#the thinkpieces how 'its cultural difference!'

[ilhoonftw]

4th gen idols stans are lucky their faves dont have to experience what doni&coni used to make idols do on weekly idol

[yakkety-yak-art]

not to unnecessarily thinkpiece at 1 am (this might be incomprehensible) but i feel its odd when people talk about spock being half human and half vulcan like its completely literal. like somebody just put two legos together and can just separate them or turn one on or off at will. i know that in tos its explained similarly in that way a lot, but a lot of the times when it is it just seems like a more shorthand explanation for the complexities spock deals with culturally and biologically rather than it being entirely literal.

the reason i feel its weird is for two reasons: 1. spock is quite literally biracial and his personal story revolves around that a LOT. leonard nimoy even spoke before about receiving at least one letter from a biracial girl talking about how she related to spock/wanting advice because she was a "half-breed", which to me points pretty clearly to how spock functions as an analogue for multiracial people or someone of a different race and culture living somewhere where they are a minority and have to conform to the majority cultural/racial expectations. spock is treated as too human for vulcans and too vulcan for humans, but this is entirely due to cultural stigma and not because of his actual biology (and even if his biology was extremely divergent from both, that wouldn't justify bigotry anyways). spock is not actually "worse" at controlling his emotions than other vulcans, and is not more emotional than them (vulcans are very emotional, of course, and they are also quite expressive--they just express themselves differently than most humans), nor is he inherently less of a person and more like a computer, to use bones' sentiments, just because he does not emote in ways his human crewmates do. humans and vulcans both treat him as if he is fundamentally deficient, but it's not that he actually is, or that any multiracial vulcan or human COULD be, but that they are so prejudiced that they are making reasons to mistreat him or view him poorly. the only thing that actually makes him fundamentally different from other vulcans or humans is his physiology, because unlike with the current human social concept of race in regards to skin color, vulcans and humans do actually have physical differences as two different races--as in species. but, in universe, this physical difference in spock's case is nearly as minor (in a purely physical sense) as someone having more melanin than another, and is only important to those who aren't himself, his direct family, or his doctors because of the social construct of race.

this also reflects in how spock views himself; he's not cagey about being biracial, and references it relatively often (though mostly only when it's relevant), and seems to feel no shame towards his human mother herself, but he otherwise tends to exclusively racially identify as vulcan and shies away from wanting to associate his own person with humanity. he was raised on vulcan and "as a" vulcan, and aside from his human mother, he has no tangible connections to earth human culture. yet, most of the humans he meets and even his own mother judge him as being an "abnormal" or "deficient" human in the same way that spock's mixed race status is used as a reason to judge spock as being the same, but as a vulcan. spock is just as emotional as any human or vulcan, and acts in accordance with the culture he was raised in, but even as an adult has internalized racism because he considers his emotions inherently human (aka bad and wrong) even though emotions are not traits which exist only in humans, and himself not really a vulcan in some fundamental way, solely because of the racism he's faced since a child. to put it another way, if spock had been raised on earth, with the majority of his influences being in human community and family aside from his father, would he identify primarily as human, or more generally as biracial, rather than just vulcan, feeling some internal shame in regards to that aspect of his heritage and identity? i think it's entirely possible. his differences are largely based in social responses to his existence and cultural differences based on where he was raised.

(to note: i'm not saying it's bad that spock himself identities primarily as vulcan or that he should identify more as human, i'm simply saying that it highlights how much of his racial and cultural identity is directly tied to how he was raised and is treated rather than some inherent biological trait he has because he's biracial. spock is clearly visibly vulcan, which would be the racial minority on earth, so even then he would face stigma related to his race based on his appearance--on vulcan, it stems more from simply the knowledge that spock is biracial, as his family is very well-known and prestigious, rather than looking human.)

reason 2 is also because spock serves as an analogue for neurodivergent people, but in particular autistic people, people who display with a flat affect or otherwise don't react or emote in a "normal" sense, miss or ignore social cues, etc. in fact, generally, spock is a character which many socially marginalized groups and people who feel like outsiders gravitate towards because his situation as sci-fi biracial in an entirely human crew feels familiar to a lot of these people.

so, treating spock like he's literally split down the middle, fundamentally inhuman and invulcan, only halves that can be separated or a switch that can be flipped where he's "more vulcan" or "more human" feels incredibly strange because then...what does that imply about real people who are biracial, or people who are autistic? i'm sure most people don't think too hard about it, but to accept the reasoning of the people being racist to spock is conceding to the idea that something is wrong with spock. that he is two unfinished halves and not one whole, and that he either is one or the other or is in a permanent gray area where his existence is wrong. spock is different, yes, but almost all of the differences outside of his daily bodily functions are entirely because of the concepts of race that other people have. what is that meant to tell someone who's mixed race? "sorry, you'd be normal if you were just one race"? someone who's autistic, "but you're not really a person"?

again, i'm sure many people haven't thought about it that deeply and aren't meaning to imply those things, just as i'm sure plenty of people have probably written nearly identical thinkpieces in the decades since tos aired, but it's just been bugging me and i needed to get it out of my brain. by the time i'm wrapping this up, it's a little past 2 am, and i've tried to proofread this but it might still be a slog and/or entirely incomprehensible. if anyone has any thoughts--whether you agree with me or not, or felt like something in the post could be added to/reworded--i'd definitely be interested in hearing them (like i said, this is almost 100% unoriginal thoughts lmao).

anyways don't become english majors kids it gives you media analysis brainworms.

[saint-starflicker]

On Internet Aesthetics

The YouTube algorithm recommended me Lily Alexandre's video essay about how internet Aesthetics hurt art. I personally enjoy the aesthetics wiki, and I was interested in an opposing viewpoint (haven't watched any of Alexandre's other vids).

I thought some points were fair, for example the collaborative knowledge of internet teenagers misattributing the contributions from people of color to more hegemonic demographics (claiming that the Afrofuturism aesthetic began with Gene Roddenberry), or Lily Alexandre's concern that aesthetics can be used as lifestyle branding that gets people—influencers, content creators, and consumers alike—more concerned with the appearance of a thing rather than the philosophies or power struggles that make a real life real.

Others I thought were off the mark, for example how a third of contributions to the Aesthetics Wiki make no sense. This doesn't bother me, because I think there's something democratic about that: just pop in something like Night Luxe...which I think can be more like a folkloric being, "beware the Night Luxe"...or Coastal Granny, or the one Alexandre was complaining about that had a photo of a model in unripped skinny jeans "grunge" beside a plate of sushi and just Make It Make Sense(!!) why and how does that earn its own separate Aesthetic page on this Wiki??

Nay, I say it doesn't have to make sense, it's primordial information, pop it into the internet cauldron and find out if it sticks, what that means for it to stick, and what it's doing.

If this overall pattern of Aestheticization is a product of post-quarantine culture, scrolling through our smartphones in isolation, making a suffix -core or a collection of media "my whole personality", losing our souls to how organizational hashtags are used by marketers—as Alexandre argues—then, yeah, that can be a thing to ponder.

But I also don't find, even after watching that 40-minute video essay, that Aestheticization is really a new, different and more harmful thing.

If the message was, "Big Corporations have always done this harmful thing that is adapting in the context of Namecore so beware and here's the plan" then I wouldn't be so disagreeable.

But, for example, Steampunk was a genre before it was an aesthetic, and maybe it was even an aesthetic genre in how some people like stimmy tech and corsets paired with boots. There wasn't some Steampunk Manifesto (that I knew of) that told everybody "The Purpose of Steampunk is to take historical aesthetics to actively criticize the impact of Victorian-era colonialism, sexism, discrimination against mentally ill people, and the exploitation of laborers with the growth of factories at the time...and how nothing has changed in those aspects of society in the past two hundred years, so that's bad, and we're rubbing in how bad and outdated are those unexamined attitudes today, and we're doing that by dressing like people did two hundred years ago".

But that nonexistent manifesto was the purpose and meaning that I found in (or made of) Steampunk.

For somebody else Steampunk is nothing more than Goths that discovered the color brown. I'm not being snobbish, I'm saying I love that angle too and I fully accept that that's also Steampunk.

There are thinkpieces out there about how Dark Academia heralds the accessibility of the markers of class that its aesthetic predecessor of Prepsters used to easily conserve/gatekeep ("What’s Dark about Dark Academia?" article by Ana Quiring), and I personally find themes in Dark Academia media that speak more to the hypocrisy of being classically-educated and "civilized" as in image or reputation...but truly hiding a soul-crushing if not outright fatal violence in the prestigious boarding school gilded cage (abusive father in Dead Poets Society, predatory teacher in The Moth Diaries, and I heard The Secret History has a murder mystery set at a prep school so I think there's an appropriate irony there in how violent the heavily-controlled and image-conscious echelon of society can truly get.)

On the other hand, an art movement like Surrealism historically had a manifesto and a community. Salvador Dali with the melting clocks paintings got kicked out of the club for being an antisemitic fascist, while Jean Cocteau with the special effects black-and-white movies possibly got kicked out of the same club for being definitely gay. But both Dali and Cocteau are still considered surrealists by laypeople such as myself. Because of the similar aesthetic.

I'm into Art Nouveau lately. I don't know what philosophy or power struggles underlie it, I might look into it but right now I just think it looks pretty.

When I write about characters in the 1950s, or think about doing art for 1990s characters, then I think about how the aesthetics shows characterization as well as what they had access to. Lily Alexandre described good old days of culture being localized and image being bought at a local store...but I don't find that there's much difference between those good ol' days versus today with Internet Aesthetics in how young people (really, any people, but these characters are mostly young enough to still depend on their parents) engage with self-definition and self-expression. I might not have been alive in the 1950s, but I can believe a tendency towards a full-on prepster look would have communicated something that an imitation of rockabillies or greasers would not.

I don't find the high school clique tropes from the 1980s through the 2000s to be true to life, either, but there was plenty of (age-appropriate, so I was told) angst and prejudice back in the day based on whether you presented as Emo or BoHo or Prep or Hipster.

I disagree with Alexandre's assertion that those subculture-dividing personal limitations were less harmful only because of it also being limited in scope, because of the limitations of technology at the time. Again, I find that Internet Aesthetics are as democratic as internet access, and I find it for free, I contribute to it for free, so I cannot reason that it's more vulnerable to becoming Namecore Capitalism than aesthetics, subcultures, and genre trends always were.

I was recently years old when I read the sentence "90's grunge is not a fashion style, it's a philosophy" and I thought that was the most pretentious awful sentence—but after a little surface-scratching of the ground, it's true. Grunge was a protest against consumerism. I only remember what it looked like on glossy magazine pages when I was a kid in the 90s.

It's not new, maybe some sides of it is tired (Grunge on fashion magazines) or didn't follow through with its best potential (Steampunk as protest), but I'm not quite at "Grr kids these days with their Namecore and their Dark Nautical Luxe Granny Coastal Wave" or more condescendingly "Kids these days don't know they're being exploited" ... I don't know that there's more marketing exploitation in category hashtags than back in the day that we didn't have those. We still had Aesthetics of varying depth and dilution of meaning, but we just didn't call it Aesthetics. So what's really so bad about it now that somehow wasn't so bad back then?

[midrashic]

sorry for the navel-gazing but promoting the idea of--to be totally hokey about it--different strokes for different folks over a clear hierarchy of smart critical media consumers/ignorant masses is actually pretty important to me lmao. because i know at least half of it is the ironic trend of pushing back against self-deprecation and self-loathing with humorous self-aggrandization, but also to some extent people now are just willing to say "oh those people have such bad taste" instead of trying for even a moment to sympathize & understand what might be good about whatever media they've labeled cringe that simply just doesn't appeal to them specifically. (&. to be just a little condescending. there's definitely some truth to the folk knowledge that at least some of that distaste, for some people, is simply because a cringe work is popular.) & on its own that's annoying but not necessarily harmful, but this 100% ties into this new wave of literary-cultural elitism that would've been just. completely shocking to see as a mainstream position ten years ago. ten years ago, we were inundated with thinkpieces about how a canon is coincidence (and politics) and not a quality check, and now we've swung back to "some kinds of stories are for people who hate thinking." it's fascinating and a little nauseating, honestly! if you'd been born ten years earlier you'd be pushing this wall from the opposite direction!

[duran-duran-less-official]

Thoughts on Doctor Who: Survivors of the Flux

If this is Chibnall's Doctor Who at its best, it's still a bit worse than Steven Moffat's Doctor Who at its worst.

Poor episode title. At no point to we deal with the survivors of the Flux any more than we already have been. Less, in fact.

Nobody's motivation for anything makes sense. Why would Yaz and Jerico and Dan travel around the world (on what must surely be an extremely restrictive budget) to figure out the date of something they already know is going to happen? Why would Tec'te'un summon The Doctor to the only place she could continue to do more damage? What are the weird Time monsters (Swarm and the other one whose name I forget) actually trying to DO? Why does The Division have no apparent interest in stopping them until they've already shown up? Why is The Grand Serpent working with Sontarans and why did he take over UNIT?

The "how" doesn't make sense either. How did Yaz et al. escape from that town which was floating on the edge of space? How did they get enough money to travel this far and wide? How do they know where to look? How did some random guy in Liverpool start digging tunnels that stretched through time and space? How did The Division keep two such impossibly powerful entities as Swarm and (I forget) contained in the first place? How did they escape? How did they establish a psychic link with The Doctor? How did The Grand Serpent go from whatever planet he was on to Earth following the Flux? How did The Division contain time itself on a planet and nobody noticed?

Answers to questions we might previously have had don't make sense either. If The Division was hell bent on interfering with people, to what end? Why would they trash the entire universe just because The Doctor was also interfering but in a different way? If the Flux was created specifically to wipe out the universe, why didn't it work? How come entire civilisations survived, but only the three most warlike ones and Also Some Humans? What exactly did The Doctor accomplish by reinstalling the Mouri on Planet Time? Every action taken by the characters just seems so arbitrary.

As it stands right now, we have absolutely no reason to care about any story apart from The Doctor's, because everybody else seems to be dealing with the strange machinations of the Great Serpent (possibly an operative of The Division?) and another Sontaran invasion of Earth, which seem like pretty small potatoes next to the total annihilation of the universe in about 5 minutes' time that The Doctor has to contend with.

The current cultural zeitgeist suggested to me that Bel would be gay and looking for her wife. Having her be straight and looking for a pointedly unmysterious character just means that it appeals to even fewer people because, in addition to wasting audience time completely (Bel accomplishes literally nothing except exposition), it can't even win any progressive points for thinkpieces to fawn over. I cannot express how uninvested I am in her character. You could literally accomplish this arc better by having him do all the pining and have her show up at the end (IF there's a satisfactory resolution in store) and you wouldn't need to randomly shift perspectives or locations or time periods so much.

Speaking of unsatisfactory resolutions, I saw a tweet last week like "I know Chibnall has a habit of dropping the ball on cliffhanger resolution, but he would have to do some serious work to undo the impact of The Doctor getting turned into a Weeping Angel in my mind." Well? It lasted for 2 minutes at most, has absolutely no consequences of any kind going forward, and the Angels themselves admitted they did it for a laugh. Are you feeling the impact now?

Did I mention how difficult all of this is to follow? Good writing usually accommodates a shift in perspectives by relating the two situations in some way, like through parallel developments or showing consequences or even dramatic irony. Not so here. It's neat, for example, that Kate Stewart is back and is the only thing standing between The Great Serpent and full control of UNIT, but her entire story feels wholly disconnected from The Doctor's, and the effects of her story on every other character seem tangential because there's little or nothing to connect her to Bel or Yaz or Mysterious Liverpool Excavator except The Great Serpent's tenuous connection to the Sontarans. This is an issue because it means every time we shift perspectives, we are shifting between a bunch of individual stories which seem to have no connection, and this is very much an issue with the whole of Flux. There's only one episode left before Flux wraps up and we have to wait for the Jodie Whittaker farewell specials, and I have very little faith that any character's involvement in these stories will pay off satisfyingly or tie it into a cohesive whole.

What gets me about all this is that it's still the most ambitious and engaging that Doctor Who has been under Chibnall, despite the egregious flaws, despite the complete lack of ability to write the narrative cohesively, or indeed under any kind of constraint (if Yaz and co. can just go wherever in 1902, or if Dan actually needed a moment to adjust to the concept of time travel before leaping right into saving the world, for example). It's almost thrilling in its ambition, but gets constantly hamstrung by issues that you would imagine should have been ironed out by a semester of Screenwriting 101. The only real plus is that, Bel aside, the pacing is fast enough, and the narrative already overbloated enough, that we literally do not have time for the Random Character Development Scenes where people talk very stiltedly and obviously about their feelings, that have become a hallmark of Chibnall's time on the show. I suppose that's at least one creative restraint.

[levyfiles]

Noting that you wrote a twt thread supporting Watcher for giving lgbt youth just a little tiny fraction of their revenue for reluctantly splashing there shit w/ rainbow aesthetics and they even used a line from Shane acting so weird around a person for saying they're bisexual. Like are you kidding me? Even you didn't find that funny! how can you feel good about yourself? are you that braindead about your perfect Steven?

Ohhhkay. To start off with, congratulations, your ask was the least abusive one lambasting me on this topic so yours is the one I've decided to give a platform to.

So, as someone who has been present with Watcher since their launch, I can attest that I and many others were actively campaigning for pride merch the moment we knew we could make suggestions. When we heard the merch shoot was coming, I and many other fans were thrilled they were finally unveiling a line that was specifically like a love letter to us. We wanted to enjoy the thing we liked while also enjoying the fact that a company loved its supporters right back and knew to express that every other day of the year. Queerness is deeply interwoven in so much of their content, the people they have on as guests, and they, I have said this in my tweet that offended you so, they have queer employees who they are paying well to whom they, unlike most companies, ensure have appropriate holidays and full benefits! And then of course, this calls into question why so many of us are adamant about not forcing people to out themselves in defense of engaging in queer culture and media until such a time that we find it inconvenient?

Let's put the rest under a read more because I got a lot to say.

Secondly, the entire premise of the discourse over rainbow capitalism and its harms is that the companies that are guilty of it are not only conglomerates who with one hand peddle the gay aesthetic during June but with the other turn around and donate to organisations and lobbyists who actively seek to harm and destory the lives of queer people all over the world. Watcher is a company we watched being built from the ground up and watched push through the most devastating year for small businesses because they took care of their employees. During an AMA on their discord, at some point, Katie confessed that she thought she would be out of a job last April but they powered through this and even offered to pay Matt Real for work he was rendered incapable of doing due to the pandemic. This is not even a hugely established company with loads of investors. They have done what they can to keep afloat while also pressing the largest efforts toward making their audience feel included and accepted. It is also a big deal that they work with a supplier for their merch that is not only on board to make the best quality of the Pride merch they can but willing to match their donation. That's a whole 30% of proceeds (some of which go to Gianthugs anyway).

Thirdly, the saying. I would challenge you to actually go back through my old asks and posts about Shane's reaction to Tonya and find where I didn't even find Shane's saying funny. I think the way he said it and the timing of his delivery is in keeping with how deeply he wants his audience to know where he stands and it should also tell you a lot more about how absolutely terrible Shane is at weighing in on discourse next to his cofounders; if I can take us back to some older discourse about Shane's very obvious silence during the anti-asian hate campaign as well as BLM.

Lastly, the Steven thing. Just. Really? I hesitate to engage over this particular brand of hate because it lacks conviction. Moreover the fact that you took a broad leap from your transgression with Shane to try to pin that on Steven is so transparent to me. People will write endless disclaimers about why they're so weird about Steven simply because he's religious and religious trauma is a thing and believe me when I say that I know how that feels as a queer mixed person who grew up firmly esconced in the brainwashing of fundamentalist christianity but then again, I find that more of the prejorative weight of historical harm practiced by the christian church was perpetrated by white colonizers and somehow and in someway people take Shane at face value. It's almost as if the weight of a community's actions can only be demonstrably forgiven with the future actions of their descendents.

Earlier today I saw someone ask one of the people pushing the "Steven is homophobic" campaign that if they really think Steven hates queer people wouldn't that make Ryan and Shane guilty by association and the person actually replied "no because grown adults are allowed to have different opinions than other grown adults even if they're friends with them" which?????? That is the exact reason the twitter teens got so mad at Steven lol I'm reeling. Guys, just do better. Actively interact with nuance please. Step away and afford yourself the luxury of participating in conversations with other queer people that isn't black and white and for god's sake, if your last defense to people disagreeing with you is to cite the way they enjoy fandom as your thinkpiece, maybe you're not really fighting in defense of marginilised people; maybe you want to center yourself in a campaign that makes allowances for you to bully and harrass people.

[volturialice]

I saw your post about you being drunk which is why I'm in your ask. when and how did you get into twilight and did you realize it was problematic when you first read it?

p.s i hope you're home and not planning on driving. stay safe.

thank you anon! (yep, I was home. absolutely no drunk driving for me ever.)

I first got into twilight when I was 13 or so, after my school librarian handed it to me and went "I think you would like this" (I had the world's loneliest 8th grade and spent every lunch period in the library reading like 4+ books per week.)

if I went digging through this blog I could probably tell you the exact date I first read twilight, bc by sheer coincidence stephenie meyer happened to visit my town's bookstore for the eclipse book tour the very next day and while I was packing to move over this past summer, I found the original flyer for that. suffice to say, it was in fall 2007 (it might even have been bella's birthday? I feel like it was.)

anyway, long story short I devoured the first book in a single evening, went and bought the others (and got them signed, because why not) the next day, and spent about a year and a half being really, really into twilight (like many, I abandoned ship around the time breaking dawn came out due to a combination of being shamed for liking twilight and...breaking dawn being an absolute mess.)

at that age I wasn't really active in fandom (with the exception of a few brief forays into manga fandom) so I think I read, like, two twilight fics total and certainly didn't engage in any of the fan communities at the time (side note: if any of you did, I am so interested to hear about your experiences. give me ALL the fandom history tea.)

I absolutely did not realize twilight was "problematic" when I first read it. I was 13 and it was 2007. the language of woke-ness had not yet been widely adopted by our culture the way it has now. I was a feminist and, like, dormant antiracist in the "I think misogyny and homophobia and racism are Bad" sense but didn't really have the tools or understanding to apply those beliefs to situations less obvious than, like, a westb0ro baptist church protest. basically, I had not yet learned how to read critically, much less how to do a paranoid reading and detect authorial prejudice of any kind.

probably the only two things I picked up on at the time were:

1) the brief throwaway line where jasper is like "I was a c*nfederate soldier." I remember reading that as a kid and going "wow, what the fuck. and he's a Good Guy™? yikes, I guess stephenie meyer is one of those people who thinks the civil war was about States' Rights or something. ew." that was probably the only instance where I thought about stephenie meyer as a creator with biases, and about twilight as a creation of its author rather than a death-of-the-author-style self-contained universe. in fact, that might have been the first time I recognized or thought about ANY authorial bias ever, I can't recall.

2) the popular public outcry of "edbella is an abusive relationship." at the time I sort of tilted my head and squinted and could see the point of all those thinkpieces. nowadays I think things are more complicated than that, but it is a critique that can be rooted in good faith and supported with textual evidence, so...sure. it makes little difference to me because I don't think the presence or absence of an abusive relationship in fiction has anything to do with the quality of the story or my enjoyment as a reader ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

but of course there were a zillion other red flags and Problematic elements I didn't clock at all whatsoever. that has been the work of the Twilight Renaissance.

I think it would have been expecting WAY too much of thirteen-year-old me to pick up on all of smeyer's other fucked up prejudices, especially in 2007. learning to critically analyze media is a part of growing up these days, for sure, but everyone grows at different rates and in different ways. I'm not gonna cancel my lonely little middle school self for failing to recognize her privilege, you know? she was doing the best she could with the information she had, and I'm proud of her for that.

[sword-dad-fukuzawa]

Mars Red, Overview (1)

Welcome to the first episode of a series I'm calling "Vampire Anime Slapped Harder Than I Expected, Here's Why" /j. This is just an overview. No spoilers here.

Now, if you didn't know, I'm currently watching an anime called Mars Red. Here's the summary on My Anime List:

In the year 1923, a vampire crisis takes Tokyo by storm. Provoked by the illegal trade of "Ascra," an artificial blood source, the population of vampires begins to rapidly increase within the city. Under orders from Lieutenant General Sounosuke Nakajima, the Special Forces Unit 16 gathers vampires within the military to create a new undercover vampire-hunting unit known as Code Zero. Leading the unit is Colonel Yoshinobu Maeda. Responsible for locating the source of the Ascra trade as well as capturing and killing vampires, he is pressured into producing fruitful results amidst the growing criticism that threatens to decommission the unit. To make matters worse, the vampires within the unit are struggling to grasp their newfound powers and identities now that they are no longer human. With the world at odds against them, the members of Code Zero must find a way to curb the crisis or otherwise fall victim to their own demonic natures.

Now, this summary is technically true. But it's also...I wouldn't go so far as to call it misleading, but it's certainly not indicative of the latter half of the anime or the themes that overwrite it as a whole. Both this summary and the trailer market Mars Red as this battle-type anime, maybe something in the realm of Jujutsu Kaisen or Moriarty the Patriot in production, if not exactly aesthetic.

I expected epic vampire fights, basically. Some good plain fun, maybe a little bit of intrigue. Maybe some hamfisted conflict and self-loathing about "nooo I miss being human, I'm a mOnSTer".

...Does it deliver?

It did at the start, and then it subverted my expectations pretty spectacularly. If you do decide to watch it, it's very much a darker, somber thinkpiece rather than a battle anime. it has a lot of things it wants to say about the relationship between humanity and death (because vampires can't actually die of old age) and the shift from a militarized state to one more peace-oriented. There's a pretty striking metaphor for westernization used in the latter half the anime (thank you to Xue @scalpel-mom-mori for pointing this out to me).

So what's it like, really?

Mars Red is the kind of anime that isn't sanitized for western audiences. It's harder to digest. By sheer virtue of its setting, it's already really deeply entrenched in Japanese history, and rather than rejecting that, it leans into the historical and cultural context. The dialogue has a lot of worldplay in the original Japanese, for example.

And at the same time, it juggles references to a lot of western media. For example, episode one is thematically centered around Salome, a play by Oscar Wilde. So if you're not well-versed in plays (like I am) a lot of references are hard to catch.

Should you even watch it?

YES. See, despite the initial hurdle of cultural ignorance on my part and a sheer disinterest in plays that I've had since childhood, I still love this anime.

I'd say it's because of how clever the writing/direction is (see this post I made about two shots telling a whole story in episode 1), but it's also because the characters are genuinely likeable. They're funny, they have heart, they all stand out for different reasons, and their relationships with each other are written with a whole lot of care.

Like Suwa, for example, who I personally think is one of the best-written members of Code Zero. He could easily have fallen into the trope of "gruff, jaded soldier who hates humanity". And it looks like he falls into that trope pretty early on. He's prickly, kind of a lone wolf, and cynical.

But it's around episode 4 that Suwa starts to be more than just that trope. I couldn't find a clip of it anywhere, but he has this really powerful interaction with a 15-year old prostitute (no, it's not what you're thinking, stop it). It starts here, at 9:11 to about 12:05, and doesn't spoil anything about the plot.

It's my favorite scene from this anime and it's pretty indicative of the overall tone, writing, and direction of Mars Red as a whole. Give it a watch if anything I've said at all interests you, see what you think.

Not to mention, the art is gorgeous, the OP and ED are lovely, and it's a pretty short watch. It's currently got 11 episodes out and will end at 13, so you could binge it in a day if you wanted to.

Anyway. More essays will be forthcoming, though they'll probably be spoilery. It'll be a couple weeks before any of them get published though--just gotta wait for Mars Red to finish coming out. I hope you enjoyed the read if you stuck around this long. Have a wonderful day!

[angela-anaconda-was-a-lesbian]

We’ve spoken time and time again about how Instagram and influencer culture is so incredibly toxic and destructive for young girls of this generation, but one thing that I don’t think anybody has brought up is this: when I was a teenager, I saw countless "very special episodes” of sitcoms/teen dramas about fashion magazines and how they affect teenaged girls, especially in regards to low self esteem and eating disorders. Full House immediately comes to mind, but there are so many others, like That’s So Raven, Lizzie McGuire, and Degrassi. In the Full House episode, DJ is preparing for an upcoming pool party and wants to look like the models in her favorite fashion magazines, so she goes on a crash diet and participates in dangerous levels of exercise. But by the end of the episode, she learns that “real girls” don't look like supermodels and that she’s beautiful just the way she is yada yada yada.

What also became popular when I was a teenager were those thinkpiece videos about photo manipulating that companies like Dove were putting out, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

I remember watching this very video in a health class at school. It showed that models were manipulated and Photoshopped into unrecognizable versions of themselves and that nobody looks like the glossy finished products that you see in ad campaigns. I started to become very critical of media that I saw, especially print media advertisements, and honestly videos like that had a good effect on my overall confidence and body image.

What scares me is that teenagers right now aren’t seeing these messages of perfection from models and fashion magazines. They’re seeing them from their fellow peers on Instagram. I see Instagram accounts of a few normal teenagers right now (they were kids I used to be a camp counselor for) and it’s insane how differently they use social media than they way I did when I was a teenager, pre-Instagram. Every photo is filtered to perfection. Every girl is wearing flawless makeup. All of the poses are slightly suggestive. 

When I was a teenager a decade ago, even the most popular girls in my class uploaded tons of silly pictures to their Facebook accounts, taken on crappy digital cameras that give red eye or on that old iPhoto app, and these photos showed their braces and pimples and hairs out of place. And sure, teens now sometimes upload photos like that, but when they do they put them on their “finstas”, their password-protected private accounts that only a few others can see.

I saw my real peers on Facebook. And while Facebook in the height of its popularity was far from perfect it did show a semblance of the truth. Teen girls nowadays are savvy enough to know that models in magazines are manipulated and Photoshopped, but what about the normal kids that they see on Instagram? They no longer think, “I’m not a Photoshopped fashion model, so I don’t need to look like that girl I saw in Seventeen” and now think “I’m a normal fifteen-year-old girl, why don't I look like that other normal girl from my math class with perfect hair and makeup?” 

This is terrifying to me, that we live in an age now where normality doesn't even exist. And there’s no way any sort of “very special episode” can combat this.

[watcherscrown]

Been having some thoughts on like. Perceptions of generational differences. And how thinkpiece articles try to place this false gen z vs millennial dichotomy on us that doesnt really work, especially in a digital landscape.

But some (especially younger) millenials really lean into this and become defensive at the drop of a hat. And WHY? FOR WHAT? My personal theory is that our generation came up ill-prepared for adulthood and coped by needlessly infantilizing ourselves. ie. Silly baby talk, adulting, joking away alcoholism with wine memes etc.

And THUS there is a breed of 25-35 year old that is so deeply insecure about themselves they cant stand the idea that someone young and cool might make fun of them in passing. They deeply seek the validation of kids to tell them they still have worth and value because they don't have money or kids or other adult things.

Which is wild bc teenagers either: dont give a Fuck that you exist one way or the other, or secretly are seeking the validation of adults and peers. Most teens don't FEEL young and cool. Who the fuck felt cool and confident in high school?? Not me! Probably not you either. Maybe some do but thats not the majority.

So let kids be kids bc its not about what you do or say or wear. It is your age itself that is othering and you attempting to emulate ""youth culture"" isn't going to score you any points. If teens joke about side parts of fashion or what the fuck ever, it's not a personal attack on you and its quite frankly narcissistic and a little pathetic to think that it is.

[oscopelabs]

It’s Arrested Development: How ‘High Fidelity’ Has Endured Beyond Its Cultural Sell-By Date by Vikram Murthi

It’s easy to forget now that at the beginning of 2020, before the pandemic had taken hold of our consciousness, for a brief moment, High Fidelity was back. Not only did Nick Hornby’s debut novel and Stephen Frears’ film adaptation celebrate major milestones this year — 25th and 20th anniversaries, respectively — but a TV adaptation premiered on Hulu in February. In light of all of these arbitrary signposts, multiple thinkpieces and remembrances litigated Hornby’s original text on familiar, predictable grounds. Is the novel/film’s protagonist Rob actually an asshole? (Sure.) Does Hornby uphold his character’s callous attitudes towards women? (Not really.) Hasn’t the story’s gatekeeping, anti-poptimist approach to artistic taste culturally run its course? (Probably.) Why do we need to revisit this story about this person right now? (Fair question!)

Despite reasonable objections on grounds of relevancy, enough good will for the core narrative—record store owner seeks out a series of exes to determine a pattern of behavior following a devastating breakup—apparently exists to help produce a gender-flipped streaming show featuring updated musical references and starring a decidedly not-middle-aged Zoë Kravitz. I only made it through six of ten episodes in its first (and only) season, but I was surprised by how closely the show hewed to High Fidelity’s film adaptation, to the point of re-staging numerous scenes down to character blocking and swiping large swaths of dialogue wholesale. (Similarly, the film adaptation hewed quite close to the novel, with most of the dialogue ripped straight from Hornby.) Admittedly, the series features a more diverse cast than the film, centering different experiences and broadly acknowledging some criticisms of the source material regarding its ostensibly exclusionary worldview. Nevertheless, it seemed like a self-defeating move for the show to line itself so definitively with a text that many consider hopelessly problematic, especially considering the potential to repurpose its premise as a springboard for more contemporary ideas.

High Fidelity’s endurance as both a piece of IP and a flashpoint for media discourse is mildly baffling for obvious reasons. For one thing, its cultural milieu is actually dated. Even correcting for vinyl’s recent financial resurgence, the idea of snooty record store clerks passing judgment on customer preferences has more or less gone the way of the dodo. With the Internet came the democratization of access, ensuring that the cultivation of personal taste is no longer laborious or expensive, or could even be considered particularly impressive (if it ever could have been). Secondly, as one might imagine, some of Hornby’s insights into heterosexual relationships and the differences between men and women, even presented through the flawed, self-deprecating interiority of High Fidelity’s main character, are indeed reductive. Frears’ film actually strips away the vast majority of Hornby’s weaker commentary, but the novel does include such cringeworthy bits like, “What’s the deal with foreplay?” that are best left alone.

Accounting for all of that, though, it’s remarkable how many misreadings of Hornby’s text have been accepted as conventional wisdom. It’s taken as a given by many that the novel and film earnestly preach the notion that what you like is more important than what you are like when, in fact, the narrative arc is constructed around reaching the opposite conclusion. (The last lines of the novel and film are, literally, “…I start to compile in my head a compilation tape for her, something that's full of stuff she's heard of, and full of stuff she'd play. Tonight, for the first time ever, I can sort of see how it's done.”) That’s relatively minor compared to the constant refrain that Rob’s narcissism goes uncriticized, even though the story’s thematic and emotional potency derives from what the audience perceives that Rob cannot. To put it bluntly, High Fidelity’s central irony revolves around a man who listens to music for a living being unable to hear the women in his life.

While Hornby’s prose immerses the reader in Rob’s interior monologue, providing ample room for the character to spout internal justifications of his behavior, the novel hardly obscures or conceals this conclusion. Moreover, the film makes it unavoidably explicit in numerous scenes. Rob (John Cusack) triumphantly pantomimes Rocky Balboa’s boxing routine soundtracked to Queen’s “We Are The Champions” after his ex-girlfriend Laura (Iben Hjejle) confirms she hasn’t yet slept with her new boyfriend Ray (Tim Robbins), but doesn’t hear the part where she says she prefers to sleep next to him. When Laura informs Rob that she did eventually sleep with Ray, Rob completely falls apart. In an earlier, more pointed scene, Rob goes out with his ex-girlfriend from high school (Joelle Carter) to ask why she chose to have sex with an obnoxious classmate instead of him. She venomously informs him that he actually broke up with her because she was too prudish, an abrupt, cruel bit of business we actually witness at the film’s beginning. It was in her moment of heartbroken vulnerability that she agreed to quickly sleep with someone else (“It wasn’t rape because I technically said, ‘Okay,’ but it wasn’t far off,” she sneers), which ultimately put her off sex until after college. Rob doesn’t hear this explanation or the damning portrait of his teenaged self. Instead, he’s delighted to learn that he wasn’t actually dumped.

These are evidently low character moments, one’s that are comedic in their depiction of blinkeredness but whose emotional takeaways are crystal clear, and one’s that have been written about before. My personal pick from the film, though, comes late when Rob attends Laura’s father’s funeral. He sits in the back and, in typical fashion, turns to the camera to deliver a list of songs to play at his funeral, concluding with his professed wish that “some beautiful, tearful woman would insist on ‘You’re The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Me’ by Gladys Knight.” It’s a really galling, egotistical moment that still makes me wince despite having seen the movie umpteen times. Yet, it’s immediately followed by the casket being lowered to the ground as Laura’s sobs ring out in the church. In a movie defined by John Cusack’s vocal timbre, it’s one of the few times when he completely shuts up. From two-thirds down the center aisle, Frears’ camera pushes into Cusack’s face until tears in his eyes are visible, but what you really see is an appropriately guilt-ridden, ashamed expression.

However, none of this evidence carries any weight if your objection to High Fidelity is that Rob suffers no material consequences for his behavior. While Rob is frequently called out for his actions, he is never actively punished. He doesn’t, say, receive a restraining order for continually calling Laura after they’ve broken up or end up alone mending a permanent broken heart because of his past relationships. By the end, Rob and Laura get back together and Rob even starts an independent record label on the side. It’s a stretch to characterize Hornby’s High Fidelity as a redemption tale, but it is a sideways rehabilitation narrative with a happy ending that arises at least partly out of mutual exhaustion.

Those two elements—Rob’s asshole recovery and the exhausted happy ending—rarely seem to factor into High Fidelity discourse. Granted, there’s credence to the idea that, socially and culturally, people have less patience for the personality types depicted in High Fidelity, and thus are less inclined to extend them forgiveness, let alone anything resembling retribution. I suppose that’s a valid reaction, one against which I have no interest in arguing, but it’s somewhat ironic that High Fidelity has endured for reasons that have nothing to do with its conclusions regarding inflexible personal principles and the folly of escapism. Both the book and film are specifically about someone who slowly comes to terms with accepting reality rather than live in a world mediated by pop cultural fantasies whose unrealistic expectations have only caused personal suffering. It’s not unfair to characterize this as a fairly obvious epiphany, but considering we currently live in a world dominated by virtual echo chambers with an entertainment culture committed to validating arrested adolescence, it retroactively counts as “mature” and holds more weight than it otherwise should.

Near the end of High Fidelity, the book, after Rob and Laura have gotten back together in the aftermath of Laura’s father’s death, Hornby includes a chapter featuring five conversations between the couple unpacking the state of their relationship. During the third conversation, Rob and Laura fight about how she doesn’t care about music as strongly as he does, catalyzed by Rob’s objection to Laura liking both Solomon Burke and Art Garfunkel, which, in his mind, is a contradiction in terms. Laura finally admits that not only does she not really care about the difference between them, but that most people outside of his immediate circle of two don’t care about the difference, and that this mentality is indicative of a larger problem. It’s part of what keeps him stuck in his head and reluctant to commit to anything. “I’m just trying to wake you up,” she says. “I'm just trying to show you that you've lived half your life, but for all you've got to show for it you might as well be nineteen, and I'm not talking about money or property or furniture.”

I fell for High Fidelity (first the movie, then the book) as a younger man for the reasons I assume most sensitive-cum-oblivious, culturally preoccupied straight guys do: it accurately pinpoints a pattern of music consumption and organizationally anal-retentive behavior with which I’m intimately familiar. I spent the vast majority of my early years listening to and cataloguing albums, and when I arrived at college, I quickly fell in with a small group of like-minded music obsessives. We had very serious, very prolonged discussions filled with impossibly strong opinions about our favorite artists and records. Few new releases came and went without them being scrutinized by us, the unappreciated scholars of all that is righteous. List-making wasn’t in vogue, but there wasn’t a song that passed us by that we didn’t judge or size up. I was exposed to more music during this relatively short period of time than I likely will ever absorb again. Some of these times were the most engaging and fun of my life, and I still enjoy discussing and sharing music with close friends, but I’m not such a true believer to fully feel comfortable with this behavior. It’s not entirely healthy on its own and definitely alienating to others, and there comes a point when you hear yourself the way a stranger might, or maybe even catch a glimpse of someone’s eyes when you’re midst rant about some stupid album, and realize, “That’s all there is of me. There isn’t anything else.”

This is what Rob proclaims to Laura in the conversation when she tells him she was more interested in music during their courtship than she is now. It’s a patently self-pitying statement on his part that doesn’t go unchallenged by her in the moment or bear fruit in the rest of the novel. Yet, it’s this type of uncomfortably relatable sentiment that goes under-discussed. If High Fidelity will continue to have a life well after its cultural moment has passed, then it’s worth addressing what it offers on its own terms. Near the end of the book, Laura introduces Rob to another couple with whom he gets along quite well. When the evening comes to an end, she tells him to take a look at their record collection, and it’s predictably filled with artists he doesn’t care for, e.g. Billy Joel, Simply Red, Meat Loaf. “'Everybody's faith needs testing from time to time,” Laura tells him later when they’re alone. Amidst Rob’s self-loathing and sullen pettiness, Hornby argues that one should contribute in some way rather than only consume and that, at some point, it’s time to put away childish ideas in order to get the most out of life. It’s an entirely untrendy argument, one that goes against the nostalgic spirit of superhero films and reboot culture, but it doesn’t lack merit. Accepting that some values aren’t conducive to a full life, especially when it’s shared with someone else, doesn’t have to mean abandoning interests or becoming an entirely different person. It just means that letting go isn’t an admission of defeat.

It’s why I’ve always found the proposal scene in the film to be quite moving, albeit maybe not specifically romantic. It plays out similarly in both the book and the film, but the film has the added benefit of Cusack and Hjejle’s performances to amplify the vulnerability and shared understanding. Laura meets Rob for a drink in the afternoon where he sheepishly asks if she would like to get married. Laura bursts out laughing and says that he isn’t the safest bet considering he was making mixtapes for some reporter a few days prior. When asked what brought this on, Rob notes that he’s sick of thinking about love and settling down and marriage and wants to think about something else. (“I changed my mind. That’s the most romantic thing I’ve ever heard. I do. I will,” she sarcastically replies.) He goes on to say that he’s tired of fantasizing about other women because the fantasies have nothing to do with them and everything to do with himself and that it doesn’t exist never mind delivering on its promise. “I’m tired of it,” he says, “and I’m tired of everything else for that matter, but I don’t ever seem to get tired of you.”

This sort of anti-Jerry Maguire line would be callous if Laura didn’t basically say the same thing to him when they got back together. (“I’m too tired not to be with you.”) It’s possible to read this as an act of mutual settling, but I always thought Hornby’s point was personal growth and accepting one’s situation were intertwined. The key moment in High Fidelity, the film, comes when Laura finds Rob’s list of top five dream jobs. (In the book, Laura makes Rob compile the list.) At the bottom of the list, after such standard choices like music journalist and record producer, lies architect, a job that Rob isn’t entirely sure about anyway. (“I did put it at number five!” he insists.) Laura asks Rob the obvious question: wouldn’t you rather own your own record store than hypothetically be an architect, a job you’re not particularly enthused with anyway?

It’s Laura who convinces Rob that living the fifth-best version of your life can actually be pretty satisfying and doesn’t have to be treated like a cruel fate worse than death. Similarly, Rob and Laura both make the active decision to try to work things out instead of starting over with someone else. Laura’s apathy may have reunited them, and Rob’s apathy might have kept him from running, but it’s their shared history that keeps them together. More than the music and the romance, High Fidelity follows the necessary decisions and compromises one has to maneuver in order to grow instead of regress. “I've been letting the weather and my stomach muscles and a great chord change in a Pretenders single make up my mind for me, and I want to do it for myself,” Rob says near the end of Hornby’s novel. High Fidelity’s emotional potency lies in taking that sentiment seriously.

[will-o-the-witch]

Hi, do you know anything about merkaba? I have been avoiding using the shape most people refer to as a merkaba assuming it was closed practice, and I just want to understand how it fits into kabbalah and sacred geometry if there's an entry level explanation, and why non jewish people shouldn't use it if it is closed practice.

Hey there! Only a little- the higher esoteric levels of Kabbalah and Merkabah mysticism isn’t my strong suit. Here’s what I can tell you: 

Merkabah mysticism is its own type of Jewish mysticism, different from Kabbalah but does influence Kabbalah. 

I don’t know much about sacred geometry, but the name for the shape ofc makes me go “hmmm” and I would definitely check out *where* all these shapes are getting their meanings from, because I bet it’s not the only one with a Kabbalistic influence

I am less personally bothered seeing someone wearing a 3d star shape necklace than I am seeing people wear a magen david for “sacred geometry” reasons, like one is a distinct Jewish symbol in our culture, and the other someone could just pick up and think is pretty. 

Again, I don’t really know enough about sacred geometry to speak on it, but Kabbalah is definitely closed and Merkabah mysticism would similarly be closed, to my knowledge. Lots of thinkpieces about Kabbalah specifically have been written so I won’t bog down this answer here, but feel free to send a followup ask if you have more questions about it

Basically TLDR, check your sources and check where the information is coming from at its root. Is it its own unique philosophy, or is it just regurgitated Jewish mysticism with a New Age coat of paint?

[bookcoversalt]

A+ youtube video! I feel like this is a dumb question, but what other sources, exercises, etc would you suggest for a writer wanting to get better at, like, everything you do in that video? I feel like I'm just not intelligent when it comes to writing and reading. I slap down whatever seems fun and I'm sure it makes for a bland story full of stupid plot holes and everything you talked about, so how does one get better at dissecting this stuff and...writing/reading intelligently?

Thank you so much!! There’s a tendency to consider analytical people just “smart”, as if the observations they make come naturally to them. But that super isn’t true: being thoughtful and critical about media, like drawing or writing or playing a sport or learning an instrument, is a skill that you pick up by absorbing reference, learning the language of the art form, and then practicing replicating it through your own perspective.

ABSORBING REFERENCE

My two biggest critical inspirations are Lindsay Ellis, a video essayist who covers film and culture, and Film Crit Hulk, a screenwriter and movie critic, and I’ve been consuming their work since I was 15. (I’m 25 now! that’s a wholeass decade.) I've picked up many, may other sources along the way: other video essayists, pop culture commentators, TV critics, spirited roasts of 50 shades of gray, actual “writing craft” books and blog articles, long goodreads reviews of books I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the flaws on, funny booktube reviews, even “anti” posts. I read “how the last season of game of thrones went the fuck off the rails” articles til my eyes bled, not because I cared about game of thrones, but because there was so much good, insightful reporting being done on How And Why A Story Fell Apart.

LEARNING THE LANGUAGE

Not all of this is good or useful. There’s a lot of bad faith or shallow criticism out there. The cinemasins clickbaity style of nitpicking “plot holes” or penalizing a work for the mere presence of tropes without regard for broader artistic intent and cultural context is particularly insidious and should die. The people who think twilight is stupid because it has sparkly vampires are missing the point. A LOT of people critique YA in particular from a place of bitterness or bias or misplaced expectations (and so did I, to some degree, for a long time. I’ve worked really hard to grow out of that, I hope). But the point is to seek out content in this vein-- not what I consumed necessarily (I would not wish that many GOT thinkpieces on anyone), but stuff that interests you. The more of this you mindfully consume and the more perspectives you collect and compare, the more context you’ll have for what’s being discussed and the more you'll naturally start to form your own opinions on it. You will learn, slowly, by osmosis, to pull what strikes a chord with you from the noise.

REPLICATING IT THROUGH YOUR OWN PERSPECTIVE

The cool and fun part is that to some extent, your brain will start doing this on its own. You’ll read a book and you'll just notice more. You’ll call plot twists faster, or be more cognizant of the pacing, or connect dots you might not have otherwise connected. You’ll see the logistic scaffolding in your own work more clearly and you’ll be more aware of choices you’re making subconsciously. You’ll recognize thematic hypocrisy or worldbuilding inconsistencies and have the language to name them.

And you’ll also have the tools to explore your less clear-cut, more emotional reactions to art. And this is the most important but “hardest” part of this: sitting with vague feelings and unformed thoughts trying to suss out what’s at the heart of them and why, using your hard-won critical “training” and your contextual knowledge.

I like to frame them as questions:

Why did the end of [book] feel disjointed? Why didn’t I connect with the main character in [book]? What really resonated with me about the plot of [book]? Why does [character] appeal to me more than [other character]? Why does [book]’s use of [theme] make me uncomfortable?

Sometimes it comes down to just preference or subjective taste, and that’s fine and good to know. But more often than not, you’re reacting to something concrete that can be identified: 

The ending of HOUSE OF SALT AND SORROWS feels disjointed because it comes out of nowhere and has nothing to do with our heroine’s efforts in the larger story. I didn’t connect with the main character in HEARTLESS because within the context of the worldbuilding, her choices didn’t make sense. What really resonated with me about the plot of UPROOTED is its thematic coherency. The Darkling appeals to me more than Mal because the villain romance power fantasy aspect of the series is better fleshed out and ultimately more rewarding to read than the love story of two flawed teenagers. ACOWAR’s use of trauma and recovery makes me uncomfortable because it ceases to be a sincere element of anyone’s arc or characterization and becomes yet another tool to make Rhys look like the best and coolest and wokest fae boyfriend.

Pulled from an old Captain Awkward article, this is something I have in a sticky note on my desktop as sort of a criticism guide: 

One of the things we try to do is to push past “I liked it”/”I didn’t like it” as reactions to work. What is it? What is it trying to be? Is it good at being that thing? Was that a good thing to try to be in the first place? Did the artist have a specific agenda? How did it play with audiences at the time? Does it play the same way now? What stereotypes does it reinforce/undermine?

Even if it’s only for your own personal growth rather than intended for an audience, I recommend putting burgeoning critical thoughts or questions you’re trying to “work through” down in writing somewhere: goodreads reviews! tweets! blog posts! spamming your group chat! Even just a private word document. The synthesis of thoughts into written content forces you to identify and choose a specific articulation of your idea(s). If it’s in a pubic or semipublic forum, you’ll also be able to see which of your ideas resonate with other people, and that can (isn’t always, but CAN) be useful information as far as having an external barometer for when you’re onto something.

And then..... you do that a bunch of times in different ways for many years, with a lot of different books and movies and games and whatever else. Like any other skill, you will get better the more you do it. (Again: I have been doing this for ten years now, and it still took me three months to write that video script. Forming nuanced, informed opinions and then articulating them coherently is hard.)

As kind of a footnote tip, seek out peers who have the same goals and feelings, and try to connect with them! Lots of my current internet friends found me back when I was posting on my personal blog about problems i had with THE SELECTION or RED QUEEN and we bonded over having similar opinions and being in similar places in our writing/ reading/ careers. These people now beta read my scripts and posts and help me brainstorm or refine ideas. I strongly believe that creatives (and critics) do their best work and grow the most within a network of support and feedback.

But also, in regards to creative writing in particular, i want to be clear that having fun is the most important thing. I absolutely think creators need analytical skills to improve their craft, but without the enjoyment of doing the thing at the core of it, there is no craft at all. If you have to choose between the "smart” thing and the fun thing, choose the fun thing. Tbh, if you’re worried your work is bland, analysis probably isn’t the solution--  figuring out how to have more fun is the solution. And letting yourself lean into the stuff that’s wild and awesome and so incredibly you that it sets you on fire to write is a skill of its own :)

[path-of-my-childhood]

Why Taylor Swift's 'Reputation' Is Her Best Album

By: Joe Lynch for Billboard Date: August 22nd 2019

Back in November 2017, Billboard celebrated Taylor Swift's singular pop catalog in the days leading up to the release of her sixth LP, Reputation, by asking five writers to argue for one of her five studio albums as her best. Now, before the release of her seventh album Lover, Billboard's Joe Lynch takes on Reputation itself, and how the album was misunderstood upon release but has since revealed itself to be her most mature, accomplished work to date.

You don't really expect a Taylor Swift album to open with a fuzzy, fat bass line that nearly rumbles the teeth out of the back of your mouth. Which is why when her sixth album Reputation opened with the maximalist industrial pop of "...Ready For It?," casual listeners were confused, Swifties were challenged, and haters were given a bounty of fresh ammo.

And that was exactly what she wanted.

When Reputation arrived in 2017, the media was neck-deep in an exhausting thinkpiece war about what Taylor Swift meant to pop culture – and Twitter was aflame debating whether she was a saint or a snake. Realizing she could no longer choose to be excluded from these narratives, Swift did the next best thing: She owned them. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose, and by the time Reputation arrived, Swift was ready for real risks.

Think she’s a treacherous viper? Taylor’s not arguing with you - in fact, she’s hissing and poised to strike on lead single "Look What You Made Me Do." Wanna call her a fake? Turn your eyes to album opener “...Ready For It?” for proof, where she slithers into the skin of Goth Taylor, fresh from a trip to Hot Topic. As if to double down on accusations of inauthenticity, she morphs into Trap Taylor on the album's second track, "End Game." Not only did Swift rap, but she invited soft-rock torchbearer Ed Sheeran to spit next to one of the genre's guiding lights, Future. This wasn't just a creative risk - it was Taylor giving harshest critics a hand-wrapped gift and daring them to come after her.

Of course, if Reputation had been one stylistic detour after another, it would leave you with whiplash. In truth, the album openers are sonic red herrings - the Old Taylor wasn't quite as dead as she'd tell us on that lead single. Most of Reputation caters in reflective synth-pop that isn't a far cry from 1989: the lilting "Delicate," the coyly seductive "Dress" and the playful "Gorgeous" are far more representative of the overall LP. And while the tone is darker, the machine-precise hooks and indelible choruses from 1989 and Red return on Reputation, too. Are the peaks quite as high? If we’re talking karaoke sing-alongs and wedding dance floors, no - the best cuts on those two K.O. Reputation's highlights. But while those albums are fixated on love and loss, Reputation sinks its teeth into something far more interesting: the thrill and purpose of an artist hellbent on freeing their mind from the expectations of others.

Admittedly, part of Reputation's genius lies in context - you need to know the public image battle that preceded it to fully appreciate the maturation Swift shows as a lyricist. While some bemoaned the loss of Swift the Poignant Couplet Composer starting with her shift to straight-up pop on 1989, the truth is that Swift's deft turns of phrase never disappeared - it's just that we're preconditioned to privilege lyrics when they're paired with acoustic guitars vs. synthesizers. Which is a shame, because on Reputation, Swift's words deliver vivid Polaroid shots directly to your brain: "The ties were black, the lies were white"; "We can't make any promises now, can we, babe? But you can make me a drink"; "I bury hatchets but I keep maps of where I put 'em"; and "Please don't ever become a stranger whose laugh I could recognize anywhere."

More important than her pen remaining pointed, however, is the fact that for the first time on an album, Taylor sounds like an honest-to-god human. She's been brilliant since Speak Now, but there's a difference between intelligence and emotional intelligence. On Reputation, Swift has finally realized that being right or getting the last word isn't the most important thing. You might be the messy one, the lost sheep, the sinner, the seducer. A real grownup can acknowledge that sometimes, they are the bad guy (a lesson Billie Eilish was clearly taking notes on throughout). And as long as that isn't your entire existence, that's fine.

When she gets deliciously petty on "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things," you don't get the sense that she thinks it's justified – but she's relishing playing the part of an asshole for a minute (perhaps not coincidentally, that's a role the song's presumed target famously toasted back in 2010 when she was still concerned with presenting as Best In Class).

But the real crux of the album is found in "Gorgeous," which sees a frisky Swift romanticizing her drunken attempt to cheat on her boyfriend because a dangerously attractive stranger has entered her field of vision. A stentorian moralist might lash her for abandoning the mantle of 'immaculate princess' in favor of becoming a tipsy twentysomething torn between cheating on her partner or cuddling her cats, but one is a hell of a lot more relatable than the other. She's acknowledging that stumbling, both physically and morally, is part of life. Her motivations here are muddy and a little embarrassing - and never before had Taylor Swift sketched out such a fully-formed, fallible version of herself in a song.

And that's what makes Reputation the most mature, fascinating and ultimately satisfying release from Swift so far. Prior to this album, you might describe her songwriting as "romantic," "longing," "poetic" - all wonderful things, but adjectives you could readily apply to many celebrated songwriters. Not so with Reputation. Here we have a top-tier talent embracing her contradictions, acknowledging her flaws and refusing to let you judge her. In terms of pop music, moral grey areas are rarely painted in such screaming color.

[rosyr]

i wrote part of a tumblr thinkpiece on the appropriation of ebonics (aave) and how its different from the general (and natural) phenomena of cultural mixing because of its history of power dynamics and stripping of cultural legitimacy by whites and never posted it because instead i turned it into a major research topic 🤷🏽‍♀️

[harlequinchaos]

I make sexual jokes more than just about anyone I know, I also tend to push the idea to the extreme a bit, almost to the point of making people uncomfortable. Well actually, definitely to the point of making people uncomfortable, but never in a malicious way. I never intend to offend, only to get people to expand their way of thinking, which coincidentally, often offends people.

I personally​ find the subject of sex very funny, but that's really all it is to me, a joke, and I think its important to make it less of a taboo, and by sharing increasingly sexual or taboo things in a comedic light, and seeing people react in a positive way it really does that.

But something that makes me feel worried for some reason, is sharing all the nuances about gay culture with my straight friends and family. I love seeing their reactions because a lot of the time they're reacting to something they'd never even considered​ before and it blows their mind, and most of the time they react positively, sometimes they're grossed out which is fair, but also get over it? But, I don't want them to just think that our way of living is just 'a dirty joke'. I want them to put themselves in our shoes and relate to it as we do (because the best comedy comes from something you relate to).

And I mean personally I'm somewhere on the asexual scale, and I usually​ define myself as demisexual, which means to only experience sexual attraction towards someone you have a strong emotional connection with; which is mostly true? But I definitely see guys and imagine having sex with them, and definitely watch porn like just about everyone​ else. I guess the idea of sex I'm fine with, but in actuality I'm not a fan. Which, the concept of how prevalent society is on sexual culture is a TOTALLY different thinkpiece than what I was going for, and I'm already derailed but that's my... commentary? for lack of a better term?