#there are many criticisms to make about the adaptation but this just isn't one of them

[spirantization]

I'm surprised at the hate that Sokka's character arc from NATLA is receiving. To me, Sokka's development and characterization was one of the strongest adaptations the series made.

In the original ATLA, Sokka's character arc revolves around him unlearning his own misogyny. He makes pointedly sexist comments throughout the early episodes like "Leave it to a girl to screw things up!", "There's no way a bunch of girls took us down!", etc.

Sokka's comments have a strong narrative purpose: they give a platform for women in the show (Katara & Suki mostly) to refute his attitude. Katara emphasizes traditional "women's work" (cleaning, cooking, sewing, etc), which forces Sokka to confront its inherent value. Suki is able to prove to him that women can fight too and he learns to respect female warriors. It's a great character arc and it's well-executed.

It's also characterization that is in direct response to the culture and feminism of the 90s and early 00s. The representation of women in the media at that time was...oof. It was not great. One-dimensional love interests whose only purpose is being saved by the male protagonist, mostly. Female protagonists were not as common, and certainly not ones who were depicted as being able to fight, and certainly not in cartoons. Female protagonists in animation were almost exclusively princesses.

ATLA was progressive in this regard. Katara was a complex female character in a time when there were not a lot of them, in media in general but especially in animation and kid's shows. (I grew up in the 90s; there were no characters like Katara in animation on screen for me.) ATLA incorporated the zeitgeist directly into the story, which is why we have Sokka learning to overcome his sexism in his interactions with Strong Female Characters.

If you go back and watch the original cartoon now, Sokka's sexism feels a bit dated. It's a very 90s, Girl Power, "girls can fight too" style of social commentary. It doesn't match with the media landscape of today. We've got 20 years of media with female superheroes behind us. If your message is "girls can fight too!" the response for the most part is going to be "yes, we know that. And?"

So imagine you're adapting the original ATLA for a live-action remake. You want to keep Sokka's character arc intact, but you want to update it for the 2020s. So what do you do? You look at the conversations that are happening today.

The 90s were about "girls can do everything boys can do", but the 20s are over that. The conversation is more about gender: gender expression, gender roles, gender dynamics. What does is mean to be a woman? What does it mean to be a man?

Sokka's character arc in NATLA is focused on this question: What does it mean to be a man? At the beginning of the series, it's his identity as a warrior that defines him. He needs to be the warrior, the protector, the leader. He's constantly trying to reaffirm this part of his identity, and it's completely tied up in his perception of his value as a man. Instead of his interactions with Suki being about "how could girls possibly be warriors", it shifts to Sokka saying "I'm ALSO a warrior" and trying to justify that to Suki (and mostly himself).

His arc over the series is about him accepting other aspects of himself and relearning how to define his masculinity. He can still have value as man without being the greatest warrior. He can still have value as a man by using his skills as an engineer. He can still have value as a man by offering compassion and kindness to others, like the little girl with the doll & Yue in her final moments. Instead of rigidly defining himself by a specific set of gender roles & expectations, he learns how to define himself through his own strengths and qualities.

I know there are a lot of people who are upset at this change to Sokka's characterization, and the most common thing I see is that it results in changes to Katara's character and her anger in response to Sokka's comments. I think there are valid criticisms to be made about how the show handled the adaptation of Katara's character, but I won't go there with this. In terms of Sokka and his characterization, it was well-done and thematically consistent with the original. It's not an exact port, and it never needed to be. It's still a feminist arc that centres on unlearning harmful misogynistic worldviews, but the focus has shifted from external (roles of women) to internal (his role as a man). And his journey is one that people would benefit from seeing represented.

[markrosewater]

Hi Mark. With a lot of talk recently in the online space about the unreasonable outrage and horrendous death threats towards the Commander Rules Committee and Commander Advisory Group, I want to thank you for being the proverbial "shield" for some of the most heinous and grotesque backlash towards WOTC as the unofficial public representative for MTG. I know it can be absolutely draining for your mental health to receive harassment in this position, so I just want to say I am grateful and empathize that you are in this position. With that being said, as one of the most prominent faces of Magic, is it possible if you could say a word or two about the aforementioned harassment towards the RC and CAG to deter these harassers and possibly share your own experiences regarding unconstructive hate to help the victims of such depravity (if you're comfortable sharing)?

There are advantages and disadvantages of being one of the faces for Magic. When people like something we're doing, even when I had nothing to do with it, I get lots of praise. Most players only know a handful of Wizards employees, so they tend to assume that the people they know are responsible for the things that are happening.

There is, of course, a downside to that. When things happen people dislike, I'm also the light rod for complaint. Whether or not I had anything to do with the issue in question, I get the blame. I am Head Designer. Many times, I did have a hand or a say in what happened. And when I'm responsible, or partly responsible, for something, I try to own up to it.

Players are not a unified front though. When we do thing X, some of you will like it while others will not. I often will get complimented for the same thing I'm being yelled at for.

From time to time, we do something a majority are unhappy with. At times, we do things a majority are *very* unhappy with. That's when things can get a bit ugly. There are a lot of civilities built into daily life. There are just things you don't do or say to another human being. Most of that goes out the window online.

For some reason, the anonymity combined with just how social media has evolved has emboldened people to do and say things they never would in person (and I should also acknowledge society has changed in ways that even what's acceptable in person has changed).

What this means is I get a lot of negativity, some of it very personal. I'm not just talking about people criticizing the in-game choices I've made (or often didn't even make), but comments on me as a person, about who I am and what they think of me. People tell me that want bad things to happen to me. Not just getting fired (although that's a popular one), people vocalize, sometimes quite graphically, about things they want to happen to me.

The first few times this happened, I took it pretty hard. Having lots of people attack you online, saying horrible things about you, is tough. Humans look to other humans for approval. It's just built into our DNA to want others to like us. Having people attack you hurts. You have trouble sleeping, eating, it just weighs on you emotionally.

I was bullied as a kid. This really isn't much different except its much higher in volume and very public.

With time, I learned to adapt to it. It's not that I enjoy people saying nasty things about me. It still sucks, but I've found ways to process it. I came to realize that someone being nasty is more a commentary on them than me. And I adopted a philosophy of looking past the words to the message behind it. Most people complaining didn't like a choice we made about the game. I could focus on the feedback and less on the delivery method. But that took years, and it has a lot to do with who I am as a person. I enjoy the things I get to do with a public profile, so I accept what comes with it.

I've made the conscious choice to build a thick skin and weather social media, so I can continue doing what I love. It saddens me that I have to.

I say all this because I don't know if people really process the harm they're doing when they get negative online, especially towards another person. Most people do not have the years of processing angry messages like I do.

Words have an impact and that doesn't matter whether you're speaking them directly to someone's face or typing them in the privacy of your home.

Bullying is not okay. Cruelty is not okay. Making a conscious choice to belittle another human being, especially because they made a choice you disagree with about a game, is not okay.

When you use ugly words, you are doing harm to another human being (sometimes many human beings). Imagine if someone attacked you like that, or a loved one, or a friend. Don't do something to another human being that would cause pain if it was done to you.

That doesn't mean you can't communicate unhappiness. It doesn't mean you can't vocalize that you disagree with a decision made. I would stress two things. One, make it about the decision and not the person who made the decision. Explain why and how the decision impacts you, not what you think of the person because they made the decision.

Two, watch your language. As I said above, words have power. They can be used to build or to destroy. Is the language you're using designed to hurt? If so, don't use it. Use other language. If you need to take time to calm down, do so.

Community is what we as individuals choose for it to be. One of the things I love about the Magic community is how kind it can be, how accepting it can be, how uplifting it can be. But that's because we each individually choose to do that. The Magic community can get ugly, but only if we allow it to become so.

So please, the next time you're making a message designed to do something destructive rather than constructive, take a moment to reflect. Why are you doing this? What is your goal? Is it your intent to hurt someone? Because that's what negative language does.

I ask the Magic community to be better. I know we have the potential. I've seen it.

Be part of the solution, not the problem.

Thanks.

[yunsound]

The Third Installment to the Oubing Saga- Yunbing

PRIOR EXPERIENCE NEEDED!

Entry ticket: reading this post and acknowledging that the following is about to be 18+. No, I'm not writing anything explicit, but it's going to be some mentions of sex. Move on.

After finishing Ne Zha 2025 (or the 2019 version if you're a real one), did you feel overcome by the gayness? Did you wonder why the fuck anyone would ever look at their best friend like that? Did shoujo anime music start playing in the back of your head?

...yeah you're not alone.

As previously mentioned, Oubing is currently China's biggest fandom ship (I stay hopeful that this wave of hype will last longer than it did in 2019). I also trust that you all understand why that is.

Seriously, I've never seen any piece of Chinese media except for straight up BL THIS gay.

Let's count on one hand how many BL tropes these movies include.

Red/blue

Soulmates

Only friend

Enemies to lovers

Friends to lovers

Oh oops, we ran out of fingers! Next hand.

Friends to enemies to friends to lovers

Forbidden romance

Demon x angel

Two halves of one... thing

...bondage? I suppose? If you know you know THE scene.

Oh wow look at that we ran out of fingers again. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT HAND-

Okay, I'll stop here. All of this makes Oubing technically a very vanilla ship (ignore the bondage that's mostly a joke. Though you WILL see a lot of art involving Ne Zha's red sash in... different usages) and very sweet. Pure love, I suppose.

Do you know about Shangmei Oubing, a variation on Oubing featuring different adaptations of Ne Zha and Ao Bing? Well now you do. Read this post to figure out what I'm talking about.

If there's a spectrum of the wholesome-ness of Oubing ships, Shangmei Oubing is in the middle. Yes, it's very toxic, but technically Ne Zha does really love Ao Bing a lot, just in the wrong ways.

On the OPPOSITE end of that spectrum, we have Yunbing.

Yunbing is the ship between Ne Zha and Ao Bing from the 2021 movie New Gods Reborn: Ne Zha. The movie itself is on Netflix- it's kind of a mid movie, I'm NGL, but the animation is pretty good.

I haven't watched the whole movie (how do I know it's mid? Because I saw some clips and they made me sigh out loud) so I'm maybe not the most reliable critic, but it's just not peak storytelling, okay?

Yunbing is 80% made TF up (headcanon ships are the best ships) because in the movies they hate each other, like TRUE hate, not gay hate. I'm talking GENERATIONAL hating.

If you ignore canon, though, (my favourite thing to do), you are left with Yunbing, which is honestly really fucking yummy.

Here's a quick overview of the background and dynamic of the ship/movie/characters without spoiling the plot of the movie.

The main character of the movie is called Li Yunxiang (remember that Ne Zha's dad is Li Jing, so technically his full name is Li Nezha prior to him fucking himself up via sashimi-ing his flesh from his bones).

Li Yunxiang is the reincarnation of Ne Zha in a modern setting in the fictional East Sea City (Donghai City). He doesn't know or remember being Ne Zha. He works as a deliveryman I think, or a smuggler or something low-paying and dangerous I think.

In East Sea City, water is in shortage due to the Dragon Clan (now a rich family business) hoarding it. The third son of this Dragon Clan (his name is De San) is, you guessed it, the reincarnated Ao Bing.

Actually I'm not sure if he's reincarnated or if he's just been here the whole time hating.

De San, unlike our polite nice Ao Bing from Ne Zha 2019/2025, or the terrified victim Ao Bing from Shangmei, is a huge bitch. He's also a girlfailure. He's not some mass-murdering psychopath, but he's a spoiled rich brat who lives and breathes capitalism and privilege.

Look at his stupid face. Isn't he punchable? No, despite the blonde hair, the director has confirmed he isn't mixed or foreign, he's just an idiot who bleached his hair.

He was supposed to be some sort of dominant playboy daddy character but the entire nation of China just immediately saw the potential for girlfailure brat bottom and I guess that's where my brain went too.

After Ne Zha pulled his tendons out, his dad paid some SERIOUS money to make him a mechanical tendon. Let me tell you I don't know why but this shot of his metal spine is SO fucking sexy

Sorry for thirsting on main, IDK what it is but it's getting to me.

De San still wants revenge on Ne Zha for pulling his fucking tendons out so he spends like 10000 hours trying his very best to kick Li Yunxiang's (confused) ass and never manages to get there, it's so funny.

See, the main reason this ship is so delicious is the dynamic, not their interactions because this is ACTUAL hate, I'm talking they'd kill each other in an instant with NO hesitation. The sexual tension is through the roof. Okay, they're both straight, but you DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE IN THAT DOCTRINE.

Mild spoiler alert!

There's a scene in which Li Yunxiang gets one over De San by making him crash his car. As De San goes flying out of the car in intense pain, he glances over at Yunxiang, who's looking back at him.

Instead of giving him a middle finger or a thumbs down, Yunxiang fucking gives him a finger heart. IK it's supposed to be mocking but it's so funny, especially the BLATANT rage on De San's face afterwards.

The appeal of this ship is just the hate sex. This is a ship 100% meant for gooners, if you'd prefer sweet vanilla hand-holding and blushing you probably want to go back to regular Oubing.

Why does De San have such pillow princess potential? First of all, look at him. What the fuck is that waist to shoulder to leg ratio?

Second, in the Cantonese dub, he calls his father (Ao Guang) "daddy" (in English btw). Sorry, what? You are a twenty-something year old fully grown man. It is fairly common for rich Cantonese people to call their father daddy (according to my rich Cantonese friend) but it's a little much.

Third, he's such a failure it's hilarious. Spoiler alert: there's a whole scene in which his father calls him a failure and he's like "wait what". He's kind of dumb and pathetic despite being arrogant and proud.

Very princess-like. Chinese version of Drarry, basically. They also both really like cars! TBH if they weren't Ao Bing and Ne Zha's reincarnations they'd probably be really good friends.

Generations of hating each other is such gay behaviour, WHY is that other man on your mind over thousands of years??

Some of the popular headcanons for Yunbing:

Yunxiang calls De San "third princess" or "princess" because he's such a... princess

In the middle of like, fistfighting each other they somehow transition to having sex without knowing how

De San slaps Yunxiang in the face and he's like "on the other side too"

"Only I can be the one to kill him, fuck off!" *surprised look* "No that's not what I meant-"

Inappropriate usage of the metal spine (which is probably more sensitive and delicate...?)

I recommend, if you're looking for Oubing content (of the decidedly not workplace friendly variety) and if you like ENEMIES to lovers (emphasis on the enemies part) that you go through the AO3 Yunbing tag (云冰, I'll link the AO3 tag here directly).

If you want recs please ask me, I am so passionate about all three iterations of Oubing.

To quote a XHS user:

Oubing: Pure love

Shangmei Oubing: Pure fear

Yunbing: Pure hate

[blackened-angel]

I'm personally not looking forward to the Netflix adaptation of Devil May Cry.

With the new trailers, I wanted to share my opinions again but I will say that this post isn't recommended for those who only have praise and that any criticism is forbidden.

It's a pretty long post where I try to explain what is my main problem with the adaptation and that is the person who is directing it.

I highlighted some parts that I hope you can at least read those ones, but if I were to give you a TL;DR it would be this:

If you want to make an adaptation based on an IP that's been around for a while, even if you proclaim that you're fan, at the very least be modest and try not to cause trouble with your audience, given that you're supposed to be a professional in the industry and perhaps trying desperately to please everyone isn't such a good idea because you might be hanging with the wrong crowd and that will reflect on your image.

Sorry but I'm not interested to coddle that guy so if that brief summary is enough to make you displeased, I'm asking you not to read any further.

So, will talk about why it's difficult for me to praise Netflix Devil May Cry. It's because of the person attached to it.

I've criticized aspects of this adaptation before and while the majority will get angry because the show hasn't come out yet, thus any criticism is invalid, personally, what I have seen so far has been enough for me to have a disdain for it because one of my favorite series is being handled by someone who has never done anything with it before.

Proclaiming to be a fan doesn't automatically mean that it will be a masterpiece and for someone who is allegedly a professional in the industry, their conduct reflects on the product and others that are involved.

Also, just saying, that I refuse to use the word "anime".

Pseudo-anime perhaps but I'm sorry, DMC The Animated Series from 2007, that's the only Devil May Cry anime. I don't see any 'bishounen'/ biseinen' . Have you?

Anime, to someone like me who has been into anime and manga for two decades, is animation produced in Japan, primarily for the Japanese audience, with aesthetic that is different from Western animations.

So yeah I'm just gonna say Netflix DMC.

Ok, so, let's return to the subject, but first, I want to ask you and of course, you can provide examples because from my experience, I haven't seen anime studios acting so desperate like Shankar.

Please tell me if you have seen anime studios on their social media accounts being so friendly with people?

At most, there are some who on some occasions retweet fan creations like art or cosplay but in general they just post information regarding what they are producing, trailers or key visuals, but they don't engage much with the audience.

They are just working on the stuff they want to deliver to their audience, hoping they will enjoy it and look into feedback afterwards.

How many anime studios have you seen bragging like Shankar has been doing?

He actually said on Twitter "I never miss."

Oh and on a few occasions, this grown-ass man kept referring to himself in 3rd person, somehow thinking his fans will find it...cute? Yeah, so it was more like "Adi Shankar never misses."

It's obnoxious. You can tell me that he was joking, but he seems committed to his whole "I never miss with my projects" bit, so it's kind of hard to tell.

Oh and do you think it's also adorable when he reposted people's fanart without crediting? Even when some of them had watermarks?

Like I'm not kidding. If you follow him on Twitter, there were a few times when he was called out for not properly crediting artists and you'd think he'd stop after being told once but no.

In addition to that, one time when I was reading the comments on a reposted artwork, there were only two people that mentioned the artist while the rest of them didn't even ask things like "Hey did you draw this? Did the animation team do it?"

It seemed that even though they must have known it wasn't art made by Shankar or the ones doing the animation, they treated like it was no biggie if he was reposting.

As a professional, allegedly, he should have never done such a thing, but most of his followers seem treat him like "oh he's just enthusiastic, cut him some slack, don't be mean to him".

And we know that in general, anyone else who would do that sort of thing just once would get torn apart by others, but with that guy apparently we must be indulgent.

When caught in the act, he did apologize but like...shouldn't he know better? He most likely expects that everyone will forgive him for anything he does.

Thus, can you understand why I'm having a tough time to like something from that person? Who keeps bragging, promising the best anime ever, acting as if he invented DMC...

That's a person who is supposed to be a professional in the industry, yet he as only been acting like a redditor...And of course he promotes a lot of memes. Gee, I wonder who's the intended audience?

He's been desperately trying to please everyone.

This is why I like the way anime studios conduct their promotion for their projects. They are humble and want to avoid causing problems t and that's why they generally just post information, artwork, trailers etc..

That's something I personally appreciate.

Shankar has only been off-putting...Honestly, what the heck was Capcom thinking?

Apparently he wanted Dino Crisis, but Capcom was like, have DMC instead. It feels like they were saying "yeah do whatever with this IP, doesn't matter", as if DMC isn't popular, which was proven by the popularity poll they hosted.

I feel like this adaptation is mostly for the people that know DMC just from memes and I'm sorry for the long time fans that will most likely get insulted and told to shut up by the people who will only watch this generic Marvel/DC looking animation and be told that DMC is only good because of Shankar or think he should be in charge of other Devil may Cry projects.

So yeah, to me, above all is that narcissistic man who has been trying so hard to please everyone.

No, I don't think it's endearing when he spoke in 3rd person and claims that he never misses with his projects. I did not find it cute when he went on to say stuff like Vergil is a hero and other bullshit, because some people would believe those will actually be the characterizations in the show, only for Shankar to post something like "I'm joking, I'm just a troll" after those kinds of posts, wanting to gain sympathy from people, to see just how much of a fun guy he is and you must definitely watch his DMC "anime".

We already had the reboot that was supposed to appeal to the Western audience because Capcom thought the original series isn't appealing to westerners, but man were they wrong. Still hate it for the fact that they mocked the OG series and here we are again, another production that's mostly for the western audience.

So yeah, I'm just not a fan of how much that man has been boasting and assuring everyone how great the show will be.

Perhaps, for some of you, it will the greatest "anime" ever, he keeps telling you that! But not for me. I don't appreciate the shit I've seen him do on Twitter done and as much as he brags that failure never happens for Adi Shankar, not everyone is of the same opinion.

If it turns out that it might fail the expectations of those who only praised, what then? Will they keep praising despite being disappointed so that the series keeps getting content, even if it might be the same quality or even worse?

I think that will send the message to the bigwigs that those people are willing to consume anything.

Like I've mentioned thought out the post, I personally would have appreciated humbleness instead of someone trying so desperately to please everyone.

I'm not sorry for what I said and I know there must be others who share my opinions.

If you have made it this far, I thank you!

[not-so-plus-ultra]

Okay, maybe unpopular opinion time, but I started watching DanDaDan (ADORE it so far) and some of you are starting to become the meme of "that one friend who is too woke" about what happens in the first episode

TW for sexual assault + CW light DanDaDan spoilers if you haven't watched it yet. Its gonna be a bit ranty

First of all I wanna preface this with saying that, if Momo's scene with the aliens impacted you and / or you found it triggering, that's extremely valid. I am not claiming it isn't, specially for people who have any kind of sexual trauma. What I'm gonna say is not about that

What I mean is; I think we have gotten so used to a very big number of anime using sexual assault as a "funny" gag, having characters violate other characters' physical boundaries, or having a token perverted / incestuous / p*do character, all in the name of terrible "comedy" or fanservice, that we have started bracing up for any mention or showcase of sexual assault to be treated as a gag or as a "sexy" thing; specially when it comes to female characters, because sadly they're the victims of this 99% of the time. This, without going over the sexualization of characters in general, even when mundane things are happening

It's a sentiment I understand and share. I hate all of these tropes and "jokes" and it makes me really sad when a series I otherwise like has to include something like that. I actively criticize these kinds of things no matter how big a fan I am of a work in question

However, I think because of all this, we have forgotten that media can choose to use scenarios like that as an actual Bad thing to show. A bad and unfortunate thing that happens to a character that isn't used as comedy or as fanservice

I had heard about the sexual assault scene in DanDaDan prior to watching it, and I had decided I was gonna skip that scene, as I am someone who is both disgusted by these things and has trauma related to them. However while skipping quickly through the scene I thought it didn't look as bad as I was bracing for, so I decided it was something I could stomach. I was really surprised when I saw that the scene was strictly being handled as a bad thing happening to Momo, and that it also ultimately ended up with her escaping her assaulters before anything truly scarring happens

No jokes about the situation per se, no compromising shots other than the fact that she was in her underwear - and regarding that, the fact that she was built like a normal girl, her proportions and physical features weren't presented in any objectifying or exaggerated way, and through the whole scene she was fighting against it and being uncomfortable instead of submitting to the situation or being made to blush and get flustered about it like you can Disgracefully see in many other instances of other shows

DanDaDan is ultimately a horror / paranormal series. It's not as dark as others and it seems it doesn't pretend to be, but bad things are bound to happen. I think that, as long as you do it tastefully, almost any subject can be used for those bad things. Sexual stuff is sadly EXTREMELY misused in anime, and tbh in media in general, but I don't think it has to be a taboo thing to have your characters go through as long as youre not being weird about it

Furthermore, I think it's pretty clear that, at least the parts that have been adapted of this manga so far (I am not a manga reader btw, I have only seen the 5 anime episodes that are currently out, so if the manga later proves me defending it wrong, I'm sorry, and I'd like to hear it), are in part talking about bodily autonomy

Our mcs BOTH get assaulted, but nobody online ever pays attention to Okarun losing his genitals as him also having been assaulted simply because it's presented in a more unrealistic way. His initial motivation in the series is to retrieve his genitals, and even when he seems to have gotten them back the first time, something is still wrong (another part missing) and he can't just go about his life normally again as if nothing had happened, which I think is a clear metaphor of a victim's feelings after having been assaulted; and what is more, our first arc ends with the revelation that the ghost who did that to him seems to have done it to protect the place she's bound to, a tunnel, from men, for we get told that many girls have gotten sexually assaulted, killed and dismembered in it

About Okarun, I DO get that his situation is shown in a bit of a silly light because haha penis, but I am also afraid that people would have reacted a lot more if he was a girl losing his genitals instead even if it was painted in the same light. Both Momo and Okarun got out of the situation fighting, both of them were brave and as nonchalant as they could to their assaulters, but it's only Momo's situation which gets treated as the bad one. Both get terrible things done to them ! And both of them are being shown as bad things !

None of this means you personally can't be uncomfortable with any of the mentioned scene; after all, they're portraying something horrible that happens in real life. And again, I get that in Momo's case, although unrealistic elements are involved, the situation she's put in can look closer to a real life assault, and thus, it can be more triggering. But the fact is that the sexual assault of both characters is being used to showcase a terrible thing, it's not there just for a gag or for people to put their eyes on the characters' bodies, and I personally just think it's silly when I see people lump in the situations in DanDaDan with series like Undead Unluck, when the former is portraying assault as not only a genuinely bad situation but also as part of the many points I think the first act of the series makes about bodily autonomy, and the later uses it as a reocurring "funny" gag (I have seen people say it gets better later, but still, it's still used as a gag at some point)

This is brought to you by me seeing people on Twitter compare DanDaDan's assault scene to incestuous characters from other animes like Yuri from Spy x Family, Makoto from Saiki K., and Lance from Mashle. I am a big fan of two of those three series and let me tell you: those characters can fuck themselves, I don't find haha incest jokes funny or necessary in any piece of media

[taragreenfield]

I've decided to be an anti-Darklina today. Antis, don't get excited, we are not going to talk about your favourite imaginary "grooming."

Darklina is a toxic ship, but not in the way most people think.

If they actually did get together, realistically I think it would be a horror show, and mostly for Aleksander. He is not perfect. He lived for so long, and his life wasn't easy, so of course it shaped him in a certain way. He's emotionally stunted; he struggles with trust and expressing his feelings and needs. The centuries of fighting and suffering taught him to be ruthless, to focus on a bigger picture and neglect individual feelings, his own or someone else's. But he tries. He tries to make her comfortable in the Little Palace so she could adapt to her new life as a Grisha. He does try to reason with Alina and sometimes indulges her with her demands even if she has no leverage. He tries to make her understand what he's doing and why it's important. He sits with her when she feels alone because her "healthy, wholesome" Mal goes out drinking and gambling again, even though she doesn't show Aleksander any kindness or sympathy. She tries to kill him, and he still offers her to rule together.

Alina, on the other hand, doesn't see him as a human from the get-go, and it never changes. She tells him that she heard he was born without a soul. After he saves her life, she recoils from his power (even though hers is not less deadly and destructive). She assumes he's going to torture her when he just asks her how her training is going. She briefly questions whether she hurt his feelings but immediately dismisses this idea. He's old and powerful; of course he has no feelings! She's hellbent on painting everything he does and says in the most ominous light, like when he says his men don't lie to him, and she immediately assumes it's because his men are deadly afraid of him. After Baghra tells her Aleksander is "evil", she immediately believes her (because it reaffirms her pre-existent bias). Later on, when she hears from a person who hasn't even met Aleksander in person(like Tolya, Tamar, or rogue Grisha) how horrible he is, she never questions it - it must be true. When she's presented with an opposing opinion, like Ivan's who believes that Aleksander is going to bring about positive change, she immediately dismisses it. There is a moment when Ivan, Aleksander and Alina are in the same room, and Ivan looks uncomfortable. Alina's conclusion? It's because Aleksander's own men start seeing what a monster he is! There is not a single thought in her head that Ivan considers Alina a deserter and traitor, and his discomfort is very likely caused by herself. At some point, Alina notices that Aleksander looks "human," which is very telling, as it implies that she doesn't see him as a human; he just resembles one sometimes. She once mentions looking in his eyes and seeing emptiness. And that's just such a shallow and cruel thing to say. The man who endured centuries of persecution, wars, violence, dehumanization, pain, and loneliness? The man who strived to build a safe haven for his people and never gave up on them? I'm sure his soul isn't all sunshine and rainbows, but empty? Maybe it's not him who is hollow; maybe it's her who is blind?

She immediately assumes her moral superiority over him, and I can't even fathom why. Because she's young? Because she hasn't killed as many people (yet)? Because light shines through her ass? She never actually proves that she's indeed more righteous than him, not by her acts of kindness, not by morally sound decisions. Most of her actions are selfish, immature, and sometimes cruel in their casual indifference. She can't even bring herself to empathize with anyone who is not firmly on her side. Her self-absorbedness and entitlement, together with her ignorance about politics, economics, societal issues, warfare, and anti-Grisha prejudice, make her look like a spoiled, mentally challenged toddler trying to criticize a nuclear physicist on his doctoral thesis.

At the core, I believe Aleksander is actually a better person than she could ever be. Aleksander was 13 when his friend tried to kill him to claim his bones as an amplifier. By that point, he had already experienced Grisha persecution, bigotry, life in constant fear, and isolation. Yet it didn't break him, didn't make him bitter and egotistical (like his mother was). It inspired him to create a safe haven for Grisha. He isn't even hateful to the girl who tried to kill him - he understood she was desperate to help her family. Alina discovers her powers when she is 17-18; she's taken to the palace, where she doesn't need to think about how to find shelter and food and save herself from the Druskelle. She has mentors to help her unlock her powers and the whole community of people like her. Yet she keeps feeling sorry for herself, stays indifferent to her people's plight, and is mostly worried if her toxic childhood bestie receives her letters. When Aleksander receives a boon from the king, he doesn't leave Ravka, doesn't build a mansion for himself, and doesn't start living like a rich, whimsical hermit. He builds the little palace that accepts Grisha from all around the world. Alina, after the Fold destruction, takes Nikolai's emerald and fucks off to her orphanage under a false name, leaving the country in ruins and Grisha persecuted worse than before. Which one of them is a selfish coward?

Alina doesn't see Aleksander as human; he is a grotesque monster, an eldritch horror, devoid of any feelings or emotions, a corruptive force threatening to "taint" her if she associates with him. She never shows him any empathy, never tries to understand where he comes from (I'm not saying she should agree with and endorse everything he does, just trying to understand), and never criticizes him in a constructive way, only passing judgment and calling him names. She is ashamed of her physical attraction to him, as it puts a stain on her saintly reputation. She doesn't see him as a man who was shaped by life in fear, constant persecution, dehumanization, struggle, and the broken system he wants to change; she sees him as a power-hungry demon who one day spawned from hell and started wreaking havoc just because he can. The only time she shows him a semblance of empathy is when he dies in her arms(and she stabbed him, mind you). Who doesn't want a partner who can only love you after they kill you?

So if they ever got together, I can bet she would weaponize her "goodness", making him feel like she is doing him a favor by giving him time of her day, like he doesn't deserve her. She would immediately jump to the worst conclusions about him, neglect his feelings, ignore his pain, and only judge him for every misstep. She would stay emotionally distant, unable to show him real affection and understanding. She would become one of those partners who withhold their attention and affection like a carrot on a stick and demand their partner always be "good" if they want to get any. Worse than that, she would make her shame and discomfort obvious, treating her entanglement with him as some sort of moral decay. She might not be physically abusive or particularly controlling, but the emotional abuse she would unleash on him will be infinitely more soul-crushing, mentally devastating, and dehumanizing than any physical blows can get. Especially for a man who's been struggling with emotional starvation and crippling loneliness for centuries. She will destroy everything that is still there to destroy and won't even notice.

[theotherwesley]

I'm going to posit something that may sound a little weird at first: but I think the same kind of dissatisfaction that leads people into questionable or dangerous reactionary movements, is the same dissatisfaction that leads people to start witch hunts and dog piling on social media, is the same dissatisfaction that gets people into new age, vibes-based "health" and "cleansing your toxins" lifestyles, is the same dissatisfaction that leads people into an Marie Antoinette-style obsession with cottagecore and the nostalgia for an imaginary bucolic lifestyle that never really existed. It's estrangement from results, particularly direct results.

This is essentially just the Theory of Alienation, but the connective tissue between cult-of-action-to-cottagecore hit me in a particular way that made me want to dig into the specifics in terms of internet phenomena.

Just about every aspect of the computer-bound/computer-dependent lifestyle is geared towards separating people from process from product. We don't see the results, we don't see the mechanisms, we don't see the other people involved. So the prospect of working outdoors to plant something nourishing and be able to see and enjoy the results is intoxicating (especially if you don't rely on doing it for a living). So is the idea that you can just pick up a weapon and make something happen. So is the idea that you can punish people for real or much more often perceived crimes directly without waiting on due process. So is the idea that you don't have to throw yourself on the mercy of a doctor who trivializes and ignores your symptoms to the tune of hundreds or thousands of dollars. Hell, the obsession with generative AI being pedaled as a "solution" to the apparent "gatekeeping" of "talent" (or time/labor/compensation) is stemming from the same thing. There are plenty of examples but the roots connect. Returning to the theory of alienation for a second-- is not an accident that we have been separated from each other and from our labor, it is unimaginably profitable for the ones selling us things and keeping us beholden to them for scraps and pennies our entire lives. It is killing us. It has been killing us. Some people exponentially more than others. You know this, you're living in it.

I don't have a plan for the Revolution or whatever but I am pretty convinced that it is critically, vitally important that we Make Real Things, with our hands and brains and with other people-- real art, food, friends, crafts, tools, stories, clothes, fun; help with something, do things for people, grow something, fix something, learn something. Get a result you can see that's YOURS and GOOD and not a product of consumerism or fear. --Are there obstacles to all these things? Oh baby, are there ever! That's the point! That's the problem!! <-THE PROBLEM. This isn't a judgement!! We are all fucking struggling!!!

Making real things is essential not in a woo-woo way but in a practice so you can improve way. So many people are convinced they can't make things simply because they haven't made things before. Start somewhere, anywhere, and you can build the confidence to in yourself that you can do more. It will help you adapt and strengthen yourself in a world that is trying very hard to keep you powerless and isolated. Again -> The point. People end up seeking things that make them FEEL like they've made an instant change in the world, or feel like they're escaping the rat race, or anything that feels like regaining power over their lives.

But if you don't also control where that feeling comes from, you are open to being manipulated by all manner of opportunistic and predatory forces. If you create something tangible/observable within your own means (and this does NOT preclude collaboration), you made something of value and that value remains with you, to do with as you wish.

That's empowerment. It can be practiced and nurtured, in fact it MUST be.

[sometimesoliloquy]

I'm a guy and I like romance too it isn't only a women thing don't know why we're getting criticized for liking romance this is making me feel like we're in the capitol in the hunger games books or something. Is it just me or the direction they made Nick's character is because he was more liked than June and Luke? They kept pushing Luke on us especially I can tell the writers were getting mad as for June she's been getting on my nerves for a long time with how selfish she's been it was nothing like the character in the books no matter how much people sacrifice for her she's never grateful.

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint! Honestly that is validating to hear and I think it is important to remember that enjoying romance and shipping tv relationships is not a binary experience. 

Honestly to me all the screaming about "love isn't the point, it's about REVOLUTION!" is a little absurd because if you look at the book there is no grand revolution. It's a story about quiet survival, quiet resistance, a reflection on the complacency that inevitably leads to loss of rights and humanity. And reclaiming one's humanity though love--love being a force that gives us something to live for and that saves. There is more rebellion in the sequel, where the human catalyst of that revolution is actually symbolically and importantly the result of a love found in impossible circumstances, bringing the "love saves" theme full circle.

"Ok whatever, that's the book, the show is different". Sure, there are bound to be differences present in an adaptation, especially once it evolves past the source material. But I think the main spirit and overall themes should still be present. Otherwise what is even the point of an adaptation if it becomes a completely unrecognizable thing?

Even then, the show itself has presented romance and love as a major theme and important part of the story since the very beginning. They've marketed the shit out of the Nick and June romance and purposefully played up the "love triangle" (to insane degrees on the latter if you ask me). If they're now saying that the love story was not important at all and we were in fact letting it distract us from the real point, then it's their fault for propping it up falsely, not ours for taking what we were shown at face value. But also, I for one have enjoyed the female friendship and that love just as much as the love story between Nick and June and I think it's false and even harmful to say that one must be sacrificed for the sake of the other, that both can't coexist at the same time.

Honestly I'm not sure if I think they always intended for June to end up back with Luke (you're right they definitely were pushing him hard, in s5 especially and even into this season although it keeps falling flat IMO), or if they weren't really sure where it would end up (I guess she may still end up alone, breaking up with Luke). Especially with how things are appearing now, yes it's possible there was resentment over Nick and the romance being viewed as "too popular" or maybe fear of it "overshadowing" both/either the Luke pairing they meant to be endgame and/or the story they decided they wanted to tell in the end. I think the tense political climate in the US specifically was a huge factor too, with pressure (either real or perceived) to make a scapegoat out of the character a certain sector of folks on reddit had been calling a "nazi" for years. It kind of seems like the writers took their cue from this, borrowing the term and delivering on a silver platter exactly what this faction wanted.

I do think it's interesting that the character of Nick seems to engender so much love and hate both, extremes on either end of the spectrum. I can only speak to why I love him and empathize with him with any certainty. But I suspect the reason many hate him (many so passionately that their gleeful celebration now seems even louder than his supporters' outrage) has to do most with the mirror he holds up to all of us. Even if one were to accept every out-of-character from canon thing the current interviews are telling us, even if you were to view every one of his actions (that we've seen onscreen) through a sinister lens (rather than at face value, or the assumption that the character is good at heart), he's objectively not done anything nearly as bad as Serena or Lawrence in the conception and creation of Gilead. He didn't try to manipulate June for his own purposes like Lawrence, or hold June down to be raped by Fred at 9 months pregnant and then steal her baby like Serena.

But realistically, Nick represents who most of us would likely be in this scenario, who many of us already are in fact in our own society--not freedom fighters but "keyboard warriors". Not activists but more passive witnesses. He represents the "regular" good-hearted person caught up in a corrupt, oppressive society trying keep his head down and survive. He may practice small acts of resistance, and he takes big risks to protect his family/loved ones, but he's really not a big "heroic" figure except as regards June and his daughter. And I think that's human, that's most people. But most people also want to imagine that they would be the brave hero, taking big risks for and even dying for people they don't know, sacrificing for a bigger abstract cause. I think the character of Nick reflects back to us the reality that this is the exception rather than the norm, and speaks to our deeper fears about how we view ourselves--who we are and who we would be if held to the fire. Some of us see him in all his complex, good but flawed humanity and love him for it, others reject and hate him for it.

As far as June, I'm becoming more convinced that, aside from serving as the token "nazi" scapegoat, Nick has perhaps also been sacrificed to act as the wake up call for June--to drive home the cost of her fight. You're right, she has been acting quite selfishly now for a while, and has left quite a trail of innocent victims behind her in addition to the baddies she's killed. Sacrificed to her often selfish and reckless plans. And we haven't really seen her reckon with this. She also hasn't really lost anyone close to her since Alma and Brianna in s4 and we barely saw her process that (there was a lot going on, granted). In episode 7 Nick held up a mirror to June but she refused to look. I have a feeling now that he may have been killed (at least in part) in order to force June to finally look at everything she's done. She just stood there and watched him go to his death--the man she supposedly loved--once she faces this she may have to reckon with the rest of it as well and decide what kind of person she wants to be going forward. 

Not that it would soften the blow much for me or any of the rest of us devastated and horrified at this unnecessary character death. After all Nick deserved far, far better than to ultimately serve as barely more than a lesson for the woman he loved so purely and already sacrificed so much for.

Or maybe that won't be the case! Maybe in the finale they'll just re-confirm that Nick was just a baddie-bad villain commander man who deserved to die and she's not sorry at all. I guess we'll see.

[carnalconcinnity]

I relate to and feel represented by Towa heavily in that he exhibits Schizoid Personality Disorder unlike any character I've seen before. It was in my head for a while but I couldn't get a hold of Slow Damage to find the evidence for it myself until now, I sort of just used to look at Towa, squint my eyes and mouth the words 'I'm onto you'.

This will be a long, indulgent post, I have not finished said game and will probably update when I do especially after Madarame and Fujieda's route. This is based on patterns I've seen so far in the game as well as some spoilers I came across. Read at your own... something or other.

SzPD's main characteristic is the lack of interest or ability to form relationships. Towa is on the side of a lack of interest rather than ability. One way I see SzPD in him is socially, he's indifferent and blunt or when he makes an attempt to spare feelings he's evasive, he maintains this distance with everyone around him. He doesn't chase after romance; sex and pain are stimuli that allow him to feel something beyond crippling apathy. It doesn't stop there though.

When he wants to, Towa knows how to adapt, negotiate and manipulate others. This can often come as second nature to many with SzPD, not out of malicious intent but through a way to protect themselves by setting the relationships they do make on their own terms. He interchanges between inarticulateness and eloquence according to Akhtar's Profile, selectively choosing what he gives away and what he keeps to himself.

Finally, Towa's art model in the moment, whoever it may be, can easily be considered his 'interest person'. Again referring to Akhtar's profile, those with SzPD can be capable of excitement with carefully selected people and likewise they tend to have a penchant towards typically darker and unconventional things as a form of coping. Combine those two and you have Towa's heightened interest in the selected few when he unravels their darkest desires.

A second way I see SzPD is through his feelings of unreality, schizoids tend to be seen as 'detached observers', there's a lack of motivation or drive beyond the few things they want to do. Towa doesn't hold any long-term ambitions and has no real sense of urgency over anything, he's often dragged outside by others around him or if he bar-hops and searches for hookups. He also holds a sense of grandiosity towards his indifferent observation, the line that stuck out to me the most was when he said to himself, 'All the more proof that life was easier when you didn't care about anything.' A view you will often see from Schizoids time and time again in response to other people's emotionally charged issues.

Towa sometimes dehumanizes himself, describing himself as a 'single minded robot' when painting, playing a role when granting his art model's wish like he did for Asakura or by referring to 'Human Beings' as though he isn't one of them. Obviously as a child Towa was horrifically abused and treated like a 'thing' instead of a person and a result of that he has a weak sense of self, he has a tendency to cave in around more dominant personalities. This can be another thing that goes hand in hand with SzPD, entering into a 'Master/Slave' type dynamic in social relationships (SchizoidVision has a post on this concept, here) As I've explored, Towa has the faculties to play the 'master' in these dynamics like with his art models but he takes a 'slave' role with the main leads that hold the potential to lead into even worse dehumanization in the bad endings.

Thirdly, a way I see Schizoid in him is through his emotions plain and simple, he hardly expresses strong emotions or reactions to anything and everyone sees him similarly, that he's aloof or uncaring. It shows even more in how he doesn't care for social validation, praise or criticism does virtually nothing. He sometimes feels accomplishment for finding his inspiration to paint but Rei ends up being the one posting it on Roost's blog. He isn't dependent on other people's opinions whatsoever. A huge part of SzPD traits.

Finally, the use of his internal fantasy and how it obsessively consumes his time. When he begins painting he becomes utterly immersed to the point he neglects food or sleep, you can't snap him out of it forget any sort of practical responsibilities. This reflects in SzPD in how daydreams tend to consume a lot of schizoid's lives, often preferring it over reality. It can interfere heavily with day to day tasks, I can say there's multiple times I haven't left my room, eaten or slept over a period of time when I get an urge to create something or lose myself in my own head.

Overall, there's so many boxes he ticks so far it's as if he's become the box himself. I connect with him a lot for these reasons and he can easily be considered a major comfort character and face for my page, plus somehow I find the time and dedication to write this essay when I have my abandoned assignments just begging me to make a start on them. (I won't until I feel like it.)

[peechglaze]

I think its very funny that s1 had so many criticisms about joel being “too soft” and “not killing enough people” and now in s2 people are saying the same thing about ellie 💀 father and daughter fr. no but seriously its also driving me crazy that people say they’re making ellie incompetent. joel got into situations in s1 that he would not have survived if ellie was not there (being choked in kansas city, being stabbed at university). was joel also “incompetent”? ellie is a 19 year old girl shes not some trained super soldier. okay maybe dina has to help her out at times. but she ALSO helps dina. they help each other survive! just like how joel and ellie helped each other survive! why does ellie get so little grace for this I’ll never understand. also, ellie is extremely stealthy and small and uses these things to her advantage (sneak up on guy at radio station, crawl into small spaces). this version of ellie it simply would not work for her to be dropping bodies left and right and thats Okay. doesn’t mean shes not angry about joel’s death, just means she knows she can’t go 1 v 6 soldiers on her own.

Very nicely said, anon!!!

I think a lot of this boils down to something I've been meaning to talk about, and probably will again when we wrap up s2-- which is the differences between video games and TV shows.

We all know and have heard the differences between storytelling in games vs shows/movies, but I think we also need to take into account the medium in general.

Ellie dropping bodies all the time in the games is a video game mechanic. It is part of the experience of playing the games. It's not even entirely necessary, because there's plenty of playthroughs that rely on stealth alone. Hell, sometimes I just fucking book it and run through levels because I don't have the resources or the patience to kill every single enemy (looking directly at you, Hillcrest!!!). This is part of the reason why people feel like the plot is moving too fast, because they're not adding in all of the waves of enemies you have to go through as you get from plot point to plot point.

Ellie Williams canonically kills seven people and one dog (plus a handful of infected). Spoilers for the second game, but Jordan isn't even in the show, Brittany is also presumably not in the show considering she was meant to be in the Hospital sequence, and the rest we haven't even run into yet.

So far Ellie is entirely on track for people she actually kills. She's killed even more than that, random soldiers and infected.

But this argument can go the other way too, right? Because Joel only canonically kills one soldier, Jerry, and Marlene in the Hospital at the end of Part I-- yet in the show they have him kill 18 soldiers and one doctor. So what's stopping them from doing the same for Ellie?

I think that just boils down to catering to the TV viewer, which is an unfortunate side effect to getting these adaptations. It's why, even though I love getting them, I will never be upset at a game being just a game.

It's a lot more difficult for TV viewers to suspend their belief when watching a live-action series, especially in a world where the only difference to the one we live in is the addition of zombies.

It's why they changed the spores to tendrils, because in a real world situation, spores would not stop at a train tunnel opening. A wooden door would not be enough to stop them seeping through. They would stick to your clothes, your skin. Spores, realistically, would be a nightmare to keep contained like they are (somewhat) in the games. But we understand that when we come across them, that this is a level. This is just added difficulty to the area we are in. People are already raising their eyebrows about the spores just from the end of last weeks episode. It's inevitable.

I'm not trying to call TV viewers stupid, there's just no 🤷 video games, amiright? 🤷 excuses when it comes to watching a TV show.

Anyways, Ellie is perfectly capable in the show, and she's proven in episode 5 that she can hold her own. She makes it all the way into the Hospital by herself. Like you said, she uses her skills and size to sneak around, because there is no way that a TV viewer is going to see a 19 year old who has never been formally trained, take on an entire hospital of soldiers and find that realistic in any way.

She's on a suicide mission and is being reckless, but that doesn't mean that she wants to be killed by a random WLF grunt before she can even get to Abby.

Should they have done it anyways? Made her kill all of those soldiers? Maybe. But I think they're showing Ellie's anger and ruthlessness in other ways that make up for that fact, and are sometimes much more effective for the story they've been telling so far.

I also don't think Dina is outshining Ellie by the way, or is more 'competent' than her at all. Dina and Ellie excel in different areas which they've made very clear, but I think we're just not used to seeing Dina have her own agency. We're used to Dina following us around as we play as Ellie. We're used to taking the lead, having Dina cover us and stay on Shimmer as we run around. Now that it's a show, they can't just stick Dina in a corner while Ellie does everything.

[hadleysmis]

I have heard and read many interesting and thoughtful reviews of Les Misérables about how the themes and characters being deeply rooted in racism. However, I barely hear anyone really talk about the explicit stance the book takes in being pro-colonialism.

I don't really have the interest in re-reading the book to every chapter because of long essays such as the Argot one, where Victor Hugo paints a very negative picture in Frenches which differ from the standard form.

Now, this isn't just about Standard French, but also any linguistic children of it, because Hugo explicitly talks about the usage of Creole. To make his stance clearer, even one of the members of Patron Minette is 'Créole'.

We can't have depictions of mixed race or non-White ethnicities in books like this without colonialism being the foundation of it. I feel like sometimes people will happily call something racist, and then move on without talking about how topics such as colonisation is thought of and expressed.

I think one of the villains here is the colonial mindset. If we aren't taught about colonialism and the effects and horror from the said atrocities and beyond harmful psychology, then we will read pages and pages of content, and only reduce the conclusion to: "Ah, racism."

When we think about the criticism of class, hierarchy, social inequality, court procedures, justice, religious morality, perceived equality, and so on, we got such a deep analysis of it from Hugo about France.

At the same time, he proceeded to be explicitly pro-colonial inside the book, within his other books, and in real life statements as well. It isn't equal or excusable that Victor Hugo, and historical authors alike, can analyse their own country in such detail, combing through their thoughts on the matter, while sweeping generalisations such as 'France has a right to colonise Africa because we bring civilisation to it' is being said.

How come some societies are given the luxury of having the nits and grits be explored and criticised, while other societies are given willy nilly thoughts? Surely, one isn't expected to understand all the doings around the globe. So then, why discuss it in one's book?

Sure, old books— and even contemporary ones— from places born from privilege, having pillaged and colonised in unwelcomed spaces, will inevitably reek of the colonial mindset. That is a given. The main difference in contemporary books is that there is effort to erase that mindset, which can be admittedly difficult to do, if all your life, you had been groomed by the education system to be pro-colonialism, or at least unempathetic to it, or believe 'it isn't that big of a deal.'

When we are thinking about adaptations of Les Misérables around the world,— and in my case, around Asia,— there is an element of charm or fascination in how artists in different countries interpret the points, messages, and arguments presented in Les Misérables.

Especially for countries victims to colonisation, and those of which who continuously suffer from the consequences of it; I don't think there is near enough talks in the anglophone side of the fandom (I don't know about any other side, I only know the anglophone side) about what it means to restructure and reimagine the arguments presented by the book.

In particular, when we see countries who were victims to French colonisation, like Vietnam, where we get to see 'cultural resistance' against the effects of the oppressive French policies portrayed in their most famous retelling of Les Misérables; there isn't much talk about the political statement in the act of translation and adaptation alone has.

Here, in these adaptations, the stories are being handled most likely by those who are native to the lands, cultures, and languages, and they get to choose what political opinion the adaptation is going to have now, whether or not that is something we would personally agree with. The power is given to the people nevertheless.

Therefore, we no longer get sweeping generalisations or a willy nilly essays of thought about language use or ways of society of the 'uncivilised countries', and instead we get to see insightful criticisms of their own injustices through the adaptations of stories such as Les Misérables.

I don't mean to romanticise the adaptations, because of course there's flaws to them as well. The main point is that, the people who would not have a voice are giving themselves it, and they can insert details the oppressors would've never been bothered to consider.

The themes of Les Misérables are very flexible, and therefore applicable to many injustices in nations not even touched by France. To learn about countries and national pride from peoples' thoughts and artwork relating to Les Misérables sure is an odd way of me exploring world history and politics. I do admit it's a funny of mine.

But as a fandom, or as a collective of shared interest, let's not dismiss obvious colonial thoughts that a lot of Hugo's points sprouted from.

Let's also not forget that European empires aren't the only empires to exist, and other adaptations can fall short in representing the themes of Les Misérables most likely it being largely influenced by their own biases.

All in all, let's give adaptations more love, and address the political implications of it as well as the literal racism and pro-colonial mindset the book argues for explicitly.

[isfjmel-phleg]

The Secret Garden (1975), a BBC miniseries adaptation, isn't so strong on production values or snappy pacing, but it's among the better adaptations in terms of similarity to the text and inclusion of--even expansion upon--elements that are often either very downplayed or outright omitted in most other versions. I can't remember if I've commented on it before or not, but how about I give you some observations, episode by episode? I'm a bit critical, but don't take that for dislike at all. There's a lot that I like in this version and a lot about the story that it gets right where others don't.

To give an example of the pacing, there's the glacial introduction, which goes on for nearly a whole minute. The music, however, is lovely.

Opens with some of the Indian servants about to flee the Lennox bungaloo, with mourning cries in the background, then shifts to Mary in bed mid-conversation with a woman named Taina who is taking on the role of the late ayah and trying to convince Mary to leave with her. Mary refuses. We don't get much context for who Mary is in this moment, which wasn't in the book. It does serve as a sort of exposition, but it also introduces something that doesn't make sense. In the book, Mary is forgotten in the panic; here, she's given an opportunity to escape the house in the care of someone who has remembered her, but turns it down out of stubbornness. Very different scenario.

Unlike in the book, we never see her parents (the conversation between Mrs. Lennox and the young officer is omitted), which could have been a helpful exposition device as well as demonstrating Mary's (lack of a) relationship with them.

The creepy near-silence of the dining room as Mary enters it to scavenge (although it seems a bit odd that her bedroom would be directly off a dining room at which her parents hosted parties), with the only noise being a sound of birds, is striking.

However, there's not the most effective sense of drama/menace, which is at least in part due to the nature of this sort of production. In many ways, the BBC adapations of this era were more like filmed stage plays than the more cinematic TV shows we're used to now. This isn't necesarily a bad thing, but it does take a little getting used to.

I think this might be the only film version that includes her encounter with the snake.

The closest we get to context for Mary is exposition from the officers checking the house for survivors. Some of this is from the book's dialogue, but it might have been more effective to have seen some Lennox family dynamics rather than just hearing about them.

There seem to be photos in Mary's room that might be of her parents, but we don't see them very closely.

Sarah Hollis Andrews looks the part of Mary quite well, more so than most other actresses who have played the role. (Mary is blonde in the book but is almost always cast as a brunutte.) Her performance shows some inexperience--takes in which she stumbles over her lines really shouldn't have been left in--but he makes Mary stiff, cold, blunt, and explosive by turns, which is accurate. The glimpse of vulnerability when she asks a second time why no one has come for her and her anger becomes sadness for a moment--that was poignant.

This is the only version that includes the Crawford children (three of them, anyway).

Mr. Craven is introduced with a shot that focuses on his back, which the 1949 version did too (albeit with menace--this miniseries is matter-of-fact about it).

Mary’s relation to Mrs. Craven is mentioned but it's left unclear through which parent.

If you've seen the 90s Jeeves and Wooster series, you might recognize the actor playing Mr. Craven (John Woodnutt) as the same one who played Sir Watkyn Bassett (father of Madeline).

This production chose to cast an older Mr. Craven (the actor was in his early fifties), probably because the book vaguely suggests it? Medlock says that "he was a sour young man," implying that he is no longer young, and his hair is described as "streaked with white."

The costume that Medlock wears on the train is taken straight from the book's description!

You can tell she's trying really hard to make Misselthwaite and the moor sound appealing.

The manor is said to be four hundred years old, not six hundred, because Burton Constable Hall, where the miniseries was filmed, was built around the late 1500s--Elizabethan rather than medieval.

There's less subtlety about the hints of Colin's existence than in the book. Medlock's stopping herself before referring to Mr. Craven's having a son happens in the passing in the text, but here it's very obvious and Mary notices and asks questions.

Mary outright states that she isn't grieving her parents and mentions without a hint of emotion that her mother "was beautiful, but she didn't care." Medlock seems shocked; Mary is matter-of-fact about it all.

Misselthwaite Manor is big and grand but not ominous and gothic as in many other productions. It seems quite grounded in reality--an "ordinary" British country house.

Another seldom-adapted minor character, Mr. Pitcher, Mr. Craven's valet--who is quite cold. This version doesn't really tone down uncaring or unfriendly adults as some other adaptations and retelling do.

The extended sequence of Medlock walking Mary to her room seems to establish the scale of the house as vast.

John "the strong young footman" is a very minor character in the book who is only seen transporting Colin downstairs and into his chair and has maybe one line, but the miniseries expands his role into someone who, along with Martha, often waits on Mary and Colin. This seems to be mainly for exposition purposes, to give Martha someone on her level to talk with.

When Mary first notices the wind wuthering around the house, she gets upset and goes into a flashback to the earlier part of her conversation with Taina. We see a greater extent of Mary's rudeness and her speaking a little Hindi(?). I'm really not sure why this is placed here; featuring the entire conversation at the beginning would have better introduced Mary.

Instead of going to straight to bed on arrival as she does in the book, Mary wanders out of her room and sees Dr. Craven leaving the house. She has questions about why a doctor was visiting and is told that he is Mr. Craven's cousin and visits often. True enough.

Martha is introduced from her POV, peeking at Mary while she sleeps. Jacqueline Hoyle was seventeen when she played this part, and I think she pulls off the big sister role well. She strikes the right balance of warmth and not putting up with nonsense.

John's face as he listens outside Mary's door and realizes that they've acquired yet another difficult child is amusing.

There are actually twelve Sowerby siblings in this one!

Martha's speech about assuming Mary would be ethnically Indian is present but altered in its wording, which is for the better.

There's an emphasis on Martha's and John's POV and reactions--both of them were played by teenagers, and they give off a youthful readiness to be amused as a means of coping with an unpleasant job.

John's weaponizing Mary's "it was the custom" to get her to say please and thank you is hilarious.

It's made clear that there is someone living in the east wing (not the west wing, where Mr. Craven is said to stay) and Mary catches John carrying Colin's breakfast tray. Only episode one and it's already making it clear that there is someone else in this house, even if we don't know yet who is it. I think this is kind of spoiling the mystery with too much information too soon.

Outdoor shot finally! The emphasis is more on Mary than the grounds, though. At this point the scope of the outdoors is kept small to coincide with Mary's narrow perspective.

[danwhobrowses]

I'm not sure how much good this vent will do, I'm not even sure I want to post this vent after my last one, but I'm writing it just so it's out of my head and into words because it seems once again fandom has chosen to send vitriol Ashton Greymoore's way.

What for? They talked to a 'specter' of the primordial titan within them, through their connection to the earth, the natural flow of creation and destruction. They ask what will happen to the world, it responds that it'll endure, they ask what of the people, it responds that the strong will survive and the weak will be remade into something stronger, to which Ashton replies they think they understand. To fandom this means that Ashton is becoming a fascist, that they have a 'Make Exandria Great Again' attitude for wanting the Primordials back, that they need to be beaten up or 'get what's coming to them' in order to change their mind, and I can only sit here and stew and wonder if this hate is really well-founded? Ashton is among my favourite characters in C3, I get frustrated by them at times too but if I think about it a big percentage of my frustrations is more towards people disliking them than me disliking things they do, or Matt setting up scenarios that doesn't do them any favours towards the fandom that hates them. Some of these are knee-jerk reactions of course, but for others it does feel like they have it out for Ashton, and I don't wanna engage with that, which makes it quite lonely when most of the fandom hones in on it.

For the most part I can understand how the whole 'the weak will be remade' bit can be taken badly; it's definitely iffy, but every other plan we have is also very iffy. The Release Predathos option literally involves unleashing an entity that wants to genocide the gods, the Maintain Status Quo option ('option' the status quo imo is impossible, in my mind the Gods can stay but the dynamic will still have to change) maintains a relationship where the gods pick and choose who they feel deserves help, using their power to covet more power, strongarm and demand loyalty, and overall choose fellow gods over mortals when the chips are down and not owning up to it. We should also remember that entities can speak in riddles, 'remade into something stronger' doesn't necessarily mean death; it could mean to adapt and grow, to become strong enough to bear and overcome it as many of the PCs of Critical Role have done with their hardships and trauma. It's worth reminding that the sad truth is that people will die whatever outcome happens - the aim is always to lessen the amount but if the Gods leave it's a power vacuum, if we linger too long it's a Calamity, and if the Gods stay it's a holy war on a more wild and less organized scale - and that Ashton isn't saying they approve of such death, merely that they think they understand. The commune doesn't tell Ashton which way to go; it only tells them that the world will endure, there will be change and it will change people, trees will still grow, the wind will still blow, the waves will still flow along the coasts of the sea, and people will survive. I know the interpretation can differ from people thanks to Matt's patented vague or riddle-mounted choices in phrase, but I also think if it was the Wildmother who told Orym or some other follower that 'nature is a cycle, everything must adapt to change or else it'll die - this world will change, but it will also survive' nobody would be calling Orym a fascist, people would accept it because the Wildmother's domain is nature, and nature is not always kind.

While we're mentioning Orym - and because this is gonna come off as critical I must preface that I like and enjoy All of the Hells, that's not changed - I also gotta call it out here because it does very much feel like the people who hate Ashton hate them for the reasons they love Orym. Both are stubborn, they're diligent in their personal code, they care deeply for their friends and would give their whole being just to keep them safe, they believe in the Hells' power and greatness more than each member does and more than they believe in their own, but Ashton gets the hate mainly because these fans agree more with Orym on the god stuff. What confuses me though is how these same haters can despise Ashton for being consistent but love Braius, the literal Devil Worshipper who secretly is on board with the Chase Away plan only so he can help the Devil rule the world, the compulsive liar. Where's Braius' scrutiny? A world under Asmodeus will be a far worse 'survival of the fittest' scenario, why does Braius get a pass in all this stuff huh? Because he's funny? Seems people ignore the whole morality talk when they're discussing Braius' dedication to Exandrian Satan.

I find it irksome too that even the group seem to criticize Ashton reaching out to Primordials too - as if that wasn't what we wanted them and Fearne to do anyway. They don't dislike the gods simply because they're a 'great entity', it's because they're a great entity that holds power and doesn't use it equally or fairly; they pick and choose who to help, a lot of the time in Ashton's experience for their own self-service, but they won't prioritize mortals over another god no matter who cruel or heinous the god is being, and the following of these gods are so intertwined with politics that most religious motivation also ends up being political. Ashton has no connection to the gods, they reached out and got nothing, an Angel looked at them and made them feel like nothing, but they do have a connection to the Primordials; from the Earth Golem to the Titan Empress they're literally a vessel of, they experienced something significant in their connection to the Earth, so I don't like how that they're almost mocked for having it. In addition, Ashton's behaviour during this commune differs because of that connection, but also because the titans are a natural flow; they don't demand or test or politic or prejudice, and despite being a Great Entity in its own right it never made sure Ashton felt small for their own satisfaction, they asked a question and got an answer, it's the same reason Ashton has disdain for most political leaders but likes and respects Keyleth, Allura, Kima, Pike, and (eventually) Percy despite also being people in power. To call on Orym and the Wildmother as an example again; Orym's an Air Ashari, the Ashari are guardians of the Elemental Planes - made from the Primordials - not tied to a god, but nobody criticizes his connection to the Wildmother despite both not being a follower and his culture being more tethered to Primordials and their descendants. I'm not saying it's all correct for Ashton to want things to go back to how Primordials ruled, but we must remind ourselves also that we only know a story written by victors when it comes to the Schism - a story which could very easily have been altered and edited to make it feel more justified for the Primes and mortals to actively genocide all the Primordials, the native species and creators of this world, and desecrate their remains to make weapons, soul anchors, and cities - the specter didn't say 'fuck em, all mortals should die' after all, if they believe mortals would survive then they must be at the least tolerant of mortal existence. Why is it okay for god followers to say they wanna keep the world with the gods they have a connection to (and I'm not saying they aren't) but Ashton is out of line for wanting to have a world which has something active that they also have a connection to? It seems rather unfair to allow one side to have and the other to have not, picking and choosing because our audience's bias has spent more time with the gods, Ashton wanting something they can connect to doesn't feel all wrong either, the Eidolons still exist with faint worship hiding away so they're not smited by the gods, why can't faith exist so they're not in hiding? I sincerely doubt the Punk Rock that is Ashton is asking for the Primordials to fill the Gods' roles the same way the Gods have been running things either, they want to break the throne remember? There needs to be a balance in ideals and practice of course, and in an ideal world there could even be a more fluid and all-inclusive Exandria where gods and Eidolons live harmoniously with mortals without hierarchy and class systems, I think Ashton could happily live with something like that, they did say the world needs 'a little chaos' to call back to Matt hinting that the current world doesn't have enough.

Which leads us to those wishing violence upon Ashton - and I really don't like that. People who say 'hitting them over the head is the only language they understand' seem to misinterpret Ashton as if everyone around them have been on their hands and knees begging Ashton to reconsider and them ignoring valid points and pulling a Leroy Jenkins. In reality, nobody is actually talking to Ashton about it, a lot of the frustration with Bells Hells right now is that they aren't talking to each other, even about the end goal! Ashton has valid reasons for their thinking, so being violent isn't gonna change their mind; undermining, dehumanizing and trying to effectively bully anyone let alone someone with chronic pain and low self worth will never truly convince them to your way of thinking. All people understand the language of violence, but that language is not used justly, those who truly wish violence upon Ashton don't want it in hopes it'll force Ashton to change their mind, they want it for their own satisfaction of seeing them in pain; so they can further push them away from the rest of the group and go 'that guy's not one of us', make it so the people Ashton calls family after a lifetime of loneliness, confusion and abandonment - the people they promised they won't abandon, and have kept true on that promise even at their lowest - make them feel small and worthless, and force them into box where they can't be themselves, and I hate that people would want to treat them that way. Ashton IS capable of listening; they've stepped back and trusted the other Hells to do their own thing even when it's ridiculous like staging a play where they pretend to be Ludinus to trick Unseelie emissaries into thinking that he attacked them, they listened to the gods even when they didn't have to like they promised they would and despite it being very personal they held themselves back for the benefit of the group, and if the group talked to them calmly where they were all allowed to healthily discuss the pros and cons, the ideals and compromises, and the risk and reward of all plans that have been proposed then they would listen, and they would try - you don't need to slice bread with a broadsword.

Will Ashton 'get what's coming to them'? Maybe, but what is that exactly? We only assume to know the full vision of what Ashton wants to act on. All of Bells Hells are gonna face the consequences of the choice they make on Ruidus - when they finally make one that is - in and out of the world they live in, so won't that apply to everyone? So what for Ashton? do people want Fractures 2.0? Does everything Ashton wants in life have to blow up violently in their face? Family, Closure, their best friend's safety, why does 'what's coming to them' have to be something aggressive and harmful? People change through positive reinforcement and good experiences too! Caduceus Clay would remind you that it's love that makes people. Don't mistake this rant as me wanting Ashton to be exactly as they are now, I too want to see growth from Ashton and we ARE seeing it happen; I see it in small instances where they think twice about rash actions and try not to fly off the handle, when they sit just to listen or understand or to defuse tension, and that when they're going somewhere or doing something they let the group know in advance, those who think Ashton hasn't changed since ep. 1 aren't paying close attention, but that doesn't mean that they don't still have more ground to cover. I believe that Ashton grows the most through kindness; when they're treated like a person and not a blunt instrument or a nuisance, and I hope what's 'coming' for Ashton isn't rejection, bitterness, and isolation, but acceptance, empathy, and for someone - if you know me you'd know who I'd want it to be - to convince them that they are worthy of living, that they're special not because of their powers or blood or because they have died and been put back together again (honestly, it does irk me a little that both Keyleth and Imogen chose that for titles and to brag to the Matron, I know it isn't intended this way but sometimes it feels like saying 'your best defining quality is that you've died a lot') but because while they have every reason to hate everything they still chose to be kind to those who deserve kindness, they have a good heart and they mean well. Are they perfect? No! They're in their 20s very few people irl have their lives together at even twice that age, but I want them to have good things in their life; things that help them feel happy and safe and like they can still feel comfortable in their own skin without having to appear more 'palatable' for people who've already decided that they don't like them. I want them to know that they've always deserved to live and they still deserve it now, I want that not just for Ashton but for all the Hells, and hopefully they'll all live to have it.

And most of all I want the people who hate them to be wrong about Ashton Greymoore, and I want Taliesin to prove them wrong.

[absandersons]

so you think the show is better in every way than the game?

What a fantastic question, thank you!!

Absolutely not, I think they're two completely different entities.

...this got very long lol, also game and show spoilers below:

I actually wrote a big long salty post about how hard people are on the show (especially fans of the games) and I really think if people let the idea of a 1:1 adaptation go, they would have a much better time.

Truly, I can't compare the games and the show. Ellie and Joel are so different, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

It makes sense for show Ellie to say "I'm gonna be a dad!" when she finds out Dina's pregnant. It's the kind of person she is, and goes back to the fact that she is, intentionally or not, keeping how deeply vengeful she is about Joel's death from Dina. Even though her grief isn't as outwardly present to Dina and Jesse and Tommy, she's a darker version of game Ellie, more manipulative. (Please don't misunderstand that as a criticism of show Ellie or Bella's portrayal of her, I adore her).

For game Ellie, she isn't bothering to hide anything. Dina knows, at least to an extent, how fucked she is from Joel's death, how different she is. That grief is raw, an exposed nerve that no one, least of all Ellie can get away from. So her anger towards Dina, the "well you're a burden now, aren't you?", that's what makes the most sense for Ellie in the game.

It's the same with Joel too, show Joel is much softer than game Joel. Pedro does an amazing job showing his desire to not just be a smuggler, to really be human, to show that, even though he's lost everything and become a survivor, he's not immune to the one thing he's tried to harden his heart around: being a dad. Show Joel and game Joel are literally opposites in many ways, just like show Ellie and game Ellie, and I love all four of them with my whole heart.

Even with Abby, I never had a problem with her not being as jacked as she was in the game. First of all, there's only so much that Kaitlyn can actually physically do (she can't grow like a foot and a half lmao), and second...Abby had to be different physically from Ellie to make the gameplay dynamic. That's not a problem in the show.

I also think the whole argument that "it's a huge part of her character that she trained to kill Joel specifically and without that she wouldn't be able to kill him." Like...no. No, her physicality had nothing to do with her ability to kill the man who murdered her father. In fact, Joel's death in the show was more brutal, because she mostly beat him to death with her own two hands.

Would I want the changes they made in the show to be in the game? Never, the games are truly, genuinely perfect in my opinion. But the changes that they did decide to make fit in better thematically, and serve the drama of a television show in a way that keeping everything the same as the games wouldn't have.

It wouldn't make sense to have Ellie go all the way to Salt Lake and have her conveniently find a tape recorder from Mel that just happened to give the exposition that she needed in order to confront Joel. It's out of the realm of realistic possibility. It works in the games, and I love that scene, but for the show, especially since they're about to take probably another 2 year break in between seasons, they were right to have all the flashbacks put together, to give the audience that "closure" like Craig, Neil, and Halley discussed on yesterdays podcast.

So, a tl;dr to your question: I consider the games and the show to be completely separate things, and I ultimately trust Neil, Halley, and Craig to make changes that they believe need to be made for this specific medium. Both are a triumph to me in completely different ways, so I love them differently!

[hellspawnmotel]

It's a shame about Astro Boy Epsilon 2003's design to be steeped lowkey in this "Well he's the most feminine of those seven robots so why not turn him into a girl" because his design is genuinely cute there, but also because of his more pacifist manners + caring nature, really sends an odd implication when it comes to turning of any of the famous robots from Astro Boy into a girl imho. Your comic really shined a light on that which I really enjoyed and it reminded me how while I enjoyed Astro boy 2003 it has its grounds to cover by how it changes things around

yeah I had the exact same thoughts! it's odd too that in 2003, epsilon doesn't retain the main qualities that make him such an interesting character- those being that he's a caretaker of human children, and his brief relationship with pluto. the former especially seems like such a missed opportunity given how much of a theme robot-human relationships are in the anime. we see plenty of other robots taking care of human children and the conflict that causes, so I don't see why one of those instances couldn't have been epsilon. it wouldve been a really smart way to integrate them more heavily into the plot. my only idea is the writers thought like "well if we make our only recurring powerful female robot a literal mother figure that feels pretty reductive" but it's not like the show isn't already sexist in other ways? and the consequence is that epsilon loses the things that made the audience care about him and becomes a pretty flat character. every other version of epsilon dies protecting a child. 2003 epsilon is defeated because she's worried about some random dolphins. it's kind of an emotional downgrade.

I don't mean to be overly negative though- I actually just finished watching the show last week and it was amazing. it had a perfect ending, which isn't something I can say for many things. AND most of the episodes range from "great" to "mindblowingly awesome and heartwrenching". there's so many good things to say about it- which is exactly why I get so critical of its few flaws, especially when it comes to things that felt like a downgrade from the manga. they stick out like a sore thumb! I could make plenty of complaints about the manga too (and I have, to my friends) but that doesn't stick in my craw as much because the manga is much less consistent in terms of quality. astro boy 2003 is a fantastic show and a really really smart adaptation apart from like, two things. and to be fair they're only things that will really bother you if you read the manga first, which I did. so if anyone reading this is an astro boy fan (or just likes robots tbh) and hasnt watched it for some reason...... do that. it's incredible, seriously. don't let my complaining scare you away.

[ballet-symphonie]

I need to rant somewhere: Catherine Pollack wrote this on her instagram: LIKE WHAT THE FFFFFF. The irony is that she posted videos of Khiteeva dancing BEAUTIFULLY alongside this.

A memorable matinee performance of “Raymonda” took place on March 15. First, there were more than twenty debuts in roles ranging from principal to secondary and character parts. Second, and unfortunately, A. Ermakov was injured during his variation. Another factor, in my opinion, was the accumulated stress caused by his many years of being (and there’s no other word for it) exploited as the company’s tallest and strongest male dancer, tasked with lifting larger female soloists. Instead of getting into shape themselves, these dancers relied on his exceptional partnering abilities. He repeatedly risked his health by lifting performers of weight categories that, by definition, should not exist in classical ballet (though this doesn’t entirely apply to the debuting ballerina). Before long, the tall prima ballerinas of the Mariinsky will have no partner to dance with, because these female soloists simply cannot lose weight.

By the way, Andrei “jumped into” the production, replacing T. Askerov, with whom A. Khiteeva had been preparing her debut (Timur withdrew a couple of days prior). I must commend Alexandra’s resilience and resourcefulness: having lost her partner on stage, she instantly adapted and filled the sudden gap in Jean de Brienne’s coda with an improvised repeat of her own coda using passé relevé—at an incredible tempo and with aplomb. Bravo! In the current climate, stress tolerance is in high demand; the company needs ballerinas it can depend on.

All the same, A. Khiteeva’s inclusion in “Raymonda” is contentious for reasons I’ve already discussed in my notes. Her artistic type is more ingénue than Grand Dame, and her access to the lead roles in “Swan Lake,” “La Bayadère,” and “Raymonda” was justifiably restricted, primarily due to her ballet and physical attributes—her stocky figure and proportions.

“The role of Kitri can be assigned to a highly agile ballerina… But to dance Odette and Odile or Raymonda, a ballerina must have a slender figure, ‘singing’ arms, and long legs. Dancers with a squat figure are not suitable for these roles…,” writes choreographer R.V. Zakharov, and I share his opinion. To be continued…

I thought on the whole, Khiteeva danced very well, especially given the last-minute partner switch. Khiteeva has a lovely presence, vintage port de bras and elegant, restrained classical lines and I've read numerous comments saying her persona isn't done justice on the video. I know Khiteeva is not the most traditional adagio dancer but I was blown away. The dream adagio variation is stunning, smooth, and calm and the details of her port de bras are unmissable. Not to mention, her reprisal of the coda, when Ermakov had gotten injured literally just minutes before, takes nerves of steel (and iron calves).

My main criticisms with her lie in the wedding variation, her legs just look a little shot and you can tell. I thought she looked a bit tired and this affected her upper body and epaulement as well, which was gorgeous for most of the ballet. There was wobbly pointework and some clunky and imprecise pas de bouree. This variation is deceptively difficult because it's so simple and your mistakes are so easily visible, and you have to dance it at the end of a very long ballet. Khiteeva has some progress to make in terms of her stamina for a full-length ballet, especially one as intense as Raymonda but I thought this was a very solid debut.

Regarding Pollack's complaints about on 'overweight' ballerinas. Khiteeva's body type, while not as slender as some of the other Mariinsky dancers, resembles a lot of dancers in major European and American companies. I'm not going to name names but look at some of the top principals at the Royal, Dutch National, and even Paris Opera for instance. Of course, all of the women are in ridiculous shape, but few are as rail thin as many of the Russians, this doesn't affect their ability to dance or portray particular characters in ballet. This is separate from talking about typecasting or technical abilities.

And while I don't disagree that Ermakov is overworked, telling the women that they need to diet to extremes is just not the solution. Google says Ermakov is 195 cm, at that height, he's going to be responsible for dancing with the tallest women in the company. Mariinsky knows what dancers they have employed- and they have a lot of tall, long-legged women. They're not suddenly going to weigh (nor should they) the same as shorter dancers. There is also not an actual 'definition' of a magic weight that a professional dancer has to weigh. I'm sure Pollack is referring to the VBA regulations but those are incredibly stringent, (girls over 50kg are often not allowed to be lifted) and have been consistently tied to eating disorders and also are structured for students going through puberty, not fully grown women. I know for a fact that these are certainly not followed in the professional world. Certainly, there is pressure to be in shape and to be thin, but different bodies carry weight differently and there is a growing acceptance of dancers looking like women and not like toothpicks, especially in the West. Case in point, I weigh more than 50kg, I'm dancing pas de deux, classical and contemporary on stage with a prominent theater, as do many of my colleagues. So much about safe, effective lifts is about technique, coordination and trust, not just about a number on the scale.

The bigger issue, which Pollack makes no mention of is that Ermakov does not have enough help. Among the principal men, Kimin and Stepin haven't been cast with the tallest women, only Askerov can really chip in. Considering the first soloists, Belyakov is useful but Capitane is not tall enough, Korneyev and Konovalov are not the most stable partners, Sergeev is aging out of big classical roles and Zverev's stage presence is frequently lackluster. The second soloists have a lot of young guys, who are slowly developing but have limited repertoires at the moment. I think Malyshev and Baibordin have a lot of potential, but I'm not sure either of them has danced a principal role in a full-length ballet. They can't be go to, pinch replacements with their lack of experience. This is one consequence of MT being so slow to develop their younger men, it means that people like Ermakov and Askerov have more intense workloads and are more vulnerable to injury. Now I wish the MT management did more to combat that, if they want to continue to hire so many tall, lanky women, I wish they would be more proactive about hiring men and continuing to look outside VBA for talent.