#the validity of communal morality really is the question that stirs

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Hey, just wanted to say I love reading your analysis and thank you for being a ‘pioneer’ in TOTK critique on tumblr haha. Lately I started seeing more criticism videos popping up on youtube that are solid, but your analysis is still much more detailed and presents original and valid points. You really helped me to define and put down into words some subconscious feelings that I had about the game. I feel really bad for you (but not in a pitying way) when I see blogs like ‘zeldadeservesabreak’ who come at your analysis skills and are just so unreasonably rude unprovoked (aside from being just factually incorrect at times).

My theory is that it’s their maturity. My theory is that this happens because there are younger fans of the series who seek to have a deeper analysis and discussion about the narrative and aim to sound like a worthy debate opponent who is certain about their position and due to beginners confidence and inexperience in debate come off way too strong. Another small point to add, it peaks my curiosity seeing such devotion to a corporation (Nintendo). I ‘technically’ know why and how it happens, but I’m still always surprised to see someone being so devoted to defending and speaking for Nintendo.

Just wanted to assure you that there are us who greatly appreciate you sharing your thoughts and STILL engaging with questionable Asks after this. I wait for each post or reblog with anticipation and will share your blog with my friends as soon as they finish TOTK as they were really intrigued by the imperialist Rauru depiction. On the other hand, please don’t feel pressured to continue posting if it all gets too much at any point! Thank you for reading all of this if you did! Sorry for any mistakes and poor vocabulary, English is not my native language.

Hello!

Thank you so, so very much for this very kind ask. <3 And I'm sorry it took me a little long to get around to it, I am sick and my brain is not very cooperative. :(

I am really glad to know that there are more conversations happening outside of this little sphere. I scoured for these criticisms on Youtube in the first month and then pretty much gave up when they weren't coming up. I'm glad the conversation is widening, and I hope it keeps on happening over the years --not to hurt the game or its community, but just to encourage critical thought for one, and also just so Nintendo does a little better next time.

It might be maturity, but I am not... How do I put it. I don't think it is so much a question of age or even life experience than it being a question of, well, willingness to see yourself get destabilized a little bit. To me, a lot of the hostility that I've seen directed at these kind of theories are often extremely dismissive of the place they come from; they assume either overzealousness ( = you are seeing problems where there are none for ??? profit??? or just to pretend that you are morally purer than everybody else, which is a statement that never once looked like projection), confusion ( = don't you see the game tells you that this is good and this is bad ?), or bad faith ( = you are here to stir trouble for no reason, you are a troll). Very rarely do they actually engage with the arguments, but rather with the aesthetic quality of it; the way it rings to their ear, the way it is presented, and the intent they assume that led to these arguments being made in the first place. The best counter-arguments I have heard thus far who actually take what is being said into account can either be boiled down to: "I see your point, but it just doesn't bother me that much because of X, Y and Z who really touched me emotionally and I got invested in that (which is great and super valid in my opinion)", or: "I think Nintendo just didn't think about the effect of this decision and the way it weakened what they wanted to do, but I think the overall story of what they wanted to say overrules the way they achieved it, and I prefer focusing on the first rather than the latter (which is also completely legitimate)". I have not, so far, seen a better rebuttal than: it does not bother me personally for X or Y reason, but I am not denying that these might be problems to somebody else.

But yeah. It is the childhood, it is the safe space, it is good and uncomplicated, and so anything that hurts that wonderful piece of innocence that remains must be there with bad intentions. I assume this plays a huge role in the Nintendo Protection Squad, even when the criticism is honestly pretty mild all things considered.

(Also, if I may and as I close this subject: I think this is pretty interesting how it's only unreasonable to ask for a stronger narrative. If the combat had been subpar in TotK, I would not have cared that much personally honestly, but I'm pretty sure a *lot* of people would have complained and been extremely pissed at that, and this would have been an acceptable complaint to have --like the lack of dungeons was an acceptable complaint to wage against BotW. I don't think a great combat system with a lot of variation in approach is particularly more "the spirit of Zelda" than a simple, solid and well constructed story, but a lot of BotW players would probably disagree. Which is fine, the series is evolving, new standards are introduced! But why is this one the only standard that seems to be a reach too far, an unrealistic demand, something that *should* stay a non-priority even though it once clearly was one? Gamers and their approach to storytelling will forever perplex me honestly, which sucks given it's my job but whatever, you make your own hell etc)

But yeah. To be honest, I think a lot of people who don't really understand the "imperialist argument" do not lack for media literacy or analysis or maturity (I kind of am super tired of people throwing the "you have no media literacy!" at each other while never defining what they mean by that or never actually discussing what they actually disagree about), but maybe they do lack a little bit of political culture; especially culture about political communication. Which makes sense not to have or focus on a lot when you play a Zelda game, so. It's fine. vOv

It also does not escape my notice how a lot of the reticence to accept criticism gets the most virulent around the portrayal of power dynamics and race; even though I don't think any progressive fandom faced with a story that could be boiled down to "the good kingdom of the blonde, petite, blue-eyed heroes is invaded by a huge evil man from the desert with very racialized features who forcefully rules his all-women warriors in harem garbs" should bat an eye when some people say this sort of premice makes them uncomfortable and so should be handled very carefully, especially given the global rise of fascism, anti-immigration, and deadly islamophobia everywhere right now. It boggles my mind that this is even considered a controversial statement.

Like, discussing the shade and depth of Rauru's goatman *fur* as a way to counter the criticism that what birthed the character of Ganondorf is 5 racist tropes in a trenchcoat and should be navigated with more care than this is 2023 is so... deeply unserious to me. You know, sometimes things are a little iffy and can be acknowledged as such and then you can still like the Thing and it's fine, you don't even have to engage with the parts that make you uncomfortable, it's fine it's fineee.

But no need to worry about the effect of these kind of interactions on me, though it is very sweet to do so! <3 Let's say I'm not going to bed every night worrying about my critical thinking skills, my media literacy, or wondering whether or not I understand interactive narration haha

I am a little tired of talking about TotK in general tho, to be fully honest. I feel like I've kind of scraped the bottom of my takes, and I don't have a lot more to add --so the asks will probably slow down just by virtue of not repeating myself eternally, and wanting to extract myself from some of the discourse happening (also I just don't care enough about the game to put this much energy into it, it was never really meant to happen I just started receiving tons asks for some reason??? (thank you all!! it was really an Experience!!!! but thank you!!!) and then I replied to them, and then that got me more asks, etc etc, but yeah I never planned to talk about TotK that much haha)

But thank you so very very much again!

[cadisflya]

i love ur portrayal of will! he stays true to his duality of fascinating and somewhat doesn't deserve this shit but also rancid.

that really is the balanace tho—the heart of the horror. will is, at his core, a rancid little bastard. he is also, at his core, someone who feels a powerful protective urge over the vulnerable. he wants to punish those who abuse their power over vulnerable people, especially those who betray the basic principle of not punching down. that is, in itself, a heroic impulse. the PROBLEM is that will graham believes that /his/ view of the world is singular, and his self-imposed ‘non-humanity’ makes him a thing who stands outside of humanity, and he believes that /his/ understanding of who does and doesn’t deserve punishment is really the only understanding that he genuinely values despite the fact that he is perfectly able to understand the conceptualizations of others.

we call will an ‘empath’ and yea conceptually, theoretically, that is true. he is able to conceptually cognitively empathize with almost anyone because his imagination is so strong and his natural and educated insight so remarkably keen—but the fact that he can understand and even emotionally reconstruct the experience of others doesn’t mean he actually values those experiences and it doesn’t make him a decent person. empathy is not inherently sympathetic and it’s not inherently altruistic, either. the only other perspectives he honestly cares about are those of the people he considers dear to him who are people in which he identifies elements of himself. hannibal, alana, abigail, bev and margot to a less intimate degree. a lot of time this value is actually a recognition of self, and the pieces of himself he sees in others are what he identifies as valuable—that’s a basically rancid concept if you really analyze it, but we all do it, and it just happens to work out that because he has felt vulnerable, he identifies with the vulnerable, and what’s to punish their abusers. that’s righteous, and poetic, and makes him an appealing character.

problem is that, in order to punish those abusers, he wields the exact same tactics that those abusers think are ‘theirs’, he weaponizes the manipulative tactics people have tried to use against him, and he is willing to manipulate those he wants to protect in order to protect them. AND he still considers himself ‘outside’ of others and, thereby, above them. it’s why angels are monstrous, why monsters are monstrous. he feels communally with hannibal who employs his own form of righteousness that is simply based on different value perceptions. rancid value perceptions, rancid in ways that he is also rancid and in some ways that he’s not. we say again y’all, it’s all a matter of taste. that’s the crux. you cannot attempt to moralize those who act outside of communal morality. will is bad. hannibal is bad. there is no argument that will make them good. this is all still poetic, sure, but it’s why it’s horror. it’s horrible. because we have to say ‘damn you are rancid but you also move me and sometimes you kind of make sense’, when we see margot and alana murdering their abuser we say ‘hell yeah’ even though, objectively and by the communal values of society, it’s horrifying. because it’s both horrifying and not, it’s both terrorizing and absolutely righteous. the isolation and prioritization of one perspective over another is the way that the person constructing the narrative manipulates the way the narrative is perceived, and the show is a masterclass in that. trying to moralize will graham means you’ve fallen victim to that narrative. will is a murderer, point blank. he’s also a bitch, point blank, like he’s mean. what we see in him is the part of us that has been raw and vulnerable and vicious, and that’s a human part, too, and being moved by that vicious righteousness and its otherness, wanting to justify it, is what makes horror such a fascinating genre.

[kyloren]

Why Reylos Are A Bright Spot In The STAR WARS Fandom

It’s impossible to parse all of this out or to really say who’s “right” or “wrong” or what “right” and “wrong” even mean in fandom spaces. From my vantage point, the Reylo community is one of the more forgiving and accepting out there. It’s comprised of not only women, but plenty of men and non-binary Star Wars fans, from different races and orientations and experiences. And that’s true of any shipping community. In a fandom as large as Star Wars, there should be room for all of us to express joy or grief or surprise or disinterest in our cultivated spaces. It’s how we all choose to cross-pollinate that could use some work.

But Reylos aren’t deserving of the intense condemnation that comes from larger voices in the fandom. The ridicule feels specific and exclusionary, and rooted in gatekeeping sexism. Comparing them to the Fandom Menace is ridiculous. That group created blogs dedicated to roasting journalists, creators, and fans. Meanwhile, the Reylo community (along with Ben Solo fans) poured much of their frustration and sadness over The Rise of Skywalker into an act of good, by raising money for Adam Driver’s charity, Arts in the Armed Forces. How much money? As of this writing, over $76,000, more than double the charity’s fundraising goal for an entire fiscal year.

full article below the cut:

Why is romantic love such a controversial thing in fandom? It’s something I ask myself a lot, as a person who writes about shipping and who desires the kind of love that stories tell me might exist. I’ve spent most of my life in fandom spaces—participating in conversations or observing and examining them—and have witnessed firsthand how objectionable fictional romance can be, especially in fandoms that appeal to and target men. Why is this the case, and why is romance a thing we use to punish women looking for escapism in genre stories?

It’s hard to say, but it remains an endemic and undeniable strain. Shipping, which is fandom code for wanting two characters to be together, is often snickered at or seen as some frivolous element of appreciation. It can lead to shaming that feels personal and accusatory, as if your interest in a fictional relationship is a roadmap to your own intentions and experience. This attitude towards shippers is especially present in the Star Wars fandom, where the relationship between Rey and Kylo Ren is steeped in a seemingly never-ending controversy. There are fervent supporters of the romance between these characters, a plentiful contingent of opposers, and those who don’t really care one way or another but still seem fit to criticize.

Why has the “Reylo” ship created such a stir? Let’s dig into this subset of the Star Wars fandom: where it started, why it’s accumulated so much negativity, and why the Reylos don’t deserve the bad reputation they’ve acquired, especially in the wake of The Rise of Skywalker.

THE ORIGINS OF REYLO

The release of The Last Jedi was a rough time for a lot Star Wars fans. The film—the eighth in the Skywalker saga and the second in the Disney-era sequel trilogy—made a lot of bold storytelling choices, which divided the fandom into camps. Those who loved the meditations on the Force, Luke Skywalker’s troubled hero’s journey, the complicated characterization of Poe Dameron, Finn and Rose’s failed mission, and the strange developing bond between Rey and Kylo felt at odds with anyone who saw otherwise. Many disliked Luke’s arc, or the apparent sidelining of Poe and Finn, or the democratization of the Force. The disagreements spiraled into something bordering collective mania. It’s a debate that still rages today, and that seeped into the conversations we’re currently having about The Rise of Skywalker.

I loved the movie, but found the discourse numbing. Positive Twitter conversations were instantly marred by detractors, and every passionate argument was upended by accusatory nitpicks. I felt discouraged from participating in any of it, and I felt bitter towards the Star Wars community in general. Until I found the Reylos.

After stumbling on podcasts like What The Force?, Skytalkers, and Scavenger’s Hoard—all female-hosted programs—I realized there were plenty of encouraging conversations about The Last Jedi happening in fandom. I also realized most of them were Reylo-oriented. Suddenly, I was exposed to the exact conversations I always wanted to have about Star Wars: deep dives into mythology, redemption arcs, symbolism and dualism, religion, poetry. And all of that was encompassed in Reylo. All of these larger stories, focused through these characters joined by fate and purpose, who represented opposing ideologies of the Force.

There was so much to dig into. Rey and Kylo have a classic enemies-to-lovers storyline, a romantic trope seen in fairytales like Beauty and the Beast, classic literature like Pride and Prejudice, mythological stories like that of Hades and Persephone, even modern genre television like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It’s typically used in women-oriented storytelling, as it affords duality and compassion to both parties; a distribution of power that makes the women as complicated, compromised, and interesting as their male counterparts. Rey’s interest in Kylo adds a layered intrigue to a character otherwise patently “good” and “pure,” words commonly associated with women, forcing them into palatable, antiquated gender roles.

Their relationship feeds a part of the fanbase who craves that kind of female protagonist. One who represents their own burgeoning lust, complicated compassion for the men they chose to care about, and temptation towards things we’re told to fear. Through the Reylo relationship, Rey took on another angle, one that finally made Star Wars feel like a story for me.

THE BACKLASH

I also learned right away what it meant to be a Reylo in the Star Wars fandom. The relationship between the light-sided Rey and dark-sided Kylo was riddled in turmoil. In The Force Awakens, a scene where he straps her down and interrogates her is considered by many to be abusive. The language Kylo uses to seduce Rey to his side in The Last Jedi is also seen as manipulative and problematic. He tells her that no one knows her like he does. In their opinion, he’s attempting to groom her to his standards, to turn her into what he wants against her own will. Those against the relationship will tell you that it’s a dangerous and negative message to send to young girls.

And here’s where I’ll say something potentially controversial amongst my fellow Reylos: I don’t think these people are “wrong.” Because everyone’s experience and perspective is their own thing to interrogate, and it’s not up to me to tell people how to feel about something–even if I disagree entirely. What I do take issue with, however, is the need to interrogate someone else’s preferences or fantasies. There is an infantilizing element to the backlash, as if those opposed think that Reylos haven’t reconciled with the themes presented to them, and are merely choosing to ignore them because they think Adam Driver is hot.

The way I see it, relationships like Reylo—power fantasies oriented on the feminine psyche, with an antagonistic male—fulfill two things I love in storytelling. They are pure escapism; the happy ending those of us drawn to the incurable are never afforded. And they are instructive, as they exemplify the patriarchal schism between men and women: that we are not equal, but that women love men anyway because of the compassion that comes naturally to balance that division. It shows how we can mend those gaps through patience and understanding. It’s archetypical and fantastical, sure, but that’s what Star Wars is: a fairy tale that wrestles with society and humanity in broad strokes.

That said, there are other reasons for dissent. Some fans ship Rey and Finn, and see their romance as a better avenue for a healthy relationship. Some have experienced personal trauma and can’t abide a romance that mimics and negates their pain. Others just don’t see the Reylo thing at all. Absolutely all of that is valid. Shipping should never be a competition or an authoritative moral stance on any side. Rey/Finn shippers are just as valid as Reylos because it speaks to what someone personally craves and desires. The shaming shouldn’t exist on any side—but because it does, the passionate defense comes in.

REYLOS DON’T DESERVE THE HATE

That knee-jerk self defense has drawn a lot of ire to the Reylo community in the aftermath of The Rise of Skywalker, the final film in the Star Wars sequel trilogy. On paper, the Reylos were given a lot of what they desire: Kylo Ren is redeemed and turns back into Ben Solo. Rey and Ben fight side by side and even share a kiss. But then Ben dies and Rey ends the movie alone, something that irked the shippers. They saw the ending as a grim conclusion for Ben and a way of punishing Rey for expressing her desires. To many, the ending feels hopeless and feeds into this stereotypical notion that for a woman to be strong, she must be single — as if romantic love weakens us.

There are other ways to read the ending, and many fans found power in it. That’s the beauty of film: that it’s entirely subjective. But in their profession of disappointment, the Reylos once again became a punching bag for the fandom at large. A recent BuzzFeed article compared the way Reylos reacted to The Rise of Skywalker to the way the Fandom Menace—a trolling, abusive, anti-Disney hate group—reacted to The Last Jedi. (Never mind that their “source” for this reaction was a tweet from a prominent member of the Fandom Menace, and that many of the complaints in question were either fabricated or from non-Reylo accounts.)

It’s impossible to parse all of this out or to really say who’s “right” or “wrong” or what “right” and “wrong” even mean in fandom spaces. From my vantage point, the Reylo community is one of the more forgiving and accepting out there. It’s comprised of not only women, but plenty of men and non-binary Star Wars fans, from different races and orientations and experiences. And that’s true of any shipping community. In a fandom as large as Star Wars, there should be room for all of us to express joy or grief or surprise or disinterest in our cultivated spaces. It’s how we all choose to cross-pollinate that could use some work.

But Reylos aren’t deserving of the intense condemnation that comes from larger voices in the fandom. The ridicule feels specific and exclusionary, and rooted in gatekeeping sexism. Comparing them to the Fandom Menace is ridiculous. That group created blogs dedicated to roasting journalists, creators, and fans. Meanwhile, the Reylo community (along with Ben Solo fans) poured much of their frustration and sadness over The Rise of Skywalker into an act of good, by raising money for Adam Driver’s charity, Arts in the Armed Forces. How much money? As of this writing, over $76,000, more than double the charity’s fundraising goal for an entire fiscal year.

I also know that the Reylos helped me find my way back to loving Star Wars, gave me endless professional and creative inspiration for the last two years, and deepened my interest and love of storytelling and mythology. I know I’m not alone, and I know that the Reylo shipping community has made Star Wars finally feel like a fandom they were allowed to love. That’s something I hope fans with different access points to the world of Star Wars might think about before they wag a finger or call Reylos fake fans or mock their interests and experience. Star Wars can and should be for everyone, and how we find our way into the galaxy far, far away is a unique, personal, and beautiful thing. Love is what it’s all about at the end of the day. Even romantic love.

by Lindsey Romain for Nerdist [find article HERE]

[chaseagainstonision]

I just wanna cover this for a bit. The screenshots from the Discord server are as follows: post 1 post 2 post 3 post 4 Full disclosure that I am the user Broke: pls subscrib and that our mods are the users who's names are in red. Also, I know that I've talked about this so much in my gender tag, so most of you have prob'ly seen this argument before. For the first image: It's not about being strictly being anti-onision or anti-taylor. That's not exactly how the server works. We can talk about how shitty they are and the things about them. That's what the anti-onision and the anti-taylor channels are for. We can also criticize them an not have an intence dislike for one or the other (like be okay with Taylor and not okay with Gerg, for example). The whole reasons that you were muted was because you were being incredible ruse and were going to invalidate other people becuase of their gender by saying "if it is allowed to be, i will start analyzing everyone's gender in the server." I only said that it was fine by me because it seemed that you were going to do it regardless of any sort of consensus. And I figure, if you attack me, you're leaving the rest of the server alone. But we're not out here attackign your gender identity, so I have no idea why you got incredibly defensive. When I talk about Taylor's gender issues, I'm only referencing it in regard to them. That's it. Not you, not anyone else. I'm not out here toquestion the validity of your gender or anyone else's gender aside from Taylor's, and for good reason. It's not like I'm purposely misgendering them, either, as I go out of my way to use the proper pronouns, even if I doubt their gender identity. But the reasons I do question their gender is 1) it one of the only things that they talk about 2) they make it their whole personality where that's all they are is their gender and that's it 3) their stance on gender dysphoria and their attempt to backpeddle 4) the fact that they are so against being called feminine and what have you while doing traditionally feminine things and wearing traditionally feminine things (not that, in general, there's anything wrong with that, just their unwillingness to admit they like feminine things) 5) claim that they have basically cripling dysphoria, but run around in videos and what not half naked and showing off their body (then taking the time to edit said videos) 6) Gerg's influence over them and him pushing them into other situations that they initially didn't want to be in and then renaming them (which I have made very clear that A] he renames his partners a lot, regardless of gender and B] it's incredibly uncomfortable for me), which is possible he pushed them into this, too 7) They have and still do weaponize their pronouns when people use the wrong ones, especially if it's a detractor 8) their refusial to go to a doctor and start hormones, stating that they don't want male body hair (darker leg hair, facial hair, etc) or to look explicitly male via hormones and/or getting surgery and I really can just keep listing reasons at this point. It's not really that you were being sarcastic. People are sarcastic in the server all the time. But, the fact that you called all of us "sensitive" because one of the mod put you in a time out? All becuase you were being rude to the rest of us in the server? Nah, man, that's not how this works. It's more about the fact that, whenever the issue about Taylor's gender comes up, we all talk about it in a civil maner and eventually agree to disagree while you just kept stirring up conflict about it. We're not out here to invalidate anyone. I've let this be known countless times. A lot of us in the community are some stripe of LGBT+. I, myself, am genderfluid and bi/pan. Most, if not all of us know what it's like to be invalidated or misgendered or what have you. You trying to take this weird moral high ground isn't doing you any favors. We're all pretty accepting people in regard to sexuality and gender. It's just that there comes a time where someone does something that you start to think on and question and that's where the debate over Taylor's gender comes in at because there are a ton of red flags everywhere. And I know that I've talked about this before, too, but if you're trans (like, trans trans and not just nonbinary, because there are differences in transitioning/not transitioning), you should transition and have dysphoria. Taylor claims to be trans (transmasc as of recently) but has said in the past that they're only really bothered that they're chest got bigger and their hips got wider (that's all due to having two kids). A simple fix for that would to at least get a breast reduction. Them saying that alone makes me believe that they just have body dismophia and not gender dysphoria. Because when I'm going through dysphoria, I wanna just rip my tits off and hate that I have a vagina. Taylor seemingly doesn't have those feelings, just generally going through what most people go through when they hate parts of their body. So no, it's not that no one has the right to analyze someone else's gender. It's that, in certain cases, there's a cause for debating someone's gender for the very reasons that I have stated above. For the second image: I don't have all of the conversation for this (since op blocked whoever they were talking to), but I will answer what I can see. I feel that people can comment on any post that is posted to a public forum. This site is basically a public forum and allows other users to post/reply on whatever posts they want. To sit and say that peopel can't comment is ridiculous. But most of the people commenting know what transphobia is, so this elitism is stupid. I already stated this above. Any time that you have come in to comment, you've started something. It's not that we're sensitive, trust me. We can engage in civil discussion about "hot button" issues and not have a huge problem. We've done it before since Taylor's gender is, indeed, a hot button issue. But I'll just leave it here for this image For the third image: That's... kinda the point? To showcase someone who is bringing in drama, most people won't censor out that name. Plus, both on Discord and here, you have the same user icon. Most of us already have false usernames, anyway, so what does it matter? My actual username on Discord is ChaseArts, anyway, but it's not like someone is going out of their way to doxx you or something. Just exposing what had happened in the server. Why would Gerg shit talk himself, lmao. That's got to be the dumbest theory that I have ever heard. If it were Gerg, he wouldn't willingly let a bunch of his detractors into his server, let alone to shit talk him and his spouse. Anyway, who has compared you to Gerg? That's a dumb comparison, too, honestly. But it's not that you were right and we were wrong. It's not an objective sort of thing. It's people opinions and you got way to salty and took it personally, for some reason. You were put in time out because you were stirring the pot. The mods were doing their job. The same woud happen if you were on another server with several mods, though I'm not certain if they would just put you in time out of just boot you completely.

[ashley-incharge]

Personality Profile: Ashley Reina Armbruster

Slytherin, Thunderbird, ESTJ-A, Type 3, Neutral Evil, Gemini Sun

SLYTHERIN PRIMARY, SLYTHERIN SECONDARY (NEUTRAL STATE W FRIENDS)

Ashley’s Primary is a blatant and obvious Slytherin Primary. She sticks very true to the idea of being loyal to her people, and to no one else. The Ashleys are the girls that are one hundred percent in that circle, and she would do absolutely anything for them. Everyone else is not nearly so important to her. Her loyalty to her friends (and to a lesser extent her siblings) is absolute. She has no major tie to the moral issues of the day. Ashley is very much a slytherin that will opt out of the moral complications of the rest of the world and what touches other people and choose a contented apathy about the things that don’t intrude on her space. If it isn’t a problem for her she won’t bother so much. This can be seen in the way that she might have a stance on the werewolf issue (being against them being around), but she might not fight as hard one way or the other as someone might if they had the Gryffindor primary. It’s more of a game than something important. Now, this would absolutely change if a werewolf were to encroach on her space or put her or her friends at risk.

Her Secondary was harder to get at, and it is because I honestly thought at first that she had a Gryffindor Secondary. When, based on her position and how comfortable she is with her friends and all, it’s more like she is a Neutral State Slytherin Secondary. The neutral state is easy to mistake for a Gryffindor Secondary because there is a similar sharp-edged, unreserved honesty to it. But the motivation for this honesty is coming from different places. The neutral state is blunt and often rough, unphased by stepping on people’s toes. For the Slytherin Secondary, it’s a luxury not to care about stepping on toes— a Slytherin’s best tools for their own comfort, success, and joy involve paying close attention to their circumstances and reacting accordingly in order to manipulate the spaces they inhabit. Ashley A. I think is very much in that space where she doesn’t care if she hurts or offends other people. She is quite comfortable with coming out and saying things, because she has her important people and doesn’t have to put on a mask or manipulate with them. Ashley knows that there are ways that are more useful to act in certain situations, and sometimes can fall into the bad habit of assuming that other people are incompetent when they don’t excel at that type of improvisation.

THUNDERBIRD

One of the Ilvermorny houses. This one seemed close ish aligned to Slytherin so I went with that for her. 

ESTJ-A

100% extroverted, 80% observant, 61% thinking, 81% judging, 68% assertive

These percentages are amazing to me. Particularly the fact that Ashley is 100 percent extroverted. It’s amazing, but it’s also not at all surprising when it comes to Ashley. She doesn’t remotely struggle at all to put herself out there or communicate with whoever she meets. It’s not necessarily always nice communication, but she’s very capable of speaking to just anyone. The observant and thinking both tie together well for Ashley, who prefers the more rational way of thinking and focusing on the present rather than some daydream or lofty future. 

Executives are representatives of tradition and order, utilizing their understanding of what is right, wrong and socially acceptable to bring families and communities together. Embracing the values of honesty, dedication and dignity, people with the Executive personality type are valued for their clear advice and guidance, and they happily lead the way on difficult paths. Taking pride in bringing people together, Executives often take on roles as community organizers, working hard to bring everyone together in celebration of cherished local events, or in defense of the traditional values that hold families and communities together. The Executive being a leader type fits so well with Ashley’s own role within her friend group.

TYPE 3 - ACHIEVER

People of this personality type need to be validated in order to feel worthy; they pursue success and want to be admired. They are frequently hard working, competitive and are highly focused in the pursuit of their goals, whether their goal is to be the most successful salesman in the company or the "sexiest" woman in their social circle. They are often "self-made" and usually find some area in which they can excel and thus find the external approbation which they so desperately need. Threes are socially competent, often extroverted, and sometimes charismatic. They know how to present themselves, are self-confident, practical, and driven. Threes have a lot of energy and often seem to embody a kind of zest for life that others find contagious. They are good networkers who know how to rise through the ranks. But, while Threes do tend to succeed in whatever realm they focus their energies, they are often secretly afraid of being or becoming "losers."

I love that Ashley’s the only one of mine with this type because it is very much a type that goes with Ashley’s need to be the best and need to be admired as a Queen Bee of the secondary. She’s definitely a great networker and communicator and it links so well in with her MBTI I think that’s so cool really. They all sort of link in together to describe her personality.

NEUTRAL EVIL

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it.

I debated with her being a lawful or neutral evil, but the truth is, that she only follows the law with some things because that’s what works better. If she doesn’t have to, she won’t, but she’s not the out of control kind of person that would just do whatever the fuck they want without worrying about any consequences. 

GEMINI SUN

She is an opportunist. She can express herself easily and tends to learn quickly. She is welcoming and gentle. She likes travel and intellectual work. Weaknesses: a changeable and diffuse nature. May waste energy by taking on too many things. She lacks persistence in achieving set goals. Geminis have the reputation for being a little two faced and all that, and that’s something I thought from the beginning suited Ashley the best. Not to mention that she is canonically labeled a Gemini and I think that’s just perfect for her character.

ARIES MOON

Nothing quite happens soon enough with this position of the Moon. There is an inherent impatience with getting what they want. Life is a series of emergencies for Lunar Ariens. They live in the moment and have a hard time waiting for things to happen. Whims of the moment take absolute precedence in their lives. This is a fiery position of the moon. Even if the Sun or rising sign is more low-key, Moon in Aries people possess inner passion and fire. Emotional issues take precedence--there is simply no pussy-footing around when it comes to dealing with the feelings. And, dealing with new sentiments and needs stirs up a huge desire for activity. Moon in Aries has a need for acting out their needs, with no time to waste. It is hard for them to see the long-term, or to wait for things to happen. Instant gratification rules! . They are generally ruled by their own emotional needs, and they're not always as concerned about others' needs during these "emergencies". Somehow, they have people around them scrambling to help them solve their problems. There's an aura of childlike innocence around Lunar Ariens, even when they're getting their way again, that can be charming indeed! This all focuses on the emotional issues which is very much something that is an Ashley focus with her character. She’s incredibly emotional and dramatic and everything has to be dealt with right away.

[epwinn]

Statement of Faith: A Revision

Eric Winn, April 2016

It was early fall, 2000. I was twelve, moderately naive for my age and on the brink of becoming severely and hopelessly indoctrinated.

I sat in the church banquet hall with a few dozen of my peers, each of them joining me in the rite of passage known as confirmation, or as we liked to call it, the opportunity to be sanctioned as members of an otherwise adult organization. From that point forward we would be referred to as confirmands, achieving membership only after completing the program. A part of me was excited to make my affiliation with the church official, but another part of me cried out for real answers to unanswered questions. The second part was the one I actively repressed. Although I had some reservations about my faith at the time, I understood that challenging any aspect of the religious enterprise would not only constitute heresy, but also disrespect.

The excited part of me, however, enjoyed being in the company of relatives and friends as we gathered for the confirmation orientation ceremony that would include food, introductions, and the official assignment of our mentors. Gazing around the room, I played spectator to the various interactions of people gathering in the hall: the families of my peers, the dressed-up clergy, and the good-humored church staff. The air was heavy with infectious and unbridled enthusiasm. I began to realize that the adults in the room shared some vaguely-defined quality seemingly far beyond my few years; they surely possessed the wisdom that would undoubtedly come with my ascension to church membership and a lifelong commitment to serving Christ. I was, at least in principle, fully dedicated to the project of learning to view the world through the lens of faith. I stood at the precipice with my arms open. All I needed was a slight breeze of validation.

As the event began, everyone slowly took their seats at their assigned tables. A gaunt, middle-aged man reaching teetering heights stood up at the front of the hall, calling for everyone’s attention. With his characteristic geniality, the sincerity of which was an abiding suspicion of mine, the minister gave an effusive welcome and announced he would be taking questions from the confirmands at the end of the night. In an attempt to encourage well-thought-out and potentially challenging queries, he passed out slips of paper so we could spend the evening thinking of a single most-pressing question and anonymously drop it into a tithing bowl at the front of the room. I remember my excitement boiling over at the prospect of unleashing my curious mind under the cover of anonymity. But with so many thoughts rattling around in my head, it was difficult to come up with a single question that would satiate my reeling mind. I was so distracted by my thoughts that I effectively blocked out the rest of the evening.

As the question time drew nearer, I frantically scribbled mine down at the last second and tossed it into the bowl. I reclaimed my seat as the minister began selecting and reading aloud the submissions. Waiting for mine to be drawn, an awkward cocktail of emotions began to stir—a curious blend of eagerness and anxiety. Then it happened. He read aloud: “If God created everything, then what created God?” My words dripped with philosophical overtones of regressions to infinity. He retorted with a chuckle, echoed by several others in the hall. I blushed and shifted in my seat, my embarrassment detectable to any stray glance in my direction. Was my question really that stupid? Maybe he did have an answer after all, I thought. A small part of me wanted him to reveal my ignorance. At least then I might fully relinquish any doubts and accept that faith really was the path to a deeper understanding of the world—an understanding I so desperately craved.

The minister responded after a brief moment of apparent internal head scratching. “This is one of those questions we really can’t know the answer to…” For a moment I felt impressed by his candor. Did he really just admit that he didn’t know? But I should have known this would not be received as an adequate response coming from a cleric; it of course lacked the lure of superstitious charm that was so obviously craved by his audience. He then concluded, adopting a posture swollen with confidence: “But what we do know is that God is eternal. He has always existed and therefore didn’t need a creator. Some ideas are just too big for us to wrap our heads around. This is why we have to trust in God. We must have faith.” I was thoroughly let down. Was there really no other response on offer? At that exact moment it was revealed to me that faith was nothing more than a dodgy little lifeline, conveniently allowing for a complete dismissal of critical thinking. Any reservations I harbored up until that point were confirmed by a landslide of epiphanies. The entire routine was clearly contrived—engineered to instill a flock mentality. Looking around at the satisfied faces dotting the room, my irritation mounted as those under the shepherd’s watch mindlessly nodded in a bizarre show of obedient agreement.  

The question and answer session wore on as the master of deceit continued knocking out question after question, confidently providing answer after answer, as if he were drawing from a deep well of untapped wisdom that only he had been given divine access to. But I knew this couldn’t be true. This was really just an exercise in peeling back the dubious layers of the reverend charlatan’s brain—the more he continued, the less credible he became. But I was seemingly alone in this interpretation of his shtick. Everyone else acted as though their beliefs were somehow being vindicated to an ever-increasing degree with each word that passed through this man’s lips. His continuous recourse to faith at the expense of coherency was the elephant that refused to leave that room.

I grudgingly participated in the rest of the program and regarded the experience as nothing more than a window into the depravity of the host institution. At a minimum, blind faith and subservience seemed a sure path to moral confusion, but appealing to the credulity of young children to increase church membership effectively crossed the line between superficially tolerable and ethically reprehensible. The swindler’s scale had finally tipped in favor of absolute scandal.

I drafted a statement of declared faith and ensured that it would guarantee everyone else’s satisfaction—the minister and mentors, my fellow confirmands and my own family. I communicated it aloud from the sanctuary stage to an impressively attentive and beaming congregation. It was, in fact, the most disingenuous avowal I would ever make. The indignity was enough for me to throw in the towel, if only in a behind-the-scenes kind of way. For me the game had been called, but I was letting the clock run out as a formality. My involvement with the church waned significantly in the ensuing years and I was scarcely more than a name on the church’s register by the time high school graduation rolled around. I was twenty-two years old when I formally requested to end my membership.

I consider this reflection to be a repudiation of the “statement of faith” I wrote as a young, conflicted child of the nineties, a child who found himself preoccupied for the second time with a blank sheet of paper. Much like the first time, the sheet could have been transformed into an ambitious and challenging inquiry. Or perhaps into an expressed appreciation of how precious life is given the very short time we are afforded. It could have become a testament to the unfailing and unconditional love of my family, or even an expression of the overwhelming sense of humility afforded to me by chance in a vast and mysterious and unsolved universe. Regrettably, it was transformed instead into a doctrinaire expression of the stale reverberations of a religious echo-chamber.

The statement, in its original form, is preserved in the nostalgia of an aging scrapbook in a closet in my childhood home—an admittedly cheesy digest of my youth in photos, and birthday cards, and various other sentimental relics. I haven’t revisited the document in my adulthood, and perhaps this is due to some subconscious reluctance to relive this memory in an explicitly tangible way. A part of me always felt guilty—maybe even self-loathing—about the lie that exits in my past as both a written and spoken testament of religious faith. Re-writing the statement was a way for me to recompense my younger self, and, having since outgrown the timidity of my youth, express the sincerest contemplations of that twelve-year-old boy who may have felt like insincerity was simply a part of growing up.

There exists an ancient maxim that I never could properly source, but goes something like this: “The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.” The ability to apprehend the limits of one’s knowledge and admit that “I don’t know” exists as the great guardian of intellectual progress. The true mark of an educated person is, after all, manifestly in how you think, never only in what you know. The binocular-like lens through which the faithful view our world, peering into the murky realm of superstition, will forever see them stumbling into the chaos and hubris of religious conviction, perpetually leaving unfocused the beauty of the reality that lay directly before them.

I’ve come to understand that my reeling mind can only be satiated by our most essential discipline—the pursuit of understanding and truth, founded on the virtues of science and philosophy. Answers, therefore, cannot be assumed—they must be discovered. The greatest insights of all time may very well lie in the refinement of the pursuit itself, because regardless of whether or not we find an answer, the question is always sure to exist.  

But this story remains incomplete. A fresh page is now numbered, my fingers resting patiently on the keys. A familiar cocktail of emotions once again marks the occasion. My future exists now as a flashing cursor, awaiting the next keystroke.