling a myriad of emotions, but ultimately satisfied

Shows respect, appreciation, and understanding for the characters and the story being told

Betters re-viewings of prior episodes/movies/etc., with knowledge of how things will play out

A Bad Plot Twist/Subversion of Expectation:

Can be based on pretty much anything in any given storyline

Can spotlight anyone, including those with zero ties to said storyline

Not usually foreshadowed prior to the event (maybe hinted at?)

Has no specific underlying theme, train of thought is all over the place

Unlikely to teach any lesson, conveys a contradicting/negative message

Little to no subtlety and nuance; often in-your-face and flashy

Needs to be explained after the fact, or feels unearned

Stalls or diverts the story/raises questions/regresses character arcs

Leaves the viewer feeling a myriad of emotions, but lacks satisfaction

Shows no or very little respect, appreciation, and understanding for the characters and the story being told

Has a negative impact on re-viewings of prior episode/movies/etc., with knowledge of how things will play out 

Tl;dr: Shock value doesn’t necessarily equate to a plot twist or a subversion of expectations. Shock value isn’t the same as a plot twist or a subversion of expectations. Shock value, without any rhyme or reason behind it, isn’t good storytelling or bold cinema. 

Shock value for the sake of shock value is bad writing.

[thefudge]

it bothers me that sansa stans are acting like her becoming QITN was some big victory for her after everything the writers have done destroy and shit on her character over the series. it just came off so hollow and meaningless to me. it really feels to me like the only reason sansa ended up in a position of power was because the writers wanted to reinforce the “good woman/bad woman” dichotomy with her and dany, because sansa wanted power the “right” way.

couldn’t have said it better myself

sansa’s connection to the north from season 5 onward was shoe-horned in and streamlined for the sake of making her rape & trauma seem “worth it”. “how do we make up for the needless, annihilating trauma we put the wrong character through? oh i know, hollow nationalist empowerment!” 

to be clear, i would have liked an actual “sansa rediscovers her northern roots” storyline, but that’s absolutely not what we got. remember that one lady in season 5 who told her “the north remembers”? and we thought maybe sansa would incite a small rebellion in winterfell and fight ramsay on her own terms? ahahaha, that old lady was just supposed to be a corpse for shock value. that’s it. remembersansa claiming in season 6 that the north is more “loyal” because she just “knows” it better than ser davos? and then getting her ass handed to her when many of the houses refuse to fight for the starks? wow, they’re really telling us she has a connection to the north. really, the big majority of those who fight for the north on the show turn out to be wildlings (house mormont which is the only northern house that apparently exists in the north anymore is the bear-loving wildling-mating house of the north). and yet sansa stark, at the end of all this, still thinks the north should be kept “free” and “unaltered” from any foreigners. anyway. they never convincingly showed why sansa stark cares so deeply about northern independence, why it has become such a big part of her character. unless it’s all about ramsay’s rape. in season 5, sansa did not want to return to winterfell and petyr basically cajoled her into it. i really, really, really can’t stress how much her “the north is free!” storyline hinges on her abuse, it’s super gross. 

also i love how the show tries to show her new allegiance by having her sew direwolves into all her clothes, what a bold move! which btw, northern independence = unquestioned stark rule, yes? yes. the fight here isn’t for a self-governing north, it’s for a stark-ruled north. that’s what sansa has really been fighting for. and that would be fine if the show admitted it. but no, it’s about the great big north she loves so much. like u said, it’s all about getting power the “right” way.  i would’ve loved to see queen sansa on a different show, in the hands of different writers. but they ruined it for me. and you are absolutely right that it came off as good woman vs bad woman. one is condoned by the male authority who condescends to give her symbolic power, the other must be eliminated for still having ties to subversive elements. it’s…it’s really bad. 

but d&d are pretty smart because they’re banking on ppl being distracted by the glitz of it all. that crowning scene is peak white feminist imagery and it’s very effective because sansa does look “badass” & beautiful: i mean that godswood dress, that direwolf crown, that aragorn hair, that bad bitch eyeliner #theaesthetic. lol i personally think it’s kind of cheap, but i also totally understand the glam factor. so ppl forget that sansa stark was assassinated in S5 because at least now she gets to wear a crown. 

yikes.

it’s kind of tragically funny how much that last sentence contradicts everything asoiaf stands for. 

[him-e]

Not that GRRM is in any way exempt from sexist writing, but I think D&D’s fundamental issue is that they got the game of thrones vs the war for the dawn the wrong way round. I’m fairly sure book!Dany embracing ‘fire and blood’ is not going to mean good things for the people of KL, but she’s ultimately not bad. I could see her being ripped apart by it and *then* doing everything she can to save the realm in penance. But bc they wanted Cersei as final boss we got this shit instead.

D&D’s fundamental issue is that they got the game of thrones vs the war for the dawn the wrong way round

yeah I know this is the general consensus right now, even among people who recognize the echo of George’s writing here and there—that they got things in the wrong order for shock value or because they desperately wanted to shoehorn the game of thrones back into the narrative as the final climax. But I guess I’ll have to play the devil’s advocate on this, because I do wonder if GRRM isn’t going to pull the ultimate subversion on us. 

No, I don’t think the Others’ threat will be dealt with in a single chapter or won’t matter or will be framed in a way that makes the cosmic threat secondary to the game of thrones. However, imo it’s completely POSSIBLE that A Dream Of Spring will be structured in a similar way as GoT8—first half is the war for the dawn, second and final half is dealing with the ashes and with human evil again (possibly, in the form of Euron Greyjoy who, by then, will have aligned himself with Cersei and acquired a dragon via Dragonbinder / awoken the Drowned God / stolen some eldritch power from the defeated Great Other—remember he’s set to literally kill gods and become one himself?).

But I think we shouldn’t knee-jerk rule out the possibility that this latter half will ALSO deal with Dany’s descent into tragedy and it will happen AFTER she did all the appropriate heroic stunts in the war for the dawn, similar to how it is in the show, just… much more nuanced and better written, as usual. It’s too big of a character trajectory to be solely D&D’s work. It cuts too deep not to be Martin’s, imo. I mean, so far D&D’s changes to the story have been aimed to simplify things, dumb down fan faves’ unpleasant traits (see: Tyrion), play tropes straight, and normalize complex, potentially unsavory narratives into more cliched storytelling. Why would they intentionally go for an anticlimax like this, complicating everything, when they could have just made a final season that wraps the game of thrones up in its first episodes and then steadily progresses towards its natural climax, the war for the dawn, if that’s what happens in the books? Why would they go for Dany going full MacBeth when they could have her sacrifice her life to defeat the White Walkers, as everyone keeps repeating will be her destiny in the books? That’s a great story. It’s shocking enough and heartbreaking enough to the casual audience. IT’S THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE. Why would these lazy storytellers reject the path of least resistance?

As far as I’m concerned, I’ve read every possible version of “Dany will have a dark phase and fight to death F!Aegon and maybe accidentally pulverize King’s Landing but then she’ll redeem herself in the war for the dawn and die a hero”, and the more I think about it, the more it sounds like a fanfiction now. A wonderful fanfiction that someone should DEFINITELY write, ESPECIALLY NOW, but still–it sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it. There’s literally zero subversion in this narrative. It plays safe. It only has fake edges. GRRM said the ending is bittersweet, but this isn’t bittersweet, it’s… stereotypically triumphant, though obviously beautiful and meaningful. I used to believe it SO HARD MYSELF, like I believed all the wonderful meta and spec I’ve read in the last years. But now I have to wonder. 

The problem since season 5 has been that we’re looking at the show and saying that it’s butchering book arcs and getting it all wrong and upside down when we have no fucking clue what these books will be about. We thought we did, we made up incredibly detailed scenarios about them, but no one here is George RR Martin and nobody is really capable of writing and thinking the way he does, for better or worse, so acting like our well-established theories are canon is… idk, kind of arrogant, imo.

Like take Jaime’s arc for example. The book fandom always thought that dying with Cersei and fighting in the war for the dawn would be mutually exclusive, because the WftD is supposed to be the final climax, so how can Jaime be alive to be in it if he’s ALSO meant to fulfill the whole murder-suicide schtick with Cersei? And yet the show made it possible because the WftD isn’t the final chapter of the story. Same goes for all the characters who survive the WftD. We all assumed the WftD would be the endgame point for these characters’ arcs, but what if it isn’t? What if Martin has MORE, and crucial, character development in store for them AFTER it?

Look, I’m not trying to get d&d off the hook—I’m mad at them like everyone else is right now—nor I’m saying that TWOW/ADOS will play EXACTLY like this, and I’m sure that whatever happens in the books Martin will write it out in a nuanced way. That the show’s problem has always been in the execution is nothing new. But if there’s even a 2% chance that these naked plot points will happen in the books too, I need to consider it, and brace myself for it. 

Because at the end of the day, the heart of Asoiaf is neither the game of thrones NOR the war against the Others, it’s the human heart at conflict with itself. So there’s literally zero guarantee that the WftD “has” to be the final climax. There would, if asoiaf were a more traditional narrative.

BUT IT ISN’T.

As a final note, I recommend taking a look at this Twitter threat I’ve recently read which summarizes my own thoughts very well.

[kendrixtermina]

Did Pearl even actually want to be monogamous?

Early on it wasn’t clear if Pearl’s feelings were ever recruited or if she got dumped once Greg showed up

Then we get to see that Pearl was apparently never dumped (they all but make out in front of Greg), they were in an open relationship and maybe Pearl didn’t feel like she could say that she wasn’t cool with it. 

One would assume that she wanted things to be exclusive like with Ruby and Sapphire, because thats a common thing for people to want thats one reason why someone would be jealous - because she was super commited and wanted the same in return. 

But even that conclusion could be cast into doubt now - never mind what she told Rose/Pink, she had apparently told herself she was cool with the human boyfriends and you’d have to admit something to yourself before you can complain about that or expect someone else to pick up on that (I mean would it be right for them to insist if you vehemently deny it, like you’re some sort of child?). 

But once Pearl starts sorta moving on and looking for new partners, what she does is to pursue a bunch of casual dates and play the field - and it makes sense that she’d want to explore what she really likes, pursue her own pleasure and relish in her freedom after having been rather repressed in the past and having goten over this toxic idea that she had to completely devote herself to someone. 

But if she wanted to be super commited, that same newfound confidence could also have manifested as telling the potential new people very clearly what it is she wants. (ie, commit, but make her own demands to ensure her needs are met) -and this isn’t even that new for her, either, given the revelation that she had flirty banter with war-era comrades (and certain concept sketches have confirmed that her banter with Bismuth was supposed to come off as flirty) - what we saw in “Last one out of Beach City” was, to an extent, just Pearl sort of recapturing the old fire she used to have. 

Also note that in the mystery girl case, Pearl though she’d failed untill Steven pointed out how she just did a bunch of badass rebellious things (quite similar to how she does not seem to have realized her contribution to her and PD’s defection until Pearl and Sapphire pointed it out, even though it was absolutely a team effort.) Perhaps Pearl felt like she was just “pretending” to be the cool renegade, but like, she still absolutely did all that awesome stuff. She just didn’t realize it was her / value her own actions enough- and this has definitely changed by the end of s5. 

Une underappreciated factoid here is that the “post-war catastrophe” layer comes directly after the “clingy 80s Pearl one”, much like “overly perfectionistic/organized Pearl” came before that one (Amethyst sure mentions that she was less finicky before and that they got along better because of that). If we take it to mean that the control freakery was a compensation for the loss of PD, we must also conclude that the clinginess was a coping mechanism for the horror of having all her friends corrupted or killed and that, perhaps, things were at least somewhat different before - 

Maybe the open relationship was even a totally mutual decision at one point.  

I mean both Pearl and Pink Diamond seem like the types of people for whom an open relationship might actually make good sense IRL. They both seem like they get crushes very easily, Pearl gets pretty attached and acts weak around any Big Stronk Confident Lady, and PD was super impressionable and easily taken with new ideas, people and concepts and also like she was pretty driven by her instincts and desires which is often the type of person for whom monogamy would be very difficult. 

It’s quite possible that this totally worked for them both once upon a time, or at least could have,  if they didn’t let their baggage/dystopian upbringing get the better of them. 

Pearl’s dependency issues have to be seen as something separate from particular relationships. Like she did the same thing with Garnet and Steven later on. It’s just some baggage she has that gets in the way of her relationships, be they romantic platonic or familiar. 

On some level she probably idealizes people because some part of her feels she needs something to cling to, not the other way around. An idealized idol is safer to cling to because you don’t view them as having difficulties of their own, but if you think that way you can’t be mindful of that person’s own weaknesses and struggles (e.g. how Garnet would be pretty hurt over being used for her power especially in the light of all the “fusions are just for power” crap)

Back when she & PD first got together it was a positive & subversive thing that helped them both escape, like, ppl of vastly different ranks would not be allowed to be lovers, the other Pearls we se are more like minions/attendants. (hence the “my Pearl” thing) But while relationships can help they can’t magically solve your personal problems all by themselves either. (As we also see with Ruby and Sapphire) The baggage isn’t a part of it - it’s something that got in the way of it. (especially if you consider PD’s own preexisting baggage of being held to impossible standards - Like, it’s not a good thing to base all your self esteem on someone else, but it’s not fair to your partner either, to put them on a pedestal and expect them to be some sort of messiah. That’s kinda what made Greg so special, that he actually got through to the person beneath the mask and still didn’t run or demand that she disclose everything. Hence why he’s the one character who wasn’t shocked at the reveal. Maybe he didn’t have the name “Pink Diamond” to go with it, but he met the real one. I mean just note how she answers the “home planet” question honestly instead of feeding him her coverstory. )

I mean on some level PD and Pearl very much complemented each other in the sense that Pearl’s resourcefulness and diligence balanced out PD’s naive outlook and tendency not to think things through, while Pink added the necessary boldness to get Pearl to act less repressed. 

But you also have a situation where one person isn’t very perceptive social skills wise and liable to let herself be blinded by wishful thinking, and the other is all passive-aggressive and tiptoey-ey and willing to resort to hostility and manipulation before coming out and saying what’s wrong. Pearl wouldn’t voice her complaints because she’d be afraid to jeopardize this thing she’s using as a crutch for all her issues, and PD would just not realize unless she’s outright told or just act like everything is fine, and wouldn’t call her on bad behavior since she just lets everyone around her do whatever as an overcompensation for her own restrictive upbringing & feels guilty for stranding her own earth (Garnet, who does NOT have those same hangups, does call Pearl on her crap - and to Pearl’s credit, she apologized and worked on it and they became better friends as a result. )

And you also had someone who was super guarded and prefers to have their own space vs someone who desires a lot of closeness and can be sorta clingy. 

It’s not that Pink doesn’t care - whenver she’s outright made aware of some error she made or some injustice she didn’t realize she’s always either super apologetic or does what she can to fix it; There’s multiple scenes where she clearly tries to be considerate even if she doesn’t always succeed. (See when Greg actually tells her what’s bothering him) 

If Pearl’s gonna have an endgame love interest at all (which might not necessarily be the case and even then she’ll probably play it casual for a while before she’d be ready for another big commitment, until she can trust herself not to get over-attached), I’d say that Bismuth would be a pretty good choice since she’s also pretty emotionally open and tends to give people a lot of validation, and like, she clearly just thinks Pearl is very awesome, and they could sorta start it out as a casual thing early on without rushing anything.

[rutilation]

another day, another stressful chapter.

Okay, first of all, I fucking called it.

Which also means that Phos’s very first interaction with Cairngorm was them respecting Cairn’s wishes even when Ghost was willing to cajole them into their partnership.  Oh boy, do I ever love being hurt! 

But before I dive more into my favorite disaster gem, I’d like to talk about a few of my observations of the first half of the chapter.  Y’know, I was looking forward to a chapter focused solely on the earth gems, so that I could finally figure out how I feel about Euclase, and not be stressed out by Cairn for one (1) month.  But it seems Ichikawa does not want me to have a god-damned break.

Well at least I figured out how I feel about Euclase.  Turns out they only said those kind words to Phos in order to manipulate them, and they completely misinterpreted what amounts to Phos’s acknowledgment of their own mortality as mere insecurity about their low-hardness status.  I’m not sure if they’re going to have this same mindset by the end of the story, but for now it seems they are firmly in camp stasis-and-conformity-at-all-costs.

At this point I think it’s been enough of a reoccurring element that we can add sleeping vs restlessness to the list of thematic through-lines of this work, be it Phos’s restlessness, Kongo’s frequent naps, the gems’ hibernation, etc.  Furthermore, the opening of the anime played a lot with this imagery.  If you think about it, the opening is essentially a series of images of Phos breaking apart and being put back together, and Phos waking up three times in a row.  The director of the anime has stated in an interview that he had a chat with Ichikawa about the overall themes of the work, so I think it’s safe to say that the use of awakening imagery in the opening is very deliberate.  My first instinct is to see awakening as a metaphor for enlightenment, and sleeping as a metaphor for ignorance and stasis, but I’m not super sure of my reading.

I’d also like to talk a little about robodad.  There are a couple of contradictions in his character that have been bugging me for a while, and I might as well talk about them here.  Going back to the early chapters, he got pretty mad whenever the gems acted recklessly behind his back.  Like in chapter one towards Morga and Goshe, and then again towards Phos in chapter eleven.  But despite the fact that Phos has made a much, much bigger mess than either of those incidents, Kongo has made no effort to stop Phos.  Sure, he stonewalls Phos when they try to ask him directly about what he’s hiding, but ever since volume four, wherein he realized that Phos was suspicious of him (they weren’t exactly subtle about it,) he pretty much gave Phos free reign to chase whatever subversive, rebellious whim they desired.  I keep getting the impression that he wants Phos to defeat him, and that’s why he stopped getting on their case for insubordination the moment he realized that they had more ambitious aims than mere trouble-making.  In fact, the way he simply shuts Phos down when they try to get answers out of him, instead of doing his best to explain what he can, like he is with the earth gems right now...it almost seems like he’s trying to goad Phos into antagonizing him.

Which is why I’m really curious about why he refuses to release the Lunarians--and his words in this chapter do seem to confirm that he’s intentionally not releasing their souls, and isn’t just broken.  He holds the Lunarians and humanity in contempt, but I find it hard to believe that he hates them more than he loves the gems, so whatever’s stopping him from praying must be pretty significant.  That would lead one to the conclusion that there’s some terrible consequence that would come from him releasing the Lunarians, and I’ve seen people float the idea of a seventh meteor coming and wiping out the remaining life on earth as soon as the last human souls leave.  The little moment in chapter one in which Phos mistakenly thinks that seven meteors had already hit the earth would seem to foreshadow that.  But the thing is, if the consequence of praying for the Lunarians is that dire, then why hasn’t he lifted a finger to stop Phos?  Why hasn’t he tried to find some way to impart to Phos the peril of what they’re doing, even if he can’t directly tell them what’s going on?

It’s all quite mysterious.

Okay, back to my wayward child.

First of all, this reeaally hurt.  I had been afraid that this might happen since chapter 67, but since it hadn’t been brought up, I thought that they weren’t going to reject the name Phos got for them.  Turns out, I just needed to be more patient!  They haven’t mentioned what they’re going by, so for now I’m gonna keep calling them Cairngorm.

Regarding their explanation for why they stabbed Phos...

I mean, I know that the tone Cairn is going for here is disdainful indifference, but isn’t this just a roundabout way of saying that they don’t have the guts to talk to Phos?  This has been on my mind ever since chapter 68, but Cairn seems awfully skittish about actually confronting Phos, don’t they?  The fact that they were willing to allude--albeit vaguely--to what happened in chapter 67 in front of Yellow and Padpa, but were completely unwilling to even tell Phos directly that they were breaking up with them, much less explain why, seems rather telling to me.  The fact that they apparently couldn’t stand the thought of an awkward ride back to the moon and had to make sure Phos was unconscious for the duration just compounds this.  (This is all assuming they weren’t secretly trying to destroy the pearl eye.)

Honestly, when Cairn decided they needed to involve themselves in a mission they told Phos they wouldn’t go on, and behind Aechmea’s back no less, they forfeited any chance of convincing me that they actually don’t care, and no amount of shit talking is going to outweigh their actions when said actions tell a very different story.  While it’s still too soon to say what exactly those portentous lines about Cairn being a good actor really mean, they’re definitely relevant.  The only question on my mind is whether or not they believe their own bullshit.

To sum it up, it seems that Cairn is once again in need of some Antarc advice:

But instead, the only advice they get nowadays is from their controlling boyfriend who pays lip service to valuing their autonomy but then throws a temper tantrum the second they stop acting like his personal dress-up doll.* 

Something I found really unnerving was Cairn’s reaction to Aechmea’s little fit of pique.  They looked uncomfortable with being screamed at, but they didn’t seem the least bit shocked, despite the fact that Aechmea looked Like That, which raises the possibility that this isn’t the first time Aechmea has lashed out at Cairn like this.  Yikes.

Furthermore, once they start talking to Aechmea, the confidence with which they held themselves the past chapter-and-a-half completely dies, and they’re back to being drawn in that vaguely off-putting moe style, and they’re back to expressing themselves in a way that seems more juvenile than how they were acting moments before.  So, the cutesiness is definitely an affectation, though I doubt that anyone is surprised to have that confirmed.

A few months ago, I assumed that Aechmea was manipulating Cairngorm to a specific end, but it’s looking more and more like he sees Cairn as, like, a shiny new toy that he doesn’t want getting dented.

And finally, that glove that Cairn is wearing.  I didn’t notice it the first time I read chapter seventy so I didn’t bring it up in that essay, but they sure are covering up the symbol of their weakness and reluctance to change, aren’t they?  Embracing one’s weaknesses and failings has been a major theme of the series, and there are several visual metaphors that allude to this.  Phos’s kintsugi arms and Dia using their octahedral cleavage to their advantage to defeat Shiro are the examples that initially spring to my mind.  While the plot of the series is twisty, and the characters are often duplicitous, I find that the imagery and visual metaphors are pretty consistently trustworthy--albeit up for interpretation.  So, while there are many things in the series that I’m not sure about, I’m pretty sure that Cairngorm’s left arm is getting replaced sooner or later.

*hey guys, remember how there was an entire omake in which the joke was “Cairngorm sure does dislike all the frilly, impractical pajamas that Red Beryl is forcing them to wear.”  That was a thing. 

[thesffcorner]

Deadly Class Vol. 1

Deadly Class vol 1 collects issues 1 through 6 of the ongoing comic series, written by Rick Remender and drawn by Wes Craig. The series follows Marcus, a 14 (?) year old boy who is living on the streets, after his parents are murdered right in front of him. One day he accidentally ends up crashing a police stick-up and gets invited to join the King’s Dominion School for the Deadly Arts; a school that trains professional assassins. I don’t even know where to begin with this series; I guess the best way to go about it, would be to talk about vol 1. Vol 1 introduces us to Marcus, as well as a handful of supporting characters, most of which are other students in the school. The school itself is centuries old; the people who go there are all children or relatives of gangs, cartels, yakuza, FBI/CIA/KGB agents, mafia or just serial killers. Marcus himself is the son of a Nicaraguan double agent, but having spent the past 2 years living alone, his reputation is not one that brings him a lot of friends, and Marcus himself is a difficult character to like. I think that’s a good way to talk about this series too; it’s not easy to like. I usually reserve judgement for the end of my reviews, but I do have to warn you; this is an R rated comic. Don’t let the age of the protagonists fool you; this is a series full of blood, gore, drug abuse, murder, rape, pedophilia, animal cruelty and basically any other trigger you can think of. It’s a series that operates on shock value, in the sense that all the characters are thoroughly unlikable, they have horrible things happen to them and do horrible things to each other, and most of them are rather pretentious, annoying, and act very much like teenagers would, if they were stuck in that kind of situation. The series is set in the 80’s, during Ronald Reagan’s presidency. This is an important detail, because Marcus’ motivation for joining the school (other than romance) has to do with Reagan specifically, as he is indirectly implicated in his parents’ death. The whole plot point about Marcus’ parents’ death is so crazy that even if I told it to you, you wouldn’t believe me, so I’ll just let you read it. The 80’s setting is honestly one of the best parts of the series; there’s a lot of talk about politics, homelessness caused by the Reagan administration, veteran rights, and of course, lots and lots of drugs. The entirety of issues 5 and 6 have to do with Marcus tripping on acid, and the way Craig draws and captures the feeling of being on acid is probably one of the best depictions I’ve seen in media, save perhaps Enter the Void. I am so curious to see how they do that in the show. There’s also a lot of talk about music; of course special snowflake Marcus listens to the Smiths (look I can say it, I too love the Smiths), but obviously there’s also talk of some early rap like LL Cool J and Public Enemy (wow I’m old). That whole conversation between Willie and Marcus is actually really interesting, because it serves as a bigger discussion rather than just music; it’s about the ways in which you want to be perceived, about bravery vs posing, and what is and isn’t allowed for ‘tough men’ to like. I could have definitely lived without the word ‘fag’ and “pussy” being thrown around all over the place, but I suppose that too is authentic to the time period and the way teenage boys talk. Actually, the only thing I can say about the setting that didn’t mesh, is the dialogue. Marcus and the others talk like teenagers talk today; if I just read their lines, and had no idea this series was a period piece, I’m not sure I would’ve known it is set in the 80’s. What helps, is that all the characters sound authentic; they are written like teenagers, both in the way they speak and in the actions they take; they want to be cool, and mature, and smart, and Remender has a good grasp on all of their voices. The plot of vol 1 is fast, action packed, and entirely batshit. There were several scenes which I found very effective; the scene with Marcus and the homeless man in issue 2, will probably haunt my nightmares; it’s such a good scene, and it makes Marcus probably the most unlikable and yet sympathetic lead character I’ve ever read. The fight between Marcus and Chico was also great, though I think it goes on for too long, and by the end of it, I was genuinely shocked that Marcus was able to survive, much less move after that much bodily harm. There are chase sequences that are amazing, the art helps make everything so much more engaging and fast paced; I was flipping pages, on the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. The actual story, is a bit muddled and unfocused; issue 1 is Marcus’ life before the school and how he got there, issue 2 is him making friends with some of the other students, issue 3 has him and Willie try and complete an assignment that goes wrong, and issues 4, 5, and 6, have the gang go to Vegas to kill someone, while also tripping on acid and getting chased by Chico. There isn’t really enough time to take in everything, and while I think the book actually does a great job at balancing the action with the character stuff the ending of issue 6 does leave a lot to be desired. Let’s talk about the characters. First we have the two girls, Saya and Maria. Saya is the typical cold, (dare I say tsundere) love interest; she’s a yakuza, has a troubled past and is the reason Marcus decides to join the school. I don’t have much to say about her; I found her pretty bland. Maria was a bit better, in that she has more of a personality. I didn’t like that she was shown to be both manipulative and kind of air-headed, and that her friendship with Saya was that superficial (though again, I suppose that is authentic to how some teenage girls are like). Her confrontation with Chico did illuminate at least a bit of why she’s acting the way she is, but I am really not looking forward to Marcus-Maria-Saya love triangle.  Chico was… a mess. He’s part of a cartel family, is jealous, violent, constantly angry and more than a little crazy. I kind of hated that he got settled with that role, mostly because he’s completely irredeemable. On the one hand I understand why he was angry at Maria and why he tried to kill Marcus, but he kills more people in a single issue than any of the other characters in all the rest of the issues combined, and shows no nuance or remorse.  Billy’s a punk, who I actually liked; he has a subplot about his father that was interesting, though like most things in this series, it’s very over the top graphic, and very on the nose with the storytelling. Billy being a crass character was fine, but the conclusion between him and his dad would have worked better if it wasn’t so dramatic.   Willie I liked the most. Unlike Chico who is just a stereotype of the angry, Mexican kid in a gang, Willie is a subversion of the stereotype about a black kid in a gang. He puts a lot of stock in appearance and reputation, because he has to maintain it, since he’s not actually capable of doing the things everyone thinks he can. I liked his friendship with Marcus, and I’m curious to see what Remender does with him in later volumes. I have to mention “Marcus’ Mortal Enemy”; he was just such an insane character that I couldn’t believe what I was reading. The fact that he goes around calling himself Marcus’ Mortal Enemy, and ‘a sadistic redneck who fucks sheep’ is on a whole other level of tell don’t show (on second thought, please don’t show us this Craig, I beg you). He comes out of nowhere, even though he’s teased here and there throughout the volume, and I’m just so confused as to why he bothered to go to Las Vegas, to then NOT confront Marcus. Speaking of, let’s talk about Marcus. Rarely do I come across such a well-developed and interesting, while at the same time completely unlikable character. Marcus has had a hard life; it’s clear that he’s been through hell by the time he gets to the school, and he has a whole host of problems. He overthinks, he’s anxious, he doesn’t know how to communicate with people, but he’s also incredibly pretentious, and is one of those teens who think they are the smartest and have the whole world figured out. Lot’s of his dialogue reminded me of the dialogue in Trainspotting; fitting since tonally, both are very similar and deal with similar themes. Marcus wants to be liked, is afraid of being left alone, and so he compensates with ridiculous and bad decisions. I hated his ‘romance’ with Saya, though it is in line with his character, and throughout volume 1 he does some genuinely reprehensible and irredeemable shit. I want to know where his character will go from here; even if I don’t necessarily like it. If you don’t mind over the top violence, drug abuse and just the most horrible things humans do to each other, than this is the series for you. It’s brutal, it’s fast paced, the plot is ridiculous, and it has some very interesting things to say about a lot of topics. You just have to get through a lot of trash to get to the good stuff.

goodreads

[ohifonlyx33]

Hey Tori! ^^ What's up? So 3 of my long time shows have come to an end in one month including GoT and it left like a hole... too much at the same time ^^' I'd want your opinion on something. What do you think of that mode/fashion to just subvert expectations of the viewers? and that even against consistency and character development? It's not storytelling, it's crap, it drives me nuts PS: I've seen your tag game, very interesting ^^ (Paris is fine lol) and I could do it but not sure how? ^^' lol

Yeah shows that you get attached to are hard to replace. And it’s especially hard if it ended badly. I joke about being glad GoT is over so that we can be free... because I didn’t like the reputation GoT has for being so traumatic and gory and perverse... but I do feel bad for every almost all of the long-term fans out there who all seem to be upset. 

It reminds me of my love/hate relationship with Smallville. I’m sure I’ve ranted about it before... I quit watching halfway through season 8. And even 2 years later, I was still upset about the finale that I didn’t watch and still mourning it’s descent into a narrative that I found grotesque and distasteful (they all but killed my #1 OTP and replaced it with my most hated NOtp). 

I wouldn’t say all subversion is bad. But there’s a fine line between clever, shocking writing that is actually subversive vs. simply bad, inconsistent writing for the sake of shock value. 

I think subversion should be when you expect the worst and are given something better, more satisfying, or at least more interesting. 12 Monkeys played with subversion from day 1 by setting up the show to be one that ends in a tragedy, but they set up a loophole in order to give a happy ending (and in case some fans didn’t like it, there was a loophole for them to choose the sadder interpretation). 

 Bad subversion is poorly planned, it makes little to no sense, and it blindside the viewers so badly that the viewer feels alienated, betrayed, or disgusted. For instance, AoS hurt me most when they subverted my expectations for the Framework arc to have some glimpse of hope. Everyone praised it, and it was well-planned and mostly well-written... but I hate it because it alienated and disgusted me and had long-term negative consequences. And sometimes writing is so good that even though I don’t like what they’ve done, I can’t argue that it’s altogether bad.

On one hand, a writer owes nothing to his audience because he can only write the story the way he knows how. On the other hand, TV writers are not totally writing in a bubble. They often interact with fans (not to mention the rest of the writing team), and they’ve been developing their characters for so long that you would think they would care about them as much as we do... it’d be nice if they browsed the tags and saw what we would like to see... it’d be nice if they were inspired by bits and pieces of our headcanons (within reason)... but sadly what goes wrong with fandom interaction is too often the need to surprise everyone. Not because the story would benefit from it, but because the audience can’t predict it. They see what we like, what we expect.... and do the opposite. 

TL;DR If you’re not a naturally cunning writer, don’t try to be. Don’t force edginess into your writing where it shouldn’t be.

also, I guess if you wanted, you could just send me the answers to the ask... I just always think that it’d be fun to tag you, but I can’t... so I did anyway... LOL

[coolman229]

Pt 1)Topic: Good character deaths vs bad character deaths? From any show and genre and form of media, whether it’s video games or tv or movies or literature, whether horror or action or drama or sci fi or fantasy etc. What stand outs as examples of how to do it right and when it’s done wrong. When something is done for shock value or when it has a purpose? When someone was genuinely hinted at being doomed or when you get slapped in the face and the story claimed it was planned from the start

but really it was so vague that the writers clearly weren’t bothering to put in a better effort to be subtle about the foreshadowing? Good subversive character deaths vs the lazy ones done for the sake to be “subversive!!!11!1!1”? Good examples of cannon fodder vs bad examples? Respectful and natural conclusions to a character’s arc vs a really bad one and they didn’t obviously think of anything better? Good examples of how to write a character out of a show with death vs lazy ways to write a character out of a show with death? I know you are particular with death and while some deaths I disagree are bad writing for the most part I tend to agree with you 80 % of the time of bad written deaths. Plus I’d love to hear examples of good written deaths too from you! 

Thank you! This is a great topic

[epistolizer]

Religious Progressives Abet Dictatorial Agendas

It could be argued that the United States of America holds an unique position in the world in that for the most part the nation's sociopolitical system attempts to balance the competing needs of both the group and the individual.  This impressive feat is accomplished in part as a result of distinctive foundations such as a constitutional framework of government and the underlying moral assumptions shared by various interpretations of the Judeo-Christian philosophical tradition.  

Without these restraints, eventually this way of life so easily taken for granted would collapse in favor of tyranny or anarchy with it becoming increasingly difficult to tell such extremities apart.   Startlingly, one does not have to expend too much time and effort to find influential voices advocating for the abolition of these safeguards.  Often such thinkers do so from a  perspective claiming to be religions in terms of its motivating orientation or at least on behalf of organizations having accumulated a significant percentage of the largess upon which they operate by appealing to that particular underlying behavioral motivation.

For example, in the 12/30/12 edition of the New York Times, Georgetown University Professor of Constitutional Law Louis Michael Seidman published an essay titled “Let's Give Up On The Constitution”.  In this analysis, an intellectual employed by a prominent Roman Catholic institution advocates abolishing the document upon which the foundations of the governing structures of the Republic rest because of the numerous instances throughout American history in which adherence to the strictures of the document proved too burdensome and in which deviation from proved the expeditious thing to do.  Examples cited include Justice Robert Jackson's admission that the decision handed down in “Brown vs. Board of Education” was based on moral and political necessity rather than any explicitly constitutional provision and Franklin Roosevelt's presupposition that the Constitution was a declaration of aspirations rather than binding possibilities. 

Louis Seidman remarks with the condescension endemic to the professorial class, “In the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim of the Constitution's defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature...  Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped to grow and prosper.”  

The Americans of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry interred during World Wat II might argue otherwise.  Therefore, invoking Roosevelt's admonition that the Constitution is only a set of suggestions rather than an obligation might not be that good of an idea after all.  

In the remainder of his analysis, Professor Seidman attempts to assure the reader that what ensures the continuation of America's fundamental liberties and semi-functioning government (at least in comparison to what prevails in most other parts of the world) is not some piece of paper that would literally disintegrate if not kept under the strictest climate-controlled conditions.  Rather, the proverbial American way of life is continued by what Professor Seidman categorizes as “entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, that sense that we are one nation and work out our differences.”

But without paper the Constitution to keep competing and disparate interests and factions in check within a clearly delineated framework, would what we enjoy as Americans endure for very long?  As examples of what he suggests as viable political regimes that provide civilized structures without relying upon a formalized written constitution are the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

But while these countries might hold hours of endless fascination of the setting of many a BBC drama or picture postcards, are either really a place the average American would really want to live?  To put it bluntly, the population of New Zealand is about as white as the sheep for which that pastured land is famous.  Would that country be able to survive and endure if its population were as varied as the United States with sizable hordes refusing to abide by the values that make a viable society possible?  

In terms of the diversity we are obligated to applaud as nothing but positive or face accusations of assorted thought crimes, the United Kingdom might be more akin to its sibling society in the United States. However, in many profound ways, in this regard Great Britain is nothing to be proud of or desire to emulate.

There swarms from the Third World, like plagues of grasshoppers, eagerly consume the sustenance that is provided like none other.  And like these ravenous insects, significant  percentages of these migrants would rather destroy than preserve the bounty set before them.  

For example, in Britain, instead of exhibiting a little respect and gratitude for being extended the  privilege of even being allowed to reside in such a land to begin with, one Islamist of African origins murdered a member of that nation's military along the roadside and then proudly documented the act by testifying to the atrocity in a video while still soaked in the blood of his victim.  Elsewhere in that same country, others sharing in this same particular so-called religion expect their hosts to accommodate their alien peculiarities rather than for the newcomers to tone these down as any polite guest might..  For example, a number practicing polygamy demanded that each wife be allowed entrance into the country where she is in turn granted additional welfare benefits for each new whelp she continues to push out at a rate that would probably exhaust a tribblbe (the fuzzy aliens  from the original Star Trek that Bones McCoy pointed out were born pregnant).  

In both the United Kingdom and New Zealand, those daring to articulate perspectives against this sort of cultural subversion could be charged with assorted thought crimes on the grounds of racial or ethnic disparagement.  That is because, unlike in America, the United Kingdom and New Zealand have not enshrined freedom of expression as a fundamental right in a constitution, the very thing Professor Seidman cavalierly suggests we abolish in favor of a proposed brave new world.  

In his proposal, Professor Seidman even goes out of his way to address concerns raised by those shocked by what it is their discernment warns he is suggesting.  He assures, “This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands.  Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and ... against governmental deprivations of life, liberty, and property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution.  We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.”  

But if these are not protected by a constitution that exists somewhat to an extent beyond the whims of ordinary politics and expediency, who is to say such niceties should not be abolished or withheld from non-compliant segments of the population when doing so would be convenient.  For example, is gay marriage any longer a “right” should fifty-one percent in a plebiscite or whatever other methods are utilized to determine these kinds of questions in a world where nothing is any longer set in concrete?  

Professor Seidman continues, “Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president's term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses.  Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor.”  Once more, who is to say?  

If there is no Constitution, by what authority does one impose the perspective that such things are hereby settled?  You can no longer point to an article, section, or clause of the Constitution and say, “Look.  It says so right there.”  

Professor Seidman's gentlemanly view of society might be barely functional in a world where most of the population adhere roughly to a similar set of values.  However, such a Western world in general and an America in particular sadly no longer exists.  

There is now within our midst sizable Islamic populations that not only demand their right to practice their barbarous customs but also demand that the rest of us surrender to them as well or face overwhelming violence.  And this is not the only movement seeking to remake America and to eliminate what little remains of that distinct way of life and cultural perspective.  

For instance, no longer is it enough to allow those that derive their deepest carnal pleasures in ways most would be shocked by or not find so appealing to so do so off on their own.  Now, under threat of financial ruination, we are forced to render compelled approval in ways that violate our own convictions and sensibilities.    

According to assorted accounts, Christian bakers have been forced to provide cakes for gay weddings when there were no doubt numerous others willing to provide such culinary services.  Elsewhere, young girls have been forced to look on in horror in the locker or restroom as the person undressing there before them turns out that at the most basic level is still a man no matter how vehemently they attempt to deny nature's manifest construction.  

Given that Professor Seidman is a professor of Constitutional Law, one would think that in calling for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution that he was essentially derailing his own gravy train as Georgetown University professors probably pull in a hefty salary and are esteemed as part of the nation's intellectual elite.

But even if scholarship in traditional constitutional studies were to become an extinct discipline, those such as Professor Seidman convined they are so much better than the rest of us will still think it will be their place to tell the rest of us what to do.  However, it will simply no longer be from the standpoint of a traditional understanding of morality.   This is evidenced by the “New Social Contract” called for by Evangelical Christian Progressive Jim Wallis.  

In classical democratic theory, in a social contract both parties agree to fulfill a delineated number of obligations in order to receive a desired benefit.  This is done from a perspective of self-interest as much or maybe even more so than to meet the desires or needs of the other party.  

For example, no matter how much they claim otherwise and might even pitch in during a time of crisis, the generic big box retailer or even the so-called “mom and pop” shop down the street really don't care one way or the other whether your nutritional needs are being met.  What they really care about and might even be willing to go out of their way to see that your dietary inclinations are satisfied fot is if you are willing to relent to the agreed upon price for the desired commodity.  

Something similar could be said of the individuals and institutions involved in the so-called social contract.  Under that theory, if parties feel that the terms are not being met, individuals are free to look elsewhere for the purposes of finding their fulfillment.  For example, in a constitutional republic, individuals are free to change church affiliations or their religion entirely.  In terms of government, citizens are theoretically free to either change their leaders through periodic elections or the parameters of governing structures through the amendment process.  

Such is not necessarily the case regarding the idea of a covenant.  For unlike the idea of a contract, the notion of a covenant often does not possess the same degree of personal self-interest.  Covenant carries with it the idea of being imposed upon the individual from without by a greater power irrespective of the desire of the individual or that the individual is expected to fulfill certain obligations without expectations of benefit in return.  

For example, a number of such covenants are detailed in the pages of the Bible.  Foremost among these ranks the covenants between God and the Nation of Israel as promised to the Patriarch Abraham.  Although he and his descendants were blessed as a result especially when by living in accordance with these stipulations, it was God that sought this people ought and laid out the terms with little room for negotiation.  

But probably the kind of covenant most are most familiar with is none other than marriage.  Though marriage is usually entered into voluntarily by the involved parties, in a context that honors the institution properly, it can only be exited under the strictest of conditions that would leave the party initially guilty of  violating the binding terms profoundly sanctioned often to the verge of ruination. The notion of contract provides for a way out even if there is a penalty for invoking this particular provision.  

In January 2013, planetary elites met at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.  One of the sessions convened was titled “The Moral Economy: From Social Contract To Social Covenant”.  The purpose of the undertaking was to establish a framework that would foster “(1) the dignity of the human person, (2) the importance of the common good, which transcends individual interests, and (3) the need for stewardship of the planet and prosperity.”  

What's so wrong with any of that, one might easily ask?  After all, each of these things sounds noble almost to the point of being inspirational.  The problem arises in regards as to how these are defined and who does the defining.  

For example, one of the issues harped about the most by a variety of leftists ranging from the filthy slobs of the Occupy Movement all the way to Pope Francis is the need for income redistribution.  So what if the technocrats overseeing the implementation of the social covenant decide to tackle that particular economic perplexity?  

Most people are disturbed by the idea of their fellow man languishing in the deprivations of overwhelming poverty.  But what if the overlords of the New Social Covenant decide that the way to address that is not by sustained acts of ongoing charity but rather through the forced confiscation of what you have earned with the seized resources supposedly directed towards those that really did not earn it but in reality much of it squandered by those administering such an unprecedented global effort.  After all, the Pope has all that art work to upkeep there in the Vatican and assorted U.N. Functionaries like nothing better than to gather at posh resorts in the Swiss Alps or the French seaside to denounce reliance of the middle class upon automobiles while these elites fritter from conference to conference around the globe in private jets.  

Those unable to expand their imaginations beyond the relatively comfortable reality that we at the moment are blessed to enjoy counter that should some sort of global authority move to seize what we have (beyond of course the increasingly exorbitant  tax rates) concerned citizens can use their freedoms of speech and assembly to petition for the redress of their grievances and to raise overall awareness about policies that have expanded beyond the bounds of propriety.  But does one need to be reminded that one of the very first liberties and freedoms curtailed by the social engineers of the technocratic elite is the very freedom of expression that was part of the Constitution that was abandoned earlier in this exposition as part of the reactionary past that was hindering the further development of the human species and society?  

In this pending new world order, the law will not be the only social institution manipulating and conditioning the inmates of the planetary panopticon from exercising what at one time were categorized as individual rights.  For religion in general and what passes for Christianity in particular will be invoked in pursuit of this agenda.  

The foundation of this perspective can be discerned in an editorial published in the July/August 2014 issue of Christianity Today titled, “It's about the common good, not just the individual good.”  According to the piece, the basis of America is not the individual or even the family as the union of two distinct individuals and the children that might result from such couplings but rather the COMMUNITY.  

But if it is the larger group that is imbued with those restrictions upon concentrations of authority known as rights, what will protect the individual when the individual is viewed as nothing more than a malfunctioning cog in the machine or diseased cell in the larger social organism that must be eliminated or his flourishing curtailed over justifications no greater than the COMMUNITY has declared thusly?  The Christianity Today article, in particular, briefly examines the implications of this in regards to children.  Unfortunately, however, this analysis is disturbingly superficial and shortsighted.  

The Christianity Today article quotes favorably of a Robert Putnam (the same sociologist that categorizes you as some sort of deviant if you bowl by yourself) at Georgetown University, “Kids from working-class homes used to be 'our kids'  he said,  Now they are other people's kids, and we expect other people to solve their problems. But young people are our future.  Their problems are ours.”

The Christianity Today editorial realized that the remarks were speaking to the matter of inequality.  In other words, the increasingly leftist Evangelical mouthpiece apparently has little problem in attempting to shame and manipulate you into forking over increasing percentages of what you have earned and saved.  “What, you don't support the progressive income and inheritance taxes?  Why do you hate children and refuse to do your part to usher in the revolutionary utopia?”  

One would hope that the current editors of that particular publication would retain enough of its founders' intellectual heritage to realize that there exists more to life than merely the physical building blocks.  As the such, the phrase “our kids” when spoken in reference to any youngsters other than those you might share with your respective spouse or have adopted as one's own ought to send chills down the spine of any reflective discerning individual.  

For if children are to be seen as “our children” in terms of being the children of a respective COMMUNITY apart from a few basic needs such as minimal food, shelter, and maybe healthcare, what is to prevent governing authorities from intervening to dictate what you can and cannot teach in terms of religious doctrine and morality?  For example, do you believe that belief in Jesus Christ as the only Begotten Son of God and member of the Trinity is the one true faith?    

Well, in the New World Order where the good and preferences of the group come before those of the individual, such an outdated understanding of the ultimate cannot be allowed even if you are an otherwise peaceful individual with no intentions of harming anyone in a traditional sense of that concept.  For the assumption that a source of authority exists outside the uniformity of the group consensus is the seed from which all conflict generates forth.  

The First Amendment is not the only one of the derided and denigrated constitutional liberties endangered by those out to impose the fundamental transformation of America advocated by President Obama and embraced by certain radicals in the name of errant theology.  For if the First Amendment is the constitutional provision upon which our foundational liberties rest, then the Second Amendment is the constitutional provision that attempts to make sure that the robust liberties elaborated in the First Amendment continue to endure.  For despite what even the National Rifle Association has been intimidated into repeating, the Second Amendment is about far more that guaranteeing the right to hunt and participate in shooting sports.  

Rather, the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to recognize and enshrine the idea that each citizen has a role to play in protecting life, liberty, and property against threats to these precious commodities originating from both within and without the borders of the United States.  And yes, as the very last resort after all other alternatives have been exhausted, that may mean solemnly with deliberation and reluctance taking up arms against whatever form the threat may take on the most regrettable of occasions.

But even more importantly, it is the Second rather than the First Amendment that actually serves as a barometer of the health of liberty and freedom throughout this land.  For without a government and civil society that respects the right to keep and bear arms arms as described in the Second Amendment, the seemingly loftier protections of conviction and expression will not endure much longer.  That is because a country or regime that refused to acknowledge the right to protect oneself will eventually not tolerate the right to think for oneself or in a manner not as directed by those holding power.  

Even those claiming to view God as the highest authority cannot resist the temptation of the continuing centralization of power.  This is evidenced in two 2013 issues of the Christian Century.  

The editorial titled “Terror and Guns” examined the issue by comparing the three that lost their lives in the Boston Marathon Bombing to three that lost their lives that same day in acts of gun violence elsewhere across the nation.  From that the editorial made the claim that 30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year compared to the seventeen Americans that lost their lives to acts of terrorism in 2012.

If such statistics are trustworthy, that certainly causes one to pause. But instead of making the case that the extensive national security and surveillance apparatus that these sorts of left-leaning publications condemn when applied to subversives of assorted revolutionary or radical perspectives be abolished, it is insinuated that a similarly heavy hand should be applied to the matter of gun crimes and even firearms ownership.  The Christian Century writes,  “Terrorist threats demand vigilance, and the government has responded by creating an extensive security and intelligence capability...Why can't the nation display the same kind of resolve when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people?”  

As evidence of this lamentation, editors of Christian Century write, “In the case of the Senate gun control bill, a majority of senators voted to strengthen background checks in people purchasing guns, but the 54-46 vote did not attain the 60 votes required in the Senate.  Something is wrong with a process by which a minority can derail legislation that is supported by 90% of Americans.”  

Apparently the editors could not leave their analysis at that.  These propagandists continued, “Many of the votes against background checks were cast by senators from small or sparsely populated states.  Based on population the vote of a senator from Wyoming has 66 times more value than that of a senator from California.  This kind of disparity in political power is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.”  

From that editorial, one would initially assume in terms of the issue emphasized on the surface that the concern would be a vast comprehensive national surveillance system that would determine who would be denied access to firearms.  However, just as insidious is an underlying contempt for the structures of the Republic as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

For the United States of America does not consist solely of “We the people” merely as a singular mass or collective of individuals.  Just as intrinsic to the understanding of this particular nation is “We the people” construed as fifty distinct jurisdictional entities known as states.  From that particular vantage point, each of these is to be viewed as equal to the others in terms of the voice granted in the second body of the national legislature in determining the direction in terms of law and policy that will guide the nation as a comprehensive totality.

From the statement in the Christian Century commentary complaining that the political weight of a Wyoming senator is skewered in that jurisdiction's favor over that of California with its vastly larger population, the logic would conclude that right and wrong are determined by nothing more than majority opinion.  So if we are to apply that principle in regards to the regulation of firearms, the shouldn't the good liberals at propaganda outfits such as the Christian Century allow the principle to be applied to other cultural issues nearly as contentious as those surrounding the Second Amendment?

For example, if most Americans were asked what they really believed without fear of retaliation on the part of the Thought Police, most would probably admit that they are not all that  hip to the idea of gay marriage and certainly not open to the idea of transgenders especially men claiming that they are women as evidenced by their external endowments legally allowed to go into a public restroom where they can in close proximity to actual women and vulnerable children engage in some of life's most personal biological function as well as possibly seek these individuals out as victims to satisfy the most base of carnal impulses.

If a few senators can disrupt the will of the people in regards to one area of life, why should a few jurists  not even as directly accountable to the electorate as these disputed legislators be allowed to impose a perspective at even greater odds with decency and common sense.  For is not the chanted slogan of the ethical Thunder Dome in which the nearly constant social conflict takes place that there are no absolutes?

As interesting is how the appeal to traditional moral authority is only valid when it can be buttressed to  support the preferred sensibilities of the prevailing elites.  This was quite evident in a second Christian Century editorial published about a similar topic on 2/6/13 titled “Of Guns and Neighbors.”

The thesis of that broadside contends that individual rights are curtailed by the good of one's neighbor in Christian understanding.  The editorial states, “In the biblical perspective, social issues are always framed primarily as questions of obligation, not of individual rights: not 'What do I get to do?' but 'What do we owe to God and neighbor?'.”

The editorial demonstrates how this reasoning is applied to the firearms debate by quoting Deuteronomy 22:8.  The text reads, “When you build a new home, you shall make a parapet for your roof; otherwise you might have bloodguilt on your house , if anyone should fall from it.”

So what other nuggets of jurisprudence derived from the Book of Deuteronomy interpreted through the prism of the principle that “social issues are always framed primarily as questions of obligation, not of individual rights...” is the Christian Century editorial board going to come out in favor of?  No doubt this propaganda rag of mainline Protestantism of the Episcopal and Presbyterian Church, USA variety has come out in full blown support of gay marriage.

Without question, it cannot be denied that the Old Testament legal books such as Deuteronomy explicitly opposed the homosexual lifestyle and by extension the agenda advocated by those most enthusiastically mired in these particular behaviors.  Given the ethical standard called for by the Christian Century, is the publication now required to withdraw any support it might have articulated in favor of gay marriage?  The editorial titled “Of Guns and Neighbors” just said ethics and morality are not determined by what we get out of something but rather upon what we owe our neighbor and, even more importantly, God.

As such, if it can be deduced from these texts that God does not endorse unrestricted access to firearms (something that is not clearly spelled out in the texts), shouldn't we at least admit that the only relationship with physical pleasure being one of the foundational cornerstones that God looks favorably upon without condemnation or criticism is monogamous heterosexual marriage?  Those claiming otherwise have ignored the explicit directives of the Biblical text to such an extent that we might as well toss it aside entirely in regards to other issues regarding assorted ideologues desire to render behavioral, legislative, or policy pronouncements.

It is often assumed in Christian circles that the greatest threat to human liberty are often those that categorize themselves as atheist or agnostic in that their hostility towards God is outward and explicit.   However, as has been emphasized in this analysis particularly in regards to the movement to either eliminate or comprehensively alter the understanding of America's most basic constitutional liberties, there are a number of voices claiming to be religious in nature utilizing the beliefs and principles derived from such for the purposes of manipulating those open to the perspectives of this particular social sphere into surrendering the sorts of protections not easily recoverable once they have been surrendered.

By Frederick Meekins