#which inevitably places one's sense of identity in the audience of that story rather than in the actual self | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

caffeinatedseri · 4 years

Text

Dead Apple Light Novel

Recently, I decided to buy LN 5, Dead Apple, purely because I’m a sucker for all of BSD’s light novels, so this post will revolve around what I took away from this novel.

Dead Apple is Canon

Since the story jumps around in the timeline a lot, I had originally thought that Dead Apple took place outside of canon (especially with Atsushi’s flashback).

However, a particular part of Asagiri’s afterword stuck out to me:

Now, allow me a moment to discuss some of the particulars of Dead Apple. Chronologically, the story takes place after the second season of the anime — in other words, after the war with the Guild, which puts Dead Apple somewhere between the ninth and tenth volumes of the manga.

The novel also ended up affecting the main story in numerous ways, and I’m sure this new experience will continue to influence my future work as well.

It’s not unusual for a light novel to insert itself into the main timeline (see 55 Minutes which takes place in the 10th volume), but it’s nice to have confirmation that the same applies to Dead Apple.

Of course, just because a work isn’t canon compliant (see BEAST), doesn’t mean that it has no potential for further analysis or it doesn’t bring any added complexity to the main plot. Regardless, this post serves as somewhat of a precursor to my other posts concerning Dead Apple since I have a tendency to talk about it a lot, and I’d like to establish a basis for a lot of my posts.

Differences between the Movie and Light Novel

In the afterword of the light novel, Hiro Iwahata (the author of this LN) said:

“Furthermore, I worked on this book under Asagiri’s supervision, meaning there are several lines in certain scenes that differ from the movie. It might even be fun comparing the two! Nothing would make me happier than the fans enjoying this novel alongside the movie.”

As per Iwahata’s request, I went into the light novel, looking for differences between it and the movie. However, the novel is surprisingly, almost identical to the movie (maybe not surprising considering it is a “movie novelization”).

Because the differences are so miniscule, I believe they hold an even greater significance, since Asagiri must have wanted to change these specific details for a certain reason.

Some of the differences I talk about might be unimportant, but I did my best to catch everything that was changed from the movie.

1. The movie doesn’t mention SKK as a part of the Dragon’s Head Conflict, but the novel says, “Some fought under the alias Twin Dark.”

This probably means that SKK became a pair either before the Dragon’s Head Conflict or during (although I’m pretty sure that the “organization” they destroyed over night was Shibusawa’s organization).

2. When Dazai says that he would’ve continued killing people in the mafia if it weren’t for Oda, Atsushi has little to no reaction in the movie; I would describe it as maybe a hesitant or concerned feeling.

In the novel, Atsushi has a more outward reaction.

““Huh...?!” Atsushi was baffled. He had no idea whether that was true. What did Dazai mean by that? (...) The melancholy Atsushi felt from Dazai had disappeared, and Dazai continued to speak in his usual lighthearted manner.”

Not only does he react verbally, but the novel also adds an inner monologue (mainly for Atsushi) that can’t be portrayed as well in movie format.

To me, this change highlights how Atsushi sees Dazai purely as a good person; he reacts in such a startled manner because he believes that Dazai is too good of a person to be in the mafia killing people (which we know Atsushi hates). This trend reoccurs throughout the story, of Atsushi turning a blind eye to Dazai’s “bad side.”

3. This one isn’t at all the movie’s fault, but the novel gives a lot more clues as to what the “dead apple” and the dagger in the apple motif represents.

The first time it appears is when Kunikida and Tanizaki meet the Special Division’s agent, but they find out that he’s already dead.

“It [the apple] was, without a doubt, a simple fruit... save for the fact that there was a knife sticking out of it as if to condemn the taste of sin. A blade had been driven into the symbol of original sin. A dreary, ominous aura, oozed from the ripe fruit like venom.

Throughout the novel, it seems to associate the “dead apple” motif with Fyodor pretty strongly, especially since this paragraph ties in Fyodor’s ideals nicely with the symbolism of the apple and dagger.

The apple represents sin, the very first sin — which you could interpret as sin at its purest — while the dagger represents the condemning of such sin. However, the apple can also potentially symbolize life, while the dagger stabbing into life can mean death.

Fyodor’s ideals revolve around “removing the sin” of ability users (represented by an apple in this case) but he does so through manipulation. The dagger is associated with stealth and deception, which is fitting with what Fyodor does to “remove the sin” of ability users.

However, he’s also taking the lives of ability users in this process, hence stabbing the apple, coincidentally committing another sin in his attempt to relinquish all sin.

4. In the “Snow White” Oda and Dazai flashback, everything is identical to the movie (word for word), but there is some additional narration.

“It was an alarming sight — Dazai sounded like he was in a trance. It was as if he was ignoring all this world had to offer while in pursuit of something else.”

I’ve talked about this particular scene before here, but the gist is that Dazai was discreetly talking about himself while referring to Snow White.

Dazai joined the mafia because he believed that the violence (or true human nature) would give him a reason to live, but we already know that this kind of thinking was flawed. Thus, this line most likely means that Dazai was ignoring all of the “good” qualities of the world while pursuing a reason to live, which inevitably wouldn’t work.

5. Right after the flashback, when Dazai takes the pill, the novel really sells the act of “Dazai walking towards his death and going to the evil side.”

Personally, this scene in the movie felt more open to interpretation after you’ve seen the ending. You could say that Dazai took the antidote and said “Being on the side that saves people is more beautiful,” because his plan is to continue living to save more people.

However, the novel throws away any possible double meaning with this paragraph:

“Dazai then reached for the pill with his bandaged hand, neatly picked it up, and slowly brought it to his lips — just like Snow White and the sweet, poisoned apple. The venomous red-and-pure-white-pill disappeared inside his mouth.”

After Dazai’s tangent on how Snow White could’ve committed suicide out of despair, the narration compares him directly to Snow White. With the added venomous pill stated outright, it only further cements the idea that Dazai’s actually committing suicide here.

I don’t particularly like this change, because it feels like this moment was set up entirely just to divert the audience’s expectations, rather than it be a standalone scene that makes sense when considering the rest of the story. (It might not necessarily be a change, possibly just a rough translation from movie to novel).

6. When Atsushi wakes up from his nightmare, there’s some additional inner monologue:

Everything’s okay. I’m not the same person I was when I lived at the orphanage. I have friends. I have a place where I belong — the Armed Detective Agency. Things are different now.

The anime (and in turn the movie) tends to downplay the effects of Atsushi’s trauma — probably due to the limitations of anime — but regardless the novel portrays it much better with how Atsushi’s trauma affects practically every aspect of his life.

7. I thought Fukuzawa’s ability only gave his subordinates control over their abilities, but the novel says:

“Yukichi Fukuzawa and his skill, All Men are Equal, a peculiar ability that allowed him to suppress and control his subordinates’ skills.”

Does this mean that Fukuzawa could control and suppress all of the agency’s abilities? It could be a weird translation, but it seems oddly specific.

8. This detail isn’t actually a novel exclusive, but it is an extremely small detail that I missed while watching the movie, so I figured I would add it here too.

“the phantom’s notebook had the word Compromise written on the cover. A copy of himself that didn’t follow ideals but made compromises was an abomination to Kunikida.”

Considering how abilities act as the shadow to every character in this story, this is a nice detail that shows how Kunikida’s inner desire is to compromise, because carrying such heavy ideals is undoubtedly a burden. However, because he holds onto his ideals so strongly, it becomes his biggest weakness AND his biggest strength.

9. There’s a super small detail added to this scene with Dazai, Fyodor, and Shibusawa. When Dazai suggests that Shibusawa could be saved by an angel or a demon, the following exchange occurs:

“Hmm... Maybe an angel?” Dazai picked up the skull on the table. “Or maybe a demon?” “It’s obvious what both of your true intentions are, if you ask me.” The third man mirthfully cackled and took the skull from Dazai’s hand.

In the movie, Dazai doesn’t pick up anything, so as a result Fyodor doesn’t take anything from Dazai either.

Because Fyodor walked into the scene after Dazai suggested that an angel or demon would save Shibusawa, I strongly suspect that this was foreshadowing future events in which Fyodor does “save” Shibusawa by giving him his memories back.

The novel adds more to this foreshadowing by having Dazai pick up the skull before it’s taken by Fyodor — essentially having Fyodor take the cards out of Dazai’s hands and put them in his favor.

It’s also worth pointing out that the skull is also the object that Fyodor uses to revive Shibusawa into a supernatural ghost of some sorts at the end of the story.

10. This may be just a difference in translations but in the movie, Shibusawa refers to Fyodor as “Demon Fyodor-kun”, whereas in the novel Fyodor is called “Fyodor the Conjurer.” (Ango uses the Conjurer title as well).

In western esotericism, a conjurer is a person who summons supernatural beings, like spirits, demons, or God.

This slightly changes the connotation of Fyodor’s title from a inhuman being of pure malicious intent to just a human who summons these otherworldly beings. This idea also aligns with Shibusawa’s revival, since he’s some sort of supernatural ghost that was “summoned” by Fyodor.

11. Skipping past the parts where Kyouka and Akutagawa regain their abilities, and Chuuya talks to Ango in the government facility, (since they have little to no changes between the movie and the novel) there is a somewhat significant detail changed in Draconia once again with Dazai and Fyodor.

In the novel, this glowing ball of energy from the movie is actually described as an apple:

The two lights melted into one and spun until they formed a juicy sphere. They had produced a single apple — a juicy, poisoned apple red as blood.

It birthed a skill — and an extremely powerful one at that — the ability to absorb. Every last crystal adorning Draconia’s walls was sucked into the apple with intense force. Ten — a hundred — a thousand — two thousand — every last one was greedily devoured by the apple...

The apple swelled as it absorbed the numerous crystals until the red light became hotter than the surface of hell.

Since the “dead apple” motif aligns with Fyodor’s character, we can assume that the apple is representative of sin, and sin is associated with abilities, as Fyodor believes.

This strange poisoned apple is made of abilities and has an ability (the ability to absorb), and it commits a sin (greed) in its devouring of other abilities; it’s also hotter than “hell”, which is a very specific connection that leads me to this idea:

My theory is that a normal apple represents life, while a poisoned apple (or dead apple), indicative of a stained, impure life, represents sin. Fyodor believes abilities are akin to sin (what a clever rhyme), therefore all of their lives are sinful.

12. This is arguably the most insignificant change of this entire post, but I feel obligated to put it here regardless since it was different from the movie. When the Special Division detects the singularity of Shibusawa’s dragon form in the novel, it says:

“Abnormal values for singularity are increasing! They’re twice — no, 2.5 times higher than they were six years ago.”

In the movie, the number is five times higher instead.

Why did this number change? Is it significant? I honestly have no idea (I’m surprised I even caught this), but it’s there and I had to document it anyways.

13. The novel adds this narration for Shibusawa when he gets his memories back and he’s in the orphanage’s room with Atsushi:

“Shibusawa clearly recalled the events from six years ago. Fyodor had enticed him to go to the orphanage where he tortured a young Atsushi... until Atsushi fought back and killed him.”

There’s two things to take away from this: Fyodor had known Shibusawa for at least six years, and Fyodor had been planning the events of Dead Apple since at least six years ago.

I find it hard to believe that Fyodor’s plan was thwarted by Dazai, because of how Fyodor demonstrated his ability to plan ahead in the main series, but I’m not sure what the long term effects of this plan could be. If Shibusawa succeeded, then it could’ve aligned with the DOA’s goals, but once again I don’t think Fyodor’s plan was actually foiled.

14. Super minor once again, but right after Shibusawa gets revived, the last sentence of chapter 5 is,

“Nobody would ever see the smile on Fyodor’s face.”

Honestly, I think this was just added to create an ominous tone, but it’s a nice detail regardless.

15. As the red fog spreads across Yokohama, there’s a good part of exposition that connects the “dead apple” motif to Fyodor once again:

“After the red fog devoured the earth, the planet would undoubtedly look like a floating red apple from space. There would be no humans left on its surface, nor any signs they ever existed. It would be a true paradise, and with that, the Dead Apple would finally be complete. A dead planet covered in red fog — that was what Fyodor had planned and sought out.

Nothing other than death could wash away the original sin of man, so it was only fitting for the sin, which started with a fruit, to end with one as well.

It’s pretty long, but I like the way this passage is written, more specifically the last part since it fits well with the sinful poisoned apple idea.

It also aligns with Fyodor’s ideals of creating a true paradise, free of ability users. However, if Fyodor had planned to have the Earth covered in fog, that could mean that his plan was actually stopped by Dazai and Atsushi in the end.

16. Shibusawa has a few additional lines of dialogue when he talks to Atsushi in their final fight.

“The dragon and tiger... I see now why they are called rivals.”

The dragon and tiger have their roots in Chinese Buddhism, but to go further into that topic would make this already lengthy post even longer.

“Don’t get the wrong idea, though. I’m not blaming you for what happened.”

This line is a brief moment of weakness for Shibusawa, which is interesting in contrast to his strong will to kill Atsushi. Just as Atsushi learned to accept the past and the tiger’s ferocity, Shibusawa shares the same attitude by separating the blame from himself to just simply accepting the past for what happened.

17. In the aftermath of the last fight against Shibusawa, Atsushi and Kyouka meet up with Dazai.

Kyouka asks, “Are you sure this is what you wanted?” which prompts two different responses in the movie and novel respectively.

In the movie, Atsushi says, “Just as Shibusawa was able to forget that he’d been killed before, I think Dazai can put his past behind him again. But this is fine.”

In the novel, Atsushi says:

“... I could probably seal away this memory just like how I’d forgotten I’d killed him before. But... I’m okay with this.”

I interpreted Kyouka’s question in the movie to be questioning Dazai’s loyalties, as he did betray everyone, and Atsushi responded in Dazai’s defense because he trusts him.

However, the novel does change Atsushi’s response to focus on himself rather than Dazai, which in turn changes the implications of Kyouka’s question.

Kyouka seems to be asking Atsushi whether he was okay with killing Shibusawa, and Atsushi responds by acknowledging that he did kill Shibusawa, and that’s okay. (a very clear development from the beginning of the story when he believed it was unnecessary to kill anyone, and he didn’t want to kill anyone)

18. In the epilogue, Ango talks about the underlying motivations behind the “Dead Apple” case. This change could be attributed to translation differences (like many others in this post), but the connotation does slightly differ from movie to novel.

In the movie, Ango says, “How is a man like Shibusawa, so intelligent that others look like alien creatures to him, to act, to be destroyed, or to be saved?”

In the novel, Ango says:

“Perhaps the two of them [Dazai and Fyodor] just wanted to get a glimpse of someone like them... Perhaps they wanted to see what he would do and how he would meet his demise... or perhaps how he would be saved.”

The movie simply poses a broad question of what would happen to Shibusawa, a person alienated from the rest of society.

The novel changes this to focus on Dazai and Fyodor’s perspective — two irredeemable aliens from society just like Shibusawa — executing this grand scheme out of curiosity to see what would happen to someone of the likes of them, and if there’s a possibility for redemption.

19. This is the final difference on this list, and it’s quite a large change. In Fyodor’s monologue at the very end of the story, he has a completely different tone from the movie to novel.

In the movie, Fyodor says, “But in order to end this world, rife with crime and punishment, I do need that book.”

The novel says:

Glittering high-rises and stately brick buildings stood side by side in this port city with its countless citizens who struggled against crime and punishment. “I think I’ve taken a liking to this city myself..” Fyodor took a bite of the apple in his hand, and the juicy nectar ran down his delicate fingers. “You’d all better be on your best behavior until next time.”

The reference to the book may have been removed for consistency with the main series, as the book is a part of the DOA’s plan (or more specifically Fukuchi).

It also seems like Fyodor has grown fond of the city, and no longer wants Yokohama to be destroyed, so it’s still possible that his plan deterred from what he had originally intended.

Beyond that, I’m not entirely sure why crime and punishment was mentioned, or why there’s such an ominous tone to his ending statement, but that’s up to personal interpretation.

That concludes the long list of extremely specific and minor differences between the Dead Apple movie and light novel!

Overall, I would say it’s worth checking out the light novel if you don’t have a strong grasp of the Dead Apple story, because it definitely presents the small intricacies of the plot in a more comprehensible way.

On a side note, the manga adaptation has a lot of noticeable differences from the movie and light novel, mostly with the addition of entirely new scenes (which you can read @buraihatranslations — what a shameless self plug). I would highly recommend reading it as those extra scenes are very amusing, to say the least without giving any spoilers.

Honestly, this post was a lot longer than I intended, but I hope you enjoyed it regardless. Thank you for reading!

#bsd #bsd dead apple #bsd meta #bungou stray dogs

408 notes · View notes

philosopherking1887 · 3 years

Text

Writer tag game

Thanks for tagging me, @ectogeo-rebubbles... 4, days ago, sorry; my parents are visiting and I haven’t had much time to myself.

How many works do you have on AO3?

(Why is the number so big when I post? @sapphosewrites said the same thing, so I know it’s not just me...)

What's your total AO3 word count?

515,575

What are your top 5 fics by kudos?

Mostly Zuko-centric ATLA fics because a couple were inspired by a BNA whom I tagged in the Tumblr post, then she reblogged and lots of people saw them.

Between the Salt Water and the Sea Strand

To Give Birth to a Dancing Star (didn’t get very far on that one, oops)

The Last Argument

Zeno’s Paradox (the only non-ATLA fic on this list; I posted it very shortly after Thor: Ragnarok came out, before I realized how terrible it was)

Shame and Necessity

Do you respond to comments, why or why not?

Yes, almost always (unless someone said something weird, or one person left a bunch of identical short comments on different chapters of the same fic; it seems a bit silly to respond to every “<3″ with “Thanks!”). I respond to encourage people to keep commenting, by assuring them that I’m reading comments, I pay attention to their content, and I appreciate them. I especially like it when people comment on specific themes in the fic or how it relates to some aspect of canon, so that it starts an analytical conversation about the story and the characters -- which is what a lot of us are here for.

What's the fic you've written with the angstiest ending?

I’m gonna say The Third Time, because Loki actually permanently dies.

What's the fic you've written with the happiest ending?

Starting Over, I guess? That’s the hopeful ending of my Thorki series, taking place before some hypothetical version of the Infinity War storyline in which neither of our principal characters dies (because fuck the actual movies, and fuck Ragnarok too, while we’re at it). But there are other fics, sometimes intermediate in one of my series, that have hopeful rather than downbeat endings, even if more complications arise later. The Ninth Deadly Sin is a rare standalone fic with a happy ending (which I’d forgotten about until I went looking through my Works page for happy endings). Prince of Darkness also has a fairly happy ending that involves solving climate change with Frost Giants...

Do you write crossovers? If so, what is the craziest one you’ve ever written?

No, at least not yet. I have nothing against them in principle, and sometimes enjoy reading them, but since the target audience is the intersection of two (or more) fandoms, it’s necessarily going to be smaller than either fandom on its own.

Have you ever received hate on a fic?

Not really related to the fic. I did get a random nasty comment on a Garashir fic about a fan letter I wrote to Tom Hiddleston (and handed to his manager-person after seeing Betrayal in London) and then posted on Tumblr. Just someone being an asshole.

Do you write smut? If so what kind?

I do indeed! I write very chatty smut, with a lot of feelings, often angsty, and sometimes awkward, because sex can be awkward, especially if one or more of the participants is inexperienced (at least with bodies like their partner’s).

Have you ever had a fic stolen?

Not that I know of.

Have you ever had a fic translated?

Yes -- someone translated No Exit into French as Aucune sortie (though actually, the French title of the Sartre play that I named the fic after is Huis clos).

Have you ever co-written a fic before?

Nope.

What’s your all-time favorite ship?

I’m inevitably going to answer that kind of question with my current favorite ship, which is Garashir... but that might actually be my all-time favorite ship because the fandom is a lot more welcoming and chill than others I’ve been in before.

What’s a WIP that you want to finish but don’t think you ever will?

Hoo boy. All the people I’ve seen doing this tag game previously have said they don’t have any; I have 5 partially posted WIPs in old fandoms that I doubt I’ll pick up again. I think I’ve tagged most of them as “on hiatus” and warned readers in author’s notes that I probably won’t finish... Do I want to finish them? In theory, yes; in practice, no.

What are your writing strengths?

I’ve most often received compliments on my dialogue, which I also find the easiest thing to write; my favorite version of this compliment is when people say that they can hear the dialogue in the actors’/characters’ voices. Some people enjoy the philosophical discussions that I can’t help inserting into my fics...

What are your writing weaknesses?

Plots. Thing happening. I cannot come up with plots. All of my fics are just people talking and having thoughts and feelings about things.

What are your thoughts on writing dialogue in other languages in a fic?

Ask yourself: what does it add to have the dialogue in the language it’s supposed to be in rather than translated? If the POV character speaks the language, would it be sufficient to note that they’ve switched to a different language, or put it in italics or something to indicate that? If the POV character doesn’t speak the language, would it make more sense to just say that other characters have spoken an unintelligible string in another language, or that they just caught a few words, or whatever? That’s not to say that there’s never a good reason to include the actual language; if the actual words are important, or if it matters that the POV character doesn’t switch effortlessly between languages, or if it just adds some richness of texture that you’re going for, it can make sense.

If it’s a real language that you’re not fluent in, do ask someone who is to check your grammar.

What was the first fandom you wrote for?

Harry Potter, of course; I am that age, after all. I wrote fics about Tom Riddle and/or Voldemort when I was in middle school in 2001-2. I’ve always been interested in the villain’s perspective.

What’s your favorite fic you’ve written?

At the moment, Had we but world enough, and time. It stayed reasonably self-contained while also covering the issues I wanted it to cover, with some smut thrown in. Maybe my best fic is actually an older one, but my favorite is always in my current fandom, because that’s what I’m excited about... and I’d like to think my writing has been improving with practice.

Tagging: @delicatetrashstranger, @vermin-disciple, @hex-o, @judiops, @the-last-dillpickle... and @illwynd and @incredifishface (since I actually ended up talking about my Loki and Thorki fics in this one).

#fic writer tag game #my fanfiction

14 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 3 years

Note

The Crosshair stuff is a symptom of the lacklustre character establishment of it's main cast. Crosshair is the only Bad Batcher with a defined character to pull from, even if it's wrapped in the cluster fuck of the show being indecisive about the Inhibitor chips's abilities. The rest don't have a developed enough personality to draw from, they're archetypes who'll voice the position the plot needs them to occupy at the moment. What they'll defend in one episode they'll decry the next.

TBB characters are definitely archetypal, though I'm not sure I'd agree that this is inherently a bad thing and/or that it's at the root of the Crosshair messiness. Archetypes don't necessarily equal a lack of a character, just a character that we've seen many times before. Unless you prioritize novelty in your storytelling (which many people do), there's nothing inherently wrong with taking the "dumb," but emotionally intelligent brute, the socially inept genius, the stoic leader, and the "evil" asshole, cramming them in a small ship together, and letting sparks fly. The reason that dynamic works — as it has worked many times before — is because it pits such differing personalities against one another, resulting in both great teamwork and amusing conflict: such as when Wrecker is gleefully stuffing Lula in a pissed-off Crosshair's face. The contrast is fun and that contrast stems primarily from keeping their personalities simple and defined. Unless you really know what you're doing, the more you mess with those personality boxes, the less individualized your characters feel. See: the RWBYJNOR team who have, over the years, lost both their specialized skills and their distinguishing personality traits. The person who just blushed sweetly and awkwardly rubbed a hand behind their neck... was it Ruby? Oscar? Blake? Yang? Jaune? Even Nora? Could be any of them because at this point their core personalities have flattened. Though it's definitely not to everyone's taste, the black and white differences between TBB was kind of refreshing. Throw out a line of dialogue and you can easily figure out who said it. There's something to be said for that level of understanding about a character, even if the understanding itself is simple.

Personally, I'd say the problem lies not in creating another team where everyone has a distinct skill and a stereotypical personality to match, but rather in severely underutilizing the thing that shook that dynamic up: Echo.

Look, I ADORE Omega. I was cheering for my fictional daughter through every step of this season (quite literally during "Replacements"). But—but—if we wanted to push things in the character development department, I'd relegate her to season two. Omega's character serves as the audience surrogate/newbie/hopeful optimist archetype and that's great... provided that you ignore how Echo was already positioned to fill those roles. He became the newest member of TBB, but we skipped over his integration to instead introduce another new member. And, as much as I love her, Omega doesn't push TBB the way that Echo could.

TCW introduced a severe dislike for the "regs," something the first episode of TBB re-emphasized through the cafeteria scene, and then what do you know, the newest member is a former reg. I was expecting there to be a lot of tension stemming from that as the group worked to overcome their prejudice, a prejudice we now know is born of harassment and, interestingly, a sense of superiority. That's one of the few places where TBB does something unexpected: rather than suffering severe insecurity about being "defective," TBB is proud of their differences. (Or, at least, they've embraced pride to cover insecurity.) But unlike a reg's haircut, tattoos, or name, theirs isn't an individuality that they chose. The Kaminoans made them to be different. "I like to blow stuff up because I LIKE TO BLOW STUFF UP" Wrecker roars, but it's a moment that foreshadows his eventual fall to the chip: "No one controls me." Except, you know, he is controllable. There's a story there about characters trying to remain proud of skills and personalities that they know are engineered, trying to embrace individuality when they know they're controllable, who long for the stability and connection of their brothers, but reject the uniformity of "real" clones... and then there's Echo, suddenly on the scene, a former "real" clone who now is nothing like the majority of his brothers, whose differences were also forced on him by another, who should likewise be grappling with embracing his individuality vs. hating how it separates him from what he once knew... that's a lot. Echo could have — arguably should have — been the catalyst for a ton of self-reflection within TBB, mirroring his own development, and resulting in archetypal characters who nevertheless have a secondary layer of nuance.

But none of that happened because Omega became the focus instead, a character who forced TBB to struggle with taking care of a child, not struggle with their own identities. I'd thought for a hot second that the conflict would be whether soldiers could raise a child at all — whether they'd have to change for Omega's benefit — but instead she rather quickly became a soldier of her own, despite how often the dialogue insisted she wasn't. Here's her weapon. Here's her memorizing orders. Here's her first mission alone. Here's her almost never struggling with the horrors that she's experienced; she's as emotionally sturdy as the men bred for war. Omega develops, which is fantastic to watch, but the downside is that everyone else, our title characters, remain pretty static. I think if we'd had a season of Echo joining TBB, perhaps taking place a little before Order 66, and then Omega came on the scene, we would have seen a bit more depth to their characters, simply by virtue of Echo being a character whose personality and problems would inevitably push them. Omega doesn't push them. She's wonderful... and from a writing standpoint that's kinda the problem. She's always optimistic, always compassionate, doesn't take long to get good at these complex skills, never wavers in being satisfied and happy with this life. TBB never had to change to care for her, Omega just did them the courtesy of becoming another elite-soldier capable of keeping up with their dangerous, crazy lives. Her presence is a constant joy and benefit to the team, adding only good things to the status quo they'd developed. Echo? His arrival should, theoretically, have shaken the status quo like whoa. Here's this traumatized reg trying to become a member of a four-unit team who have an Us vs. Them approach to life. That's a recipe for conflict and development.

However, just because I can see other possibilities for TBB doesn't mean I think what we got is wrong. Yeah, it's simple in many respects and as said, the comparative complexity of Crosshair's situation might not end well, but beyond that, simple isn't inherently bad. I found it a lot of fun to watch a found family of extreme personalities take in a wonderful child and go on adventures together. I don't need every show — particularly every Star Wars show — to be a deep dive into complex storytelling. It can be enough to just embrace predictability, especially since the predictable became predictable because lots of people liked those choices.

#Star Wars #SW #TBB #The Bad Batch

18 notes · View notes

ickeyandmian · 4 years

Text

oops here are some thoughts on 11x08 regarding Frank and Terry’s storylines

Spoilers ahead

Please bear in mind that these are my thoughts and interpretations. I understand others may not feel the same, and that the themes in this episode could have been difficult or painful for some, nonetheless I’m going to delve into what I took from it.

I didn’t come into season 11 expecting to care about Frank but for me, his mental decline has been one of the most interesting storylines of this season, and arguably the most interesting storyline for his character throughout the show as a whole. What sticks out for me mostly is the care that the writers have clearly taken in setting up these final moments of Frank Gallagher’s swan song. This is a hard topic, it’s hard for viewers, who have developed a love/hate relationship with the man over the past 10 seasons, it’s hard for those who may have experienced loved ones suffering from dementia, and it’s a hard topic to write sensitively, especially for a character like Frank who has toed the line between villain and hero since day one.

But I do feel the writers are taking that care. It’s a slow burn, it’s not something that has come out of nowhere. It feels justified, developed, and with every episode we see those clues and those symptoms build and build and we know that there’ll be no lucky escape this time.

Frank has always had strong ties to his environment, he proudly belongs in the southside and that is heavily linked to his own selfhood, as we saw in 11x01 and his ramblings of the Gallagher’s history in Chicago (a questionable topic in terms of its accuracy). But that’s all being taken away from him. We’ve seen the gentrification of the south side, the threat of the Gallagher house being sold and now, in the latest episode, something so small as the renaming of a school is enough to threaten that wavering sense of his identity that Frank has been slowly losing as the series goes on.

Memory is a fickle thing, especially when it betrays you. The smallest things can trigger a stream of thoughts buried deep in the back of your mind and at this point, Frank relies on those triggers, because without them he ends up wandering the streets in the dark, calling out his kid’s names in a desperate attempt to simply find his way home. He talked fondly of his school days and, though he may or may not be fully aware of it, there’s a real fear that that’s going to go too, that he’ll forget.

If the school has a different name, what will ignite those happy memories again?

So he falls into his old ways, it’s political correctness gone too far, it’s a ploy by the woke millenials to specifically target people like Frank, to take away everything from him, to rewrite a history that he’s terrified he’ll one day forget and will be gone entirely. It’s a painful irony to watch his devout duty to remember battling against the inevitability of his regressing mind. Which is why, when it comes down to it and he’s standing in front of the panel of judges, we see that it was never about the naming of the school. It was about the memories he has, the ones he can still pick out of his muddled mind and share with a room full of strangers and about the responsibility we have to remember the past.

And when Frank says there are ‘Gallagher memories embedded in every inch of that school’, we see the hint at the bigger issue at play here. Selling the house, a place that’s much more befitting of that statement than an elementary school. Without it, will Frank remember his family? His childhood? Will he forget Monica eventually too? The house is the last rickety foundation of Frank’s memories, and I’m equal parts excited and anxious to see what path his storyline goes down should they sell.

Now Terry.

Terry’s was a story about closure. But this is Shameless, and we were never going to get a neat and tidy resolution. It’s gritty and it’s complicated which is part of what makes this show what it is. There’s a lot here that felt significant, though it’s hard to tell if it’s intentionally so or if, as a fan, I’m reaching as always to desperately explain every nuance of what we are given of Mickey.

The driving force of this episode is that Terry Milkovich fucking sucks.

We know that, have known that for 10 seasons, and Mickey knows that, but Mickey is in the unique position of being both Terry Milkovich’s son and the face of a people he hates. Though we all would have loved to see Mickey turn his back on him for good, I’m glad we didn’t.

Family is family, and that is something that has been ingrained into Mickey since he was a child. It’s something that’s been weaved into the show from the start, from Mickey defending Mandy from an alleged assault no questions asked, to Mickey’s brother’s helping him kill Frank, again with no questions asked.

This has been discussed countless times by people much better at words than I am so I won’t labour the point, but we’ve seen the strength of Mickey’s sense of duty, the agony it causes him and how he does it anyway. And in this episode, we got a glimpse at that relationship from both sides.

The exchange between the two of them ‘You’d have made a have decent son…’ Vs ‘You’d have made a half decent dad…’ felt genuine in a way I wasn’t expecting. Not much was said, and what was said was laced with insults but the intent was there. Terry, racist, homophobic, vile, evil Terry in an undignified moment of vulnerability in being taken care of by the person he tortured and abused, is forced to face that fact. I’m not saying he feels remorse, or guilt or anything resembling that, but he’s aware of the situation and he responds to it. All he has left are his scathing words. He uses them, Mickey fights back and they’re left at a ceasefire.

It’s an exchange that sums up their years of history, and the fact that they had that conversation together is so important to the closure of their story because it’s an acknowledgement. It’s Terry admitting that Mickey was useful to him, then and now, and it’s Mickey finally getting to say what he’s always wanted to his father, just the two of them, without an audience. We then see Terry open his mouth and we, as an audience, wonder for just a moment if there is going to be more, maybe Mickey does too until it’s clear that Terry is just ordering Mickey to continue feeding him, to continue to be useful.

It’s interesting that in this small gesture, we see that Mickey’s usefulness in the situation outweighs Terry’s hatred of him, something that’s never happened between them.

And I believe from Mickey’s point of view, he understood that that’s as close to an apology as he’s going to get. But I also don’t think he was looking for one. He said himself, he wants to be better than Terry, and every single action he’s taken since then has proved that he already is.

I think I would have loved if this storyline had been given the time that Frank’s has, if it had been built up gradually, rather than the show treating Terry like a cartoon villain who in later seasons just seems to come and go when necessary, and then trying to squeeze whatever moments of sincerity they could from Noel’s gut-punching acting choices. (The look on Mickey’s face at the end is one I won’t be forgetting soon).

The death was shocking. I’m still figuring out how I feel about it. But it’s interesting to see that it’s Terry’s evil nature that is ultimately what killed him. His racist attitude chased away the first two carers, he bullied and harassed them until Ian and Mickey were forced to find someone white in the hopes his attitude would be different. Had he not driven the first two away, maybe he’d be alive. I would say he was undone by his own fatal flaw, but that would be implying Terry deserves the fanfare equal to that of a Greek hero. Instead, it’s simply an evil old man finally facing the consequences of his actions.

As they say in Oz, ding dong, the witch is dead.

#shameless spoilers #11x08 #TW dementia #TW death #Shameless #Frank Gallagher #Terry Milkovich #this got long oops

7 notes · View notes

victorious-hypersnakes · 4 years

Link

“A negative reaction in certain quarters to The Queen’s Gambit was inevitable, given the current political atmosphere. The popular Netflix series, based on the 1983 novel with the same title, ignores identity politics in its portrayal of a young woman’s rise to the top of the chess world.

In the Washington Post, Monica Hesse—who has weighed in foully in the #MeToo witch-hunt—summed up her view in a November 25 headline: “The Queen’s Gambit, a period drama that erases sexism from 1960, is the best fantasy show of the year.” Carina Chocano in the New York Times (“I Want to Live in the Reality of The Queen’s Gambit,” December 2) also asserts that a story “in which a female character succeeds in a man’s world without being harassed, assaulted, abused, ignored, dismissed, sidelined, robbed or forgotten” is a “fantasy.”

Hostile comments from such sources are a form of high praise. More about these reviews later.

One of the aspects of The Queen’s Gambit that makes the series effective is its avoidance of a didactic approach. As we have already noted, it has no simplistic villains or caricatures. The series does not begin with a message to hammer home, but realistically allows some important themes to emerge from the narrative itself.

A self-evident theme is that of young Beth Harmon’s success in a field that is overwhelmingly dominated by chess players who are men. The Queen’ s Gambit, however, does not place the issue of gender front and center. Instead it shows Beth’s emergence, not only as a chess champion, but also, as a rounded and wiser human being.

She struggles with the tremendous psychological trauma that comes with the loss of her family, and the particular circumstances that led to her becoming an orphan. The strict Christian orphanage in which she is placed is no help. While there, however, she meets an older girl, Jolene, as well as the building janitor, Mr. Shaibel. She finds a kind of salvation in chess.

This story, unusual but very authentic, cuts across the current orthodoxy in which every subject is depicted in terms of race and gender. Beth cannot and does not achieve her goal without assistance. Her supporters include men as well as women, Russians as well as Americans, the younger as well as older generations. Jolene, who is African American, is one of Beth’s strongest advocates. In the final episode, when she insists on lending Beth the money to travel to Moscow for the world championship competition, she says, “that’s what family does.”

Then there is Mr. Shaibel, who first introduces Beth, a withdrawn and traumatized nine-year-old, to the game of chess. Again, in the final episode, the bond between the older man and the young girl is movingly expressed after Shaibel’s death, when Beth, who has completely lost touch with him over the years, finds among his belongings at the orphanage a huge batch of newspaper clippings that reveal how he followed every step in her chess career. She breaks down in tears, and later, giving a magazine interview in Moscow, she insists above all that Mr. Shaibel be remembered as the man who first taught and helped her on the road to her future.

Other support for Beth comes from a number of young men who have been chess rivals, and who have come to respect and admire her for her determination and the growing warmth and generosity beneath her sometimes gruff exterior. This also finds expression in the final episode.

One can easily imagine the gnashing of teeth in upper-middle-class circles produced by these portrayals. At the same time, while The Queen’s Gambit goes counter to some of the current trends in popular culture, it immediately struck a chord with audiences and has become the most popular streaming series on Netflix. With 62 million views within its first month, it has been widely commented on, sparked a boom in the sale of chess sets and seen wide social media identification with its protagonist.

It is in this context that the Washington Post and the New York Times have published very similar “appreciations” of The Queen’s Gambit in the last two weeks. Both writers are clearly disturbed by the show, but they disguise their antagonism. Instead, they semi-facetiously choose to reinterpret the story as fantasy—escapist entertainment that has nothing at all to do with the real world.

Hesse in the Washington Post calls the show escapist, since it has “no women in peril” and “no skeezy men.” Though she claims to welcome the escapism, her descriptions betray her actual feelings. Her depiction of Mr. Shaibel is particularly revealing: “Beth meets an odd, reclusive janitor in her orphanage’s basement. An experienced viewer wonders if he’s about to molest her; instead he introduces her to the chessboard.” Later, Hesse continues, one of Beth’s rivals loans her strategy books and another provides her with an air mattress when she stays overnight, rather than assaulting or sexually harassing her.

All this is nothing more than a flight of fancy, according to Hesse. “And it’s at least some of why—even if viewers haven’t put their fingers on it—the show is so dang satisfying. … It’s revisionist history. It would be a wonderful future.”

Chocano’s approach in her New York Times Magazine piece closely resembles Hesse’s. She too expresses astonishment that Mr. Shaibel, “rather than molest her [Beth], teaches her to play chess.” According to Chocano, the circumstances depicted in The Queen’s Gambit are “so vanishingly rare that it comes across as utopian fiction.” This critic says she welcomes it—as long as we understand it as a daydream. This type of “of meritocratic, gender-agnostic fiction is desperately needed. … Nothing could be further from our current reality, but who needs our current reality?”

The claims that the series is appreciated because it is fantasy are disingenuous, to say the least. The show has struck a chord precisely because it is not seen as utopian fiction. The book was not a fantasy novel, and neither is its adaptation for film.

In the eyes of the upper-middle-class #MeToo campaigners, the relations between the sexes simply boil down to warfare. Men are generally rapists and monsters, with a few honorable exceptions. This is not an exaggeration on our part—look at their own words. According to Hesse, “an experienced viewer” would rationally expect that an older man, working as a janitor in an orphanage, would molest a nine-year-old child—in his own workplace, no less! And it is pure fantasy, on the other hand for this “odd” worker—who perhaps has three strikes against him, being white, male and old—to be impressed with the native ability and curiosity of the girl, and to be convinced to show her the game.

What about the claim that The Queen’s Gambit is fantasy because it ignores the problems facing women? This is also false. Beth faces enormous obstacles. She is not uniformly welcomed. She faces curiosity, disbelief and some condescension when she shows up for tournaments. The problem for the Post and Times writers is that the problems Beth faces do not include sexual harassment, which, according to them, must always and everywhere top the list.

There are other ways in which The Queen’s Gambit does not ignore the real world, including the issues facing women in the 1950s and ’60s. Some of Beth’s high school classmates in Lexington, Kentucky are pressured into early motherhood, or jobs that don’t allow for their fuller development. Her adoptive mother Alma must deal with a loveless marriage, a husband who deserts her and general unhappiness that encourages a drinking problem.

Above all, The Queen’s Gambit takes in a wider view of the world, including the working class. The world of Mr. Shaibel or Jolene (who they don’t mention at all) is not one that interests our upper-middle-class critics. Nor do they take note of the Soviet chess players, or of the chess fans, mostly women, who display increasing enthusiasm as Beth exits the tournament after successive victories.

How is it possible to watch this program and not be moved by Beth’s development, especially by the closing episode, when Beth realizes the impact and the heroic character of Mr. Shaibel? This is a real turning point for the young woman, more important than her chess triumphs up to then. And it leads to and is mirrored in the closing scene, when Beth spurns the State Department and its plans to use her fame for the purposes of the Cold War, instead returning to the street to meet and fraternize with her admiring Soviet chess players, most of them past retirement age.

The Post and Times critics note that Beth faces few obstacles, but there is another part of the story that they no doubt find utopian and in a sense dangerous, even if they don’t acknowledge it, and that is the unselfishness of Beth, as well as Jolene and Mr. Shaibel.

How could Shaibel teach a little girl to play chess? How could Jolene give Beth the money to travel to Moscow? How could Beth tell the State Department chaperone she is not interested in a dinner at the White House? This aspect, the rejection of the prevailing ethos of selfishness and wealth accumulation, is bound up with the issue of identity politics, directed as it is not toward the fight for equality and against discrimination, but rather toward personal advancement and power. The upper-middle-class critics instinctively recoil from this theme, and try to ignore it as best they can.

Young people see their experiences and their hopes embodied in the characters on screen. They exhibit a growing and healthy distrust of the claims for gender and racial “diversity” even while the status quo remains firmly entrenched. We repeat, the appearance and reception of The Queen’s Gambit are indeed hopeful signs of things to come.”

...You know every so often, the WSWS spits pure fire.

#the queen's gambit

3 notes · View notes

screenspirit · 5 years

Text

Critical Approach Question: “A film can be re-interpreted depending on the choice of critical approach” How far have you found this to be true when applying one or more critical approaches to your chosen film? ’Fight Club’

Opening Paragraph

David Fincher’s 1999 gritty cult classic ‘Fight Club’ perpetuates a rather complex and multidimensional narrative under the influence of various critical approaches that can be appropriately applied to the film. It stars Edward Norton and Brad Pitt as two personalities constructed under the values of the contemporary society depicted in the picture who assist in implying interpretations of what the film’s central critical approach is such as identity, violence, materialism and gender representation . This in turn can alter the way spectators perceive the film due to how the prioritisation of the approaches differs based on the individual audience member and therefore causes the film to be re-interpreted depending on the critical approach that has been chosen to be focused on, which is what I am going to be analysing in the following essay.

Arguments/Areas

Consumerism: The Narrator is a representation of the traditional stereotypical American citizen which the spectators can find a sense of personal representative in- he lives an over excessive lifestyle consisting of material items which he fills with false value. “That was not a bunch of stuff that got destroyed...it was ME [I’d like to thank the academy]” Ikea catalogue scene showing how he’s surrounded by material items that have become his personality. Project Mayhem plotting to blow up credit card companies. “All the debt gets erased”. Tyler Durden is the manifestation of an escape mechanism from the overwhelming emphasis on corporate America and is the complete opposite to the Narrator in the sense he rejects consumption and leaves a lifestyle that lacks material items e.g. his thrift store jacket and decaying house “I reject all the assumptions of civilisation especially the importance of material items” “I am free in all the ways you are not". Interpretation of the film is that it is satire on the modern and illogical value of consumerism in America and is attacking those who live a lifestyle similar to the Narrator (Fincher used to work in commercials so there is irony and a personal element in the attack)

Identity and Duality: Narrative grafts itself on two polar opposite characters, one respecting the laws and values of society and one who rebels against them. The Narrator’s real name is never revealed and he takes on numerous alias in the support group to conceal his identity from the members and the audience. He subconsciously creates the alter ego identity of Tyler Durden which is shown through David Fincher’s technique of one frame flashes acting as a subliminal message, the photocopying scene (“everything is a copy of a copy”), Doctor office scene, Testicular support group scene and after Narrator formally meets Marla. Tyler is the Narrator’s shadow figure and a mental archetype representing all the qualities the narrator represses in his daily life- Jungian Psychology. The Narrator starts off polite and well mannered which our society expects and praises but after the inevitable growth of fight club in a physical and metaphorical sense, he becomes more rough and physical. “I used to be such a nice guy”. He beats himself up to threaten his boss and get him fired. His costume becomes stained with blood and swollen face makeup to execute this transformation from sophisticated and white collar, identical to every other corporate worker to bruised and beaten which he wears with pride (Chuck Palahniuk came up with the story after getting beaten up but his bruises were ignored by co-workers who didn't care). Interpretation is that the film depicts an exploration into the human subconscious and what it is capable of creating after the repetitive cycle of a trite and tedious modern life.

Violence: The violence that swarms through the fight club allows the masculine shadow side to vent. The group hug from the support group is replaced with overwhelming and graphic acts of men beating each other changing the film’s overarching symbol of the modern man. The males turn to violence in a desperate attempt to reawaken the senses that have been dulled and watered down by their quotidian existences and corporate jobs. “A guy you met at Fight Club wasn’t the same guy you met on the streets”. “A guy who came to Fight Club for the first time, his ass was a wad of cookie dough, after a few weeks he was carved out of wood.” The setting of the basement is a visual representation of a place where men can experience a true sense of ‘being’ and provides a space in which they can transcend the reality of their lifestyle, contrasts to the setting of the office with its high key lighting making it appear unsaturated and dull. Narrator brutally beats Angel Face demonstrates how excessive violence can cause a lack of control over one’s interactions with others, micro elements of cinematography and editing- camera is placed beneath Narrator in low angle shot to make him appear powerful and threatening (something that has been given to him through violence and fighting). “I wanted to destroy something beautiful”. Interpretation is that it is a presentation on violence and how it impacts and alters those who partake in it. Review by Robert Ebert:”a celebration of violence” and Megan Koester:”brutality they exercise on each other is borderline pornography”.

Gender Representation: Marla Singer is the only female presence in the film but what she stands for is adequate enough to counteract and make up for the severe lack of female presence. Macro element of character representation. She invades the support group where the Narrator seeks refuge and comfort to eliminate his insomnia and this symbolises her invading his security with his masculinity and altering how he perceives himself and makes him insecure. She is found in his mancave and replaces his spirit animal, highlighting how she is infecting his masculine identity. “If I did have a tumour, I would name it Marla”. She has the power to make the Narrator simultaneously despise her and feel unable to ignore her presence, “the little scratch on the root of your mouth that would heal if only you would stop tonguing it but you can’t”. She is brought into the film as a foil character, developed to completely contrast the protagonist’s personality in order to exemplify specific qualities that the protagonist has and lacks which she possesses. She verbally castrates the Narrator in defence of why she has the right to attend support groups which he attempts to take away from her, “technically I have more of a right to be there than you...you still have your balls”. Marla serves as the catalyst to the Narrator’s dissociation and Tyler appears because Marla represents the last descent into gatherer culture. Tyler Durden is seen as the ideal man with his good looks (pretty boy heartthrob Brad Pitt being cast to increase star quality, costume and makeup) , cool and collected persona and confidence to execute his masculine ways through fighting.This again acts as a physical representation of taunting the Narrator by highlighting what he lacks but longs for so badly which is why Tyler is constructed the way he is. “I look how you wanna look I fuck how you wanna fuck”, “I am free in all the ways you are not”. Tyler and Marla are constantly fighting over which sex has the most power, Tyler’s aggressive sexual intercourse with Marla where he objectifies her and makes her submissive but then Marla annoys the Narrator and expresses her sexuality over him by making him examine her breasts which makes him feel uncomfortable. Interpretation is that one sex has to have power over the other, the female can have an even amount of masculine and feminine qualities but the male can only have an excessive amount of one.

Conclusion

Fight Club’s interesting narrative allows it to be analysed in a variety of ways by spectators due to the numerous critical approaches, these all network in with the various possibilities of how the film can be interpreted and what the overarching message of it is. The themes of the film are expressed successfully within the storyline as well as character representation and film techniques.

#fight club #david fincher #film analysis #film essay #critical approach #tyler durden #marla singer #90s movies #essay plan #film studies #film theory #chuck palahniuk #brad pitt #edward norton #helena bonham carter #screenspirit

47 notes · View notes

hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger · 5 years

Text

The Amazing Spider-Man: Mayhem in Manhattan Audiobook Thoughts

Marv Wolfman and Len Wein deliver a problematic that’s perhaps more interesting to talk about than actually experience for yourself.

Plot synopsis

As is standard for these types of post for me, I’m copying over a plot synopsis I found elsewhere to save myself time, and because they do a better job than I could. I edited it for a few reasons and the unedited synopsis, along with their review can be found here.

Allen Huddleston was the accountant for a small-time gangster. He worked his way to the top of the organization. His company merged with a legitimate oil company and his career and fortune soared. Then one day, a man made him an offer he had to refuse.

Because of his refusal, this individual – showing signs of superhuman powers, threw Huddleston from his 50-story apartment…

…Spidey finds Huddleston’s body and is…blamed for the murder.

Meanwhile, there is a meeting of the presidents of the 8 largest oil companies in the US. This same bad guy, hidden by a screen, told the eight that they must buy oil from him during the next year. Their oil has been irradiated and rendered useless. By the time the oil can be cleaned up, the year will have passed. This individual – known through the novel as the Master Planner until his real identity is revealed – is set to make millions.

While Spidey investigates the death of Huddleston he finds a taped telephone conversation with Huddleston and the Master Planner. Spider-Man finds that the murder is connected to a manipulation of the eight US oil companies. This leads to some of the Master Planner’s moles in the other oil companies. The Master Planner sets a trap for Spider-Man. There, the Master Planner reveals his real identity.

As the novel progresses, we meet regulars Mary Jane [Watson], Glory Grant, Joe Robertson and good old J Jonah Jameson. At first Triple-J is pleasant to others and happy that Spider-Man is accused of murder. As the facts become clearer, he is back to his usual…self – brusque, short-tempered and kvetching…He and Robbie investigate the mystery of the eight US oil company executives meeting in secret...At the end he confesses to Robertson why he REALLY dislikes Spidey – what about the REAL heroes who work to better mankind every day. “Who do you think is under that mask?” Robbie says. “A man, just like you.”

To add to this synopsis the climax transpires on a drilling platform where Doc Ock has the 8 oil men gathered up. Spidey uncovers a diary that has Ock’s whole plan committed to paper, and though it is destroyed, hearing the details is enough to clear his name as far as JJJ and Robbie are concerned (they are on the platform too). Doc Ock tries to escape with what amounts to a Scooby-Doo style latex mask which Spidey sees through fairly quickly and their battle resumes. When it’s over Doc Ock has seemingly perished in an inferno as the oil platform is set ablaze.

Out of concern for May’s health Peter throughout the novel seriously considers retirement but relents at the end. He plays a web-related prank on Jonah making everyone in the Bugle laugh. Close curtain.

Sorry it’s not as good as other synopses I’ve found but it’s the best I could find.

Context

This novel was released in March 1978 and, according to the information I found, was published when Len Wein’s run on ASM (ASM # 151–180) was nearing its end and not too long before Marv Wolfman would take the helm in ASM #182). Based upon Marvel.com’s publication dates, the novel would’ve been released between ASM #177-179. It’s unknown (and in my view highly unlikely) if Wein or Wolfman wrote this with the intention of being canonical. If read in conjunction with the then recent issues of Wein’s run it plays very much like most Spidey novels (especially the ones from the 1990s) wherein it takes place in a vaguely contemporary status quo within necesarilly marrying itself to any specific recent events. However how you perceive the novel in terms of being a Spider-Man story changes depending upon whether you look at it from the perspective of canon or as it’s own entity.

This was the first ever Spider-Man novel and also the only definitively canonical one (due to a direct reference in Wolfman’s ASM #186).

Obviously the standards for comics back then were not as realistic as they became later, and indeed the general craftsmanship quality wasn’t as high either. Perhaps more importantly we need to bear in mind Spider-Man’s place within collective pop culture osmosis at the time.

By this time Spider-Man’s exposure to the mass public merely extended to the (by then long since cancelled) 1966 Spidey cartoon, the (then recent but not particularly successful) 1977 live action TV show and a long running skit as part of the educational kids show the Electric Company (which had ended the year before).

What I’m trying to say is that whilst today most everyone on the planet could rattle off Spidey’s powers, his association with the Bugle and at least a few supporting characters and villains, back in 1978 the average person at best might be able to recognize the character, name his secret identity and list off most of his powers.

This is important to bear in mind when discussing the novel because, though it is canon, it doesn’t take audience familiarity for granted. If you are an old hand with Spidey a lot parts of the novel are going to feel like going through the motions as Spidey is framed once again, Spidey wants to quit once again, Spidey gushes about Aunt May, etc. There is even practically a whole chapter dedicated to recapping Peter’s origin.

But then again, this novel wasn’t written for the small number of people already familiar with the character but for a wider audience who weren’t. As such it’s fair game to retread this material and play stuff that’d be obvious to comic fans (like Doc Ock’s identity) as mysterious.

If I were to be kind I’d say it was because Wein and Wolfman wanted to give readers a broad idea of what Spider-Man’s deal is, and the typical ins and outs of your average Spider-Man adventure. Were I to be less kind I’d argue they retread old ground to make completing this job easier on themselves, although admittedly the central plot isn’t one I believe had ever been done in Spider-Man before.

That being said, even within the context of the novel certain elements get brought up repeatedly to the point of them becoming tedious, Aunt May being chief among them.

Finally, though I admit to have not researched them extensively, the novel touches upon then contemporary social/economic/political issues. The one of most note is the 1973 oil crisis. Long story short, there were fuel shortages due to events transpiring in the Middle East that obviously caused financial and maintenance troubles for America (and other regions of the world). There was another oil crisis in 1979 so it’s possible people (like Wein and Wolfman) were seeing the writing on the wall and including the topic in this novel. Obviously these events don’t directly impact the book nor are there direct allegories but the subject matter of the book makes it more likely than not that the oil crises were a source of inspiration.

There are no references I can recall to Middle Eastern people (and in fact exactly 3 people of colour in the whole book, Robbie, Randy and Glory) so Doc Ock and his scheme could be viewed as symbolic of the Middle East’s actions (deliberate or otherwise) in creating a fuel crisis. If this was intentional it doesn’t quite work as, to my understanding of the oil business, the oil companies he’s blackmailing were concerned with providing fuel for cars and other such vehicles, not for everything. As such the victims of Ock’s scheme would chiefly be vehicle owners (which most people in New York are not) and chiefly the oil company owners.

Now a fuel shortage even just for vehicles would have impact on a lot of good people, like everyone who ever needed an ambulance or fire truck to show up quickly. This makes Spider-Man’s lack of caring about the blackmail rather selfish, short sighted and out of character. But at the same time the story does frame it more as the oil companies being inevitably forced to take up Ock on his scheme and lose billions of dollars so Peter’s indifference to them makes more sense, especially when one considers he didn’t know Ock was involved at that time. However this is also the biggest reason for why the possibly/probably intentional connection drawn between this scheme and the oil crisis falls apart. Not only is it not truly analogous to the real life crisis but it also frames the primary victims as uber rich dickheads who will become slightly less uber rich for one year as a result of this.

Even by 1970s standards that’s a failure in reader investment because literally only other uber rich dickheads would have any sympathy.

Less significantly New York’s financial troubles coupled with a 25 hour black out in 1977 and high crime rates led to a feeling within and outside of New York of the city being a place beyond redemption.

Broadly this perception was the fuel for a lot of super hero stories in the 1970s and 1980s (like Frank Miller’s Daredevil run) and for this novel, whilst it isn’t strictly speaking the main concern, the idea of New York being stuck in a rut and a tough place to make it forms a backdrop for the story. There are references to how NYC is a place you need to survive and in doing so it becomes part of you. Though they emphasis the decay and the fact that the city is not in great shape, Wolfman and/or Wein display a certain amount of pride in the city through Peter Parker. This is fitting for the character, not just because he’s always resided in NYC, nor because the real NYC eventually adopted Spidey as one of their unofficial mascots, but because NYC as a city is tailored to Peter’s character. In truth it’s integral in defining his identity and the one place on Earth that offers an environment designed to optimize his super powers (how many other places have that many tall buildings in such a close proximity?).

From pictures to prose and the lack of personal stakes

According to the bibliographies I was able to find, this was Len Wein’s first ever prose novel and Wolfman’s second, so their degree of skill of experience with the format isn’t on the same level as say Jim Butcher’s Spidey novel.

That being said, the story wasn’t badly communicated through the prose. However, you can tell that these guys’ forte is in a visual medium as the scenes were primarily action orientated and all about trying to paint a clear picture in your mind about what’s happening. They usually succeeded though there were a few times my mind drifted off and on occasion instances where I was wondering why Spidey doesn’t just do this or that to get out of dodge; admittedly that might have more to them dropping the ball with Spider-Man’s skillset than anything else.

The novel in general shares the tone of your typical mid-late 1970s Spidey story, albeit with a greater emphasis placed upon investigation and a longer plot. In fact had this story been a comic book it could’ve passed for an original graphic novel (before Marvel was regularly doing those), albeit one with an only slightly more complex tone. Really the sinister opening chapter with Doc Ock along with the details the plot goes into as far as the investigation are concerned are just about the only things that would’ve have occurred in a then standard issue of ASM or Spec. Other than that it’s very similar to a Spidey yarn from the time, which unfortunately includes some unsophisticated and even dodgy writing.* Case in point Doc Ock’s incredibly convenient journal detailing his evil scheme and his Scooby-Doo style disguise that doesn’t really do much but pad out the story.

However those complaints pale in comparison to the most central problem at the heart of the story.

This is not a Spider-Man story truly about Peter Parker.

Even in the primordial days of Spider-Man in the early 1960s, Lee, Ditko and Romita knew that Peter Parker’s personal life was at least half as important as his hero activities. They had already mined the idea of the two sides of his life negatively impacting one another and in multiple instances colliding. Perhaps the most famous examples are The Master Planner Trilogy (wherein Aunt May’s life depends upon Spider-Man confronting Doc Ock’s gang) and ASM (wherein a party with the supporting cast is crashed by Kraven the Hunter).

The problem with this book as a central story is that it places the emphasis upon Spider-Man moreso than it does upon peter Parker. Even in 1978, merely referencing Aunt May, his origin and giving brief appearances by Mary Jane, wasn’t going to cut it. The subplot about Peter deciding to quit also feels rather unearned and would not be particularly impactful to most readers unfamiliar with the character.

For old hands at Spidey like me him wanting to quit is tedious and was something already in need of a fresh angle even in 1978 (which this novel absolutely doesn’t provide). But for newer fans or people introduced to Spider-Man through this novel it lacks punch as you’ve spent inadequate time depicting Peter’s everyday life and super hero career for his decision o give it all up to mean much. It’s a little like how Batman in BvS: Dawn of Justice having lost his way means little considering we knew so little of what he was like before that. It doesn’t help that Peter’s decision to not quit is flippant, I can’t even remember how or when it happens, just that it does. It might even have been off panel. Spider-Man No More it wasn’t.

The whole subplot was rather poorly handled and felt inserted for padding or out of obligation. But that is also one of the three meager things that offer any personal stakes for Peter in this story. One of the others is that Jonah and Robbie eventually become endangered by the scheme because they are investigating it, but even that is much more connected to Spider-Man than Peter Parker and Pete doesn’t even know about it for most of the story. The third attempt at personal stakes is Spider-Man’s false accusation of murder, which is about as well worn as ‘Spidey wants to quit’ as a trope and one that is even less laced with personal drama. In fact most of these personal stakes could be mitigated if Peter simply went ahead and DID retire and his personal life would improve as a result.

Yes we are TOLD his personal life suffers because he s Spider-Man but we are never really shown it beyond injuries to his body and there are no relatable normal life stakes in play for him. It’s just that if he dies, no one will take care of Aunt May. That’s it.

Okay fine, technically an argument with Jonah leads to him losing his job with the Bugle and in theory being blacklisted from other jobs but like…if he’s got the only Spidey photos in town are competing newspapers REALLY going to turn him down? And it’s not like photography was his long term career path at this point anyway. The novel doesn’t even ruminate all that much on the conflict, putting much more emphasis upon his concerns for May.

Compare all that say Spider-Man: Forever. There Peter being Spider-Man causes Peter’s peers to think him a coward, his friend is jailed, he believes Gwen and Flash are growing close because he isn’t around and because he is thought of as a coward, his stress causes him to lash out at Flash and in turn lash out at criminals in costume. Oh and he’s trying to rescue his friend/teacher Curt Connors and his family. I appreciate that novel was written decades after this one but everything I just described comes from it’s adaptation of a 1960s Stan Lee story.**

I’ve not revisted all of Wein and Wolfman’s stories carefully enough to deduce if this was par for the course back then, but to my recollections it wasn’t and common sense would dictate it’s not great writing in general. Even for a thriller or action orientated story, personal stakes ramps up the readers’ investment. Considering the comics had been doing this for years beforehand there really isn’t much of an excuse.

What’s even more baffling regarding the decision is that the switch in media you would think would make the need for personal stakes more relevant not less.

Let’s face it, action is almost always better when conveyed through visuals rather than prose and that is especially true for super heroes considering they were specifically designed for a visual medium. It’s a rare and very honed skill to make action really exciting in prose format, and Wein/Woflman are no Horowitz or Fleming. Whilst they can clearly convey what is happening well enough, I kept thinking how much better most of this would be as a comic book or film.

Given the nature of the character and limitations/strengths of the medium, it would be natural to emphasis the personal life stakes, introspection and soap opera elements innate to Spider-Man over the action adventurer aspect of who he is. This is precisely why Peter David’s ‘Five Minutes’ story from The Ultimate Spider-Man anthology is perhaps the strongest example of Spidey prose fiction. I’m not saying action and adventure should be at 0% here, but the ratio for this novel is at best 90% and that just doesn’t work very well.

I speculate this is perhaps partially due to Wein and Wolfman taking cues from Sherlock Holmes, James Bond and pulp novels; Holmes and Bond are even name checked in the novel. Such books have commonalities with the super hero genre and in some cases such novel characters contributed elements innate to the super hero genre. Batman for instance has Zorro and Holmes imbedded in his formative DNA.

Indeed, if you examine the physical ‘Mayhem In Manhattan’ book at face value it certainly reminds me of those types of action thriller novels and pulps. So in theory doing a super hero novel with inspiration from those books makes a lot of sense. But the problem is that, whilst the earliest 30s and 40s super heroes might’ve evolved from those types of characters, by the 60s-70s times had changed. Spider-Man and the early Marvel pantheon, whilst still super heroes, are a generation removed from the ones inspired by the likes of the Shadow, Holmes or Zorro, existing more as a reaction against their predecessors if anything. Because of this the emphasis upon action and adventure at best feels like it merely captures part of who Spider-Man is and simply dabbles in the other, perhaps more important, part (i.e. Peter Parker).

The Wein or the Wolfman

An interesting question to ask regarding this novel is to what extent it is the product of Len Wein and to what extent it is Wolfman’s. For all we know they actively collaborated throughout the writing process. But for all we know one might’ve provided the other with an outline the other actually fleshed out into a full novel.

Personally speaking I am inclined to believe that it was the former and that this book is more a product of Wolfman than Wein.

My reasons for this are circumstantial but hear me out.

Okay so, for starters when the book came out Wein was busy writing and editing ASM and was very likely doing work on ASM back when the book was being written. Secondly it was in Wolfman’s own ASM run that the novel became canonized. Thirdly the novel also features the great power/great responsibility mantra, which might seem insignificant, but in the comics to my recollection the Wolfman was the first guy to actually repeat the mantra since AF #15 (unless one counts the short lived Spec magazine). This makes this novel one of the earliest times that the mantra was ever repeated in a Spider-Man story.

Fourthly, the novel hammers Peter’s affection for Aunt May over and over and over again. Granted, Wolfman was neither the first nor the last person to do that. But he did do it to a bigger extent than Wein ever did in his run having Peter practically shed tears over how sweet Aunt May was. Wein might’ve used May and emphasized Peter’s affection for her, but nowhere near to the same extent. Wein, whilst giving May one of her more notorious health scares, didn’t make as big a deal of her health as Wolfman did in his run and her health is brought up more than once here as a rationale for Peter’s retirement.

Finally, I know Wolfman has an affection for hard boiled crime stories (his mid-late 80s Superman work conveys that) which this novel is definitely cut from and indeed the tone of this story is somewhat reminiscent of another Doc Ock story he did in ASM Annual #13 (released in 1979).

So I feel the lion’s share of the credit (for good or ill) for this novel should go to Wolfman. Although the fact that 2 people worked on this could explain certain inconsistencies and discrepancies in the novel. One such example (and frankly an unforgivable mistake for any Spidey writer to make) is Peter’s claim that he designed his costume to scare criminals only to later in the novel give his origin and (correctly) explain that he actually designed it to have show biz spectacle.

Another example arguably applies to the two main ladies of Peter’s life. Namely…

Aunt May and Mary Jane

At one point early in the novel Peter is listing off the price he pays for being Spider-Man. Among his complaints is that he has ‘no real love’. However this is in spite of referencing Aunt May in the same passage and MJ having appeared earlier in the novel.

In the former case one might argue that Peter was referring to romantic love and in the latter case the intent might’ve been that, whilst they were dating, he and MJ were not in love with one another.

More problematically is how both characters are handled in this story.

Now I’m not suggesting that a Spider-Man story is obliged to give Aunt May or MJ significant play, or more play than other supporting characters (Jonah and Robbie are definitely the most important secondary characters in this novel).

Heck, back in 1978 Mary Jane lacked the presence within the Spider-Man mythology that she has now, they’d only been dating for like 3-4 years by the time this novel was published; as far as anyone knew she was merely the latest Spidey lover not the endgame. That being said, her role as (at the time) the Spider-Man girlfriend did entitle her to a certain amount of importance at least on the level of Jameson. But okay, this was aiming to be a an action thriller/detective/pulp story, so giving focus to two newsmen over the girlfriend or elderly mother of the lead character makes a certain amount of sense if that’s what you are going for (even if a Spidey novel should probably be more than that).

The story doesn’t demand their inclusion but since this is the first ever Spidey novel, maybe Wein/Wolfman felt it a disservice to not include them as part of giving readers a taste of what makes Spider-Man tick.

With all that said though both characters would have probably been better off omitted from this novel completely given how they were used.

They both got the shaft but in noticeably different ways. Outside of an overwrought dream sequence May literally never appears and is merely referenced multiple times in annoying internal dives into Peter’s mind. It’s rote stuff. Peter has to quit cos Aunt May. She’s so kind. She’s so frail. She’ll die if she finds out the truth. Blah blah blah.

It’s not just that established fans would likely roll their eyes over this stuff, but even new fans in 1978 would likely get fed up with Peter’s hang up over May. And so much of this stuff fails to connect for the simple reason that, for as much as we hear Peter think or talk about her, she never appears to speak for herself.

As tedious and cliché as Aunt May on her sickbed had become by 1978 at least in most of those stories she was physically present. She’s still a prop to motivate Peter but here she’s been reduced to the idea of a prop. Although 1970s Aunt May wasn’t a great character she still deserved better. The kindest thing I can say is that the reference to her having recent heart attacks synchs up with Len Wein’s final storyline on ASM.

As for Mary Jane it’s just insulting.

On the positive end of things MJ’s flirtatious personality traits are present. On the less than positive side of things…her function in the story is a very clunky vehicle to get Peter to the Bugle, which is baffling considering Peter works there anyway and MJ doesn’t.

The long story short is that she bangs on Peter’s door early in the morning because she was told by Glory Grant (or whoever) that there was a sexy new reporter at the Bugle that all the men were drooling over and that she was now partnered up with Peter. She’s clearly upset, but claims not to but wants to get things clear because she thought she and Peter had ‘an understanding’.

WTF does that mean? That they are exclusively dating? That they aren’t exclusive but need to tell one another or get permission if they want to see other people? It’s not at all explained and if they were just straight up dating there would be no need to be vague about it.

Perhaps this is partially due to the iffy nature of their relationship under Wolfman’s run. Conway left readers in little doubt that Peter and MJ were both exclusive and more importantly in love with one another. Wein’s run muddied the waters somewhat as he didn’t go back on what Conway established save two significant moments. One of those is when Peter wonders to himself that he isn’t sure about his relationship with MJ when after Conway’s run he absolutely should be sure. The other is when MJ dates Flash to get back at peter for ditching her.

Whilst you can No. prize both instances, the fact is Wein didn’t explicitly go back on Conway’s work but also apparently didn’t take their romance as seriously, nor did Wolfman seeing as he broke them up ASAP into his run then made sure it was permanent later on.

What I’m trying to say is Wein, whilst he did give the couple some interesting ups and downs, didn’t exactly live up to the promise handed to him by Conway and Wolfman straight up disliked the Peter/MJ romance for bullshit reasons.

So whilst it is possible that Wein and/or Wolfman were covering their tracks by referring to Peter/MJ’s relationship as ‘an understanding’, I’m much more inclined to think it was one of them (probably Wolfman) misunderstanding or deliberately undermining the relationship cos they suck.

And let’s talk about MJ’s portrayal here. I honestly don’t understand the logic here. MJ hears there is an attractive woman who will be working with Peter and…she is angry?...because Peter…didn’t tell her/is working with her at all??????????

Huh?

It comes off as a ‘Jeez wimmn amirite fellas’ moment. Like MJ is threatened by this sexy woman she’s merely heard about. Okay, maybe there were 1970s standards for dating or just workplace etiquette that 40+ years removed I’m in the dark about. But even back then, if a woman didn’t like the idea of her male partner working with another woman, jumping to anger or a presumption of romantic shenanigans seems really petty and insecure.

And frankly, seriously OOC for MJ even as she was established back then. Let’s put aside how she vowed to be less clingy back in the issue where Betty and Ned got married (which likely happened before this story). MJ isn’t the type to be threatened by the mere presence of a sexy woman. Yeah she competed with Gwen, but that’s the key word. She competed. MJ knows she’s highly attractive and wants to be with Peter so she’ll go for it, but here she feels insecure about a woman she’s literally just heard about merely working with peter. Did Ann Nocenti write this or something?

It’s asinine and either really contrived in order to get us to the Bugle or a really desperate way to crowbar MJ in as part of a checklist of Spidey elements that should be in this story.

It feels like something Silver Age Betty Brant (Wolfman’s favourite Spidey love interest FYI) would’ve done but with MJ just being comparatively more chill and understanding when she realizes she’s made a mistake. Which is another bit of circumstantial evidence supporting my theory that this is more Wolfman’s work than Wein’s. Wolfman had a reductive view of who MJ was (although he technically established her issues with divorce/commitment) which was very much stuck in the Silver Age. He swiped plenty of his run from Ditko era Spidey stories and literally wrote out MJ in order to have Betty Brant become Peter’s lover again. So I suspect he was imposing the archetypical unreasonable Silver Age girlfriend template upon MJ in this story but tweaking it in accordance to her more hip and loose persona. Essentially a Silver Age girlfriend dialed down to the most mellow level…which is still NOT what MJ was at the time.

She proceeds to tag along to the Bugle, support a joke where peter forgets the name of the sexy Bugle reporter and then apologise, subtly offer sex and leaves. She is then unmentioned for the rest of the book until the very last chapter where she amounts to a pretty face, a cheerful personality and vaguely the supportive girlfriend. And frankly all that is really overselling it, she hugs Peter and congratulates him and little else.

She might as well not be in that chapter or in fact this entire novel. The subplot about the sexy reporter doesn’t even go anywhere. It’s just a clumsy means to facilitate the introduction of the Bugle cast, the incredibly minor subplot about Peter losing his job and get the ball rolling on Peter’s investigation.

Call me nuts but couldn’t the story have achieved all that by having Peter himself just go to the Bugle for work, been told directly by Jonah he was being partnered up with someone against his will, etc?

And you wanna know the worst part?

This sexy reporter is apparently a previously unmentioned niece of JJJ…who we never see. Not only would meeting Jonah’s extended family have been an interesting novelty if nothing else, but if you are going to have a whole contrived plot revolve around this niece have her put in an actual appearance maybe????? It doesn’t even go anywhere, I was expecting her to show up at some point and she absolutely didn’t.

So yeah, the female characters in this novel get fucked over quite a bit, even ones we merely hear about. Hell the opening chapter makes multiple mention of how the gangster’s wife is ugly and unlovable.

Jonah and Robbie

As I said, Jonah and Robbie get more play in this novel and they are actually handled well.

By this point in time neither character had been exactly given three dimensions and I can’t recall even a subtle implication that Robbie knew Peter’s secret. Nevertheless both characters are on point for how they’d been defined by 1978.

Jonah is the blowhard with a major anti-Spidey agenda, Robbie is steadfastly moral and voice of reason counterbalancing him. Jonah’s rants are a highlight as usual with a memorable argument with a cab driver and an even earlier one with Peter regarding his niece; to the novel’s credit Peter fights back.

We see both men display street smarts and investigative skills as they methodically pursue the trail of Ock’s scheme right to its climax. The most stand out example of this is when Robbie pays a drunk to spill information, the scene being ripped straight out of a crime noir story.

Furthermore, Robbie shines when he helps Spidey out during his duel with Ock, the aftermath of which involves him also calling Jonah out for his psychosis where Spidey is concerned. I can’t recall exactly if the comics had by this point pinned down that Jonah was in fact a very good newsman but had a Spider-Man shaped blind spot. If not then this would be the first time in canon that idea was established and furthermore kudos to Wein and Wolfman for lightly fleshing Jonah out some by doing so. They then followed up by doubling down on Lee/Ditko’s proposed rationale for Jonah’s vendetta, having him verbalize to Robbie his resentment and jealousy towards the wall-crawler. However they soften him up by having Jonah be more upset that the attention Spider-Man garners overshadows the normal everyday heroes like cops and firefighters.

This is an interesting angle to approach Jonah from, even if it doesn’t really jive with the status quo of the novel wherein Spider-Man is clearly regarded as a public menace. Howe can he be a public pariah yet also someone people glorify at the expense of fire fighters?

This then precipitates some more interesting

There are also two noteworthy exchanges towards the end of the novel.

The former has Robbie succinctly skewer Jameson for allowing his hate-boner to blind him and acting as JJJ’s conscience, insisting he print the truth about Spidey’s innocence. This is followed by an over the top old timey dialogue about how Jonah is going to spin this to his advantage; It just goes to show how back then Jonah was more of a yellow journalist than the dignified newsman.

The latter has Robbie sings Spider-Man’s praises. Whilst it’s heartwarming for us old established fans to see Robbie express such respect towards Peter, in the context of the novel the scene has it’s problems. To begin with it is arguably overwrought and rather unrealistic in the context of the scene. More significantly it’s rather too blunt a way for Wein/Wolfman to essentially spell out to the readers why Spider-Man (in their view) is a great character and you should love him. It falls flat since newer readers would’ve only experienced Spidey in the course of this rather short novel anyway so the moment feels rather unearned, albeit much more applicable when you look at this in canon.

Also since Robbie is essentially implied to not know Peter is Spidey in the novel it feels odd to new readers that Robbie would be speaking this way, as though he knows Spider-Man to a much more personal degree. The novel even states Robbie I mostly indifferent towards Spidey a chapter or two earlier than this speech so it’s another example of the novel being inconsistent. The actual sentiments of the speech as they truly apply to Spidey can be discussed later.

Don’t be fooled. I’m not trying to say JJJ or Robbie were not great in this novel because perhaps more than anything they absolutely work.

Doc Ock

I don’t have a whole Hell of a lot to say about Doc Ock in this novel. Doc ock hadn’t really been given the meaty layers he’d get later on and by this point was Spider-Man’s #1 bad guy kind of by default. He was the most visually dynamic of Peter’s foes, the one that thematically had the greatest connection to him (aside from Norman, but he was dead) and had been the most recurring of Spidey’s foes.

He also doubled up as a mad scientist and a fighter meaning he was a character with a shade more versatility than knuckleheads like Sandman or clever yet weak opponents like Mysterio.

Wein/Wolfman use him fairly well here and you could argue this novel is a better Doc Ock story than Spidey story.

I said above that this novel likely takes cues from (among other things) James Bond novels and here Ock certainly echoes a Bond villain in his scheme, he even has a secret lair with death traps and hilariously a finely furnished room on an oil rig.

He’s described using effectively intimidating language. Wein/Wolfman interestingly avoids describing him as overweight and instead claims he’s stocky and strong, conveying a sense of power quite apart from his tentacles. When he and Spidey begin dueling at the end of the novel the novel really sells him as formidable and dangerous figure.

Perhaps the highlight of Otto’s characterization stems from his rant about how he spent years unrecognized for his genius. Whilst Doc Ock has always had an undercurrent of being driven by a desire for recognition, to my recollection this was perhaps the first time ever it was stated outright. It’s not much but it allows Ock to be a tad more than a one dimensional villain.

The primary weakness of his portrayal mainly stems from the mystery surrounding his identity. To any old hand at Spidey it’s incredibly obvious it’s Doc Ock very early into the novel and it becomes even more obvious as soon as he is identified as the Master Planner. This even creates some continuity problems due to Wolfman canonizing the novel. Given how momentous an event the MP Trilogy was in Peter’s life why would he fail to remember the Master Planner was a moniker used by Doc Ock? And if Otto is attempting to maintain secrecy why would he use an alias that is public knowledge anyway?

Hell now I think about it, why even bother with secrecy at all? Remember this was before the days of the internet and when surveillance technology wasn’t what it is today, so if what benefit would Otto have in disguising his voice or using an alias when trying to blackmail the oil tycoons? If anything, being upfront with them would surely be more intimidating.

Other weaknesses include his committing his plans (including a confession of murder) to a diary for plot convenience, his Scooby-Doo level disguise and conveniently (and repeatedly) verbally confessing to murdering Huddelston.

These issues are partially connected to another problem with the novel, that of padding.

Not so fantastic filler

In spite of its length the novel is weirdly padded out. For sure a lot of stuff to people who’re already fans of comic Spidey there is a lot of unnecessary stuff. But even having said that there is plenty of stuff to cut here.

The filler takes two dominant forms.

The first is stuff you would expect. The brief subplot regarding Otto’s diary doesn’t really serve the plot much as Otto destroys it pretty soon afterwards. It mostly exists just to cheaply inform Spidey of Otto’s scheme but there were much more elegant and effective ways for him to have learned about that. There is basically a brief video game side mission wherein Peter has to save an old blind man from being run over by a carjacker, all to desperately (and unsubtly) remind the readers of Uncle Ben’s death. There is a brief fight involving Jonah and Robbie verses their kidnappers, which at best might serve to set up Robbie’s bravery for when he helps Spidey out later. And I already mentioned all the stuff with Mary Jane.

The second and probably more annoying for of filler is the needless elaboration on bit characters. A random cop, a random security guard, a random tourist and a random criminal are among the several pointless characters who do not need names, let alone potted backstories regarding their future’s with the police force or their street names. Each one feels like something ripped from a noir novel but the only instance where this is effective is in the case of Alan Huddelston. He is the POV character for the first chapter and integral t the plot, so his murder nicely sets the tone, puts some pieces in place for the story and establishes a bit about Doc Ock. Everyone else though is not only cuttable but their inclusion made me outright dislike them.

I suspect the writers were so used to the faster pace afforded by comic books that they found their initial efforts for the novel coming up short hence these insertions.

Peter Parker’s Portrayal

Obviously the single most important thing when it comes to a Spider-Man novel is how it handles Spider-Man himself.

It’s a mixed bag.

At face value Wein/Wolfman seemingly capture Spidey circa the late 1970s. Descriptions of his movement clearly evoke comic images in your head.

His banter sounds authentic to the time period too, although his quips aren’t the greatest. They feel oddly old fashioned eve by 1970s standards although maybe that’s just me because I find Stan’s Spidey dialogue still holds up.

However ultimately this portrayal of Peter Parker falls flat, largely because it doesn’t strike a balance between earning the moments of pathos or emotion from newer readers and for older Spidey fans it’s very rote. Actually it’s more like it’s rote but it also gets stuff outright wrong.

A small example of this Peter’s agonizing to quite. Putting aside how that had been done to death even by 1978, the novel has Peter come off as rather whiney and it’s almost like it’s yelling at you to appreciate the novelty of a superhero who doesn’t ENJOY being a superhero. When Peter sought to quit even in the early days of the comics, Lee and Ditko earned it much more through the art and through conveying Peter’s constant uphill struggle. For newer readers though the first thing they read about Spidey is him in costume and complaining, already framed for murder. Most adaptations opt to either first set up Peter then introduce Spidey or open with standard Spidey action and then after establishing his normal life have it go to shit. Wolfman/Wein are in essence writing for a new audience who they think already know enough about Peter to care, when in reality they don’t and the audience that does care wouldn’t be impressed by recycling so many tropes of Spidey for this novel.

Another example is Peter’s complaining that he has no real love. This is baffling if you contextualize it into the comics canon because, hello��Gwen Stacy (who is never mentioned once in this novel even though her Dad died due to Doc Ock)and Mary Jane? Maybe this ties into Wein and/or (more likely) Wolfman’s over all problems in handling MJ in their runs, but like Peter undeniably is in love with Mary Jane by this point and knows she reciprocates. This feels more appropriate to a generalized idea of Spider-Man as opposed to the specific nuances of the canon character.

Undeniably though the single biggest example of mischaracterization comes from when Spider-Man suspends a suspect in a web high above the ground to make him squeal and then literally leaves him there. As in the guy has to carefully disentangle himself from the webbing and gradually inch his way back inside to safety. The novel never states Peter’s webbing lasts just 1-2 hours, but even if it was permanent, WTF man? Unless there was some extenuating circumstances Spider-Man would’ve leave the guy there.

I am not familiar enough with Wein’s wider bibliography, but that feels much more like a Wolfman thing. Wolfman’s work routinely involves tough guys beating the shit out of gangsters and this scene is ripped out of crime noir story. It’s another example of how I suspect Wein/Wolfman looked to precursors of the superhero genre for influence but it doesn’t really jive here.

Then of course we have the second act climax in Doc Ock’s lair. Guys…this is 100% a Master Planner Trilogy rip off.

Now in defence of this story, the cliché of ‘Spider-Man needing to use his willpower to lift something really heavy’ hadn’t yet become a cliché by 1978. In fact this may well have been the very first time somebody returned to that well in all Spidey media.

But here is the thing. As eye rolling as it has become to see that cliché again and again…this is probably the single worst example of it I have ever seen.

This isn’t an homage, this is basically an outright rip off.

You could argue JMS outright ripped this off too back in his Doc Ock/L.A. arc in ASM vol 2. But that story didn’t involve also going through a veritable laundry list of Spider-Man clichés as well.

For real this is a story where Spidey is framed for murder, Jameson is an irrational lunatic who ironically needs Spidey to save him, Peter angsts about Aunt May’s heart, contemplates retirement and ALSO needs to lift something really heavy.

How much of a rip off is this?

Well stop me if any of this sounds familiar. Spidey goes to the Master Planner’s secret lair, there he learns the MP is really Doc Ock. At the lair he survives several obstacles, then is buried under tons of debris and is in danger of drowning. But using his will power he frees himself.

The only real difference is Spider-Man is in danger of drowning because the tide is coming in not because he is underwater. Combined with Aunt May’s lack of immediate peril, Uncle Ben’s memory and the build up to this moment and you basically have a shittier version of the scene that undermines Peter’s character.

It comes off as rote because he’s dwelling on May’s fate if he dies (and how she’s so sweet and kind) for the umpteenth time in the novel. And because we’ve spent so little time with Peter as Peter (as opposed to Spider-Man) that emotional investment is lacking. The dialogue if placed in a different story could work, but having Peter think to himself ‘I’m Spider-Man!’ doesn’t mean much. It’s like if in the first ever Sherlock Holmes novel, Holmes saves the day by clenching his teeth and affirming his own identity. It’d falls as flat as when Cumberbach revealed he was Khan in Star Trek: Into Darkness.

More than this in the actual MP Trilogy Peter went through Hell BEFORE we got to this moment. He suffered a shitton before the single worst thing could happen to trip him up at the finish line. This comes out of nowhere and is dispensed with. He doesn’t evolve or change in response to the moment.

At best it’s just another injection of titillating peril to keep people interested, at worst it’s Wein/Wolfman indulging themselves by redoing the best Spider-Man story ever.

It’s not even the culmination or climax of the story either. Whilst the iconic scene in the original story was the start of the third part of the story, it was 100% the culmination of the saga over all. This? This is the second act climax, it’s the equivalent of when Spidey fucked up the ferry in Spider-Man: Homecoming. Except that at least had consequences, this was glorified filler.

Then we have Peter’s desire to quit. I’ve already talked about this a whole lot but one thing I didn’t touch on is something that happens after he recounts his origin.

Once Peter repeats his responsibility mantra he begins to follow up by claiming he’ll never forget his lesson.

Well putting aside the semantics of that because he obviously has quit multiple times in canon (ASM #50 comes to mind) isn’t he literally forgetting that lesson in this very novel by opting to retire?

The novel then continues to basically imply great responsibility naturally comes with great power. “Sure great responsibility comes with great power…” This is a small but significant thing to misinterpret. Spider-Man’s mantra isn’t about how great responsibility is part of the package when you get great power, it’s about how that power needs responsibility to temper it, to keep it in check.

That’s why the original quote (as Tom DeFalco and Ron Frenz have pointed out several times) is “with great power THERE MUST ALSO COME great responsibility.”

What Wein/Wolfman describe is the equivalent of just saying: “with great power COMES great responsibility”.

But it doesn’t.

That’s the entire point of Spider-Man’s origin. He had power, he didn’t use it responsibly, something bad happened. It’s also literally what Doc Ock is doing in this novel. He has power and abuses it, he doesn’t have any sense of responsibility and it causes harm.

The difference is small yet profound and what is ironic is that the majority of portrayals of Spidey use misquote even though they grasp the original sentiment. And yet here Wein/Wolfman get the correct quote but then follow it up with a misinterpretation in line with the misquote.

The novel continues by claiming Peter’s first responsibility had to be to himself and those he cared for.

Again, this is a small but profound misinterpretation of Spider-Man.

As far as Spider-Man himself is concerned yes his loved ones are his first responsibility (in terms of their wellbeing, obviously he’ll miss an engagement with them for the greater good) but not himself. Peter does not view his own well being as above what he does for innocent people as Spider-Man.

If a situation endangered Aunt May, himself and a stranger, his priorities would be May, the stranger, himself, in that order.

Wein and Wolfman are subtly demonstrating a big misreading of the character in this part of the novel, even if it is refreshing to hear Peter acknowledge himself and his loved ones as ONE of his major responsibilities and not irrelevant next to being Spider-Man.

Now in fairness, older stories under Stan did demonstrate Peter was willing to go into retirement for the sake of Aunt May (and thus by extension his other loved ones too), for example ASM #50. That same story saw Peter only come out of retirement when May was on the mend. The first time he seriously considered retirement (as opposed to throwing a teenage hissy fit like in ASM #3) was in ASM #18 when May was again seriously unwell. So there is a certain truth to what the novel is saying, the problem is May is not unwell in the novel. Spider-Man is planning on retiring simply because may MIGHT have another heart attack or he MIGHT die and be unable to take care of her which is literally the regular status quo of Spider-Man. Like he was doing this in ASM #1-100 so why the Hell is he now bleeting on about his responsibility to her and to alienating people who try to befriend him (which we see no evidence of in the novel, again, he’s literally dating MJ).

It’s another example of the novel being at odds with itself. This characterization contradicts things for established fans, but for newer ones it’s incredibly unearned.

The novel continues by having Peter say that if great power demanded great responsibility (which again isn’t what his mantra is about) then he’d give up that great power. This further cements Wein/Wolfman’s misinterpretation of Spider-Man because, hello, the point of his origin is that he had power and didn’t use it! The only way that Spidey giving up his great power works is if he is literally depowered, not simply choosing to not use it for fuck’s sake.

The whole passage in the book doesn’t even add up because Peter conditions his retirement upon both clearing Spider-Man’s name and bringing the Master Planner to justice…but why?

At this point in the novel all he knows is the Master Planner is stealing money from billionaires who themselves steal from the common man and who’s losses will not (the novel makes clear) impact him or anyone lacking a car. So if Peter is of a mindset to retire and doesn’t get that having his powers means he’s obliged to use them to help others, then why is he choosing to use them to help these douchebags and clear the name of an identity he’s giving up anyway?????????????

There are, of course, other discrepancies in Peter’s characterization too, noticeably in his account of his origin story. For starters he uses Stan Lee’s ASM #50 revision that Peter went sought to cash in on his powers specifically to pay back May and Ben when in AF #15 he is way more selfish than that. Additionally the origin claims Peter turned down an invitation to join his peers at the movies, preferring to go to his fateful science exhibit. This is a tiny but significant change, as originally Peter invited his peers to the experiment and was rejected, rather he rejecting them. It’s an important distinction as it made Peter more sympathetic and less asocial whilst still being an outsider. Essentially it was Lee and Ditko balancing things out rather than Wein/Wolfman’s take wherein Peter was just naturally a loner. Even if Spidey in costume should lean towards being a solo act, Peter as a person is not asocial.

Finally lets talk about Robbie’s little speech. Robbie tries to counter argue Jameson, when the latter explains his dislike for Spidey. JJJ’s argument is that the glorification Spider-Man gets comes at the expense of everyday heroes, normal people. Robbie’s counter is that a normal person is who is under Spider-man’s mask, and he could claim fame and glory by revealing himself if he wanted. He elaborates that the reason Spidey doesn’t is because so long as he wears the mask Spider-man can be anybody, a symbol of any man who hates injustice and who fights for the good can become.

This speech is another example where Wein and Wolfman’s sentiments have grains of truth in them but do not come together.

An important part of the whole point of Spider-Man IS that he is (relatively) ordinary. And on a meta level his costume totally covering his body does indeed allow the audience member a certain amount of wish fulfillment.

But there are several problems with this passage.

To begin with Jonah’s objections contradict the novel because Spider-man is a public pariah, not a glorified hero. In fact a great bit of the novel is where Spider-Man encounters a group of secrtaries who’re initially frightened of him due to his reputation, only to be taken aback when they realize he’s a lot younger and gentler than they believed.

Secondly, it’s very clear that the novel isn’t trying to zero in on a particular aspect of Spider-Man and talk about it metatextually. It’s obviously tyring to deliver some grand summation of Spider-Man’s character as a whole and what his appeal is. And the fact that he is a symbol or has a full body outfit has nothing to do with that. Spider-Man’s appeal lies primarily outside of his costume and his specific and particular life struggles. He really isn’t a symbol. BATMAN is a symbol. Superman is a symbol. Wonder Woman is a symbol. Peter Parker is a man.

Finally, the speech is just not great in the context of the novel. The dialogue is clunky and because Robbie hasn’t been shown to know Spider-Man (or Peter) all that well and has even been stated to be actively indifferent to him, it just comes off as disingenuous. Robbie isn’t Wein/Wolfman’s in-story mouthpiece, he is randomly possessed by their spirits and forced to speak their words.

It’s a nice to see Robbie doing Spidey a solid, but the sentiments are problematic.

And problematic just about sums up Peter’s handling in this whole novel.

Hell the novel resolves Spider-Man’s retirement angst practically off page and well before the climax of the story. Even by the standards of the time, that’s just incompetent.

Audio Adventure

Finally we come to how this audiobook adaption holds up.

It is…serviceable.

The narrator, Tristan Wright, is at his best with Doc Ock but his voice doesn’t suit the old fashioned dialogue. It comes off as an impersonation of how people talked in old timey movies as opposed to genuine. Jameson is the worst offender, although the dialogue would make anyone struggle.

His female and black voices are….eh….I don’t like them.

And as for his Spider-Man. Well, he skates the line between falling flat and just about getting the job done. But it’s never good. I know this is weird to say, but given how dated the novel is Wright just sounds too modern. They should’ve gotten someone who either sounds more old fashioned or was just an older person. Dan Gilvezan, voice of the 1980s Spidey cartoons, might’ve been a good choice.

Beyond that there is just nothing to really write home about this audiobook. It doesn’t have multiple actors or a soundscape, the only music involved is for the title sequence.

It gets the job done but does little else.

Conclusion

Over all, I must confess to being rather disappointed in this novel and even would kind of prefer it to be non-canonical given the continuity errors it creates.

It’s more valuable as a historical curiosity than an actual story and has perhaps lowered my (already not great) opinion of Wein and Wolfman as Spider-Scribes.

I’d advise checking it out if you want to be a completist or if you want to appreciate how the standards for Spidey novels have improved.

*Hot take: Aside from Conway’s work, 1970s Spider-Man was in general not as good as 1960s Spidey stories, let alone those from the 1980s.

**See why Stan was the GOAT?

#Spider-Man #Marv Wolfman #Len Wein #Peter Parker #doc ock #doctor octopus #otto octavius #J. Jonah Jameson #Joe Robertson #Joe Robbie Robertson #mjwatsonedit #Mary Jane Watson #Mary Jane Watson Parker #MJ Watson #Aunt May #May Parker

6 notes · View notes

pass-the-bechdel · 5 years

Text

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Black Panther (2018)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

Yes, nine times.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Six (40% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Nine.

Positive Content Rating:

Three (though it’s worth reminding that this rating is based on the positivity of the content in relation to the female characters, not in general - there’s some real top-shelf content in here, otherwise. Still a very happy three for the ladies anyway, for that matter).

General Film Quality:

High-end. The commitment to nuanced storytelling is impeccable, grappling with all angles of a complex hypothetical far better than could have been anticipated. This is a movie which never loses sight of its own importance, while also never getting too bogged down in it to be entertaining. Earns every ounce of the hype.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

Nakia gives her condolences to the Queen Mother. The Queen chastises Shuri. Nakia compliments Okoye’s wig. Nakia negotiates entrance to the club with Sophia. Nakia and Okoye conflict over loyalties. Nakia passes with the Queen Mother after Killmonger takes over, twice. Shuri and Nakia go into battle. They pass together later.

Female characters:

Okoye.

Nakia.

The Queen Mother (technically not a name, but I’m allowing it as a title).

Shuri.

Sophia.

Ayo.

Male characters:

Erik ‘Killmoger’ Stevens/N’Jadaka.

N’Jobu.

Zuri.

T’Chaka.

T’Challa.

Ulysses Klaue.

M’Baku.

W’Kabi.

Everett Ross.

OTHER NOTES:

I’m not sure if T’Challa ruining Nakia’s anti-HUMAN TRAFFICKING mission because he wants her around for emotional support is a very endearing intro for his character in this film...I mean, sure, they rescue the people in the convoy, but presumably there was more to the mission (otherwise Nakia wouldn’t complain that it was ruined), and T’Challa prioritises his feelings over both Nakia’s work, and the lives of all the people it effects. Coulda avoided the negative implications there with just a little fine-tuning in the dialogue.

“Nah, I’m just feelin’ it.” Michael B Jordan has such a great energy about him; he’s very, very convincing, in a role which could have broken the film if it were poorly cast.

But you know what? I fucking LOVE M’Baku, he’s my personal fave for the movie. That presence. This is an excruciatingly well-cast film (among other virtues).

I’m Hella into that Lion King vibe when communing with the spirit realm, too.

Erik shoots his unnamed girlfriend for nothing more than the drama of it, and that is not one of this film’s virtues.

Shuri calling Ross ‘coloniser’ is just...so good. There’s a lot about this film that is a reclamation, in big and obvious in-text ways, but there are also these kinds of little impactful choices which contextualise Wakanda’s relationship to the world and its history, and that kind of detailing is the difference between posturing, and playing for real.

The music in this movie? Also great. Traditional African and modern African-American, representing the interweave of themes and ideologies in-story? Fucking gold. They did not skimp on details in putting this movie together with intelligent design, and I am Hella into it.

M’Baku just fucking BARKING at Ross when he dares speak before him is the highlight of the whole film. It’s perfect.

A friend of mine has suggested that there must be a missing scene or two in this movie, wherein the Queen Mother convinces M’Baku to go into battle after all, since as-is he just kinda...changes his mind off-screen and she serves no narrative purpose at all. It’s unfortunate such a linking scene is missing, as it would have significantly enhanced both characters and helped to emotionally underpin the final act of the film, which is comparatively weak.

But anyway, M’Baku is my best dude in this movie. I love a huge man in a grass skirt.

The whole idea that W’Kabi and Okoye have a relationship at all is kinda nonexistent; we wouldn’t know about it at all if she hadn’t called him ‘my love’ that one time. Coulda beefed that up better, i.e. at all.

“Bury me in the ocean, with my ancestors that jumped from the ships, because they knew that death was better than bondage.” Michael B Jordan delivered every aspect of this character with such raw power and sincerity, y’all. He hits it straight home.

It goes without saying that there was a lot of pressure for this film to be good: a big-budget superhero action movie, part of the most lucrative cinema franchise in the world right now, taking on an afro-futuristic setting with an almost exclusively black cast? The potential for Black Panther to come off as little more than lip service paid to representation, ‘too PC’, lacking the guts to acknowledge the breadth of the racism that inevitably informs it, perhaps even falling dangerously toward racist cliches of its own...there is no other film of its kind, and as such, Black Panther could not escape being judged as more than an individual story on its own, as a representation of an entire continent’s worth of people and culture and what they could bring to an industry which has made an aggressive point of shutting them out in the past. The pressure was well and truly on to provide not only financial success put also critical acclaim, and boy oh boy, did they rise to the occasion or what?

The centrepiece of Black Panther’s success is Michael B Jordan as Erik Killmonger, striking a precise balance between the heat of well-deserved fury, and the chilling calculation of his revenge. Killmonger’s rhetoric is compelling, and it is the meeting point of the film’s threads, of Wakandan tradition, of the country’s privilege in the midst of colonial oppression and the dire morality of its secrecy, of the call of the wider world and the determining of one’s place within it. It’s vitally important that Killmonger makes sense, right up until he doesn’t - a good villain should always feel like someone you could almost follow, if only they weren’t taking things that one step too far - narratively, this is in an important pitch, but it’s also vital for the context of the viewing audience, the acknowledgement and the validation of that rage at injustice (without which, the film would come off as pandering to white guilt), but without the promotion of violent eye-for-an-eye solutions. Killmonger’s anger is never condemned, only the actions he perpetrates in the name of that anger; the viewer is forced to acknowledge the reality that made Killmonger what he is, but without being encouraged to forgive; only to understand.

I am hardly the first to observe that it is Nakia, not T’Challa, who represents the foil to Killmonger’s ideology, recognising and stirring to action at the injustice’s wrought upon the African people, but seeing in Wakanda the potential to offer unprecedented assistance rather than the opportunity for the oppressed to become the oppressor. The film is populated with character counter-balances, and it validates each perspective (while also illuminating shortcomings) to enhance the overall narrative, rather than equivocating too strenuously to make any point; Nakia values people like Okoye values her country, and while Nakia is right that blind patriotism fails the country if it allows tyranny, the strength of Okoye’s conviction is exactly what inspires the loyalty of those who follow her in the protection of Wakandan values; while Shuri ‘scoffs at tradition’ and leans entirely on the unending machine of technological progress, M’Baku and his people are safeguarding traditional practices and keeping ancient knowledge alive, which saves T’Challa when there’s no tech around - by the same token, without the protective blanket of technological progress, the Jabari would not be free to live as they do. There is good sense in the perspective which every character brings, and all of them are required in symbiosis to achieve a full picture of cultural identity.

In that broad conversation of identity and place in the world, if there’s one weak link, it’s the Black Panther himself, T’Challa. Not that he’s a weak character or that Chadwick Boseman is a weak actor - it’s just that he’s being thoroughly outplayed by all around him. It’s a good thing in regards to how well-cast the movie is and how it fleshes out its supporting players (in spite of the missing pieces pointed out in the notes above); in an overall-lesser film, the lead being the least compelling character - and especially with such a powerfully-constructed antagonist opposite him - could be a crippling flaw, but as-is Black Panther is pulling out enough stops to get away with having an under-sold Black Panther at its head. That, really, is a testament to the power of the story, and the work being done by everyone involved to tell the tale with tact, with dynamism, with all the colour and flavour the white-washed film industry has been denying all this time. We could talk about its flaws, sure, but there doesn’t seem to be much point - none of them are fatal, none are even particularly egregious, and the achievements of the movie far outweigh any quality blips along the way. Black Panther is a measured, sensitive triumph, and there’s a part of me that - in the best of ways - almost forgets that I’m watching a Marvel movie, a cash-grab - sure, they want to make money out of it, but this feels above all like a passion project. Passion like this, so fully-realised, I am not inclined to fault.

#Black Panther #Marvel Cinematic Universe #MCU #Bechdel Test #female representation

7 notes · View notes

jaimetheexplorer · 6 years

Text

PROBABILITY DISTORTION - Or why Jaime Lannister is less likely to die than you think (part 1)

I am kicking off my metas with a prickly topic that is perhaps one of the most frustrating for me to come across (and one that is pretty much impossible to avoid, these days): Jaime Lannister’s (allegedly inevitable) death. I think the reason his death is so widely accepted as inevitable is due to probability distortion. Probability distortion means that the probability of events that are unlikely is overestimated and/or the probability of events that are likely is underestimated, and the degree with which this happens is often due to individual differences and personal biases. So, for example, people who are afraid of flying overestimate the probability of dying in a plane crash, while underestimating the probability of dying in a car crash.

This is what I believe is happening with most discourse and predictions about Jaime’s fate. While present, there are actually only a handful of hints that Jaime might die in the end, and these are weighed disproportionately heavily against the substantial amount of hints to the contrary. I am NOT saying it is impossible for Jaime to die. I just believe that, if we look at the material, the probability is actually far far lower than fandom and the general audience would have you believe.

Before I get started, DISCLAIMER: While I am obviously a huge Jaime fan, I want to stop the shouts of “You just want him to live because he is your favourite” right there. No, actually. Brienne is my favourite. And, while it would break my heart, I would not feel necessarily as dissatisfied with the story if she were the one to die (see part 4 for more on this). The way I see it, death is not a punishment nor is life a prize, for a character. What matters to me is whether a death fits and makes sense for that character’s story and the ones it affects, and if it is satisfying in terms of overall style, tropes and messages. That’s the stance from which I’m analysing Jaime’s odds in this meta.

I will look at his trajectory in the story and towards the endgame from three angles (narrative arcs, the use of foreshadowing, GRRM’s writing style and story management) to explain why I think the odds of his death are highly overestimated.

When looking at narrative arcs, we have to keep in mind one thing about ASOIAF: all arcs (especially POV arcs) are important, connected and affect one another - the so called “butterfly effects”. This is not a story with one or two protagonists the story follows, and everyone else playing supporting roles (have a look here for GRRM’s take on the matter). I believe one reason why so many people distort Jaime’s endgame odds is because they look at his arc as if it were its own, standalone story. But in order to predict where it’s going to go, we need to not only look at his arc, but also at how events in his arc are going to affect and make sense with regards to OTHER POV character’s arcs (and viceversa), and particularly the two who are most closely connected to his: Cersei and Brienne.

Jaime: the man he’s meant to be

Let’s start by looking at the man in question. Jaime’s arc has three prominent themes: redemption, identity and love/family. The common point across all three is the idea of “the man he’s meant to be”, a man that is different from the one we meet at the beginning of the story.

One reason I believe predictions about his fate are skewed, is because not only too much emphasis is placed on redemption, at the expense of the other themes, but the concept of redemption most seem to have in mind is of the classic “paying for one’s crimes” variety, where the villain redeems himself at the last minute by sacrificing himself for the greater good. In Jaime’s case, the crime is (mainly) pushing Bran from the tower and the redemption comes in the form of either killing Cersei and then killing/dying himself, or dying to protect one of the “good guys”.

However, this fails to take into account the huge thematic and narrative significance of losing his sword hand - which is ironic considering that is the most iconic visual trait of Jaime’s character. 1) Jaime has *already* paid for this crime when his sword hand was chopped off, as that destroyed his life as he knew it, just like Bran losing his legs did. 2) Losing his hand is a punishment that is comparable to the crime committed (Bran lost the legs; Jaime lost his sword hand - the one he used to push him, no less), while death is rather disproportionate. 3) His redemption has *already* begun in that moment, as he saves Brienne from rape. So Jaime has paid and has been working to “make up for his bad deed(s)” ever since, while the traditional format of redemptive death usually applies when the “bad guy” only does the right thing at the last minute (usually because he’s just a plot device for the one or two main characters to be saved, - see Darth Vader - whereas in this story main POV characters are not just plot devices). Indeed, GRRM said he is interested in exploring the process of redemption; whether and how someone who has committed some terrible act can come back from it. And he has stated that he wants to believe that is possible. His outlook on redemption arcs seems to be far less authoritarian than those who seem to presume that the answer to the question “can someone be redeemed” is either a yes which is equivalent to life or a no which is equivalent to death. There are tons of shades of grey in between those two options. Furthermore, as I will discuss in part 3, George is all about trope subversion, making the traditional redemptive format rather unlikely.

The handchop not only marks the beginning of his redemption arc, but also sets Jaime on his identity arc. In most predictions, much less emphasis is put on the identity arc, which is equally as important.

“They took my sword hand. Was that all that I was? A sword hand?”

From that moment, we see Jaime having to reinvent himself and he seems to begin falling into a leadership role (not unlike Jon’s penchant for ending up with jobs he didn’t apply for); first trying to reform the Kingsguard as Lord Commander, then sent on diplomatic missions in the Riverlands and, on the show, Dorne. While he trains with Ilyn Payne in the books and we see him in occasional fights and battles on the show, it is clear that while he can somewhat function on a battlefield, he will never be as good as he was with his right. Yet, most of the predictions, especially lately, see him die a hero in battle. Sure, some may say that he will die in battle precisely because he’s not that good anymore. However, that ignores authorial intent:

“And Jaime, losing a hand, losing the very thing he defined himself on is crucial to where I think I want to go with the character. And he questions what do you make of yourself if you’ve lost that.” (GRRM).

With Jaime, GRRM doesn’t seem so interested in telling the story of a hero that will save the world in battle, he seems far more interested in exploring how a broken man can reinvent himself after the *loss* of his identity as a fighter. When you think about it this way, the idea that the climax of his story will be a heroic death in battle becomes a rather unlikely scenario. Decrease the likelihood of this particular scenario, and the overall probability of his death does too.

Finally, there’s the theme that is perhaps most overlooked: love and family. Most commonly, this is associated with Cersei, - who Jaime is willing to do horrible things for - their incestuous children, and Jaime being guilty of his father and sister’s crimes, no matter his direct involvement in them. Whatever little thought is given to how this theme is relevant to predicting Jaime’s fate usually revolves around foreshadowing tragedy: Jaime will kill Cersei, die himself, the Lannisters are all meant to go extinct, and, at most, Tyrion will survive because he is “the good one” (although even that is being revisited now).

But the love and family theme has far wider implications for Jaime’s story. The big crux of this theme in Jaime’s story isn’t just that he’s sleeping with his sister and fathering bastard children with her, but also that, in the name of some misguided notion of star-crossed love for her, he joined a celibate order that required him to give up his role as heir and future leader of his house, as well as his right to marry and father legitimate children (as Tywin and other characters like to often remind us). Fast-forward to S6 of the show, and, in one of the most overlooked scenes, Jaime is released from the Kingsguard. While this is show-only, by that stage, the show was ahead of the books, and the idea of releasing Jaime from the KG is also floated around in the books, most recently by Kevan. Given where his arc seems to be taking him at the end of S7, there is literally no narrative reason for Jaime to be released from the Kingsguard, as he can be accused of treason for going against Cersei’s orders and leaving to fight in the North (and die) just the same. Unless the narrative reason is to free him up for something his Kingsguard vow does not allow him to do.

“Other men could be fathers, [..], husbands. But not Jaime Lannister, whose sword was as golden as his hair.”

Fathers, husbands… the man Jaime was meant to be had he not taken up the white cloak. Once again, this is juxtaposed with his “sword”, the identity as a fighter that he lost - what is Jaime if not a white cloak and a sword hand? Perhaps a father, husband and the head of his house? The man he was meant to be?

So, here we have a character who has embarked upon a redemption arc, which involved losing the thing that defined him as a fighter for his whole life, so that he has to reinvent himself into a role that increasingly looks to be the heir and leader he gave up in the first place, and that the show now put him in a position to legally pursue, with six more episodes to go. Once you take all this development into account, does it sound like an arc where death is a likely, logical and satisfying conclusion that the story is pointing towards? I’d say not really.

The odds of his survival are increased further once you look at how his potential death would affect the arcs of the two other named POV characters who are most closely intertwined with his: Cersei and Brienne.

Cersei: the twin who wasn’t

When we are first introduced to Cersei and Jaime, we only see them from the POV of other characters and one thing is drilled into our heads: they are twins in every sense of the word, from their golden looks to their despicable, arrogant, and shallow personalities. One of the plot twists, and what makes the POV structure so powerful, is that that first impression starts to unravel as soon as we are introduced to their POVs.

Turns out, Jaime and Cersei are actually fairly different people. Jaime is a man who’s grown cynical and bitter but once strived to be a honourable knight. Cersei, while undoubtedly having suffered being Queen to a drunken, abusive, and unfaithful King, showed a streak of sociopathy from a young age - as physically abusing Tyrion when he was a baby, and murdering her best friend by pushing her into a well. Through the story they are both growing to recognise their differences: Jaime realising Cersei was not the Maiden to his Warrior but “the Stranger, hiding her true face from my gaze” and Cersei being alienated by Jaime’s redemption-driven changes, and realising that he has wishes and a moral compass that do not match her own. GRRM sets them on completely opposite trajectories - Jaime on a redemption/identity arc, reinventing himself as a different man, while Cersei doubles down on her psychopathy, getting caught in all sorts of self-made drama and self-destruction. So much for being twins.

Why is this important in terms of Jaime’s death odds? As anyone who has spent five minutes online knows, Cersei has a certain prophecy that has her most likely marked for dead. I am not going to go into the theories about who the valonqar might be (although I will say that the corollary of the valonqar dying after killing Cersei is 100% fanon and nonexistent in the actual prophecy), but this is relevant because, from a narrative arc standpoint, if their arcs are heading in totally opposite directions and Cersei is marked for death, then the odds of Jaime also being marked for death are actually rather low. If one dies, the other, most likely, lives. (Could it be Cersei? Sure. But I think it’s unlikely based on her trajectory - not going to go into it now. Regardless, I think their endings will likely be diametrically opposed).

Brienne: the (plot) armour

And, finally, we come to Brienne. Her chapters are perhaps some of the strongest plot armour (irony, much? - IRON-y? Sorry. I’ll stop now.) Jaime has in this story.

Brienne embodies the concept of knighthood Jaime used to have before joining the Kingsguard. While her views are initially naive and unrealistic, one of her main purposes in the story is to ignite Jaime’s renewed desire to be the honourable knight he wanted to be when he was younger. But if this were Brienne’s sole purpose, she did not need to be a POV. She is a POV because GRRM wants us to see how meeting Jaime affected HER. While challenging her views of knighthood and oaths is one aspect of it, one thing he brings up over and over is that she is terrified of failing Jaime.

The feeling of failure over past events is a staple of Brienne’s inner thoughts (also towards her father, who she feels she couldn’t be an adequate daughter to, and Catelyn Stark, who she couldn’t protect from dying in the Red Wedding). But whenever she thinks about failing Jaime, her thoughts more often than not draw a parallel between failing Jaime and the way she “failed” Renly, the man she loved; i.e. being unable to prevent his death. We meet Brienne in book/season 2 and, shortly after her introduction, we see her holding a dying Renly in her arms. Once we get inside her head in book 4, we see that she has nightmares where she watches Jaime die the same way Renly did, or where he walks away, leaving her alone (“Jaime! Come back for me!”). The show had her voice this fear to Podrick:

“Nothing is more hateful than failing to protect the one you love”.

I won’t go off on a tangent now about Jaime and Brienne’s relationship and where that might go (although, as a full disclaimer, I believe all evidence points to a romance - check out bonus part 4 for more on that topic), but one does not need to see their relationship as romantic to appreciate that protection and failure are big themes in Brienne’s arc, that she starts the story precisely failing to protect the man she loves from death, and that those feelings of protection and fear of failure are transferred from Renly to Jaime. So, if Jaime were to die? It would bring her arc right back where she started, her story having gone nowhere. It does not really matter whether Brienne dies alongside him, or Jaime dies after Brienne is dead. From a narrative standpoint, it would still mean Brienne’s efforts were ultimately in vain. I think it’s unlikely GRRM’s decision to make her a POV character and spend so much time on the theme of failure of protecting the one(s) she loves, was merely to engage in circular storytelling and end the story with “You know what, Brienne? You were right all along. You are a failure. Now go and mourn Jaime for the rest of your lonely life, the way you mourned Renly and everyone else in your life who’s dead (i.e. 99% of your family).”

To summarize, if we look at narrative arcs, Jaime’s arc tackles three themes that all seem to point in a direction other than death as the most likely/logical outcome. Furthermore, Jaime’s death would void two other important themes/arcs George is exploring with two other POV characters. Therefore, while of course it doesn’t rule it out, the odds of him dying, when looking at narrative arcs alone, look much lower than the general consensus would have you believe.

Up next, in part 2, foreshadowing.

#jaime lannister #jaime lannister meta #game of thrones meta #asoiaf meta #asoiaf #game of thrones #my meta #essay #thank you for coming to my ted talk

148 notes · View notes

gffa · 5 years

Note

Hi! In my last ask you said you loved to talk so joke's on you, now I'm gonna flood you with questions xD There are a few things I'd like to have your thoughts on, from a nebie perspective. Here's the first one. Even when I hadnt' wathced the movies yet, I had inevitably heard a lot of negative things about the prequels. What are the reasons in your opinion? And since you are so positive about them, I would ask you to instead highlight some of their strongest points :)

Hello! You act like I don’t mean it when I say I love to talk, but BOY DO I. :DPrequels hate is one of those things that I think comes from a variety of places, so there are common trends, but we’re never going to be able to cover all the reasons every single person dislikes them, and I’m not even going to try. These are going to be true for a lot of people, but there are going to be a bunch that have their own reasons that I’ve never thought much about–sometimes trash reasons, sometimes valid reasons.Mostly, it comes down to how they conduct themselves, that if someone just doesn’t like the prequels for whatever reason, but they’re perfectly kind to those who do, then their reasons are entirely valid for them and I have zero problem with them! I have friends who aren’t really that keen on the prequels and we get along fine, because they’re sweethearts and I hope I can return even half as much civility. (This applies to everything I like and someone else doesn’t.)That said, some of the biggest reasons people dislike the prequels, in my experience:- There’s a trend of people who really wanted Darth Vader to be a power fantasy character, to be an awesome badass, rather than a hot mess. This tends to go hand in hand with people disliking the way Hayden Christensen played the character, because he was very attractive, because he was a whiny teenager, because he was an anxious mess, because he didn’t have this strong core identity. I think this is part of the TCW!Anakin tends to be more popular with some people, because that Anakin does project himself better, Matt Lanter plays the character with a more polished voice and he’s more traditionally angry about stuff, instead of teary-eyed, fidgety angry that Hayden played him as.I’ve said this a bunch of times, but I think a lot of people disregard Hayden’s acting because they think Anakin is supposed to project this strong sense of self, that he should have a strong voice (literally and figuratively), that he should be clear-eyed and hold himself up well. Instead, his voice is often thin and hesitant or arrogant and whiny, he fiddles with the hem of his sleeve, he paces back and forth, his lip wobbles when he cries.And this is a brilliant choice on Hayden’s part, imo, because ANAKIN SKYWALKER IS AN ANXIOUS HOT MESS. That’s it, that’s who Darth Vader is. Someone who had all this tremendous power, who believed he was more special than everyone else around him, who wanted to be more significant than everyone else, who was angry and confused and didn’t want to do the hard work of really looking at himself, that’s why all the theraputic suggestions in the galaxy weren’t helping, because he didn’t want to, that’s why his countenance on Mustafar is hard as hell to watch. Because this isn’t someone breaking bad in an awesome way, this is a tragedy. This is Anakin Skywalker, someone we care about, going over the edge in an ugly, uncomfortable way–and Hayden portrays that beautifully.I think a lot of people really didn’t want that, they wanted Baby Vader being some demon kid or they wanted him to be a badass who just sliced through everything with his lightsaber. Not a young man who was so destroyed by the loss of his mother that he killed a bunch of villagers in a tearful rage and wanted to be soothed and absolved of it afterwards, instead of a HOLY SHIT THAT WAS BADASS moment, we got an awful, ugly moment in a way that we should think was awful and ugly.- George Lucas was always interested in pushing the boundaries of what was possible, which means that a lot of the stuff they were going (like the motion capture stuff, the background scenery CGI, etc.) are things that they had to create entirely new tech for, sometimes stuff that was so bleeding edge and so well done that they’re still using the same tech today. But, because it was such new tech at the time, it doesn’t always age well. Like, ROTS still looks really good, but even I, a staunch defender, have to admit that the TPM battle scenes are clearly very old and not nearly as integrated as they would be today.A lot of people judge the quality of the movies based on today’s standards, rather than taking them as part of the time they were from. As well as a lot of people really like a more practical look effect and, honestly, they used THOUSANDS of practical effects and models in the prequels, they just look so much a part of the film that we often don’t notice.- I’ve heard this said before and I think it’s a good point–a lot of the problem for some people is that, for a long time, that’s all there was of Star Wars. Right now, if you don’t like the sequels, you still have a ton of other stuff to be interested in, you can read in a whole bunch of other eras. You can watch Rebels or watch The Clone Wars, if you don’t like Resistance, it’s not a big deal. If you don’t like TFA and TLJ, you can just go read the Star Wars ongoing comic or the first Darth Vader series. Right now, we can even read or listen to a bunch of prequels novels!People have calmed down a lot on the prequels, in part because those who enjoyed them as kids are growing up and getting a voice in media, and partly because those who really hated them now have other places to do. “Eh, it’s not my thing, but it’s not the ONLY Star Wars coming out right now, so I guess it’s fine.”- When TPM first came out, there was a ton of love for it, it’s just that reviews on-line turned on it pretty quickly and started spinning stories about how it was fucking awful, and those voices grew so loud that that became the narrative. There’s this idea that the prequels were failures or whatever, but in reality, if you look at the box office numbers (especially adjusted for inflation), they made plenty of money. They’re all within the top 100 and, even without adjustment, TPM and ROTS made reasonably close to $1B each than anything. And this was in a time before Marvel movies were a thing, where we’re kind of used to that happening, but it wasn’t always such a thing.- A lot of people dislike the dialogue and, hey, that’s fair, it’s not for everyone. George Lucas himself said that he’s the kind of wooden dialogue, as well as a lot of people have noted that the movies are based on a style that’s out of step with modern audiences (George said this as well, iirc), and if you go watch a lot of stuff from the ‘30s and ‘40s, you can definitely notice a lot of parallels in the style of the prequels.It reads as stiff and awkward to a lot of people, so they think it’s bad (and that’s fair), but I think there’s a large element of that it’s a style that a lot of people just straight up don’t like.- One of the biggest problems is that the movies were made for kids, not for the people who used to be kids when the original came out and they didn’t like that the movies hadn’t grown up with them in the same way. The hated podrace sequence and Jar Jar Binks are classic examples of this–a lot of adults haaaaaaate those things, but if you go around asking kids, suddenly a lot more of them could watch that podracing sequence ALL DAY LONG and never get bored, a lot more kids found Jar Jar genuinely funny.George Lucas has always been upfront about how the movies are intended for kids. That’s not to say adults can’t enjoy them as well, they’re part of the audience too, but they’re very much movies that kept a younger audience in mind, and that frustrated a lot of people who had become adults themselves and wanted a more “adult” Star Wars.So, it comes down to a lot of different reasons that people don’t like the prequels, sometimes they’re fair (a difference of tastes, they’re out of step with modern audiences, the pacing isn’t always great, etc.) and sometimes they’re bullshit (wanting the movies to be something they weren’t and they’re inherently bad because Baby Vader wasn’t an awesome badass, but instead a crying hot mess with too much power).Here on tumblr, there’s a ton of love for the prequels, to the point that I forget sometimes that a lot of the rest of the world still falls into being kind of dicks about the movies. But every so often, I’ll be listening to an entertainment podcast and they bash on the prequels or Anakin’s character, or even within fandom, someone will say that the acting was terrible or the dialogue was objectively terrible, and I remember, oh, yeah, that’s still a thing.Things are easier now, those who loved the movies are getting a voice in the media, there’s more stuff for non-fans to concentrate on instead if they don’t like them, there are more defenders now, more pockets to get lost in, but for awhile we all kind of had to be jammed together and that mean some voices were louder than others. And that got perpetuated a lot so that’s what you heard. “The prequels are bad.” was said over and over and over, until that became the only narrative that a lot of people heard.Whew, okay, that was long and there’s going to be plenty of other reasons that aren’t touched on, this isn’t meant to say non-fans are a monolith in their reasons why they don’t like them, etc. But those are the major reasons I usually see. But what do I love about the prequels?I love that the characters really spoke to me in a way I never expected. I’ve dealt my whole life with anxiety, depression, and a difficult time really looking at myself and facing my inner demons. I relate to Anakin Skywalker in so many ways, and even when I call him a garbage bag, it’s done with such affection because, I have been there, my guy. I’ve struggled to really learn to let go of things, to make peace with a lot of the shit in my head, so when the Jedi came along and actually had some really good advice about calming your tits before you hurt someone, that you had to have internal self-discipline to overcome a lot of the shit inside you, that spoke to me as well. I strive to be a better person, to let go of the anger that consumed me and cost me years of my life and friendships. I fell in love with Obi-Wan Kenobi, who is pretty much the best person in that entire galaxy, that he doesn’t have to be perfect to be wholly good. And also he’s hilarious. I fell in love with Padme, a woman who accomplished such great things in the galaxy, who could move metaphorical mountains, while still being internally fragile in a lot of ways, that her heart broke so badly, she just couldn’t keep living. I’ve been there, too.I am IN LOVE with the worldbuilding of the prequels–the worlds of the prequels are, honestly, the best of all the eras. Coruscant is incredible, it’s easily my favorite planet. But Naboo is gorgeous. Getting to see a little of Alderaan is incredible. Mustafar was INCREDIBLE to see. Geonosis and Kashyyyk are incredibly cool to look at! I kind of want to legit take a walk on Felucia and see all the flora. Kamino and Utapau look amazing, too. Umbara and Dathomir and Malastare and Mandalore and Christopsis and Cato Nemoidia and Mon Calamari all look amazing when we get to see them, too.And I’m in love with the more fleshed out politics of the era because it feels like they actually have impact and weight there. Politics has always been part of Star Wars, but we really don’t see it that much in the Rebellion era and not even that much in the Resistance/First Order era. We may get more of it as the New Republic is explored more (like we do in the Aftermath books) and I’ll be fascinated then, but the prequels went hard on politics and, yeah, a lot of people disliked them, but I think looking around at our current day setting kind of proves just HOW INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT POLITICS ARE.If nothing else, I love the prequels just for the Jedi Temple and Jedi Aesthetics, give me ALL THE WARM SUNLIGHT CORRIDORS, the sheer sense of peace and harmony radiating off that place, all the incredible art and design touches in pretty much everything, the ceremonial dance combat we see the younglings do in TCW, the giant open hallways and verandas, the star map that shimmers into view, the robes that actually look super soft, the gardens that are probably everywhere in that place, GOD, I JUST WANT TO GO THERE, LET ME IN, LET ME IIIIIIIIIINNNNNN.I love the prequels unreservedly because it was the point where I felt like the galaxy was really a genuinely huge galaxy, it’s the place I get the best sense of scale of how massive everything really is, and it’s the part where I love the pieces and the characters the most. I think the potential–and sometimes even the realization of that potential on-screen–is the most and it’s the place where I want to play with the world and the characters the most, it’s full of hilarity and seriousness, tragedy and hope, good people making their way through a shitty universe, but still trying to help as many people as they can, and my favorite dumpster fire of a character that I could spend all day analyzing and digging into the reasons why he chooses to do things and never get tired of ANY OF IT.Honestly, this is not necessarily a great list of Why The Prequels Are Great, mostly because *waves hand at the general mess that is my blog* pretty much this whole thing here is my ongoing attempt to put it into words and pictures why love this corner of the GFFA so much.

#adharaskywalker #meta #prequels fan for life #long post

41 notes · View notes

youknowmymethods · 6 years

Text

Content Creator Interview #6

Hello again and welcome to our sixth interview. This time, it’s the turn of @ashockinglackofsatin to put @sunken-standard ‘s writing under the microscope. Together they chat about the early days of the Sherlock fandom, how music can influence writing, and why the I Love You scene helped end sunken’s own great hiatus.

For those who don’t know me: I am @ashockinglackofsatin on tumbr, satin_doll on AO3. My test subject...erm, sorry - interviewee - is the notorious sunken_standard, probably most famous for her two epic, novel-length stories Longer Than The Road That Stretches Out Ahead and Fumbling Toward Ecstasy, which can be found on AO3 (along with her other wonderful stories) and should be required reading for anyone aspiring to write fanfiction.

You should know, first off, that I’m crap at doing interviews, which I discovered years ago when I had to interview musicians and various personalities as a job. I didn’t last long at that job.

So here is Kat’s Idiotic Interview with @sunken-standard.

satin_doll: You’re very good at writing Sherlock’s emotional cluelessness without making him seem like an idiot or an ass. Can you talk a little about the way you see Sherlock’s character that allows you to do this?

sunken_standard: Thank you :D So the answer to this is going to carry through to some of the other questions, but basically, I write Sherlock as a version of myself. I feel a kinship with the character, a highly intelligent person surrounded by idiots and so, so frustrated by it, but even more frustrated by his own brain and the inability to control it. Probably autistic, just like I'm probably autistic (and I don't want to get into it but I'm not trying to co-opt an identity here or anything; I've tried to get a diagnosis and found out that's just not possible with my current healthcare options).

Anyway, one of my probably-autistic things is being hyper-aware of other people's emotions, but also having trouble identifying them and the appropriate responses. At times I do lack empathy, like I honestly can't understand why someone is feeling what they're feeling because I wouldn't feel that way in the same situation and it doesn't make sense. Sometimes I can empathize so much that it's overwhelming and I just kind of short-circuit, especially when it comes to grief or loss, and I end up being insensitive or just not saying or doing what a normal person would.

So basically, I approach his responses to other people's emotions the way I would my own, only stripped of female socialization and self-awareness.

satin_doll: How much do you draw on your own life and experiences in your fics?

sunken_standard: For scenarios and specific scenes, not a lot. For emotional and sensory experiences, more. I haven't done very much or lived to my full potential, so it's not a very deep well on either account. Every now and then anecdotes or details creep in (like Mars Cheese Castle and the “call me Daddy” during sex thing [which, for the record, was skeevy as fuck irl]), but most of it just comes from nowhere or stuff I saw on TV.

satin_doll: Both “Longer than the Road…” and “Fumbling Toward Ecstasy” are novel length stories. “Road”, however, is written without breaks/chapters. Did you ever consider breaking it up into parts or chapters? How hard was it to keep it all in one piece and how long did it take you to finish it?

sunken_standard: When I write, I usually just start and then go 'til it's done or I burn out. I got through three or four chapters' worth of FTE (and was on the verge of giving up until maybe_amanda convinced me not to). Since the story wasn't nearly finished and I wanted to start putting it out into the world (mostly because I have no patience, but also because I knew there was a window to stay relevant and a large number of people were looking for a longer, meatier [cough] post-TFP fic), I decided to start posting what I had and just write as I went because I was, in hindsight, probably hypomanic and I was keeping a good pace at that point.

I dunno, I think there was a lot more of that long-format thing happening in fic back then, where you'd have a 40k piece that only had breaks because of the word limit per post on LJ.

As far as how long it took, I don't remember. I know I started it February of that year and had probably a good 75% of it finished (all written at a tear, over the course of probably ten days or so, because when I was still smoking actual cigarettes I could and did do 3-5k words/ day), but then I dropped it and went on to try other ideas. I went back to it when those other stories fizzled, and I finished it in maybe another 2-3 weeks with editing and beta reading. I had some real problems with the ending and it was never good enough for me, but I just got to a point where I was sick of it and it was good enough.

So basically, it's harder for me to work in chapters than it is one long piece. There's more discipline to a chaptered work; each chapter is its own story, in a way, and each one needs to end on a certain kind of beat. I still don't feel like I have a knack for it, and I think if I did anything long like that again I'd have to write most of it without breaks and then shoehorn them in where I could later on.

satin_doll: You took a long hiatus from Sherlock fic after S2, and came back for S4. What was it about S4 that sparked your writing again?

sunken_standard: I don't really know. I mean, the ILY was a big thing, but I think S4 gave me more to work with for the kind of things I write (all the angst and inner monologue) than S3 or TAB. I had mixed feelings about S3. I didn't like Mary much for a long time because she was one of Moffat's women (and anyone who's seen my tumblr knows how I feel about that), but I finally unclenched after a while because I like Amanda Abbington a lot and Mary was preferable to Sarah Sawyer (who I'm more ambiguous about now, but really didn't like for a long time because there was something about her that I read as smarmy, though now I see her reactions as more subtly uncomfortable and kind of like “what's going on/ this is weird/ John's a nice guy but is everything around him always this weird?”). Anyway.

I did try writing a bit after S3, but I never finished any of it; I didn't really feel like there was a place in the fandom or much of a community at that time, either—at least, not like what I had been used to from the early days. The tribe that existed wasn't my tribe (any of them). I think I need a certain degree of shared enthusiasm to motivate me to keep writing. Like, I have a lot of ideas for fic in other fandoms, but they're dead or never existed in the first place. And I know I'll have some audience for the small fandoms and people will read and kudos and everything, but there's no one around to geek out with or bounce ideas off of, so it just isn't as appealing. If I'm going to be miserable and alone while writing something, it's going to be something I can at least make money off of, y'know?

satin_doll: Do you edit as you go or finish the story first and go back over it to edit?

sunken_standard: Edit as I go. When I get stuck, I break that cardinal rule of writing and go back over what I've written and nit-pick it to death. It's a bad habit, but at the same time, small changes have led to big developments in the course of the story later on. I mean, I think sometimes this is why I have so many unfinished things, but I've tried just writing through and that doesn't work for me either. Once I get to the end of something, I've already made most of big cuts and done a lot of the reworking, so the beta polishing isn't as labor-intensive. I'm one of those people that when I feel like something's finished, I don't want to have to go back to it again. And if I didn't edit as I went, it would kind of feel like redoing the whole story and that's extremely unappealing to me. It's kind of like baking—it's always better if you clean as you go, rather than waiting until the cake's out of the oven to do the dishes and put stuff away (which I do when I'm low on spoons, but it ends up seeming like double the work).

satin_doll: Do you proof it yourself or rely on someone else to proofread it for you? I’m talking technical details here, proofing as opposed to simple beta reading.

sunken_standard: Mostly proof myself, since I edit as I go (and proofing is inevitably part of that when the mistakes just jump out). My beta catches everything else (and she's amazing; I misuse words and just legit don't know spelling differences for a lot of things [stationary vs stationery] and I'm not great with grammar and prepositions because I'm an ignorant fucker with no education).

satin_doll: When did you first start writing? When did you first discover that you COULD write?

sunken_standard: I remember writing stories as a kid, but I burned them all when I was a teenager so I don't even know what most were about or anything. I do remember that I wrote one when I was in like 4th or 5th grade that was ST:TNG self-insert fanfic and I think the plot was me working with Data to bring Lal back. I know it was Data, because I had a huge crush on him as a kid. I really thought I could grow up to write ST:TNG novels at that point.

And as for CAN write—jury's still out on that one. Ask my 12th grade English teacher, who laughed in my face when I told him I was thinking of pursuing English so I could be a writer. But before that, I had some other teachers that used to give me A+s on my creative writing assignments (despite all the spelling and grammatical errors). In 11th grade, I had a really great teacher, Mr. Lansing, who turned me on to the good parts of American lit and really encouraged me to read (and write) what I liked, not just what other people told me I had to. He encouraged me when I applied for the Governer's school, too. (The Governer's School is this program in PA for kids who excel; it's like a summer camp for the elite nerds. They have a bunch of them, each for different areas—math, science, medicine, I think one that's like history/ government/ civics, and then one for the arts. For creative writing, they take a total of 20 kids—10 for poetry and 10 for prose. I tried for the poetry category and made the first round of cuts and went for a regional interview (with about 50 other kids, so like maybe 150 kids state-wide); long story short I didn't make it. I was the first alternate, meaning if somebody couldn't attend, I would get their spot. #11 out of 10. I was so crushed, because it basically reinforced what I'd been told by other people—I was a big fish in pond too small to even piss in and there were always going to be people better than me. I was already mostly checked-out when it came to academia and aspirations; after that there was just really no point to keep going.)

Anyway though, I did write bits and pieces here and there even after school, thinking one day I'd get my shit together and write my own Confederacy of Dunces and then off myself (it's still a viable plan). Then, in 2008 I was recently unemployed and everything in life was shitty, so I wrote a big happy-ending fic for The Doctor and Rose. It was kind of the right bit of media at the right time that inspired me. More about that later though.

satin_doll: What/who do you think has had the biggest influence on the development of your style?

sunken_standard: I've been asked this before, and I always feel like I'm a little pretentious and I trot out the same names (both fanfic authors and book authors), but I had a realization a while ago that I'm always missing one person—Vonnegut. I think he's got this kind of no-bullshit way of saying things that still manages to be poetic and delicate and that's what I most aspire to.

I think a lot of my style is influenced by film, too. Some influences are probably Todd Solondz, Richard Linklater, Kevin Smith, and John Waters, as far as the way I approach the reality within the story. I think I tend to focus on a lot of the same things—the weird, the mundane, the mildly uncomfortable—but I don't go nearly as far in any direction. I think even the way I string scenes together and the shifting of focus within my scenes between action, dialogue, and inner monologue are influenced by cinematography. I always say I'm just transcribing the movie in my head, so I mean, there's bound to be some kind of influence.

satin_doll: You’re noted for the banter between your characters, humorous and otherwise. Do you have rules/profiles for characters that establish their voices for you? Are there things, for example, that you think Sherlock or Molly simply would never say/do or would always say/do? How structured are these characters in your head when you start writing?

sunken_standard: It varies slightly from story to story/ universe to universe, but I think I have patterns for the banter (and I have a different set for Sherlock and John, and Sherlock and Mycroft, but there are common threads throughout). As for comedy, it's not quite straight man/ funny man, but I tend to default to Sherlock being more literal and deadpan and Molly being more expressive and emotive. I use the scraps of the dynamic the show's given us and just build on that. It's kind of formulaic, actually: Sherlock does a not-good thing (degree of severity varies), Molly reacts with a blend of annoyance and amusement while going along for the ride.

I have a kind of mental file for things I think would be out of character for each of them, but sometimes I like to try to find a way to get to one of those things and slip it into a fic organically. One of the reason I liked doing the one-line prompt fics so much was that so many of them could easily have been intros to the kind of fluff that makes me gag; I'm no fool, though, and I love me some low-hanging fruit, so I just adjust it to my tastes. I'm a never-say-never kinda gal. Mostly.

That being said, there are a lot of things that I think would take a lot of doing to make them be in-character. I don't think they'd ever use pet names for each other unless it was through gritted teeth or with at least a bit of irony (like how I used “yes, dear,” in FTE, and I think in some of the universes in Ficlet Cemetery). I can't see Sherlock ever doing housework unless it was for a case (though dishes and sanitizing surfaces are an exception, because both those chores are tangent to the kind of cleaning up after oneself one does in a lab setting, and imo that fits with his logic). I can't see him being very affectionate in public, except under rare circumstances when he might do an arm around the shoulders or a guiding palm to the small of the back.

And as for structure, I think they all start with the same scaffolding, but in every new universe they get draped slightly differently according to variations in backstory or tone or genre or whatever. Or like, they're already sculpted, but the lighting changes. I think that as I write, they take on different nuances and acquire more depth, though. Like it wasn't really until a few chapters in to FTE that I got a fuller picture of the Molly I was writing, even though I had the rough idea of her backstory from pretty much the beginning. Same with Longer Than the Road, too. As I come up with details of someone's past, I experience those scenarios and it makes me rethink and fine-tune everything about them in what I've already written, and adds more texture as I keep going.

satin_doll: You’ve listed a playlist for “Longer than the Road…” Do you write to music? How much does music inspire your writing? Does every story have a playlist?

sunken_standard: It's funny, but I don't listen to music nearly as much as I did even 5 years ago. Not sure why, honestly, maybe something to do with my mental health and overstimulation? So I don't write to music much anymore. Not every story has a playlist or songs attached (I don't think any of the FC stuff does, at least not in any significant way), but it seems like my best work is inspired by music in some way.

FTE didn't really have a soundtrack, but I listened to a lot of the music I had in common with the version of Molly that I was writing—very 90s alternative and pop rock. Lots of Pulp (which I picked as Molly's favorite band because I think they're Loo's favorite, or one of her favorites). For the proposal, I had “Dreams” by The Cranberries on a loop as I wrote. There's just something musically about that song that's full of anticipation and the wavy kind of guitar (I don't know the music terms and it's been so many years since I was into anything instrument-related that I'm not even sure how the sound is made, like a whammy bar or wiggling their fingers on the frets or whatever but anyway) just has this kind of wavering emotion that makes it feel like it's on the cusp of something. And also it's the big romance song from every coming-of-age thing ever, and so just hearing it is like an auditory shorthand for breathless, adventurous romance, at least for women of a certain age (namely, my age, and I'm only a year younger than Loo/ Molly). There was another scene—I can't remember what it was without rereading the fic—that I spent like three days listening to nothing but “The Way” by Fastball. It might have been the thing with the drink testing and then the sex on the sofa and the cake baking. (As an aside, I just started listening to the song and immediately got hit with a sense memory of night-wet spring air blowing in my window, because that's what the weather was when I was writing to this and it gives me a weird yearning pull in the back of my throat, like nostalgia almost but something else in it. Like, did you ever hear a pop song that taps into some deeper part of the human experience, both musically and lyrically, and you just feel like there's some universal truth in it that's too much to totally grasp? That's how I feel about both of those songs. Anyway.)

Another story that had a few songs attached was Stainless, Captive Bead. Radiohead's “Creep” was what they were listening to in the tattoo parlor, and a lot of the sex bits were written while listening to Nine Inch Nails' “Closer” (look, if it's set in the 90s and there's fucking in it, I'm going to find a way to relate it to “Closer,” because that song is just dark sex and angst set to synthesizers and a high hat).

Also, sometimes when I write I listen to ambient noise stuff, cityscapes or rain or whatever fits the tone of the piece and my mood. I can't listen to anything for too long, though, because I get listener fatigue and I burn out faster.

satin_doll: Have you ever considered self-publishing your stories as a book or series of books?

sunken_standard: I've tried to file off the serial numbers on the Girlfriend series, but it was harder than I thought it would be so I back-burnered it. I still like to think that one day I will, it's a life goal, but if I put too much pressure on myself I only make it worse and nothing gets done.

satin_doll: You seem to have a detailed backstory for every character in your stories, from Janine to Molly’s mother. Do you work these out beforehand or do they just happen in your head as you write?

sunken_standard: Both? I kind of touched on it earlier, but I usually have an idea of the backstory, the bones at least, and then as I write it gets richer. I have multiple headcanons for every character, so I just start off with one of those. Like I have five different families for Molly, all things I was coming up with when I was writing other stories. Hell, I've got like five different Uncle Rudys (most of them highly unpleasant and most likely triggering).

I have a habit of just sitting and thinking about a character, like “what would make them this way?” armchair psychoanalysis stuff. And if I can establish a plausible-sounding backstory, I have a better foundation for introducing non-canonical traits or details. I think that's the downfall of a lot of fic authors—they just write a canon character as they would an OC and expect us to play along without demonstrating any internal logic. Maybe I'm just picky; there's certainly an element of that, too.

satin_doll: How detailed is the story in your mind before you start writing it? Do you work from plans and outlines with every story?

sunken_standard: It all depends on the story. Sometimes I have a whole series of detailed scenes just waiting in my head to be written out. Sometimes I only have one thing and I just keep going. I say I use an outline, but it's not a proper outline. More like a collection of notes and bullet points of what I want to happen and what kind of beats I want to hit. I usually keep it at the bottom of my working document so I don't have to switch to another doc to look at it if I need to.

satin_doll: Where does a story begin with you? What constitutes the “urge” to write? You once mentioned (in a comment reply I think) that you know the ending of the story first and then write the rest of the story to get there. What do you do when a story goes off track? How do you get it back to the way you planned it, or do you even try to do that?

sunken_standard: (I don't know why my document formatting went tits-up here, so I'll answer 1 & 2 both here)

So stories are a visceral kind of thing. I always have ideas. Seriously, give me a theme or a title or something and I can spit out a summary and details in as long as it takes to type it out. But actually crafting prose (can I sound more pompous?) is best likened to the urge to poop. Classy, right? I said it was visceral. Really though, it's that same kind of state of heightened awareness/ arousal (in the strictest medical sense of the word, not sexual arousal), something is happening and if it doesn't things are going to get weird and I'm going to be very uncomfortable for a very long time. Also, like pooping, if it's not ready, no amount of grunting or straining is going to make it happen, and it might even make it worse in the long run. As you can tell, I've been very, very constipated for the last year.

Anyway.

Stories going off track... a lot of the time I just let it happen because it's taking me to a better place than where I thought it was going to end up.

satin_doll: Quote from you: “I spend way too much time thinking about who Molly is as a person. Writing porn and comedy both have their appeal, but I really like sitting down and thinking about what makes any given character tick and how they might feel about what's happening around them. 30s and single has so much baggage to it, even if all the women's magazine articles and whatever-wave-we're-up-to-now feminist thought pieces say it's a myth or a stereotype or whatever. It's a truth we don't want to be true because it's not fair. I mean, it's not the thing that solely defines any woman, but it's there, just like cellulite and brand new and worrying moles and our favorite brand of whatever suddenly being discontinued (or significantly changed) because some marketing person decided it was too 'old.' But anyway, such is life. And I like putting that in fic.”

Do you write character studies to use as a reference for your stories, or just wing it for each individual piece?

sunken_standard: The character study is dead, isn't it? Like, as standalone fic. Never see them anymore, which is a real pity. I used to write them (or, well, start them, heh) before I took a break from writing/ fandom, mostly to try to get some of my headcanons down in some kind of usable way. But I haven't really written a character study (in prose, at least) since 2012 or so.

So when I write, I keep two documents open—the working copy that's a first-through-final draft and a “notes/ cut bits/ things to work in somehow” document. In the notes document I usually keep any character details (backstory or how I want them to react to something later, whatever). There are themes I go back to over and over, like a cluster of traits I reuse in some fashion because I think they fit the character (Mycroft and disordered eating, Molly as a middle child in some fashion, John as the child of alcoholics, etc.), so a lot of that just lives in my head. Any bits of characterization specific to a story go in the notes doc for that story, while any generic thoughts or something that I think I might want to use later gets stuck in another document full of random ideas, snippets of dialogue, jokes, AUs I'll never write, that kind of thing. I've got a few of those docs from different writing periods. They're mostly just a way to externalize a thought so I don't lose it; I hardly ever go back to them for anything.

satin_doll: What was your first involvement with fanfiction? Where did it all start?

sunken_standard: I started to answer this in another question; basically, fanfic's been in my wheelhouse in one way or another since I was a kid (Star Trek novels are fanfic, period). I discovered fanfiction back in the days of eXcite searches and webrings while looking for translations of Inu Yasha manga scans; I stumbled upon an English-language fancomic/ doujinshi called Hero in the 21st Century and it was so well-written, funny and poignant and well-researched I was just drawn in. I still think about it and the author's other works to this day. I did pick at the idea of writing myself, sometimes even put down scenes or outlines and did hours of research, but never did the thing.

And then, in 2008, the stars aligned and I started a thing. Journey's End spawned a ton of Doctor Who fic, and that was good, because I could just kind of slip mine in there and I probably wouldn't get a lot of criticism or attention. So I wrote like two chapters without any idea of how it was going to end, and I submitted it to Teaspoon and an Open Mind (which was the Doctor Who fic archive at the time; it was curated/ moderated and where you went when you wanted to read something you knew would be good, or at least conform to certain standards, unlike The Pit [which is still garbage today]). And I got rejected. My grammar and spelling were awful (I didn't even have spell-check in whatever program I was using) and they said the whole thing had good bones, but I really needed to work on the English before they'd look at it again. Getcherself a beta, they suggested, and I think they had a forum where writers and betas could connect. So I got myself a beta and she stuck with me for like 30 chapters, answering questions and keeping my characterization on-track and basically re-teaching me the rules of written English. I tried to email her a few years ago to thank her again, but her email bounced back. Her name was Julia and if she sees this, thank you Julia. You're a wonderful person.

Anyway, I wrote lots in that fic universe for like 2 months, then got another job and tapered off. I abandoned it completely after a year. Life got in the way of a lot of things, and the next time I was really inspired to write anything was a couple years later, for Supernatural. I only put it on my LJ, never posted to a community or anything, and no one read it. Literally, I don't think the post got any hits at all and for sure no one commented. I sometimes think about putting it on AO3 just because. And then Sherlock happened and here we are.

satin_doll: Do you think writing fanfic has hurt or hindered your original work? Why or why not? (that looks like a high school test question - sorry!)

sunken_standard: Lol @ test question :D

I'm not really sure, tbh. On one hand, I only have so much creative energy—it's definitely a finite resource, and a scarce one—and devoting it to fanfic diverts it from any original work. On the other hand, all writing is practice. The only way to improve is to keep doing, no matter what it is. So in that sense, fanfic's certainly helped me to find a comfortable voice and a prose style that works for me. There are still problems to solve, figuring out the best approach to a scene or story from a technical standpoint (stuff like tense and perspective and all that), so I'm always learning something as I go. Mixed bag, really.

satin_doll: What was it about the Sherlock/Molly dynamic that got you started on a piece like “Longer Than the Road…” What did you see there that made you want to explore it in such detail?

sunken_standard: So I always talk about how Sustain was my come-to-Jesus moment with Sherlock and Molly. Here's something I've never told anybody, not even maybe_amanda (because I was kind of ashamed, but not for the reasons people might think): before ever reading Sustain, I started a story that was Sherlock/ John and Sherlock/ Molly. I had it roughly outlined and a few pages written, but I just kind of lost the feeling of it and it was starting to get problematic for character motivations, yada yada, so into the scrap heap it went. It had a passing similarity to Sustain because of a platonic-sex-for-pregnancy element (hence why I never talked about it), but the major difference was that it was going to end up as a kind of polyamorous arrangement, Sherlock loving both of them and having a kind of co-parenting triad. In mine, John wanted a baby, and Molly wanted her own baby, and Sherlock thought “best of both worlds!” and why do IVF when you can write awkward angst-fucking instead. But yeah, I never finished it.

Anyway, I always saw something there, but I couldn't make it work in a way that was consistent with my own characterization of Sherlock until after Series 2. Even in Series 1, he looks at her with a kind of fondness and a sort of bewilderment that just lends itself to nerds in love. At the time (and even now, tbh), I kind of attributed that to BC having a crush on Loo (and oh man do I have theories, which are gossipy and gross and not the kind of thing I usually even bother having opinions about, but have you listened to the S1 commentary and some of the interviews around that time? there's something more there) and that kind of just spilling over onscreen and it working for the editor because it makes BC look sexy.

I mean look, I make no secret of the fact I started off shipping Sherlock with John almost exclusively (though I'd read just about anything), and after S1 aired it was just a different time. I get really annoyed when people talk shit about the pairing and the people who still ship them, because most of them weren't even in the fandom at the time and didn't have the same experience as the OGs. When Series 1 aired, hardly anyone knew who BC was, and Martin was just the guy from The Office and some other shows that were kind of unremarkable; most of the fandom was composed of old-school ACD Sherlockians and a few stragglers (like me) that got there from Doctor Who or were just general mystery/ thriller fans that got sucked in. We had a different perception of it because we weren't led into it by Star Trek or Hobbits or MCU; the characters didn't have that baggage attached for us. A lot of us already had a perception of Holmes and Watson as some shade of gay, so it was no great leap to see the very obvious romance (and yes, they all called it that in interviews at the time) onscreen as a romantic one. Martin, when asked, said basically that he'd play the next series (S2) however they wrote it, and if romance was there he'd go down that road. Whatever, I don't need to defend it because people think what they think anyway.

Anyway, getting back to the actual question instead of a million tangents and rants, I think I saw a lot of the things that have since become like backbone tropes of the pairing (even in canon, with the whole “alone, practical about death” thing). Their interactions in S2 were great; everything hinted at more than what was on-screen. And I really liked the idea of exploring the dynamic that was pretty much already there, as far as Molly having both a crush and self-respect and Sherlock suddenly having to rely on this person (that he picked because she was reliable to begin with) who's a friend, but also kind of a stranger in the way that a lot of the people we consider friends are (at least, friends made in adulthood; work-friends, church-friends, club-friends, gym-friends). Past that, I really saw the potential for character growth stemming from their interactions, but not like her humanizing him or whatever; both of them gaining insight about themselves, with the other person (and their relationship) as a vehicle for those realizations. I think I could have done better on that front, but hindsight blah blah.

satin_doll: How familiar were you with the Sherlock Holmes character before the BBC series aired, and what made you want to write about him?

sunken_standard: So I wasn't very familiar at all. Just what was in the general cultural lexicon, maybe a few episodes of the Granada series on PBS as a kid, a few of the stories that I just couldn't get into when I tried to read them because I hate Victorian prose (hate it, everything about it, I won't read anything written before 1920 or so because I just hate it [Wilde being the singular exception, but I even get bogged down by him]). Oh, and the RDJ movie, which wasn't really Sherlock Holmes to me, but just like a Victorian-era action movie. After S1, I just devoured canon (though, full disclosure, I still haven't read all of it, probably only about 80%), then moved on to other adaptations and canon-era fic and pastiches, read a bunch of extra-canon material on the internet. So as far as that goes, I'm very much a poseur and newbie in the greater Sherlock Holmes fandom. At least I did my research?

Anyway, it really took the modern adaptation and BC's performance to make the character resonate with me. The aspects he chose to play up—the frustration and impatience and frantic mental energy—just hit a nerve. He really channeled the “gifted” experience (which I suspect was just a lot of BC himself bleeding through). Finally I could use a fictional character to bemoan how stupid everyone around me was and sound like a complete asshole and be completely in-character! The heavens smiled upon me.

Really though, I was initially attracted to how cerebral it was and how smart the fandom was overall. It was the early fandom (and I mean early, like days after episode 1 aired) that drew me in, at least to a participatory (vs. consumptive) level. Lots of very clever, very educated, very queer people having these deep, insightful discussions about everything (sometimes only tangentially related to the show). When I did start writing, I didn't have to dumb anything down; the challenge was to sound smarter than I actually am. And, I mean, I got to dredge up a lot of my own emotional baggage from being a perpetual outsider, which is always cathartic (and probably not very healthy, long-term, because it's not resolving anything, just exploiting myself, but that's a can of worms).

satin_doll: Are you more drawn to Sherlock or Molly as a character, or both equally? Why?

sunken_standard: Sherlock, I think, for the reasons described in the last question.

I don't generally identify with female characters in fiction, since my own identification as female is tenuous (and in general they're poorly written and poorly realized, but that's another story). I mean, I can draw from my own experiences as a (mostly) female-shaped person with female socialization, but I have a hard time intuiting feminine and it's harder for me to write a “normal” woman.

Paraphrasing something I read in an interview with another fic author I admire, writing a woman is always a self-portrait, and how much of yourself do you really want to reveal? Since I don't know how to woman correctly, I'm always afraid I'm going to slip up and hit the wrong beat for what a normal woman is and end up ruining the characterization. I do manage to channel a lot of my own frustrations with men, relationships, being a single and childless woman over 30, and the patriarchy into Molly's character, though.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I really love Molly (and always have—I was one of the first to use her as a main character and not just a punching bag or a punchline). I love her sense of humor and her job and her fashion sense, all of it. She's not one-dimensional. It's just easier for me to write Sherlock than it is to make decisions about who Molly is.

satin_doll: You are “internet famous” for Longer Than the Road (rightfully so!) What about that story do you think is so affecting for fans? How has “Road” influenced subsequent work you’ve done in the Sherlolly ship?

sunken_standard: You know, I'm really not sure why it seems to resonate with people. Maybe the homesickness or the exhaustion that comes with impermanence (and I mean, we all feel that on an existential level, everything's always changing and it's faster every year, just existing is like trying to walk in an earthquake). Or the healing/ recovery aspect of it (I tried to balance both sides, the affected and the caregiver). Or maybe I just wrote it at the right time (when there wasn't much else out there) and people kept coming back to it because it was familiar.

As for how it's influenced subsequent work... I'm sure it has, but I don't know how, exactly. I still think it's the best thing I've ever written and the closest to something literary I'll ever get, so in a way it's an albatross (no one ever wants to be reminded that they already peaked). I get frustrated when my newer work doesn't live up to the standard I set for myself with it. That frustration doesn't make me a better writer, it just makes me tired, so everything I do now is paler.

One thing it did do was cement my characterizations of Sherlock and Molly and the dynamic between them. I tend to write them a certain way and don't deviate from that, and that all has roots in the push-pull, love-hate thing I established in Longer Than the Road. I can't write Molly without a degree of contempt for Sherlock and I can't write Sherlock without a degree of shame and contrition in his feelings toward Molly.

satin_doll: How does feedback affect what you write? How important is it? Is it more important that a reader “get” the point of the work or just that they like it? What kind of reader do you write for?

sunken_standard: I try not to let feedback affect my writing. I mean, I only get positive feedback, really, so it's a high. I'm not trying to brag or anything; I count myself lucky that I don't get the shit others do (though I honestly think anybody that posts on The Pit is opening themselves up to it because it's a garbage dump, but I've never liked the site, so). I try not to let it go to my head or anything though.

I also try not to let it influence the direction my writing takes; I might do a comment fic or write a silly HC or something, but I like to keep my substantial pieces pure, so to speak. Though sometimes a comment sparks something and a whole other fic grows out of it, so I fail there, I guess. Sometimes it's a lot of pressure when people say they want to see more of something, or want me to write a kind of specific scenario, so I usually just don't, and then I feel bad about not giving nice people what they want and it starts this whole weird spiral of guilt and obligation and then swinging the other way and getting (internally) belligerent over not owing anybody anything. I uh, have a complicated relationship with my work being acknowledged in any capacity.

As for people “getting” it... I don't know if they really do or not. Sometimes I get comments and I can tell they're definitely on my wavelength and they picked up on an allusion or a detail or just saw or felt everything in the scene like I did when I was laying it out. Once in a while I get a comment that has a different interpretation than what I was trying to get across, and that's really cool because it makes me re-examine my own work and see it from a different perspective (which I think makes me stronger for the next thing). It's really validating when someone “gets” it, but at the same time, I write to entertain other people (as well as myself), so as long as they like it, I feel accomplished.

It's cliché, but I write for an audience of one. I've tried to write outside my taste and it doesn't end well. Sometimes I write tropes that aren't my bag (like the Wiggins “the Missus” thing, or kidfic/ pregnancy), but it's kind of like a nod and wink to people who do like it, rather than outright pandering. At least, that's what I tell myself. Sometimes you need to try on every bra in your size, even the ones you know you hate, just to make sure you're getting the right one, y'know?

satin_doll: Do you think fanfic has changed since you began writing it? If so, how?

sunken_standard: Yeah, but I don't think it's a good or bad thing. And it depends on where you look and what you consume.

In the last like five years, Tumblr's purity culture has shamed a lot of kink back into the closet, I think, and people (in my fandoms, at least) aren't really writing on the edge. I see darkfic, but it's about as dark as the night sky over Hong Kong. I think people are afraid to go really dark anymore because they don't want the backlash from a generation fed on a diet of pink princesses and promise rings. And I think everyone's desire for happy-ending escapism has ratcheted up because the real world is shit and TV shows are all playing Russian roulette with surprise deaths to add drama (thanks, The Walking Dead, for making that element so ubiquitous that the rest of the mainstream picked it up and ran).

On the other hand, I'm not seeing near the amount of badfic as I used to. It was never as much of a problem on the old platforms and AO3 (compared to The Pit), but there were always some. I mean, there are still lots of turds out there, but they all seem a bit more polished these days. As far as the English goes, at least. Maybe my fandoms are just maturing.

I think people interact a lot differently now, too. This is going to kind of tie into the next question, but the types of feedback are different now and I think authors have changed what and how they produce to kind of chase the dragon of positive feedback. Like, when I started, most public archives (read: not just one author's own website with all their fic, like you found in webrings a lot)—both completely open and curated—had some way to submit comments and allowed author replies. There was really no other way to let an author know you liked their work. I mean, some sites tracked numbers for bookmarking features or hit counts, but those weren't as... active(? I guess), they weren't really participatory for the reader.

Then AO3 came along and started the kudos thing (which people still bitch about because they think they get fewer comments; like be happy you get anything, ya fuckin' ingrates). Kudos count became a de facto rating system, thanks to the sort feature. Whenever I start reading for a new fandom, I pick a pairing, pick a rating, and sort by kudos. Sure, popularity isn't the best way to find good fic, but in any decent-sized fandom you can assume that the stuff on the first page is going to be written to a minimum standard. Anyway, one of the ways to game the system a bit on kudos is to do a multichapter fic; I've seen works that are like 80+ 200-word chapters (don't get me started on omnibus fic across fandoms). They aren't the best fic by far, but they pick up kudos every chapter, often from guests that are just people not signed in or on a different device. I'm not knocking it, exactly, since it front-paged me for more than one fic. Part of me still feels like it's disingenuous, but I also recognize that I should pull the stick out of my ass. Anyway, the kudos count was kind of the death of the one-shot longfic (which, when I wrote Longer Than the Road, was a pretty common format).

And now, it seems like the Tumblr fic culture is writing ficlets (under 1k words) and posting without a beta (and I do it too). Fic consumption has become a social activity. Reblogs aren't always about one's personal taste, they're a social signal of group affiliation. If you don't reblog certain things, you're suspect and given a wide berth. Woe betide the poor fucker that crosses party lines and posts one of the verboten ships. And I mean, this isn't just one fandom, I've seen complaints about it from all corners—Supernatural, Star Wars, MCU, Steven Universe ffs. I think when you have predominantly female spaces, you're always going to have an element of Mean Girl culture, y'know? I'm probably going to get my fingernails pulled out for being misogynistic or some kind of -phobic for saying that.

Whatever. It's true that a kind of hive-mind develops and all kinds of tropes and HCs get repeated until they become fanon. I mean, that kind of thing's always happened, but the whole culture of Tumblr forces you to identify yourself and your group affiliation by what fanon you subscribe to, probably because it's harder to find your tribe without dedicated community spaces like LJ had. With Tumblr, you basically have to trawl tags until you find your echo chamber.

I'm old and I fear change.

Tumblr ain't all bad, though. It's very collaborative, kind of like the old-school round-robin fic people used to do. Authors and artists riff off each other and a lot of really cool stuff comes out of these casual collaborations. And I do like the prompt lists; I remember kinkmemes and prompting communities back on LJ, but it feels more off-the-cuff and spontaneous to just give someone a numbered list and let them roll the dice for you.

You know what else has changed? We're kind of in a new era of epistolary storytelling with memes and shitposts; stories emerge that aren't prose (though might contain a prose element). I mean, people did mixed-media epistolary in 2008, but it was a lot harder then (create graphic, hand-code into text piece, hand-code all the italics and bolding and font changes to denote various media types, if you're really a wizard add in-line text links to audio clips to add ambiance). It's a lot easier to add a new thing on each reblog now, like someone does a video, followed by a 3-panel comic sketch, followed by a ficlet, and then a gif, you get the idea. I like it; it's just a shame that it's so ephemeral. Maybe that's part of the charm, though.

satin_doll: You’ve talked a bit about your experience with LiveJournal in the “old days”; what other platforms have you used in the past? Which ones did you like best?

sunken_standard: I went into it a little in another question, but I first posted fic to A Teaspoon and an Open Mind (www.whofic.com). Honestly, I don't remember much about it. I'm not sure, but I don't think they had a richtext editor at the time (2008) and I had to hand-code some or all of it. I vaguely remember having to do HTML for italics and paragraphs. I know I had to do that on LJ sometimes because the formatting from whatever word processor I was using at the time did some hinky shit sometimes on a copy/paste.

Next came LiveJournal (and DreamWidth, but I really only used that to back up my old LJ blog). It wasn't better than Teaspoon, just different. Teaspoon is niche, only fanfic and only for one fandom (well, one universe of fandoms, really, with all the spin-offs), where LJ was all kinds of stuff under one roof—personal blogs, communities with various intents and levels of participation, fanfic, fanart, gossip blogs, you name it. I liked the friendslist view thing; it was like proto-Tumblr. And you could talk to people on the threads; even personal blogs were like a forum.

I joined AO3 in 2011, after waiting like six months for more invites to open up, but I didn't post anything there until 2012. I'm really happy with it as a platform for posting fic. I like the editor and I like the tags, ratings, and sort features. I never even considered posting to ff.net because I'm a snobby fucker (and they can blow me with their whole “adult content ban” that still continues to be selectively enforced). Anyway, I preferred having my fic on AO3 before I even left LJ, since I didn't have to split my stories into parts because of character limits.

And then Tumblr took over and I kind of hate it, since you can't have conversations anymore, it's like leaving passive-aggressive post-its and there's no editing something once it gets reblogged, so typos and bad links and all that are always there. And even when the original is deleted, the reblog keeps going, which I really hate from a creator's standpoint (though the archivist/ curator part of me likes it because it doesn't get lost in the ether [the recent purge notwithstanding] like so much of the early days of the web did). Tumblr's really bad for posting anything but ficlets and links to fic on other sites.

satin_doll: What would your ideal fanfic publishing platform be like?

sunken_standard: Honestly, AO3 is just about as close to ideal as I can think of. I just wish you could directly upload images instead of having to do code jiggery-pokery to link to something hosted elsewhere. I've tried a million times and followed all the tutorials in an attempt to add the cover art to Longer Than the Road (gifted to me by @thecollapseinwonderland), but it just never works. It shows on the preview, but not on the live version and it's frustrating because I'm computer literate, goddamnit. Anyway. And I mean, in an ideal world there would be better ways to find quality fic to my taste, but there's no real way to add a rating system (like 5-stars) independent of kudos without discouraging authors (and I mean the potential for abuse and bullying is just too great).

Additional reader questions from @ohaine:

Stylistically, Longer than the road is quite different from the other fics at the top of the AO3 Sherlolly ratings; stream of consciousness at the beginning, and the nested internal thoughts. How much of that was a deliberate departure, and how much was you just channelling the story as it came out of you?

sunken_standard: At the time I was really influenced by a Sherlock/ John fic (I can't remember the title or author, it was 7 years ago, but I feel bad about forgetting). It was originally on LJ and their journal was a lightish blue color and the font was small (if anybody remembers this... there was something with an EKG and I think something with shooting up blood as a romantic gesture?). It was Sherlock POV and the author had a really unique way of presenting internal monologue. Anyway, at that time there was a lot of experimental writing going on on the slash side of things, it was great. To be perfectly honest, I hadn't read a lot of Sherlolly fic at that time because what did exist (as far as happy-ending/ happy-for-now stories vs like darkfic/ angst) was really, really not to my taste (the exception being Sustain). So it was only deliberate in that—even when I wasn't being experimental—I didn't want to write Harlequin books.

I wish a story like that would just come out of me. I mean, to a degree it did, but doing the thoughts and sub-thoughts was work. I mean, I've always been a brackets-and-footnotes kind of person because I like reading it, but the way I did the thoughts was more like writing HTML than a regular rambling narrative.

I think I read recently (maybe on a blog post?) that Riders on the storm was the original inspiration for Longer than the road. Was the scene in the storm your starting point with the story, or where did you begin?

sunken_standard: That was the first scene I wrote; at that time I had a really nebulous idea of the story. The imagery was really clear in my head, though the very earliest concept took place in the desert—the classic American image of the road going on forever and rusty sands and the heatwaves rising up off the asphalt. I'm not sure how it morphed into North Dakota, I might have seen a picture of lightning over the plains or something.

So after S2 aired, I just kind of sat and chewed it over for a month before any really strong ideas emerged for a story. I had to find the internal logic for the kind of plot I wanted to write—namely, them on the lam together. Making Sherlock have a breakdown seemed pretty natural at the time; in ACD canon (and many, many pastiches) he was always having them and going off to the country to recuperate. But he was supposed to be dead and he was all over the tabloids, so it's not like he could just move to some sleepy little village and hope no one recognized him.

I thought about sending him to Europe, using the places ACD Holmes went after Reichenbach (and I did start more than one with them in Florence, a few incarnations of which were Molly/ Irene wanklock PWPs, I actually think one of the Rusty Beds stories came from that, but I digress). The only problem with Europe is the language barrier; I thought it was too convenient to make Molly fluent in another language (she might have some conversational Spanish from a holiday or something, but that's it), so I had to make them go somewhere where English was common enough. I also didn't want them too far from the UK; I wanted Sherlock to be able to get on a plane and be back within half a day (I realize this isn't the reality of flying, but deus ex Mycroft, so). So Asia, Australia/ NZ, and even South Africa were out, leaving Canada, the US, or parts of the Caribbean. I didn't want them to by happy, so they didn't go to the Caribbean. Canada's great, but it's too nice and they also don't have deserts. America it was; it also really added some background tension because I think a lot of non-USians have a love-hate with us. Movies are okay, music too, and of course the tech and consumer innovations, but everything else is garbage and we're all just rude, ignorant, obese Yosemite Sams. For someone like Sherlock, I think the US is the last place he'd want to go (even though canon ACD Holmes was really into America). And I mean, write what you know, so that was that sorted.

Once I got them here I needed them to do something; I wanted to tell a very intimate story, and that would be boring if they were just living in a 2BR cape cod in Jersey. And I mean, what city would really suit Sherlock? Where could he have a life that wasn't London? Anyway, the inside of a car is just about as intimate as two people can get, and the greatest tradition in American literature and film is the road trip, and that was when I knew I had a solid foundation for a story. After that, it just kind of flowed as I planned the route.

Perfect, not perfect-perfect is a beautiful, brave piece that I think has a real air of authenticity to it. It was a very tough read, purely because of the journey the characters are on, and I wondered how difficult it was for you to write? Was it catharsis or an emotional black hole?

sunken_standard: You know, I'm not really sure if it was either catharsis or black hole. A lot of the particulars and even the emotional places in that story aren't mine, but an amalgam of some other friends' experiences with polyamory. My own experience with it was pretty shit and pretty unremarkable, but I learned a lot about the human heart and how some people can lie to themselves because they can't let go of their ideals and their identities (I'm also still a little bitter), but that's got nothing to do with the price of tea in China, so moving on.

Since a lot of those experiences weren't mine, it wasn't raw, so it wasn't very hard on me, personally. I think I wrote it in like three days? I don't think I wanted it to be a slog, so that's why it's in present tense and very sparse and matter-of-fact. Dispassionate, even. There are times when I'm writing really emotional stuff that I'm disconnected from it (which is a fuckin' mercy, because most of the time I'm right there going through it, over and over for days sometimes until I get the scene right and can move on to the next thing), and this was one of those times. I was writing this alongside the Girlfriend series, so there was some overlap there; I'd already done the emotional labor for everything up to Mary's death and I was thinking of different angles of approach for later installments of the series.

The most “me” part of it is near the beginning, writing my way around the bisexual experience from someone else's point of view. I don't have a lot in common with any of the characters; they're a higher social class, urban, products of a more liberal culture, yada yada, but there are some things that are just kind of universal and misunderstood about bisexuals, the stereotypes that we have to contend with and end up internalizing.

Oh, and the perpetual alienation is all me, too. Molly's feelings of being left behind are mine, how I felt every time friendships drifted apart or when female friends got married and then had kids. So a lot of the fatalism and insecurity are me projecting how I would feel or react. I kind of like depressed Molly, more than the perpetual ray of sunshine/ cinnamon roll at least.

*********

Many thanks to sunken_standard for taking the time to answer these questions!

And many thanks and much love to OhAine for all her hard work putting this project together! It’s been fun and enlightening!

Next week, Friday 29th March, it’s the turn of @ellis-hendricks and @geekmama

#content creator interviews #sherlolly #Sherlock #ashockinglackofsatin #sunken_standard

46 notes · View notes

spectral-musette · 5 years

Text

So I saw the new live-action Aladdin last night.

Like Beauty and the Beast (2017), this was a direct remake of the animated musical from the Disney Renaissance, songs and all, with a new script following the same storyline. BatB (2017) worked a little better for me, personally, I think, but that’s quite subjective, and I can definitely see people preferring Aladdin (2019).

This movie faces the similar trouble of BatB in that Aladdin (1992) is such a beautiful film that it would be very difficult to improve on it without just making a unique film rather than a remake (more in the style of Cinderella (2015), for instance). But the degree to which we follow the storyline of Aladdin (1992) and faithfully re-stage those songs makes direct comparisons inevitable, and, in terms of my own preference, Aladdin (1992) is usually coming out on top.

Visually speaking, it’s very colorful and appealing, but it doesn’t quite have the same distinctive palette that Aladdin (1992) does. A lot of the settings (while beautiful) seemed to be CG, so while having a sense of not occupying the real world wasn’t necessarily bad for this type of over the top fantasy film, I think I could’ve used a little more grounding.

The one thing that 2019 has over 1992 is casting people of color. I thought the cast was great, and any nitpicks I have with characterization come down to the script, not the performances, which were excellent.

I’ve marked any plot points that significantly differ from Aladdin (1992) as (SPOILERS) and with a strikethrough.

By musical number:

Arabian Nights:

I actually quite liked this. The friend that I was in the theatre with said she was a bit thrown by the recognition of Will Smith’s voice, but it didn’t bother me. The new lyrics were good, and I loved the use of the verse from the old animated tv series (“take off and take flight/may shock and amaze” etc.).

One Jump Ahead:

This was the song I struggled the most with. The slow down of the tempo absolutely didn’t work. To me, this needs to be a fast-paced song to convey the adrenaline and momentum of the scene. By tying it to a slower, heavy beat, it felt positively plodding. The singing was certainly fine and I liked Aladdin’s voice a lot, but the tempo was killing me.

Jasmine’s New Song (Speechless):

Jasmine absolutely needed at least one more song. This one was fine; it sounded a bit pop, but I’m sure the original songs sounded pop at the time too. I think I’d have to give it another listen to see how it fits with the musical themes of the new score and with the other songs.

Friend Like Me:

Not much change in content from the original song, but different delivery, of course. If you are able to like Will Smith’s take on the Genie despite it not being the same as Robin Williams’, you’ll probably be okay with this.

Prince Ali:

Somehow felt very stagey, not in a bad way? Again, pretty similar to the original song, though I did note the “correction” from “brush up your Sunday salaam” to “Friday salaam”.

A Whole New World:

Pretty singing of a pretty song, no major lyric changes. The friend I was with complained about the slow tempo of this one, but it didn’t bother me the way that One Jump Ahead did.

Prince Ali (reprise): DIDN’T HAPPEN D: and I missed it a lot. Reprised “Speechless” instead, which was certainly dramatic, but the lyrics seemed lackluster here. A big feature of the classic Aladdin songs is that they tend to be wordy and eloquent (Howard Ashman’s touch, I guess, and no doubt Tim Rice too), so it felt a little out of place.

Surprisingly, we didn’t even have a pop cover of Speechless for the end credits. Maybe I was spoiled by three new songs that I liked in BatB (2017), but I felt like there was room for more additions in this film.

By major character:

Aladdin: Mena Massoud was excellent, loved the boy. Adorable as heck (the eyes and the smile), and very charming. His singing was good, though I felt like he could’ve used a little more of a chance to impress. The physicality of the role was amazing, both in his parkour scenes in Agrabah, and with the (SPOILERS) dance number in which the Genie is controlling Aladdin’s movements. The performance of doing complex dance steps while selling that he wasn’t in control of his own body was superbly done.

The thing I missed most about the animated version of the character was that this Aladdin didn’t quite seem to be quite the quick-thinking trickster that Animated Aladdin is. There’s an element there, but it didn’t come across as strongly to me. Animated Aladdin takes to the role of Prince Ali pretty handily, and his missteps are when he overacts it, being too much like how he thinks a prince should be. In contrast, New Aladdin is pretty paralyzed by nerves, which was charming in its way, just different. There’s also a change that we see New Aladdin stealing valuables to make a living, (though clearly not a great one) as a pickpocket, compared to Animated Aladdin who we only ever see steal food for himself and others (despite his klepto monkey). The dynamic with Genie is different too, less openly affectionate, but that’s also a factor of Genie’s change in characterization. I think it also is factor in inter-character dynamics that Animated Aladdin skews a bit younger, still a teenager, while New Aladdin is more grown up, a young man.

Abu: Abu’s CG face was a little uncanny valley to me. I think I would’ve preferred to see something more like the performance of Jack the Monkey in the PotC films, even if it wouldn’t have been quite as expressive and human-like as animated Abu. However, I do get that working with animals is pretty tough, and I see why the choices were made.

The Genie: Will Smith was doing his thing, and I didn’t really expect anything else. I warmed pretty well to his take on the character. He absolutely doesn’t do the quick-quippy motor-mouthed slapstick style of Robin Williams’ Genie, and it’s probably better that way. His performances of the iconic songs were solid, I think, striking a balance of nostalgia and novelty. How an individual viewer might want that balance to lean is going to vary, though.

I thought the film might’ve undersold the Genie’s longing to be free of the lamp. This was especially noticeable in the scene where Aladdin tells him that he can’t use his third wish to free him. Original Genie reacts with hurt and betrayal, New Genie redirects the conversation to be about Aladdin continuing to lie to Jasmine about his identity, buying his own con, as it were. Part of it is that New Genie is a little more emotionally reserved, plays things a bit closer to the (absent) vest. I think the case could’ve been made that Genie never really expected Aladdin to follow through on that promise, but as it was, it just didn’t quite ring true.

(SPOILERS)

I did really like the storytelling framing of the beginning of the film, but I thought it was underused! It would have been charming to Princess Bride the whole narrative, with the kids interjecting occasionally, and seeing the story through their eyes with their father playing the role of the Genie. Let the audience buy the storytelling device, and at the end when the kids are expressing their incredulity that such a story could be true, the reveal to the audience that their mother is the princess’s handmaiden would’ve been enough to leave the ambiguity – is the Mariner really truly the Genie, or is it just a story? I think that could’ve been lovely.

Princess Jasmine: Naomi Scott is beautiful, has a lovely voice, and gave a charming performance. I do wish they had cast someone who looks a little more like Animated Jasmine, but I don’t dislike New Jasmine. Giving Jasmine a strong motivation to become a leader, be her father’s successor, and make a positive difference in the lives of the people in her city was nice.

Jafar: While still menacing, Jafar lost some of the gleeful mustache twirling evil of Animated Jafar. I missed that high, cruel laughter and the disdainful aristocratic bearing. I do understand avoiding some of the iconic lines, but unfortunately the replacements weren’t… as good. New Jafar had interesting aspects, but it seemed like some of his story arc might’ve gotten left on the cutting room floor. It really seemed at first that we were implying that Jafar had actually murdered Jasmine’s late mother, but the movie just never picked up that thread. It wasn’t a bad performance, just a different character.

Iago: Iago seemed sort of in limbo between being a true magicians familiar, a fully realized character as in the animated film, and just being a parrot. I think going entirely in either direction would’ve been an improvement over what we got (mostly parrot behavior with occasional phrases that seemed to show independent thought). I think Jafar suffered a bit from this reduction of Iago’s role too– is it harder to have a dark comedy double act with an actual realistic parrot? (Parrot owners probably disagree)

Dahlia: An original character, and an interesting addition: Jasmine’s handmaiden (allowing Jasmine to pull some Padme-style who-is-the-real-princess shenanigans early in the film). She was charming, sweetly awkward at times, and (SPOILERS) though the b-plot romance between her and the Genie wasn’t quite pulled off with the panache it could’ve been (it’s no Lumiere/Plumette, okay?), it was cute and I liked it okay. Interestingly, her features were probably a closer match to animated Princess Jasmine.

Carpet: Probably the most faithful to the characterization in (1992). I have always adored Carpet, and I thought the gestures and movements of the CG version nicely captured the spirit of the original, though I think with comparatively less screentime? I genuinely reacted with anxiety every time Carpet was in danger even though I obviously knew everything was going to be all right in the end. #I can’t believe it, I’m losing (my heart) to a rug

There were definitely moments that I felt like a sequel was being set up, which is an interesting choice considering how notoriously bad The Return of Jafar is. That said, I do think you could absolutely pull some story elements from that hot mess and Aladdin and The King of Thieves (which is charming in its way but still direct to video quality) and actually make a film that would be able to flesh out this new version of the story and blossom outside the shadow of the original animated film. I’m not sure that’s going to actually happen, but it would be interesting to see.

#spoilers #long post #tl;dr #I liked it #I didn't adore it #but I enjoyed it

19 notes · View notes

jkflesh · 5 years

Photo

Transcribed a rare interview with Kevin Martin from Spanish. Covering projects like Techno Animal, God, Ice, inception of The Bug... Run through an auto translator — pardon for the broken English at some parts. Self Magazine n15 (15 June 1999)

BLOOD AND MEAT / KEVIN MARTIN / TEXT A.C. NAÏA

Far from the wake of mundane media and glares, the name of Kevin Martin still resonates as one of the best kept enigmas of the new English experimental era. Antithesis of the unscrupulous corridor, this unclassifiable nihilist accumulates nevertheless every year, and with a disquieting discretion, an exponential number of crucial projects. Redefining the foundations of extreme rock, the abysses of the cybernetic dub or the electronic musical hell trails, his productions tear at the listener all feelings of indifference and comfort. Superficiality and lightness are also notions banished from their unstable world. Although he loves to bara-jar letters under various pseudonyms (God, Ice, The Bug, etc.) Kevin Martin does not cheat. It is in the depths of himself, in his wounds and anguish, that he draws the necessary energy for the singularly ardent expression of a creativity without stylistic excesses.

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

- Can you tell us why you are often inclined to work with the same core of people (Justin Broadrick, Alex Buess, Dave Cochrane ...)?

The people you mentioned are musicians that I admire very particularly and whose musical steps I respect and greatly appreciate. They are beings without equivalents that, at the individual level, are very close to me: it is very difficult to find such a way of thinking, of approaching events and music in my opinion. Besides, it's true that I tend not to be very social in London. I have made a very cynical judgment about the types of bands that exist in London. People have, in effect, a tendency to form very closed groups that frequent certain bars, certain clubs, which are among themselves, say initiated by such a journalist or such a musician, around people of such stamp; It is especially shocking for people who claim to be in electronic music: they are always the same people who always walk together in the same place, with a kind of pre-established codes that prevent any openness, any tolerance from others. It is not difficult for musicians to be part of this genre of groups, it is simply the idea of ??clan or band that I dislike: I think that in it they lose their identity, their personality, since they must think, in some way, as the group and not by themselves. Justin and I, due to our past, we have many points in common in our sensitivity to the everyday, in our way of approaching musical creation. What seems almost a form of alienation that we should try to get rid of a bit (laughs)! Justin is almost a brother to me, the way we work together depends almost on telepathy: I have never met someone who could have the same tastes, the same musical aspirations as me. It is impossible for him or for me to live without music. It has become an almost unhealthy obsession to be in a permanent process of creation, we have constantly need to feel the extremes, to grow back always beyond the limits. As for Alex, when I created God I thought that no one had yet done what I wanted to do, that is, this idea of ??fusion of very extreme music, especially through free jazz and contemporary classical music, to create a dynamic on the sonorities, a kind of sensory impact. After some years with God I realized that someone had already specified a certain kind of dream that I had projected in God: a group that was called 16/17. - Finally you have worked with many musicians next to Mick Harris. Why have you never undertaken any project with him? At a given moment we wanted, in fact, to work on a common project; on the other hand, Justin [and he played many times in the old club that I had in Brixton. But Micky is a person with whom it is very difficult to work! (laughs) Micky is someone who does not want to think and least admit the idea of ??dialogue; On the other hand I think that today his music lacks something ... If he manifested something of animosity it would be against 90% of [people that there are on the world and not for the 10% of the people that I respect and love: That's why I do not understand how someone like Micky can be bad with certain people who count as his friends. - From God to The Bug, the variety of your projects is quite impressive. Is it that this multiplicity covers a particular desire to express itself in different ways? In fact I have never had the conscious will to accumulate the projects because of any frustration: God was, for example, a very free project in which I never imposed anything. By nature I am someone who never rests, who likes to work constantly. And I also like to work with people, because for me the music comes from a permanent learning and in that sense it has almost a religious dimension. It is a belief in itself. For me music must represent your own thought, your way of living and of conceiving things. If you think too abstractly, something will always be missing and, above all, you will not be honest with yourself. In that case it is essential that my music reflects the state in which I find myself and where I live, otherwise it feels a kind of betrayal. - Despite the multiplicity of names, there seems to be a profound similarity between all your projects. Do you have the feeling that after all you are trying to explain a single and always the same story in different forms? Yes, absolutely, but I do not know if because it is a state of mind, a particular attitude or simply the two things: Justin and I refer almost systematically to a 'hardcore' approach, but I never speak from a 'hardcore' cliché that immediately suggests a 'pu nk-bou rrin' trend, but to that authentic and profound element that can be found in every musical form, be it country, free jazz, hi hop or metal , called 'hardcore', that is, integrity, the fact One make no decision for commercial or business reasons, know how to save the unity of your creation without any commitment to the industry: it is what I call having a 'hardcore' attitude; it is this attitude that remains as a permanent plot after all my musical work. - It is found in your works (in the titles or the letters of the feet) very strong oppositions between your religious and mystical references with others related to sex or violence. This makes me think of writers like G. Bataille or also of sado-masochism ... Totally, but what I think is important is to consider this sadomasochistic dimension as inevitable, because it participates in the very nature of human relations, forms part of life. I am sorry to see that certain groups emphasize this particular aspect, as if it depended on the domain of the extraordinary. For me there is nothing abnormal or particular about this idea of ??sado-masochism. What interests me, anyway, is what allows me to really feel that I live: all the sensations that allow me to be or to exist. I deliberately put aside all the codes, programs or pre-established responses that society wants to impose, so sex remains one of those rare things that allow us to achieve ecstasy - and without artifice - and pleasure of this life. - Is it because the media have a hard time fencing and appreciating your music the reason why so few interviews and information about you are found in the press? I think I would lie if I said that we have done everything to avoid or reject the press or the media in general. Justin, more than me, has been very required because of Godflesh and has received some attention on his part. For mine, I have not done anything in favor of any personal promotion because it does not interest me and rather makes me uncomfortable. In fact, I think I am rather in disagreement with the feeling, with the interpretation of certain music magazines. And since I myself have been a journalist at The Wire, it would be ridiculous to say that I am against the press; but, on the other hand, I am precisely more aware of the sometimes erroneous vision of people who believe they have understood a music and that in the end it has gone from Largo to the essentials. In addition to all this, I think that today most of the musical compositions are totally impersonal and are directly related to the business, which immediately falsifies the starting data. I believe in music that is personal, I play a music that comes from me and from nowhere else. I do not have W1, 'journalists come to find out no matter what about what a part of the truth represents in me. It may seem like a cliché, but I think we play before us before we think about the audience or about the people who are going to buy our records. It may seem selfish, but it is just the truth, a very simple feeling: we like to play for ourselves! - Can we say that there is finally a direct relationship between strong elements of your past and your current musical production? Totally yes, particularly when I think about the influence that punk has had on me. It is the form of music that has revealed in me a particular feeling of freedom and of 'non-commitment', which has been in the end the most inspiring throughout all my projects. I remember very well the moment I ordered a Damned or Stupid record by mail - I do not know exactly - and instead I received an EP of Discharge: it was a kind of shock, almost a revelation. The music I listened to was usually very methodical and formal, and that, the first time, was a true deflagration of noise, without melodic consideration, far from the harmony or the traditional structures. Now I can assure you that it was thanks to that I heard that single that I thought about creating a particular sound. Punk in a general way - before becoming a caricature, and I think in particular of the Crass label - represents the freedom to create, independence and individuality, using music as the only means to interrogate the environment, the world , society, human relations, and non-commercial purposes. Punk has had a strong impact on the perception that I still have of music today. - Going back to the names of your different projects, Techno Animal refers to a kind of duality, an almost impossible mixture between technology and what belongs to the realm of instinct, of the animal ... Yes, completely, and there is a certain perversity that like in this association of words: it evokes the fusion that runs the risk of arriving in the coming years, the next stage of man is to merge with technology, and that will be the only way to survive. But Techno Animal also refers to the contradiction between technology, that is, everything that is machine and mechanics, kingdom of the scientific entity, which has nothing to do with the animal, either in form or in constitution; There are almost two associations that make sure that they will not work if they are merged. - Can Ice be considered as an extension of God? Let's say it was not thought in this sense, but based on the facts, it almost happens like that. Somehow I felt frustrated in God since I had to try to like too many people. For me, the music must be part of a democratic framework, a framework that I have not found more than in Techno Animal with Justin, since in fact we are so similar that the fusion between us is inevitable. The only problem is that there is no criticism between us ... With God everyone wanted to have their part of participation, their part of promotion, of notoriety in relation to their own instrument, that's why I ended up feeling frustrated since I did not could use to create more technological means. It became clear that if I wanted to work in the studio with the machines, I needed to form a new group. God was a group made for the scene, while Techno Animal was entirely a studio project - but recently we have started working with live instruments - and Ice is much closer to the idea of ??arranging the live music in a study. Somehow Ice gets a little closer to Techno Animal and has never been conceived to be a continuity of God. If God continues still in the future it will be in a radically different form. In fact in all my projects I try to translate my dreams, to make abstract ideas become alive and real. And if one day I lack ideas, visions or dreams, there is no other way for me to continue. It would be dishonest to follow by simple custom or for commercial reasons. This year I really had the impression that that moment had come, I believed that everything ended, that it reached the edge of the abyss. But in reality everything has started again, especially working on Ice's next album. - If you follow your record evolution, one realizes that your recent projects are more instrumental. Do you have the tendency to think that the voice does not contribute anything interesting? Interestingly on Ice's next album there is a voice in all the songs. I think it's a bit of a reaction to all the previous projects that, in effect, were becoming very instrumental. In fact the two years spent with this album have been a kind of lyrical catharsis in relation to the lack of communication or the use of the instrumental alone. I have the impression that in the new album the lyrics have been a kind of relief. Anyway I had an irresistible desire that this album was the most 'sung' of all that had been able to do before. I have spent hours in the studio to multiply my voice and transform it into 36 different effects to change all the intonations in each theme. But it is true that I think I have sinned little by little in my projects to reduce any need for verbal expression, because I can not stand the idea that the person who sings in a group is the focus of attention of the audience or listeners, when the other musicians are so important or sometimes even more so. For me a group is conceived as an entity and being honest with myself I would not stand to become the main focus of attention, simply because I sing or write lyrics. This hierarchy does not interest me, but unfortunately it is the most frequent. - The new Techno Animal album has been developed in collaboration with Alec Empire. Why have you chosen to work precisely with him? Because we do not like it (laughs)! I'm not kidding. I think he is someone who has managed to achieve a certain notoriety not because of a fashion issue but because he is full of energy and because he is entirely dedicated to his music, a little as if it were also a vital need in him. When we met him on the tour it was absolutely fantastic: it has never been a matter of ego or other nonsense of this kind as it happens with many musicians or groups. So the audience rather was disturbed by our live performance and he was the only one who stayed on the edge of the stage venting like a nutcase. We liked everything he did, I have written numerous articles about him and Justin has adored him since the first meeting. It is a question of attitude and Alec reacts in the same way as we do. - Can you tell us about this album of Techno Animal remixes made by Tortoise, Alec Empire, Wordsound, etc. which will be released under the City Slang label? It is another example of the work done with Alec Empire. Actually I would not say it's an album of remixes but rather of 'soundclash', it really is the most appropriate name. It is more a collaboration than a remix, the groups send us their sounds mixed with ours and then we return them after having also worked on ourselves. Everything is almost finished, we only wait for the band of Alec and Thomas Köner to finish the album. - What about the other name behind which you hide: DJ Dissector? (Laughter) It's just a joke, I wonder where you got the information from. Actually I was fed up with all this hype that there was around a so-called 'Dj culture'. What I really love to see and put on the highest point are the 'Scratch Djs' from the US, in general people who remain invisible to the public and who nevertheless have tremendous talent, but I do not like to accept that pseudo-idea brought by people that are not Djs about a culture of Djs. - About the Djs, what do you think about the New York phenomenon-not the illbient and its figureheads like DJ Spooky? Recently I discovered a group called Priest, from which only one single appeared and which is related to that movement and I found the topic interesting. As for DJ Spooky ... I respect Paul D. Miller for his communicative side: it's fun to hear him speak, to see the body of knowledge that, on the other hand, he handles with a certain mastery. As for his work, I think he is not up to what he wants to do, I think he is benefiting from a certain fashion phenomenon that does not really reflect the quality of his work; I know many DJs darker than him who do better things and innovate more than him. I remember the tour we did in January with Alec and Spooky: I was surprised to see that all the attention was focused on him and that nobody cared about Alec, when for me the work of this one is better, more experimental. I also believe that most of the ideas that support the illbient movement do not come from Paul D. Miller, but from others like David Toop, etc. But Spooky has managed to impose because he likes to be under the light of the projectors and I think he is strong enough to do his own promotion. It is funny because many musicians that I have been able to find detest Spooky, and in particular, because of his way of seeing things, of all his knowledge. I think very honestly that he is a very sympathetic guy and that in a very intelligent way he adapts to different media and knows how to adapt his language, even if he is before a rapper or a composer like Xenakis. But I do not like his work, I do not consider him as a Dj. I think what he has said about trip hop or elscratching is not coherent: he has the tendency to dilute the great importance of hip hop while I think it is one of the values ??of the future, since in three years I am sure it will be a lifestyle completely separate, taking into account the passion and quality of work of people who are fully involved in this move. The underground hip hop of New York is absolutely extraordinary, but unfortunately many DJs stay in anonymity and it is Spooky who always monopolizes the most attention. I think that this is due to the journalists who are stronger in the art of creating phenomena from little ... - The last project of The Bug with DJ Vadim until now is an auditory adaptation of the film 'The Conversation' by Francis Ford Coppola. How did you come up with this idea? In addition to the album, The Bug was not really a collaboration with Vadim. He contributed the sounds of the drums and I did all the rest. But hey, for reasons that I will not need here, I could not be the leader of another formation that was not Techno Animal. However The Bug is not another group at all, but hey ...! I met Vadim about two years ago and I loved his way of approaching things and treating them. Then he asked me to work on a project and six months later I had the idea of ??an imaginary soundtrack that would be completely electronic, but later I saw that it was an outdated idea since I had worked it last year. If The Bug continues, the idea is to try to make soundtracks of films that you want to listen to or that would replace those that already exist because they do not convince us in relation to films. I saw the film for the first time ten or twelve years ago and the only thing I remember is a set of very strong feelings about violence, the obsession to be both voyeur and paranoid in front of the characters. I have seen it again and then I have proposed to Vadim to make a new sound interpretation of 'The Conversation' because it seemed to me that some very strong elements of the film had remained hidden or in a residual state in the soundtrack. It was very marked by the way in which the film shows the internal and external duality of the characters, I found it extraordinary. - You seem rather disappointed about the record industry. Ice's next album, however, is on WEA ... Yes, I'm really cynical about everything that can be done about the groups and the music itself, but this interests both the big and to the independent labels: most of them are not worth much, you only have to see the Earache stamp that has made me go through the tube to me as to other groups. This label has become worse than one of the big ones! For me it is not contradictory to make an album in a big label because in any case the relationship is simple: they exploit me, but I also exploit them with a rebound, all the maximum and in the longest time I can ... (laughs) I understand completely that I can be criticized for this, but I do not care. I always think about 1 to 5% of the people that interest me and that reciprocally are interested in my work, and for me it is a kind of important victory against the commercial machine every time I can get an album with a big house: it is the case of Isolationism 'with Virgin; I was very happy to see that God finally appeared in the department store and that the group received a certain popularity. Do not forget that it is an authentic war that takes place in musical circuits and to receive something, you have to be in permanent struggle.

#kevin martin #techno animal #ice #god #the bug #justin broadrick #alec empire

6 notes · View notes