#why destroy some of the core power dynamics within the narrative?

[on-a-lucky-tide]

I just really fucking hate how twn has worked so hard to reinstall the toxic masculinity into the Witchers. They just went ahead and shat all over the opportunity to construct a sensitive examination of the working class man, their trauma, their vulnerabilities, their flaws and their goodness.

Their honest to fuck goodness.

You know, the men who smile at a little girl to make her feel at ease, the ones who discuss the women and children left behind by war for the monsters, the ones that Ciri thinks fondly of at her lowest.

I really hate the twn interpretation of them . Gives me the ick. Especially when the fucking upper class villains/aristocracy get their storylines sanitised and uwu-ified for sympathy. Are you shittin' me about Eredin right now?

Yes. Feel sorry for the rich elf dude, but those orphan Witchers that were stripped from their homes and experimented on? Nah man, they're just drunk, sexist dudebros in it for le coin. The first one? Yeah, his sob story is he got caught fuckin the wrong person, lololol.

[compassion-of-a-lightner]

I guess I'm sleep deprived enough having not slept for 4 days to make a post about this.

People who entirely write off Asgore as a character worth caring about in any respect, what's up?

I should clarify.

This is not directed to people who fully consider his story in UT, or the implications in DR and come out of it going "I don't forgive him and therefore don't like him"

It's more to the weirdly hostile voices I see that are just like, entirely dismissive of his story and just go "Haha, he sucks. Definitely no nuance here! Just shitty! Every other character is worth the world and Asgore is a piece of shit forever and should die lmao" and like, did you play the same game?

Because I feel like you're just robbing yourself of a whole ass dynamic of the story in UT just to go "Haha, he's a lame divorced shithead and murderer, Toriel deserves better uwu" and like, that's not the point? OBVIOUSLY she does? Because she decided he's not for her in both games for different reasons? That doesn't delete his story from the game(s) or make it less valuable to consider?

Also good for her (in UT), the dumbass goes kid killer and you tell him to go fly a kite.

But like, seriously man. Asgore has one of the most hefty 'crumbling under the weight of the world' narratives to his story in UT.

He's in charge of giving all monsters a better life, and he's looked deep inside, witnessed his son killed by humanity, witnessed the (supposed) best chance at peace between humanity and monsters pass with Chara, and he's decided that the only hope to provide for those he cares about is to give up his own 'humanity' and gather the power of human souls to break through... AND HE CAN'T EVEN DO THAT BECAUSE HE CAN'T BRING HIMSELF TO BECOME THE MONSTER HE HATES!

(Yes he kills though, I mean finish the plan, we'll get to that)

Like cut and dry, it's a pretty shit plan bud. But it's born from a place of deep compassion and a sense of significant loss that made him desperate.

(some of these details might be too fuzzy from a long time since playing but the general point remains)

He doesn't know all the facts.

He doesn't know everything about Chara.

He doesn't know that Chara, while fused with Asriel, wanted to commit violence against Humanity for what they did to the monsters.

He didn't know that Asriel died because he fought against this.

He didn't know so much of the story. All he saw was his adopted child dying with a simple wish to see the flowers again, and humanity attacking like the beasts they claimed monsters were when his son attempted to fulfill that wish.

He saw humanity's darkest, and questioned why monsters were the ones locked below. And he saw what Asriel and Chara were able to accomplish together so he made a plan.

His plan rings the same tones of most 'last chance' narratives. There IS no other way out from what he's witnessed. Chara and Asriel WERE the good option out, and it didn't work.

The good ending was attempted, and denied. So he looked at his options and there really weren't many.

Either die underground, or kill to make the surface their home.

And upon finally building up the determination to put his plan in motion, he couldn't do it.

He killed, and immediately had too much regret to follow through.

He shut down, he crumbled under the pressure, he saw the blood on his hands and he realized he wasn't able to hate strongly enough to use the soul to break through and attack humanity as a whole.

As Toriel said in the true end, he could have gone with 1 soul, but he hid away and hoped that no more humans would come.

His true plan was to end his plan. To live in regret of the life he stole and never see another human again, and out of fear of revealing his failure to his people, out of fear of admitting to them that they would never see the surface again, he hid from his responsibility because it would demand he become a true monster. He claimed to need more power, and hoped no one would come to confront them.

He locked himself into the responsibilities of a mad king, to kill and gather power whenever a new human arrives. For nothing.

To continuously bloody his hands in the hopes of never doing so again, all because he's too 'weak' to just go up top and become the Mercy-less monster he truly believed needed to exist to free them.

And all the sadness and regret, but hollow determination to continue on his path is so STRONG in his story, man! It's TERRIBLE!

He hates what he's become; He shows no joy at the thought of fighting Frisk. He's built an empty responsibility all in the hope of never killing again, and the world keeps laughing at him as it tosses more lives his way.

He wants to help his people, but he doesn't want to hurt the humans.

He was a good person presented with a perspective of the 'facts' that laid bare a world of disgusting hate, a world that can't be reasoned with, a world without Mercy. And after having lost his only children to this world, he gave in to his own weakness and decided to play by the rules- to also fight without Mercy.

AND. FAILED.

He's both entirely convinced that the world has no mercy, and is entirely unable to relinquish his own.

All while bitterly tending to an evil he resents to its core, all while hoping to be left alone and never be asked to shed blood again, all while truly believing he must do so- in these circumstances- if he is to protect the lives on the surface and maintain even a semblance of his mercy in the grand scheme of things.

Let them live and risk the humans finding out he killed in the first place, risk the humans coming underground to kill them all. Risk repeating what happened with Asriel, but for them all because of blood on his hands.

Kill them, for no gain, and continue the facade- continue telling everyone you're almost strong enough to kill those on the surface. Continue lying, so that the monsters are safe, and the humans are as well. All at the cost of another child. IT SUCKS IT'S FUCKING BAD MAN.

It's what makes it so touching that you can convince him through your intense determination to break the rules of this mercy-less world! You're unending compassion and inability to accept 'no' for an answer in regards to cherishing life provides him with new hope!

It's a glimpse of a person with true unending mercy that convinces him that the world can be changed- Frisk and the player's actions convince him that he was mistaken. That it never had to be the original plan, and the reason he couldn't think of a new one is because succumbing to the act of murder had destroyed his sense of hope- he wasn't the right person to come up with a plan to free the monsters after that because it was simply too damaging to his ability to hope or dream of a better future.

He needed convinced.

He needed to be shown that the world can have mercy in it, that it can be compassionate.

Things he once believed were possible, and a reality that was torn from him with the loss of his kids- revitalized as you step through to make it happen.

IT'S GOOD, OKAY.

AND ASGORE IS INTEGRAL TO IT AND IS A TRAGIC FIGURE WITHIN IT.

Anyways you can still hate him, you're opinions are you own and he sucks at being a good dude. The dude killed kids (in UT), you remember that? Fucked up.

I've just been seeing a lot of takes on the guy as some nuance-less bad person when he has so many layers of depth going on that it sounds bizarre to hear him summed up as like "Oh yeah, Asgore is a piece of shit, anyways let's talk about the character depth of Pipis"

I mean come on, Ms. Pipis is right there, talk about her, lol.

[adifferenttime]

The Legion, Hegel, and Dialectic

Anyone who says “Eddie doesn’t understand Hegel! Eddie is a moron!” is totally right, and I want to break down why his ideas are so antithetical to those presented in The Phenomenology of Spirit. It’s too much to capture fully on the world’s worst microblogging platform, but I’m going to sum up as best I can Hegel’s master-slave dialectic and how I believe Caesar’s Legion fits into the framework it constructs.

The first point we have to address is that what Sallow describes as Hegelian dialectic is not actually Hegel’s - Hegel attributed it to Kant, and even described it as “spiritless.” Hegel has a hardon for triads, and his abstract-negative-concrete triad has some surface-level similarities to the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model popularized by Kant and expanded upon by Fichte, but it’s fundamentally different. This particular triad deals with the idea that concepts arise in abstract (a form of government, for example, is conceived by a bald guy), have their flaws made explicit through use, and evolve into more practical versions of themselves. It’s not about opposing theses, but the way a singular thesis is forced to shed elements of itself as it’s applied.

The more relevant idea here, though, is master-slave dialectic, because this one actually does describe opposing forces - and the picture it paints is completely at odds with Sallow’s understanding of the world. Master-slave dialectic describes the process that occurs when two entities (”natural beings,” though this idea isn’t limited to individuals - it has deliberate political connotations) come into conflict. Each has, until this point, existed independently in the belief that it held an objective understanding of the world, but the presence of a second entity forces each to confront that there are other standards. Their assessment of the world becomes subjective because they’ve encountered a new way of seeing things, and in order to verify their own truth, they have to struggle against one another to test the limits of their knowledge/power.

This struggle is where the master-slave dynamic emerges. One entity is going to win, and in order to verify its truth, that victory has to be seen by the second entity. The second entity - the defeated, now the “slave,” or “servile consciousness” - has to bear witness to the outcome, so it has to be preserved in some way. In order to have won, the defeated has to understand that you’ve won, that you were right, that your truth was the real truth. This is what Caesar believes, and according to Hegel, this is also why he’d lose out, in the end.

The master might’ve won the initial conflict, but it can never destroy the servile consciousness because its identity now rests on its position in the hierarchy. In order to exist as a master, you need someone to be the master of, so its truth is dependent on the subjugation of the other. The servile consciousness, meanwhile, has achieved a more perfect understanding. The master has constrained it, but has failed to rob it of its life, spirit, dignity, or ability to interact with the material world.

While not each and every one of the ways in which his natural consciousness was brought to fulfillment was shaken to the core, he is still attached in himself to determinate being. His having a mind of his own is then only stubbornness, a freedom that remains bogged down within the bounds of servility.

His position as a self-conscious entity has been realized, while the master remains dependent on the servile consciousness to verify that the master exists and is what it sees itself to be.

Here, later thinkers posit a second struggle - this time, not a clash of equal forces, but a rebellion. The master can never fully destroy the other, but the servile consciousness's understanding of others and the material world is more sophisticated - he can’t define himself as a slave because his spirit is still free, and he’s reconciled how he is seen with what he knows himself to be. A common abolitionist reading of Hegel was that his narrative implies a point where the servile consciousness - with his understanding of fear, pain, and a world outside himself - overthrows and kills the master. Read in this particular way, rebellion is an inevitability because by tying himself to the idea of dominion, the master has stopped himself from ever growing into something that can survive.

Sallow can’t conceive of himself or his Legion as able to exist without enemies. He’s tied the existence of his state to the domination of others, and his plans for victory involve forcing other populations to witness his superiority. Any force his Legion defeats will continue to exist in some way, and will exist with the knowledge that it is fallible, surrounded by equals, and has access to a truth that is independent of the Legion. Hegel believed that the failure of self-consciousness was the failure to conceive of other people as being like yourself, the failure to recognize the subjectivity of your outlook, a failure that everyone can fall victim to but that the “master” in his dialectic experiences most acutely. Sallow’s not just misreading Hegel - he’s casting himself as the ultimate loser in a dialectic that bred an entire school of left-wing Hegelians, including (lol) Karl Marx. Your days are numbered, Eddie.

If you’d like to read Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, it can be found in its entirety here. The section on self-consciousness, mastery, and servitude begins on page 103.

[ariainstars]

Congratulations, We Fell for Another Love Bombing or Thank You, Disney, You Did It Again

Sigh. Luke Skywalker is back. And Din Djarin and his child had to say goodbye. I never thought I would curse and say “Oh no!” when Luke appeared in that fateful corridor. 

I wonder why the Disney studios are doing this - trying to "make up” for the oh-so criticized sequels, I suppose?

The Jedi have made their time. It was shown and proven over and over again that their attitude is wrong and needs to change, and Luke was the last of the old school Jedi. Again, a Force-sensitive child is all but kidnapped by a Jedi: he obviously did not like to go. Mando is no longer the hero of the story, he was stripped of his agency and all of his personal choices were questioned and valued for null and void. But the Dark Saber is in his hands now, so he’s the heir to the throne of Mandalore I guess. Like he ever wanted that.

This show, which grew to be so well-beloved in only a few episodes, now is not “The Mandalorian” any more. Its new title is “Luke’s Skywalker’s Comeback”. Hardcore fans may be out of their minds with joy, but for us, who admired Mando both as a badass hero and as a father figure and loved the dynamics between him and Grogu, the whole purpose of the show is destroyed. And here I naively had thought The Rise of Skywalker was bad enough to teach the studios not to repeat its mistakes.

~~~ more under the cut ~~~

Star Wars ought to be a fairy tale. It is and always was one. I can understand that the prequels had to end in a tragedy, we all knew that from the start, but why the sequels? And now, why must this generally acclaimed and beloved tv show again appease hardcore fans of old with Luke coming to save the day, cancelling in a matter of minutes what the story had built up within two entire seasons - the relationship of the two protagonists, heart and core of the narrative, as it had been with Rey and Ben Solo? And when both of them had their relationship just getting started - Rey and Ben kissing, Din calling Grogu by his name and the latter seeing him and touching his face? Why make Rey a queen without her king, and Din a father without a son? 

Again, a Force-user is denied having a home: „Jedi training” matters more. By Luke of all people, the guy who never was trained in the first place (only very briefly), who except for a few lessons with Obi-Wan and Yoda was self-taught in the Force, and never understood that his strength lay with his compassion and his connection with other people, not with his alleged „superpowers”.

Think back to how Anakin, Luke and Rey were before they met the Jedi: unaware of their powers, compassionate, idealistic, brave. The Jedi mindset tainted their characters and lives, making them believing that they are (or have to be) untouchable and invincible, compelling them to live for duty instead of love, condemning them to a lifetime of loneliness. Will the Jedi never learn?

Though I practically grew up with the classic movies, I loved The Last Jedi; I can accept that Luke failed, and also that Han and Leia did. Nobody is perfect, and the Jedi mindset as well as the universally accepted idea that „Jedi” is a synonym for infallible saint-like hero was wrong in the first place, else the Empire never would have risen. Making Luke not the cavalry who came to save the day - until the battle on Crait, that is - but a man who failed and picked himself up again was much more meaningful, and I know not a few fans who felt inspired by this. Luke had saved his father choosing love over power, not the contrary. Some fans just never get it. To appease them, why not simply give him a new storyline of his own, instead of making him intrude in other Star Wars related shows? Why stop the new stories in their tracks just to bring him back?

Instead of seeing Luke as the grand kickass hero in a tv show that never had anything to do with him until now, it would have been more to the purpose to finally shed light on the thirty years between his father’s and his nephew’s death, to explain us where the Jedi and the Skywalker-Organa-Solo family failed to make such an outcome possible - the granddaughter of Palpatine taking over with their own blessing. There must have been a huge build-up between the end of the original saga and the fateful night at the temple when Luke briefly panicked looking into his nephew’s mind. Many fans still are convinced that „Kylo Ren just chose to be bad” because we hardly know how the relationship between these two was in the first place. (A very easy plot twist would e.g. have been Snoke warning Ben that his uncle sooner or later would turn on him, frightened by his power. The fulfilment of that prophecy would have made the night at the temple much more impactful.) 

I understand that the studios want to tease us, to make us watch the other shows, too. But honestly, I’m getting tired of feeling duped. Tired of getting attached to new heroes to have their purpose smashed just so the Star Wars dudebro fans can sleep quietly at night because „some Jedi will take care of it”. First the characters from the sequels, now the ones from The Mandalorian. You get to love the new characters, you root for them to find happiness or at least some closure, and then, at the last moment, poof!, the hero of old comes back and the story development stops right there. 

It is not right and it never was for the Jedi to take Force-sensitive children away from home, to enforce „you have to become a Jedi, like it or not” on them, to teach them not to have attachments, to make them focus on the Light Side thereby bringing the Force out of its much-needed balance. While Ahsoka saw that Grogu has formed a strong attachment to Din Djarin, Luke obviously did not, or he did not care. The irony is that he always wanted a father, and knows the pain of losing a father you’ve just found.

The Mandalorian felt like a consolation after Episode IX, a blessing for the fans for whom heart and soul are more interesting than nostalgia and „Jedi superheroes”. Now it’s just another kick in the guts. It’s painful and embarrassing to get to love characters so much, to get invested in their story so deeply, and then to realize again that they seem to mean nothing in the shade of the heroes of old. Ben Solo died young and miserable and Din Djarin and Grogu can now, I suppose, be miserable too. Can someone please explain to me why after the classics, no Star Wars film or show had an uplifting ending any more? With the possible exception of Solo, which was a nice filler but not a really important storyline. (I do not count Episodes I and II, they officially had a happy ending but it was tainted by the knowledge of what was to come.) 

Fans are not blind. We saw the parallels between Darth Vader and Din Djarin as well as the differences - both being cool and tough but the latter not disdaining to be a caring father at the same time. The entire show lived from the dynamics between the gruff but kind bounty hunter and the innocent-looking powerful child, ever from the first episode. Two years of build-up for nothing, as it was with the four years of the sequels. Mando has to relinquish Grogu, Rey loses Ben. What was all that for? Both Mando and Rey are fighters, they have done nothing else their entire lives. What is to become of them now that they have nothing to fight for any more, nor anyone to live for? Except staying on a planet that is foreign to them and, for all they know, inhabitable or at least inhospitable? 

With Rey and Ben Solo, the situation was different: she had proven good intentions but bad attitude (arrogance, violence, judgement) over and over, unable to deny her heritage, and even impaled her „antagonist” once while he was only defending himself. He had been the head of a criminal organization for years, and had committed patricide. Of course there are nuances to these characters and I still believe that they would have deserved another chance; I understand however that would have been unfitting to let the sequels end giving them a happy ending.

But in the case of Din Djarin, a man of honor, who has made friends and brought peace wherever he went throughout the galaxy? Grogu, the last surviving padawan of the old Jedi temple, who saved both his and Greef Karga’s life despite the danger for himself? What did they do to deserve being ripped apart like that? 

So, all I can say: thank you, you did it again. And, once more, just before Christmas. I wish at least these depressing endings would be released at some other time. 

I would dearly want to see a galaxy that finally learned from its faults, where family and attachments and Balance and free choice are not contrary to being a Jedi. I am in my late forties and I’m beginning to give up hope that I will live to see it. By now I am wondering whether George Lucas himself will live to see it. 

I always loved Luke. He is one of my favorite heroes. But now he’s become an insensitive know-it-all who suffered from his own daddy issues to the point that he almost died crying out to his father for help, yet did not learn not to separate fathers from children and vice versa and, on the contrary, is doing it over and over again. He did not even tell Mando his name, or where he could reach him. We don’t have a clue as to if, when and how the Clan of Two will meet again. 

I get it that since this show is set five years Return of the Jedi, it would have been difficult to ignore Luke’s existence altogether. And of course, we can rest assured that Luke will do his best for Grogu. But still: he has made his time. I wanted to see the new heroes going their own way, not hanging on the sleeves of the former generation. Mando is a man of honor, he had promised to bring Grogu to his own kind and he relinquished him despite his own wishes. (Not to mention that technically, since he identifies as a Mandalorian, by being a Jedi Luke is his enemy.) Why did Luke have to take the child away? His greatest strength always was that he was first and foremost himself and only in the second place a Jedi. What became of his trademark compassion? 

Before The Mandalorian, we have never seen a healthy and working father-son relationship in the saga. It was incredibly refreshing and heart-warming to see these two traveling through the galaxy and living through adventures together; also, contrarily to Yoda, Grogu saw a lot of the bad things happening in the galaxy with his own eyes, which certainly was good for his character development.

But in the end, both he and his „father” did not go anywhere. Like Rey in Episode IX, they found a) power and b) a surrogate place, but neither got what was actually his heart’s wish - a home. I can’t understand why. Deliberate cruelty? We never knew whether Han and Leia and Ben felt how painful it was to break up their little family for the sake of „Jedi training”. You bet Din and Grogu did feel that pain and loss.

Both as a person with a heart and a brain and an almost lifelong Star Wars fan I am sickened by the readiness of the studios to end all that this well-made show had built up, for the appeasement of Jedi worshippers who just don’t want to see that the Jedi mindset needs urgently to change. It can’t be that difficult to renew them for the better; there is no necessity to erase the Jedi completely and there is nothing bad with making them grow wiser and stronger by finally understanding and accepting the importance of attachments and family ties. Yes, I realize that being a father also means learning how to let go; but here we are speaking of a literal child, not of a young adult who chose his own way in life.

I thought that George Lucas knew why he sold his franchise to the Disney studios, given their tradition in telling stories about family and friendship. This development is not a triumph, it is unworthy both of the studios and of the entire Star Wars saga. I’m tired of producers bowing down before fans who see every shred of the saga through „Jedi are always right”-tinted glasses respectively who value coolness over compassion even though it always was the saga’s central message. 

Whatever happens in Season 3, countless fans will only be watching it asking, „Where’s Luke?” If Grogu should choose to join Mando again, everybody will be like, „But how can he want to leave Luke Skywalker of all people?” Some already see Grogu die prematurely, killed by the oh-so-bad guy Kylo Ren, for no other reason than to just to further prove how evil he is. In which case both Ben Solo and Grogu will have lived and died for nothing except for leaving a lot of heartbreak behind. 

There must be another and better way to honor the legacy of both Luke Skywalker and the original trilogy than to think up new heroes and then destroy their purpose for the sake of old times’ glory. Lucas himself had said that Star Wars is basically for twelve-year-olds. It seems not: it’s for the fans who were twelve years old forty years ago, when the first movies hit theatres. 

There are enough voices crying out for the sequels to be erased from canon. Who knows? This may be the next step into the past instead of the future. The sequels were hinting at a better future (Balance), Grogu was, too (family). But the grand past is so reassuring. The sequels tried to tell the audience to grow up and learn to do without their heroes, to see that even they were flawed and that the new heroes could grow beyond them. Fie on them, said the hardcore fans. Now it’s the turn of the younger generation, who got to know and love the saga with the sequels or The Mandalorian, to be like „WTF”. 

Rogue One also had been a huge disappointment to me. Not that I found it badly made, but I went into a depressive mood for three days for the same reason: I did not like that I had grown so attached to all of these characters only to see all of them die. The infamous Darth Vader scenes and the design with the huge hints at the classic movies were no consolation. Nostalgia does not make me happy. Heart does. Rogue One, the sequels and The Mandalorian were all, in the end, deprived of all human feeling except loss and regret and many, many thoughts about what might have been. 

The Mandalorian was an excellent story on its own. It did not need Luke Skywalker. It is and ought to be Din Djarin’s story, who lost or gave up everything because he was afraid to lose the child: and now he did. It’s not comforting that he lost him to the alleged Good Guy. Luke of course won’t turn a hair on Grogu’s head, but he can’t offer him a home, we already know that. Ahsoka saw the attachment between the two and she knows the dangers of it; Luke does not know what drove his father to his terrible fate. If the sequels remain canon, then we already know that Luke will not allow his pupils having and keeping healthy attachments. And that does not promise well for the child’s future.

Unless the studios commit the madness of officially erasing the sequels and starting the saga anew, we can only hope that the child will not stay with Luke for long since it’s a good five years before he will start his own Jedi temple. Maybe he will die of a broken heart, poor little guy. And Din Djarin might become the new ruler of Mandalore, though sad and alone. But who cares: Luke is back. Please: I did not subscribe to Disney+ wanting to see Schwarzenegger movies. The lonesome hero can ride into the sunset for all I care, out of sight and of mind. Star Wars’ greatest strength always was its heart. 

My own take was that Grogu is meant to be a healer, and since Luke is not, there is no way he can teach him this particular skill in the Force. Anakin was a pilot and a mechanic, Luke and Ben also were pilots. None of them were Jedi by choice. Grogu is older than Luke and he was already trained at the old Jedi temple: he’s more likely to be a teacher to Luke than the other way around. Grogu as the first Force-user who values attachment and family over power and Jedi training, that would indeed have been a new hope. This backpedaling is shallow and useless. Even if Luke sends Grogu back to Din Djarin, this won’t teach him not to take a child away from its home, since only a few years later he will do the same thing to his nephew. (Although it would admittedly be an interesting plot point to see a small Ben Solo interacting with Grogu for a while.) 

Please give us back The Mandalorian the way it was, with its characters and dynamics. The themes and messages of The Last Jedi already were almost all aborted in The Rise of Skywalker; we didn’t sign up on Disney+ to see the exact same thing happen with The Mandalorian. I for my part am fed up with this kind of love bombing followed by a quick and coldblooded let-down. Star Wars may be a cult, but it need not be the kind of cult where you get hooked and then unwittingly follow a carrot hanging before your eyes. I thought the exaggerated Jedi cult was mostly made by the fans: the studios did not need to jump on this ship. This is not the Way. 

Now everything I feared is flaring up again - fans jubilating because “the Jedi are taking matters in hand” instead of accepting the failure of the Jedi mindset at last; and even insisting that since things are going so well, all Disney needs to do is to cancel the sequels from canon and everybody can be happy again. 

Please, please, give this tormented galaxy a chance to heal at last. We don’t need Luke Skywalker to save the day by killing all the bad guys. We don’t need the oh-so-powerful and perfect Jedi. We need faith in the Force. We need a home. Don’t take it away from us again. Thank you.

 P.S. If we see Luke again in Season 3, at least give the role to a live actor. That digital “rejuvenation” made him look wooden. Luke’s best trait, apart from his compassion, always was his smile.

P.P.S. What’s with Boba Fett claiming Jabba’s throne? I thought Jabba had a son. What in the galaxy happened to him?

P.P.P.S. I don’t mind kickass women, but honestly, I’m getting somehow tired of them. What became of the ladies of Star Wars, the diplomats, the good queens, the loving mothers, the accurate librarians, who contribute to the galaxy without killing (or hurting) anyone? I’m feeling kind of underrepresented here...

[thinkingisadangerouspastime]

Tell me more about how Po and Shen are narrative foils! Is it because they had different reactions to fame/power, with Po rejecting it once he had it and Shen coveting it?

@cypsiman2: I would definitely like to hear your Po and Shen foil thoughts!

@foxy-knowledgeseeker: Queen, please divulge some thoughts about Po and Shen 👀

I love it when people let me ramble 😭💛

SO. For those who have no idea what a foil is (valid), here is a handy dandy definition:

foil - a literary device designed to illustrate or reveal information, traits, values, or motivations of one character through the comparison and contrast of another character

Essentially, characters are foils when they complement and/or contrast each other. Commonly known Shakespearean foils are Hamlet & Laertes/Hamlet & Fortinbras and Romeo & Mercutio. If you haven’t read either of those plays, no worries! Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy are also foils. Foils have similarities (e.g. Hamlet and Laertes have both lost their father and are seeking revenge) but also significant differences (e.g. Hamlet procrastinates while Laertes takes action immediately) that basically help draw attention to the other. Hopefully that gives you an idea of what a foil is if you’d never heard the term before!

But why, you might be wondering, are Po and Shen foils? Well, they complement and contrast each other, obviously, which I will delve into in a moment. The core reason, though, is because they share an inherent connection. Speaking strictly within terms of the second film (since that’s what my paper focuses on), Lord Shen slaughtered all of China’s pandas - including Po’s parents - when Po was a baby; as such, Lord Shen and Po’s stories have been intertwined since the very beginning, technically prior to the film itself. Compare this to the first and third movies: Po has no connection to Tai Lung or Kai (the respective “villains”). That is actually the difference between a foil and an antagonist: Tai Lung and Kai are the “bad guys,” but they aren’t foils to Po because there is no linkage between them. Shen is also a “bad guy,” but the connection he shares with Po in their past (and how that plays out in the present) is what makes them foils.

In my research, I specifically analyzed the application of yin-yang and wuxing philosophies to Po and Shen’s relationship as foils. I will explain why in a moment, but first: what are yin-yang and wuxing?

To keep it simple: yin-yang is a Chinese philosophy where yin and yang are two opposing yet complementary forces that change naturally from one into the other, creating a process of harmonization that ensures balance. Yin is the black swirl, representing qualities that are receptive, passive, and so on. Yang is the white swirl, representing qualities that are prominent, active, and so on.

To continue keeping it simple: wuxing is another Chinese philosophy that loosely translates to mean “five elements,” these elements being wood, fire, water, earth, and metal. The elements have different relationships with one another, either overcoming or generation (e.g. wood generates fire but overcomes earth). One crucial reason I analyzed wuxing alongside yin-yang is because each element is considered predominantly yin or yang, though each element can of course be further divided into yin and yang qualities (e.g. water is a yin element, but a flowing current is yang to still water’s yin).

So now you know the basics of what yin-yang and wuxing are. But why, you may be wondering, did I specifically chose to examine the influence of those two philosophies in particular regarding Po and Shen’s relationship as foils? Pretty simple reasons, actually: the recurring fire/water motifs and yin-yang imagery and thematics in the film. But allow me to get more specific! Let’s start with wuxing, since that’s the order I take in my paper, lmao.

Throughout Kung Fu Panda 2, Shen is consistently associated with fire. Similarly, Po is associated with water. I cite a ton of examples in my paper, but I don’t feel like getting them, so you’re just going to have to believe me, lol. Anyways! In wuxing, fire and water are considered opposite elements, and moreover fire is considered yang while water is considered yin, which develops Po and Shen’s oppositional dynamic as protagonist and antagonist. Not only that, but water overcomes fire in wuxing, which is a direct connection to Po’s eventual defeat of Shen. However, this is only a surface-level glance at the role of wuxing! Going deeper reveals how wuxing is applicable to the core of Po and Shen’s oppositional relationship. Not only does water overcome fire through Po’s defeat of Shen, but Shen loses everything on the water of Gongmen Harbor. His firepower is destroyed and he himself dies, too. Inversely, Po never succumbs to fire, neither as a baby when Shen attacks his village nor later when Shen tries to kill him with his fireworks weapon. Po defeats Shen on the water of Gongmen Harbor.

In sum: the inevitable submission of fire to water as asserted by wuxing is clearly expressed through Po and Shen’s oppositional qualities as foils, namely their dynamic as protagonist and antagonist.

It is also worth noting that Shen’s fire is always yang, i.e. beyond the general association. Shen’s fire is action-based and destructive, namely when he slaughtered the pandas and through his intentions to conquer China with his fireworks weapon. Shen’s yang fire is juxtaposed with Po’s use of yin water to defeat him. To redirect Shen’s fireworks in their penultimate battle, Po visualizes them as a water droplet; in doing so, yin qualities are emphasized: stillness and curvature. Water overcomes fire as yin eases the destructiveness of yang. As a result, the oppositional dynamic of Po and Shen through the fire/water visuals of wuxing comes full circle throughout the film, beginning with Shen destroying Po’s people by yang fire and ending with Po defeating Shen by yin water.

I should also note, however, that while Shen is only associated with yang qualities of fire, Po is associated with both yin and yang aspects of water. There is the yin of the water droplet and of the harbor’s stillness, but there is also the yang of the current that brings him to the soothsayer after he was shot by Shen’s weapon. This association of Po with both yin and yang qualities of water, something Shen never demonstrated with fire, relates to another crucial aspect of Po and Shen’s relationship as foils: inner peace.

As I mentioned earlier, the natural flow of yin and yang ensures balance. I don’t have the quote from Master Shifu on hand lol, but what you need to know is that the concept of inner peace in Kung Fu Panda 2 equates to a harmony of yin and yang (which is already the case in popular culture, anyways). This inner peace aspect of yin-yang philosophy is actually reflected in Po and Shen’s complementary arcs. How? Well, Po and Shen share the same struggle in Kung Fu Panda 2, as both characters have complicated relationships with their past and future. The result is that they both have a dependence on yang, where their first instinct is always to take action. At least initially, they lack the passivity and receptiveness of yin needed for inner peace.

But what do I mean by “complementary arcs”? Well, Shen is obsessed with controlling his future. He took action by killing all the pandas because the soothsayer foretold a warrior of black and white would defeat him. But his obsession with his future is also linked to his inability to let go of the past. Shen still believes his parents wronged him and seeks to right that wrong by taking action to conquer China. Po’s struggle parallels Shen’s. His own dependence on yang is clear in that he seeks answers about his past from everyone except himself for a majority of the film, including asking Shen, his enemy who has no qualms about killing him. Po also actively represses his memories several times about the night his people were killed. Similar to Shen’s need to control the future, Po sought these answers because he believed knowing his past would determine who he was supposed to be.

In sum: Po and Shen’s parallel struggles with the past and future and with yin and yang complement each other, strengthening their relationship as foils. They have too much yang, they need more yin. Decreasing their reliance on yang and embracing the receptiveness of yin would allow them to find inner peace.

That is where Po succeeds and Shen fails, their parallel arcs splitting. During the sequence of “Po Finds the Truth,” Po harnesses the receptiveness of yin by allowing himself to recall his memories of Shen massacring his people instead of fighting them. Through yin, Po is able to accept his memories and recognize that he cannot control his past or his future; only his present. In doing so, he finds inner peace. Shen, on the other hand, is unable to embrace yin, unable to let go of the past and future, and unable to find inner peace. His failure is demonstrated at the end of the film as he asks Po in disbelief how Po was able to find inner peace after having lost everything by Shen’s own hand. That said, while Shen cannot find a harmony of yin and yang, he does demonstrate some of yin’s passivity through his final act in the film: he accepts his death, allowing his weapon to crush him instead of stepping aside.

Ultimately, Po and Shen’s arcs complement each other as foils because they share the same struggle, reflected in how they were both driven by yang and needed more yin to find inner peace. Only one succeeded.

The gist of it: both yin-yang and wuxing philosophies are embedded into the core of Kung Fu Panda 2, that core being Po and Shen’s relationship as foils. Through fire/water motifs, wuxing emphasizes their oppositional dynamic as protagonist and antagonist. Yin-yang strengthens their complementary struggles of relying too much on yang’s action and not harnessing enough of yin’s passivity and receptiveness. The power of water over fire in wuxing marks where their narrative arcs diverge: water overcomes fire, Po defeats Shen, Po finds inner peace where Shen fails.

I actually have MORE thoughts™ about their complementary character designs and how wuxing and yin-yang play into that AS WELL AS the use of stylized yin-yang imagery in the film, but I’m gonna stop here because this is already kinda Long and I don’t know what the legal and/or academic consequences would be of explaining my entire research paper on Tumblr, lmao. As it happens, a lot of this explanation is taken from the script for my presentation djksaksldkas

I hope you enjoyed what is essentially the first half of my analysis of Po and Shen’s relationship as foils! I’m not saying DreamWorks outdid themselves back in 2011, but… well, let’s be real: they haven’t made any foils so compelling since, have they? Take from that what you will. Also, go rewatch Kung Fu Panda 2. It’s so good!! ✨

[bloodraven55]

A Study of Intimacy in the DC Comics

Hoo boy, this is going to be a chunky analysis but I have many things to say so grab a snack and let’s get started.

When I was reading the issue about Blake and Adam’s relationship I got a similar sense of closeness between the characters as I did when I read the issue about Blake and Yang’s relationship, but with a vastly opposite tone. And I want to look at how the two comics make the emotions behind these relationships clear while also making them feel totally dissonant from each other.

To begin with, there’s the first time that one of the characters sees the other within each of the comics, which is important for establishing the dynamic throughout the rest of the story. In the former case, it’s Blake who sees Adam first, and it’s framed to make her seem incredibly small and young. Emphasis is placed on her terror and discomfort with the close up of her expression and the harsh, striking colours that remind you of fire or an explosion. Not to mention that we only see his almost demon-like mask, not his eyes or his expression.

Now compare that to Yang getting distracted by Blake at Beacon. Unlike with Adam, we see Yang’s eyes and her expression, complete with a slight blush dusting her cheeks to create an even softer atmosphere. And instead of bold, aggressive colours Blake is surrounded by flowers to convey a sense of beauty and peace, with the look on her face calm and unbothered instead of petrified. It’s also worth noting that although Blake is of course five years older here anyway, the way she’s framed also makes her look much more like a woman than a girl with her features and posture, highlighting the power imbalance between her and Adam that doesn’t exist between her and Yang.

The message here is clear right from the start. Adam is presented as an imposing figure of fear who Blake is afraid of, and someone who sees her as a child rather than an equal, On the other hand, Yang is presented as a teenager with a crush whose attention doesn’t in any way make Blake uncomfortable, and someone who sees her as a peer.

Now let’s move on to another common element that the two comics share: a montage of sorts showing the bond between the two characters growing. In both cases there is a series of panels skipping through significant moments in their relationship, but they’re markedly different.

The examples of moments for Blake and Adam are primarily them fighting together in the White Fang which I haven’t included since there isn’t as much to discuss, representing the violent core of their relationship and again reminding you of the power that Adam has over her with his superior position in the organisation, with Blake being saved by him multiple times and given little to no agency in the action, and even when he walks her home in what should be a pleasant moment the palette is drowned in his crimson red with only Blake’s clothing standing out as he talks of “monsters in the dark.” The monster is him, in case you didn’t catch on before.

But the part I want to focus on is the fact that their single instance of physical contact, or indeed anything approaching a show of affection that you might expect from a couple, is entirely cast in shadow. One more, we can’t see their expressions or their eyes to read their emotions, and the whole scene feels distinctly dark as a result in more ways than one.

In contrast, all of the activities that Blake and Yang do together are not only in bright, vibrant colour with not a shadow to be seen anywhere, but we’re shown their expressions in nearly every case too. It provides a sense of earnestness to the emotions with Blake looking wholly and sincerely happy in two of the panels and outright giggling in a third. And that’s before we even get to the “May I help you, please?” with the words that give Blake a choice in the matter in striking bold so they can’t be missed, another demonstration of the contrast between Yang and Adam’s methods of “helping” her.

Adam might have helped Blake physically, but he didn’t allow her to make her own decisions and he destroyed her emotionally, whereas Yang offers both physical and emotional help without forcing either of them onto her.

Nowhere is the disparity between these two relationships more obvious, though, than in the series of panels in each comic where the dynamic shifts into something else— something different to how it started.

On one side, you have Blake realising that Adam was never the man she thought he was, and that all of the good qualities she believed that she saw in him were just an act of manipulation. The colours are all dark and somber, and even as Blake tries to pretend that everything is normal it feels wrong. When she repeats her promise from earlier in the same story it now has a totally different meaning, and the way that Adam’s red takes over the dull background as they hug before becoming all-consuming as he shows his true self is a sign of how he attempted to reduce Blake to something broken and empty that he could mould into whatever he wanted.

But when Blake is spending time with Yang not only is there no reveal of ulterior motives or any kind of pretence—just two happy people enjoying each other’s company—but in the decisive moment where the path of their relationship is sealed the background changes from the same dark-ish murky blue that it was in the scene with Adam to a radiant gold instead of a blood-soaked red. We get the same close up of Blake’s face during a defining moment with her partner, but rather than the numbing dread that she experienced with Adam, with Yang she’s simply happy.

Where Blake and Adam’s relationship goes from bad to worse, Blake and Yang’s takes a step forward instead, towards something better and brighter.

This is hammered home further by the fact that the only time Blake looks joyful and carefree while she’s with Adam is right at the beginning of the comic, while it ends with her at her lowest point emotionally and mentally, yet at the end of the second comic if anything Blake is more relaxed and content than ever as a result of the progression of her and Yang’s dynamic. There’s also more colour symbolism, with her wearing a red cloak to indicate Adam’s influence smothering her at the end of the first comic, and Yang’s colour again taking over the background to make everything sunnier near the end of the second comic.

Something else that’s worth discussing is how it’s not just Adam that Blake is thinking about in the panels where she’s on the boat to Menagerie, but Yang as well. She speaks of the dangers of “intoxication,” as she calls it in an effort to distance it from love, while clothed in Adam’s colours as she throws away her last physical piece of Yang into the ocean. The imagery is, uh... not subtle in the slightest.

Further things of interest would be that Adam is still hiding his eyes behind his mask even at the start of their relationship, while focus is placed on Yang making eye contact when she tries to apologise, and also Blake covering her own eyes as she leaves Yang behind because of Adam’s actions but covering her mouth while laughing with joy instead as Yang shows understanding and respect for her boundaries.

This brings me to something which I want to briefly note since it’s a recurring motif throughout both comic: hands. Blake touches Adam’s face and mask several times, Blake and Yang’s fingers brush meaningfully when Yang hands over her drink, Blake pockets the bottle cap as a memento, and Yang’s finger runs idly along the back of the booth like she wants to touch Blake but isn’t sure if she’s allowed to.

It’s a simple but effective way to build a sense of intimacy as well as romantic tension without being too blatant, and it works incredibly well here. The aspect that’s most telling, however, is that while with Blake and Yang the suggestion of that longing for physical contact goes both ways, Adam never touches Blake, which is a reason why their relationship ends up feeling so one-sided and cold and off in comparison.

Finally, I want to cover how the bond between the characters is expressed even when they're physically separated. With regards to Blake and Adam, the red cloak and her narration where she repeats his toxic victim blaming narrative to herself are pretty easy to discern. But with Blake and Yang it’s a little more subtle, as Yang finally finishes reading the book that Blake lent her earlier in the issue and quotes the closing lines before adding her own wish to share a story and a life with Blake one day. The setting of her looking out at the moon, something Blake shares some symbolism with but which can also represent a cycle of rebirth like the repairing of a relationship, only adds to the atmosphere of pure romantic pining that permeates the panel.

To summarise, Blake’s relationship with Adam and her relationship with Yang are made to feel intimate and powerful through a variety of techniques in their respective comics, but that sense of intimacy is used in entirely opposing ways to show how the former was an overwhelmingly negative influence in Blake’s life while the latter is an overwhelmingly positive influence.

[astoldbythetrees]

So I Want to Be a Game Designer #1 - Once Upon a Tower

Introduction

Hello, reader.

Welcome to a new series, “So I Want to Be a Game Designer”! In this series, I will be analyzing a game to identify its mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics to determine if the game successfully facilitates Meaningful Play.

The game I will be analyzing in this post is Once Upon a Tower, a roguelike game designed for mobile on both Android and iOS. In this game, you are a princess who has been detained at the top of a tower. When a knight’s failed attempt to rescue the princess results in her gaining a weapon, she uses the weapon to facilitate her escape from the tower and the evil dragon who guards her.

While this game has a straightforward objective, there are many aspects that work together to make the game challenging and fun. In the following sections, I will be covering the game’s:

Core Loop

Mechanics

Dynamics

Aesthetics

Meaningful Play

Core Loop

The core loop consists of the main activities that players will use continually throughout the game. In Once Upon a Time, those core activities can be boiled down to two things:

Every action the player might take on their quest to escape the tower (i.e. descend) can be encompassed by the term “overcoming obstacles.” As the player makes their way through each level, they must destroy blocks in their way, avoid or defeat enemies, and perhaps collect fireflies and purchase power-ups. No matter how the player chooses to go about navigating the level, the fact that they must overcome obstacles remains.

Likewise, after overcoming the obstacles in their way (no matter how they choose to do it), the player must then descend the tower. This is the goal of the game, and an action that will be repeated throughout its entirety.

Mechanics

Mechanics are game rules that are designed to constrain and influence the player’s actions within the game so that it is played as intended. There are three main types of mechanics:

Space Mechanics - has to do with the environment

Object Mechanics - things within the environment that can be seen or interacted with

Action Mechanics - things the player can do

Core Mechanics

The core mechanics are those that are fundamental to the player’s experience; without these, the game would be completely different.

Gravity (Space Mechanic)

The character falls through open spaces in the map to progress through the level

Swinging the Weapon (Action Mechanic)

Serves several functions: breaking blocks, collecting fireflies (currency), and attacking enemies

The action of swinging the weapon is integral to the core gameplay because the player cannot progress without at least breaking blocks

Levels (Space Mechanic)

The only way the player can progress through the game and win it is by advancing through the levels. Without the level structure, the game would be fundamentally different

Non-Core Mechanics

The non-core mechanics, while important for furthering the core theme, are those that the game can exist without if they were to be replaced. For example, the enemies do not have to be dragons and ogres; they could be replaced with zombies and skeletons and the core of the game would remain the same.

Space Mechanics

Barred Windows - A space in the tower walls that the dragon will breathe fire through to attack the player. The player cannot interact with them, so they aren’t really an “object” in the game. The effect of the dragon attacking through them is activated when the player stands on the same horizontal plane as the metal bars.

Object Mechanics

Bricks - An obstacle the player must destroy to progress through the level

Rubble - Weak blocks that will crumble when the player stands on them, causing the player to fall through (usually to traps waiting below)

Spikes - An obstacle that kills the player when landed on (without certain power-ups)

Piston - An obstacle that periodically pistons a log vertically or horizontally to crush the player if they do not time their movements correctly

Power-ups - Purchased with fireflies between levels

Defensive buffs to prevent damage from attacks or obstacles (e.g. the armoured boots will prevent damage from landing on spikes or crabs (who have spikes on their backs))

Offensive buffs will augment the player’s weapon or give them an extra ability (e.g. the fire hammer will give the player ranged attacks, or bombs will destroy enemies and obstacles on a large scale)

Other buffs will aid in the players traversal of the obstacle course (e.g. the parachute slows down the character’s fall and allows movement when descending

Fireflies - in-game currency and points. During a level, the player can use collected fireflies to purchase power-ups. After exiting a level, the fireflies earned will be converted into stored points which can unlock new character avatars.

Diverse Enemies - Each enemy has unique behaviour, and require different strategies for countering them:

Ogre

Hyena

Spider

Crab

Baby Dragon

Action Mechanics

Movement - The player moves one block at a time by the player swiping in any direction on their screen (left, right, up, and down)

Swiping Left or Right: Moves the character one space in the indicated direction

Swiping Up: Causes the player to jump and swing their weapon at the space above their head

Swiping Down: Causes the player to break the block in the space beneath them (if there is one), which is how they can utilize gravity to descend the tower

Dynamics

These are the ways players can utilize the mechanics to play the game; i.e. the gameplay. Dynamics include strategies the players can develop based on different game mechanics.

Timing

The player needs to select the right moment to break blocks or move past obstacles to avoid getting caught

Utilizing Enemies

Some enemies will fight each other if close enough together. Players can attempt to turn them against each other by pushing them closer with hay bales or breaking blocks

Managing Currency

Do you buy a powerup now or save it for more expensive items in later levels?

Spatial Reasoning

The player must be aware of their surroundings so that they can properly react to obstacles (especially the dragon, which will breathe fire through barred windows)

Collection

Do you prioritize collecting fireflies in order to get power-ups? Or do you ignore them in favour of taking out enemies at a more advantageous time?

Aesthetics

Once Upon a Tower is primarily trying to engage the player’s competitive spirit and sense of discovery. Many of the game's mechanics and dynamics are ideal for players who enjoy a challenge and like playing to beat their best score.

Challenge

The player is issued a high score at the end of each play session, so they are encouraged to play again to beat their own score

Obstacles are tricky, so when the player is bested by a level, they are left with the competitive urge to try again until they can overcome it

Escape progress (beating all the levels) is tracked per princess. This encourages players to continue playing the game with each princess to feel the satisfaction of “100% completion”, which can be considered as completely beating the game

(No noticeable narrative to interfere with a competitive player’s desire to get right into the gameplay)

Fantasy

The game is set in a fantastical environment with mythical medieval enemies (such as dragons and ogres)

The cartoon style of the graphics keep the game feeling whimsical and fun, so that the player will not be distracted from the core gameplay

Discovery

The player is constantly learning new things during each playthrough and each level. Every time the player restarts at the top of the tower, the layout is regenerated for a fresh experience. Furthermore, as the player goes from one level to the next, they will encounter new enemies and obstacles to overcome.

Once Upon a Tower has a colourful, cartoon-like art style typical of indie games. The art style fits well with the medieval fantasy setting, so that the player can be immersed in the simple narrative of a princess trying to escape a tower.

The style of the art and animations upon defeat are very lighthearted. This keeps with the primary theme of keeping the player engaged in the challenge aspect of the gameplay, rather than a tragic narrative. The game is meant to be something that can be picked up and played immediately, not something that requires the player’s focus on uncovering a complex story. The upbeat background music and sound effects only add to the player’s feeling of lighthearted fun.

Meaningful Play?

“Meaningful play occurs when the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game. Creating meaningful play is the goal of successful game design.” —Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Chapter 3: Meaningful Play. In Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals (pp. 4–4). essay, The MIT Press.

The game mechanics and dynamics in Once Upon a Tower are able to achieve meaningful play in several regards. For example, the blocks the player chooses to break (i.e. the route they choose) to navigate the level can determine whether they can collect fireflies or safely overcome obstacles. Collecting enough fireflies will allow the player to purchase power-ups between levels. Certain power-ups will make the later levels much easier to complete, such as armoured boots or a shield, which is why the player’s decision to collect fireflies in the early levels and save them for purchasing more powerful buffs will have an integrated effect on their gameplay.

The medieval fantasy setting of the game was a good choice considering that gravity was a core mechanic. Any tall building world works well with the concept of the game. However, the aesthetic genres are able to work in conjunction to create a game environment that makes sense. The fantasy setting facilitates the use of the castle tower as well as the designers’ creativity when choosing monsters and obstacles. These obstacles are what turn the game into something challenging, and the diversity among them is what allows the player to explore uncharted territory.

The combination of all the aforementioned mechanics, dynamics, and aesthetics certainly do give rise to meaningful play.

Conclusion

Once Upon a Tower is a game that is able to facilitate Meaningful Play by a combination of its mechanics, dynamics, aesthetics, and overall design decisions. For those who have a competitive nature, this game will likely prove to be an addicting pastime due to the challenge it poses. Many of the game's mechanics, such as the obstacles, diverse enemy types, and the level-based structure of the game will keep the player engaged. The use of upbeat music and colourful visuals give the game a sense of lightheartedness that will immerse the player in the role of a plucky princess trying to escape a tower against all odds.

Credits: All screenshots are of in-game elements from Once Upon a Tower. I claim no ownership over the image contents or the game itself.

[thechildrendontlaugh]

Exhalation by Ted Chiang: A Reflection

In the simplest of synopsis, Ted Chiang’s most recent short story anthology is about free will vs fate. It is a high-thought premise that utilizes futuristic, complex technology which surrounds very basic philosophical questions man has been toiling against since he first became self-aware.

The illusion of choice, the narratives in which we cling to in order to reinforce or deny those narratives, and the meaninglessness of it all.

Is Chiang’s anthology pessimistic? My own biases say no, but there are no real happy endings in any of his short stories, so others might unequivocally say yes, he is—but I don’t think Chiang’s objective is to ever offer sentimental condolences to his readers. There’s a reason why man has lamented for generations about “the meaning of life”, or “what is love”. Why we have collectively struggled with rationalizing existence in the midst of impending and certain death, or felt conflicted with accepting both the chaos and randomness of existence while also searching for and seeking out a higher power or order to life. Unfortunately, Chiang doesn’t necessarily offer a definitive yes or no, at least not in such crude terms, but I think, very clearly, he establishes (rather convincingly) that there is no real free will, that we are instead on fated paths and the lesson and greater call for meaning comes instead from not just our acceptance and willingness to embrace fate, but in our intentional living and walking of said fated paths.

There are two distinct approaches when presented with this argument of there being no such thing as free will, and I don’t think each is felt the same or at all by everyone, or by even the individual in contemplation. There is acceptance and there is denial, and even within acceptance there are two distinct resolutions. Atrophy or True Acceptance—you are either destroyed by the truth, or you accept it as the reality it has always been and carry on as you have always have, because that is what you were always fated to do.

So what then, is denial?

There is a final story within Chiang’s anthology titled, “Anxiety Is The Dizziness of Freedom,” where the concept of parallel lives further encapsulates the argument of fate vs free will. Essentially it is a story that speaks of the core of a person, what makes you, you, and how that core self is never corrupted or altered, even amongst the infinite possibilities of all the yous that could ever exist. How, at our core, we are who we are, and only small steps—nearly imperceptible movements of will—can lead to our chosen destination, good or bad, but how it is ultimately fated and how our own personal narratives, as impermanent as they are, fit within the structured stories of our lives which always had a fated destination. The crux of the story comes into play with denial, with our fear—our need to impress upon fate, our own will.

If you could see into your future and the reality presented to you reflected one that you hated, do you think you could avoid it, or by the act of a self-fulfilling prophecy, in your attempts to avoid it, run headlong into it?

Believing that everything is already predestined bears its own heavy weight. If we are not masters of our fate, does that automatically mean that there is someone else who is in charge? Is our hunger for order in the certainty of chaos indicative of a higher power, or just our need for belief in one. If there is no god, what does that say for the meaning of existence, of the meaning our own own individual lives? If there is no meaning, does that also mean that there is no purpose? And if there is no purpose, why choose to continue existing at all?

There is the material question of why, and then there is the cosmic question of why. And while Chiang in so many ways answers that material question, the cosmic why remains elusive. I stay alive in my day-to-day because of xyz—my family, my dog, the way the sun feels so good when a breeze passes and I have no other choice but to find pause and delight in the beauty and simplicity of this moment. But why?

I think in the growing pessimistic nihilism of current and upcoming generations, that “why” becomes more elusive, especially as we collectively move away from the cushion of assumed certainty and meaning offered by religion, and into the chaos of existence where we grapple with there being no bigger picture. There is a reason why man, upon the first chance he had, created something to believe in, why rejection of religion has moved to exploration of “spirituality”. We are (or at least assume ourselves to be) creatures who rely upon meaning in order to justify our existence. We say that we are authors of our own destinies—but also find ourselves admitting to the seemingly inescapable influence of factors outside our control; biology and our environments.

When a child asks “why”, are they looking for meaning, or explanation? Is it merely curiosity that drives the why, or is it fear? If I don’t know, does that illicit awe at the complexity of simplicity, or am I suffocated by the immensity of my not knowing—of my hunger to create the illusion of knowing, lest I be lost to the black hole of my own unknowing.

There is a theory, that the universe will eventually end in a similar way that it began, giving rise to a brand new universe in the wake of its death, that we are essentially barreling towards a fated end that is beyond our influence to affect or alter. Does knowing that, change what you will decide to eat for breakfast? Does it matter? The absurdity of existence, is that we have a very defined beginning and end—just like the universe we occupy—and yet we either deny it (fate), create mythologies to bring comfort to that truth, or we try to create work arounds of cognitive dissonance that keep that truth just enough at bay to go on with our lives. We create meaning and convince ourselves of that meaning, and look to the world around us as evidence of said meaning. And in doing so we create our own absurdities. Money, wars, the rights and wrongs of loving same sex vs a different sex. In trying to create order out of chaos we have chained ourselves to truths that aren’t even real, missing the mark completely. We deny ourselves the ability to accept what is. We make it impossible to occupy a space that is safe for us to be the dynamic entities of chaos, barreling towards a fixed ending, that we are. We cling to this idea that there has to be meaning, and that this meaning must be applicable to the whole, and ostracize and defy those who do not follow and accept this status quo of existence. We fight against the idea of there being no free will, but chain ourselves to the constraints and absolutes of fate, and to grapple against fate, is to grapple with the image man has created of himself and projected throughout each proceeding generation. That we matter more. That our existence takes precedence over all else. And that if a god exists, they would not only imbue only ourselves with sentience and consciousness, but find only us worthy of redeeming and consequently saving, as well. To strip away that illusion of ego, to essentially kill it and call it false, means to strip away a facet of ourselves we have mistakingly attributed as not just essential, but the crux of our entire existence. We have become so fixated on absolutes, on blacks and whites that we wholly dismiss the third option, because it is scary, it is uncertain, and it exists outside of our realm of perceived control.

I used to repeat to myself as mantra: I can endure anything, as long as it has meaning. And I began to hinge my life on just that, that either everything had meaning and there was some grand bigger picture that I just couldn’t yet see, or that nothing at all held meaning. In doing so, I eventually backed myself into a corner. I found it increasingly difficult to deny the absurdity of life, to create meaning out of suffering, to attribute the unfolding of life to some higher, benign entity. And so I eventually lost all meaning for my own existence. I had been indoctrinated with this idea that everything had to make sense, and when I came face-to-face with that senselessness it destroyed the very foundation upon which my entire life rested upon. To create meaning, has become synonymous with, a will to live. Perhaps it always has been. But if nothing matters, if things are, regardless of what we do or do not do, if life will take its destined path regardless of our actions—if those actions fit like puzzle pieces that illustrate step-by-step, how we get from here-to there—is meaning really the thing we should be after? Maybe, it instead, should have been our curiosity, our inquisitive nature, that we should have been fostering since the dawn of man, and not our supposed need for order. Maybe it is the awe of standing in the sun when a cool breeze passes, that calls us to do nothing but give pause and delight in the moment we are existing within, that should be our greater “meaning”.

To “contemplate this moment of existence, and rejoice that you are able to do so”. Because we have no other choice. Because this is what we have always been fated, to do.

[xtruss]

Why Do Some People Support Tyranny While Others Defy It?

"They understand to some extent that they are helping in the destruction of other people’s freedoms…and they revel in it"

— August 12, 2021 | Al-Market.US | By Brandon Smith

There is a fundamental question that haunts the pages of history and it is one that has never been addressed in a satisfactory manner. There are many schools of thought on why and how tyranny rises in any given society and all of them miss the mark in terms of explanations, primarily because they all allow their biases to rule their conclusions and blind them to the deeper aspects of power and conspiracy. In other words, they are willing to go down the rabbit hole only so far, and then they deny that the rabbit hole even exists.

The common assumption when it comes to autocracy or oligarchy is that people are “stupid” and easily manipulated into following compelling personalities that make promises they never intend to keep. This is a foolish oversimplification. In truth, the level of manipulation needed to lure a majority of people into dictatorship is so complex that it requires an advanced understanding of human psychology.

In our modern era, people cannot merely be ordered to submit at gunpoint, at least not right away. They must be tricked into conforming, and not only that, but they must be made to think that it was THEIR IDEA all along. Without this dynamic of self censorship and self enslavement, the population will eventually rebel no matter how oppressive the regime. A thousand year tyranny cannot exist unless a number of people are conned into applauding it, or, they directly benefit from it.

And this is where we find the true key to totalitarianism – It only thrives because there is an inherent portion of any given society that secretly loves it and wants it to exist. We might call these people useful idiots, but it is much more than that. They are not necessarily unaware of what they are doing; they understand to some extent that they are helping in the destruction of other people’s freedoms…and they revel in it. Sure, there are elitists and globalists that levy core conspiracies and seek out more and more control, but they could not accomplish much of anything without the aid of the army of sociopathic aberrations that live among us.

This strange and destructive characteristic is ever visible today in light of the covid lockdowns and the push for forced vaccinations. It is clear that there are some people out there that are overly concerned with the personal health decisions of everyone else. The science and the stats prove there is nothing for them to worry about from the virus, but they ignore the science. They thirst for the taste of power. They have become a cult which ignores all logic and demands fealty to their fraudulent narrative. They do not care about the facts, they only care that we comply.

Well, as I have said time and time again: We Will Not Comply!

And so begins the epic conflict; a tale as old as civilization itself. There are two types of people in this world: Those that want to control others, and those that want to be left alone. But what motivates the control freaks? Why are they the way they are? Lets examine some of the causes…

The Fear Engine

There are people that are driven by success, by merit, by hope, by prosperity, by faith, by optimism, by love, and by honor. And then, there are people driven by fear. There are hundreds of various fears, but only a few ways to react to any of them. Collectivists respond to fear with a desperate need to micromanage their environment; they believe that if they can dictate people and events to a certain degree, they can eliminate unexpected outcomes and be free of fear. But life does not work this way and it never will.

The level of influence these people seek is so far beyond them that it can never be attained. That is to say, they will never be satisfied until they get more. Their fears will always haunt them because fears cannot be dealt with from without, they can only be dealt with from within.

Furthermore, the things they fear often revolve around their own narcissism and are of their own making. They fear failure, but they rarely work hard enough to succeed. They fear exposure, but only because they constantly lie. They fear conflict, but only because they are weak in body and character. They fear death, because they believe in nothing greater than themselves. They clamor for dominance of their surroundings because they wrongly believe that they can cheat fate and the consequences of their own terrible choices.

“Frankly at this point it is going to be us, or them. Our two tribes cannot coexist within the same society, maybe not even the same planet.”

The Safety of The Mob

The issue of fear extends into the common mindset of the totalitarian and how they find safety. The idea of standing on their own two feet and standing by their principles in the face of opposition is completely foreign to them. They avoid these situations at any cost and the notion of risk is abhorrent to them. So, they instead look for a mob to blend into. This makes them feel safe in obscurity while also wielding force through collectivist action. They can feel powerful while at the same time being pitiful and weak.

These people almost always operate through large single minded groups that punish any dissension in the ranks, usually with gatekeepers that moderate the motivations of the hive.

The mob itself is a weapon, its only purpose beyond the comfort of its adherents is to destroy those people that do not hold the same beliefs or values as the controllers. There is no defensive purpose to the mob; it is an assassin’s tool, it is a nuclear bomb. And, as we have seen in every modern dictatorship from the Bolsheviks in Russia to the Fascists in Germany to the communists in Mao’s China, the totalitarian mob is capable of murdering more people than any nuclear weapon in existence, all in the name of “the greater good of the greater number.”

False Piety in Place of Self Worth

All tyrants believe themselves to be righteous in their cause, even when they know that their actions are morally abhorrent. I have seen this dynamic on bold display during the covid mandates and the vaccine passports initiatives. Consider for a moment that 99.7% of the population is under no legitimate threat from the covid virus; they will not die from it, and in the vast majority of cases they will recover quickly from it. Yet the covid cult consistently argues that people who refuse the mandates, the lockdowns and the vaccines are putting others at risk, which is why we need to be “forced” to submit.

Most of them know according to the data that covid is not a threat, but the narrative gives them an opportunity to apply power through “moral judgment”, and so they lie, and they continue to lie about the data until they think the lie will be accepted as reality. This is a common aspect of most cults and of fundamentalist religions that have gone astray – The habit of adherents to value lies over facts and evidence not because they are trying to protect their faith, but because it affords them the chance to feel pious and superior to those they are determined to harm.

Those who disagree are labeled heretics, the lowest of the low, the unwashed terrorists. The anti-mandate crowd is thus stripped of its humanity in this way and is painted as demonic. The people who want to remain free become monsters, and the totalitarian monsters become heroes out to save the world. As author Robert Anton Wilson once said:

“The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly.”

The Love of a Cage

I feel as though I understand this mindset to an extent, but it never fails to shock me the way in which people who scratch and scrape for power over others also seem to love being slaves to the system. I’m not so sure that it is ironic, as authoritarianism does fulfill some of its promises of “security” as long as the people involved are willing to trade away any impulses of liberty. If you do as you’re told at all times and serve the system without fail, then there is a good chance you will be able to hold onto the meager necessities of survival. You will live a life, though probably not a happy one.

For those that go above and beyond and cast aside all personal principle in order to further the goals of the system, they might even enjoy a modicum of wealth beyond their peers. You see, in a despotic society, the people who are most without honor are the people that are most rewarded. They don’t need merit, or accomplishment, or skills, or even brains; all they have to do it sell their souls and do whatever it takes to catch the eye of the oligarchy. They don’t have to be good at anything, all they have to do is be evil, and for some people that’s easy.

In this way the system becomes a comfortable blanket that otherwise useless deviants can be swaddled in. They wrap themselves in it and luxuriate in its warmth. They are not concerned with freedom because freedom feels cold to them. Freedom can be isolating and the existence of choice is terrifying. When all your choices are made for you there is never any doubt or internal stress. All that is required is that you wake up each day and obey.

For weak and ignorant people, subservience is a gift instead of a curse. They believe that a cage is meant to be gilded, not escaped from, and anyone that seeks escape must be crazy or dangerous. If free people exist then the slaves are forced to question their own condition and their own compliance, so everyone must be enslaved to remove any and all doubt from society. The hive mind is placed above all else.

The Defiant And Free

The little tyrants that infiltrate humanity probably look at liberty advocates as some kind of alien creatures from far beyond the bounds of their universe. They just can’t fathom how it is possible for someone to defy the system, to stand against the mob or the collective, even when they are outnumbered or when the risk is so high. They assume that it is a form of madness or a lack of intelligence; for how could anyone smart think they have a chance of fighting back against the dictatorship?

Liberty people are individualists by nature, but we also care about the freedoms of others. There is a common propaganda narrative that claims that individualists are “selfish”, but this is not the case at all. It is not enough for us alone to escape slavery, we will not stand by and watch others be forced into bondage either. We are willing to risk our lives not just to save ourselves but to save future generations from autocracy.

As the vaccine passports and mandates continue to escalate the totalitarians will find themselves even more bewildered, because each new mechanism of control will result in even greater impetus for rebellion, and frankly at this point it is going to be us, or them. They will not stop their pursuit of dominion and we will not comply, so we are at an impasse. Our two tribes cannot coexist within the same society, maybe not even the same planet.

The truth is that if voluntarism was a valued ideal then this whole fight could be avoided. If the collectivist cult was willing to accept the notion that they can choose to live in a highly micromanaged environment while others can choose to live independently, then there would be no crisis. We could easily go our separate ways. But this is not how totalitarians think: To them, all people are chattel, we are property to be staked down and reeducated until we see the light. And if we don’t see the light, we are to be done away with and erased.

This is why they are utterly to blame for the war that is coming. They cannot stop themselves from grasping for our throats and our minds. They are addicted to supremacy. They are living in a fever dream and the only drug that cools their veins is total oppression of everyone around them. I see what is coming next and it is not pretty for either side, but it will be especially gruesome for the collectivists because they cannot imagine a scenario in which they lose. They are so certain of their preeminence and the safety of their self imposed prisons that they will see failure as a phantom, a ghost that cannot touch them. It would only take a handful of minor defeats to bring them down, but this requires freedom advocates become more organized than they are.

The bottom line is this: Tyrannical systems are planned by elitists groups and governments and it is they that benefit most from the destruction of public freedoms. It is indeed a conspiracy, and the pandemic lockdowns and forced vaccine response are no exception. However, tyrannical systems could not be executed without the help of a larger psychopathic contingent of the population, and these people congregate together to make terrible things happen. It’s as if they hear a silent dog whistle as totalitarianism rises, or they smell the blood of innocent victims in the air.

Call them leftists, call them communists, call them collectivists, call them whatever you want; but know that the globalists are not our only concern. There is a wall of self absorbed and power hungry peons in the way, and they want whatever scraps they can get from the big boy’s table. They are not oblivious; they have not been tricked into doing the things they do. They are a sad and pathetic bunch but they are still dangerous in their ambitions, and they will continue to slither out of the woodwork as the covid agenda progresses.

[ceeceestudiesstuff]

Oppression and Gender Dynamics in the works of Ken Levine: System Shock 2

As a student of Gender Studies, one learns about how the culture we live in is shaped by power dynamics, including (but not limited to) those based on gender. This extends to all areas of our culture, including the entertainment media we consume. If we wish to challenge these power dynamics, we must be willing to criticize the entertainment we enjoy. This includes video games.

When I was growing up, my favorite video game was the critically-acclaimed survival-horror-cyberpunk-role-playing-shooter System Shock 2. The thick atmosphere, constant tension and deep gameplay makes for a truly engrossing experience. But engrossing entertainment is not inconsequential; narratives and recurring elements within narratives can shape the way we understand the world and our values, expectations and interactions with others. This is why media criticism is a powerful transformative tool for social activists.

Upon a recent playthrough of System Shock 2, I decided to employ a critical approach; I came to the conclusion that the game's plot is inextricably interwoven with deeply misogynist themes. Then again, what else should I expect from Ken Levine? Levine, after all, created BioShock, which glorified the work of the infamous misogynist Ayn Rand (who not only filled her excruciatingly-terrible prose with rape scenes but also valorized the oppressive Capitalist system which marginalizes women through confining them to unpaid housework (work which is never reflected in economist's GDP figures, and is thus discarded as insignificant)). Yet even before BioShock, Levine laced his narratives with Patriarchy's privileging of the masculine and denigration of the feminine.

System Shock 2's player character is, unsurprisingly, a white male with a gun. This player character is given no characterization and not even any dialogue beyond one spoken word at the very end; the developers thus expected people to simply identify with the character on the grounds of the character's whiteness and maleness. Some Gamergaters defend these "blank slate" characters as lacking identity or as treating identity as inconsequential, but this strikes me as nothing more than an excuse for erasure; the message delivered by System Shock 2's player character is that "white males are the norm, and the developers presumed that this game would only be played by white males."

Said character's possession of a gun is another problematic aspect of the game; first, these weapons often represent a phallic symbol. Feminist Carol J. Clover, author of Men, Women and Chainsaws: Gender In The Modern Horror Film, argues that in horror films, the "Final Girl" is identified with by even male audience members due to her eventually acquiring a weapon; Clover called this phallic appropriation. System Shock 2 may be a video game rather than a film, and the player character may be male rather than female, but if Clover's association of acquiring weapons with acquiring masculinity holds true, we can see System Shock 2 (alongside effectively all other First Person Shooters) as perpetuating a narrative of masculinization through weaponry (tellingly, System Shock 2's weapons are all varieties of either firearm or are long objects like laser swords or stalactites of crystal). And what are weapons without their use? In System Shock 2, the player encounters threats and deals with them through this weaponry; negotiation or diplomacy or other forms of non-violent conflict resolution are simply not present, probably because they do not involve weaponry and thus are fundamentally feminine.

Carol Gilligan, Harvard's first professor of Gender Studies, wrote in her work In A Different Voice that women care about the social and relational. Whereas males privilege "rights" and "reason" in ethical calculus, women believe in an ethics of care, which helps explain why women (and feminists in particular) gravitate towards anti-oppression activism. Women thus support nonviolent solutions and cooperation over violence and competition. In System Shock 2, only the masculine means of conflict resolution (violence, conquest, defeating one's enemy) is available to the player character. Implicitly, this casts the feminine means of conflict resolution (diplomacy, compromise and coexistence) as inferior, which in turn perpetuates the Patriarchal values system that feminists oppose. Our society already portrays the feminine means of conflict resolution as worthless and weak, and in our war-ravaged world this message can only end up prolonging violent conflict. Not to mention that our society already portrays the feminine anything as frivolous, incompetent, trivial, ineffectual and ultimately unworthy of being taken seriously; System Shock 2 thus perpetuates our culture's devaluation of women.

That said, the above critiques can be applied to almost every single First Person Shooter, and even many Third Person Shooters; the genres seem to always star a white dude with a gun solving problems in a dudely way and thus proving that he is a real dude, and not one of those cooties-ridden girls (because girls are inferior and thus anything that is like girls is inferior). However, System Shock 2 is misogynist on a level far greater than this.

System Shock 2's misogyny is baked into its very plotline. Warning: spoilers follow.

At its very core, what System Shock 2 revels in is an attack on females in positions of power. The storyline has two main villains; a biological hive-mind called The Many and, naturally, the malevolent artificial intelligence known as SHODAN. I shall start with The Many first.

The Many are biological, yet they are like The Borg from Star Trek; they are an explicitly collectivist hive-mind that believe individuality amounts to tyranny. As Gilligan argued, the masculine voice is individualistic, and a feminine approach to ethics prioritizes the relational and social; The Many are thus implicitly feminized due to being a collective. Not only that, but The Many are born from eggs in their larval stage; eggs are commonly associated with femininity (due to female birds laying eggs, to human female reproductive cells being called "ovum" (i.e. eggs), etc.). In addition, during the later parts of the story, The Many manage to construct their own body and this body contains a womb; The Many itself is a mother.

In one particularly offensive sequence, the player character travels through The Many's womb and kills the eggs lying within; the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy belongs solely to the woman, yet in this segment of the game a male usurps a woman's right to choose. I find it hard to see this sequence as anything other than a male fantasy of controlling women's bodies; the player character may be performing "abortions" yet is doing so out of patriarchal motivations (and, as we all know, if it were men who were able to get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament).

Some defenders of System Shock 2 would claim that The Many is not feminine, but is rather portrayed androgynously due to how The Many is voiced by both female and male voices layered over each other; this argument ignores that we live in a world where males fear the barest hint of anything "feminine." The gender roles demand that men prove they are "real men" through systematically removing any "femininity" within themselves (it is telling how, in the later stages of the game, Captain William Diego (who's military, gruffly-voiced and extremely masculine) cuts The Many's parasite out of his body) and demeaning anything associated with the feminine outside themselves; masculinity is misogyny. Thus, androgynous voicing is not masculine enough to appease the patriarchy; anything less than pure masculinity is socially classified as femininity. The Many's androgynous voicing only demonstrates that The Many is coded as feminine (and the conflation of androgyny with femininity is clearly a transphobic feature of our society's gender binary).

So The Many is thus a representative of the feminine; it is communal and relational, it has a womb, and its androgynous voicing only proves it lacks the absense of femininity necessary to be "masculinized."

And the player character is tasked to destroy The Many through stereotypically masculine means. The player character is ultimately sent through The Many's body to take control of its private functions, to control its fertility, and in the end to kill it.

Yet The Many is not the only mother in the story; SHODAN is the mother of The Many. SHODAN is voiced by a woman and referred to with feminine pronouns, so the game outright characterizes her as a woman even if it makes little sense for an AI to have a gender.

SHODAN's characterization is even more disturbingly misogynist than that of The Many. The Many merely wishes to assimilate; SHODAN plots genocide against the human race. In System Shock 2, SHODAN is portrayed as a manipulative liar (a long running negative trope about women). SHODAN believes herself to be "a Goddess, destined to inherit the earth" as the game's introductory cinematic tells us. In the last level of the game, SHODAN acquires the power to remake reality itself to her own specifications (due to the player character's finishing off of The Many allowing her to sieze control of a starship's warp drive engine); what messages does this convey about women with power?

The message is that women lust for power, that they will do anything necessary to obtain it, and that when they have it they will use it for evil purposes. They will not tolerate any insubordination, they do not value or care for any other life, they only wish for control. They have no moral principles. The message amounts to "all women are dangerous bitches." This kind of mentality is rife within our society; clearly the suspicion people have about women in power has hampered Hillary Clinton's political career, and if it weren't for this paranoia about females with power we wouldn't have needed Sheryl Sandberg's #BanBossy campaign.

Another way in which SHODAN's characterization is misogynistic is in how she is portrayed as, by metaphor, a rapist. A twist in the plot reveals that the player character was knocked out by a robot SHODAN controlled, before having intrusive cybernetic implants forcibly implanted within his skull. This rape metaphor is only emphasized by how the US version's box for the game included the line "she doesn't need a body; she's got yours" printed on it. Whilst women absolutely can commit rape, the vast majority of rape is committed by men against women, as an assertion of male control over female's bodies; System Shock 2 gender-flips this, yet in doing so not only reinforces the aforementioned paranoia over women with power, but glosses over the fact that this horrendous crime very rarely happens to men (and when it does, it is usually other men who perpetrate it). This marginalizes how gendered rape is in the real world. Finally, as System Shock 2 is an horror game, what does it tell us about our society that a gender-flip of the status quo is considered so deeply disturbing? Women live under the omnipresent threat of rape, even for something as trivial as commenting on a video game, and as the Elliot Rodger incident showed, we socialize men to see women's bodies as rightfully belonging to them; in our society this is considered the natural order. Reversing this 'natural order' causes men to fear what they truly hope to avoid; the prospect of being treated how they treat women.

Yet in a bizarre way, SHODAN serves as a mother character not only to The Many but also to the player character; SHODAN's symbolic "rape" of the character was also her way of "rebirthing" him into a new form, blessed with a suite of cybernetic implants that help him survive the challenges he faces. SHODAN guides the player character, initially through the image of Dr. Janice Polito (also a woman) but later as herself; she tells the player character what his goals are. She rewards him for doing so, and punishes him in one situation if he (i.e. the player controlling him) disobeys her. As System Shock 2 is an RPG, he "grows" under her guidance; he acquires skills which make him more powerful.

So what is the ultimate fantasy of System Shock 2, then? A critical component to understanding this fantasy is that back when the game was made (1998), gaming was more or less the exclusive playground of white male teenagers. The white male player character is obviously intended for this demographic to project themselves into.

This player character is then sent to assert his masculinity through violence, as a way of overpowering and eventually conquering characters who are archetypal female authority figures; the mother is an authority figure to her child. The Goddess is by definition worshipped. And System Shock 2 sends you against both; one which is unremittingly hostile and will stop at nothing to "rebirth" you via their "new flesh" (symbolically shoving you back into the womb), and another who's "rebirthing" of you was a symbolic rape, who lies to you and manipulates you into giving her absolute power to kill or reshape all biological life to her own preferences.

Our white teenage male audience will almost certainly be living with their mother (the father may be substantially more distant due to either divorce or work commitments). Their teachers are more likely than not to be more female than male. The audience has lived with female authority figures, and in a misogynist culture where men are promoted as women's superiors, the audience hates this. The teenage male player is not living out some gender-neutral fantasy of rebellion, but rather a gendered fantasy of masculine conquest of the feminine authority. The player character slaughters a maternal figure, even invades said figure's body and exerts control over said body's womb. Then the player character has to fight a second maternal figure and use the masculine means of violence to keep her from power that is far too dangerous for a female to have. The white male player character, using the male means of violence, who grows more powerful the more weapons he amasses, is encouraged to destroy two embodiments of femininity presented as tyrannical, manipulative, and unfit to hold the power they do.

System Shock 2 is precisely why we needed #BanBossy and still need similar initiatives; our culture teaches men that they are entitled to rule women, and so they feel resentment when women rule them. So System Shock 2 presents male players with two female authority figures to attack, to disempower in the most intimate of ways, and ultimately to exert power over in order to re-establish the patriarchal norm. System Shock 2 is a nerd's dream of payback against his mother for not buying him that X-Men figurine he craves so badly. System Shock 2 reflects the same mindset that thinks Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with power, but that Sanders (or, heaven forbid, Trump) would be a positive step. System Shock 2's villains represent a laundry list of every single rationalization that the patriarchy deploys to keep women out of powerful positions, and presents players with an heroic fantasy of asserting masculinity's rightful place at the top.

For those who think I am overstating the case, I would suggest they look at the game's closing cinematic; it becomes clear from this that the game is not interested in a situation where neither sex has power over each other. At the climax of the game, SHODAN offers the player character a chance to rule together. The player character will thus be free from a feminine overlord; were the fantasy of System Shock 2 merely about being free from feminine authority, the player would be satisfied by the player character taking the offer. Instead, the player character states the only word he says in the entire game; a frankly immature "nah" (thus displaying the kind of childish attitude one would expect from the game's target audience). He then, in a climactic act of assertion of his male power, raises his weapon and fires it, causing SHODAN to be destroyed and thus re-establishing masculinity as supreme. Equality was not enough.

And whilst The Many never offered such an equality, the fact that the process of destroying them required invading and controlling their very body and bodily functions only underscores the male-supremacist nature of System Shock 2's story.

In summary and conclusion, System Shock 2's gameplay is (as usual for shooters) implicitly misogynist through constructing a world where only masculine traits are useful and valuable. This, however, is not nearly as sexist as the game's plot, which is premised on a view that the "natural order" of things is for females to be subordinated to males, that women can never be trusted with power, and that for women to exercise power over men is an object of unfathomable horror. This gives context to the gameplay, where the player character employs traditionally masculine means to not merely escape feminine authority but to conquer it and thus exert male authority over the feminine (even the feminine body), thus re-establishing the patriarchal status quo. System Shock 2 is a symbolically-matricidal revenge fantasy built out of the resentment of young white men who feel that they've been denied their "rightful place" as women's rulers. This game is the crystalization of the MRA worldview.

Gamergate may have only been around since August of 2014, but misogyny in gaming goes back much further. Women cannot afford to spare "classics" from criticism. Progress towards gender justice, and therefore the safety of women's lives, is more important than the feelings of fanbases.

[tapatapreview]

November 04, 2020 at 06:30PM https://ift.tt/3l12HQb Gaming

After the conclusion of the sequence’ earlier anthology with Yakuza 6, there have been large Kiryu-sized sneakers to fill. As our new protagonist Kasuga Ichiban steps into the highlight for Yakuza: Like a Dragon, developer RGG Studio proves it could nonetheless seize its signature mix of gripping melodrama and absurdist humor whereas creating one thing genuinely recent for the long-running franchise. The reinvention is not simply within the transition from action-brawler to turn-based fight, which is a good tackle conventional RPG battles. It’s that the celebration dynamic in Like a Dragon permits a brand new form of storytelling that the sequence hasn’t explored earlier than, one which focuses on the ability of embracing friendship and combating collectively each step of the way in which.

Like a Dragon begins anew, offering an entry level for individuals who have by no means performed a Yakuza recreation earlier than. But it would not be a correct sequence entry with out the core tenets that outline Yakuza–things like charming exposition-heavy cutscenes, thrilling over-the-top fights, and a wealth of aspect actions that flood the streets of a lifelike Japanese metropolis. In true Yakuza style, the tangled net of alliances, betrayals, secrets and techniques, and shifts in energy throughout totally different organizations function the muse for a lot of its character-driven story. And it is as candy as ever right here.

Kasuga, Number One

Ichiban has a well-known background: born from nothing, scraping by in Kamurocho till a father determine with yakuza ties digs him out of significant hassle. Ichiban’s life revolves round that man, Masumi Arakawa, and he ultimately follows in his footsteps by pledging himself to the Tojo Clan. Much of what propels Like a Dragon is the connection these two share–from Ichiban taking the autumn for a household crime to uncovering why he’d been left for useless in one other metropolis after his 18-year jail sentence. Things change in time, and that good-natured child who grew up loving Dragon Quest (actually in-lore) and doing innocent errands for the gang now has loads to study in regards to the felony underworld as he re-enters society.

Loud, goofy, naive, however all the time well-meaning, Ichiban typically lets his immaturity get the very best of him. Others are there to assist him study and develop, and he by no means wavers in his dedication to the folks round him. It rubs off on his companions, whose circumstances unite every of them as you unravel the thriller behind Ichiban’s exile to Ijincho, Yokohama (the place a lot of the recreation takes place). Your core squad of Adachi, Nanba, and Saeko enter the scene for their very own reasons–Adachi is the ex-detective whose aim is tied to yours, Nanba is the homeless man who saved your life and has extra to him than he lets on, and Saeko is the barmaid who reciprocates the unconditional assist she will get from the crew after a private tragedy.

The Friends You Make Along The Way

Sometimes their motivations for sticking round for Ichiban’s messy yakuza enterprise aren’t all the time convincing, however over time, the friendships they kind develop into all of the conviction they want. The acquainted theme of deep emotional bonds is what Like a Dragon makes use of to deliver one thing new to the sequence’ sturdy, established type of storytelling–the celebration system is not simply an excuse to give you a group through the RPG fight. Throughout the story, the solid will get into hassle, fights their method out, drinks, and celebrates collectively, they usually carry one another to the tip. Much of the Yakuza sequence to this point was in regards to the struggles of Kazuma Kiryu, a person who has a coronary heart of gold, but all the time stored everybody at arm’s size. Like a Dragon, nonetheless, flips the script and explores the ability of letting folks in, and it embraces the uplifting social dynamic its characters create.

Each principal solid member has their very own life tales to inform and will get a little bit of the highlight with Ichiban all through the principle marketing campaign. But a number of the extra private moments come via in what are referred to as Drink Links–basically Persona-style social hyperlink situations the place celebration members open up about their private lives over glasses of whiskey at their house bar referred to as Survive Bar. You improve a bond ranking with them, enhance social stats, and unlock fight perks alongside the way in which; extra importantly, you actually get to know the characters who’re combating alongside one another.

The Drama Of Yokohama

That normal sentiment can be utilized to the Ijin Three, the trio of gangs that uphold a fragile steadiness in Yokohama–it consists of the Japanese Seiryu Clan, the Korean Geomijul, and the Chinese Liumang. The unnerving pressure between them enriches the narrative, as these organizations develop into vital for chasing the reality. Just a few of their members (who I will not reveal for spoiler causes) are nice standouts because the story develops, and likewise deliver out a little bit of Asian range, giving Korean and Chinese characters extra nuanced portrayals than in earlier Yakuza video games. In Like a Dragon, your enemies at present could possibly be your dearest allies tomorrow, and vice versa.

Internal rifts and philosophical variations will all the time destroy organizations from the within. When one group dedicates itself to good deeds to assist the much less lucky, others see it as an opportunity to prey on the helpless and seize energy. It’s an ever-evolving recreation of 4D chess you may see play out, and it instills an eagerness to see what occurs chapter after chapter. Another piece of the larger image is right-wing nationalism, portrayed by a bunch referred to as Bleach Japan. While Like a Dragon’s climactic political drama leans on the outlandish villainy of a power-hungry few, it takes narrative alternatives to precise clear opposition to anti-immigration, anti-sex work, and anti-poor politics in key story beats, and these themes additionally develop into a part of what drives Ichiban and firm.

I’ve made it fairly clear that I’m a sucker for Yakuza’s melodrama. However, I’m prepared to confess that Like a Dragon has one too many easy plot twists, which might come throughout as a approach to elongate the principle story. Perhaps it bites off greater than it could chew on the tail-end the place plot factors are launched as shortly as they’re resolved. They’re not unhealthy story beats per se, however they will really feel overbearing when there’s already sufficient engaging narrative established.

Regardless, Yakuza has constructed a repute on charming drama and robust characterizations, and it is these expectations that its video games will probably be judged by. With that standards in thoughts, Like a Dragon hardly misses.

Like A Dragon Quest

Ichiban’s eccentric character is a power of nature, and it is even what fuels the fight system. His creativeness runs wild, and in his thoughts, he sees himself and his pals because the heroes of the day, identical to in Dragon Quest (Ichiban’s phrases, not mine). Enemies remodel into possessed beings or extraordinarily foolish delinquents like aggressive cooks, unhinged nudists, or simply unhealthy dudes with glowing crimson eyes–some with punny names like “capitalist punisher” for evil salarymen or “hands catcher” for evil baseball gamers. And your individual celebration members remodel into their outfitted jobs with typically ridiculous costume modifications.

His reverence for Dragon Quest is charming, and exhibits that he actually is a child at coronary heart; it is a part of what fills him with the dedication to maintain combating, even in probably the most dire of conditions. Like a Dragon asks you to droop your disbelief extra so than earlier Yakuza video games to accommodate Ichiban’s child-like creativeness, and you recognize what? I’m right here for it.

Like a Dragon makes use of a fairly simple turn-based fight system with commonplace assaults, particular strikes (typically enhanced by easy QTE button prompts), and spells of various affinities and standing results. Managing your celebration’s varied capabilities and strategizing to dispatch enemies in good methods is on the core of the enjoyable. How you deal with your turns in relation to the enemies you face in any given battle presents a well-known however partaking puzzle-like problem of devising the very best plan of action. When you barrel down consecutive fights in dungeon-like situations, fight maintains a gentle, gratifying circulate, whereas the larger set-piece boss fights take a look at your command of the system. What was used really comes collectively remarkably effectively for Yakuza’s personal RPG debut.

Combat can also be a chance for the sport to crank up Yakuza’s custom of ridiculous over-the-top strikes, and it is a large purpose why fight is thrilling to have interaction with. The spirit of the sequence’ wild warmth actions comes via within the abilities you may study, like summoning aggressive followers by performing a musical act or leaping via the air to spit literal hearth upon your enemies. The intricacies of fight are pushed by the job system, which is basically a set of swappable character courses that play otherwise with their very own distinctive talents. And so long as you construct up a very good number of therapeutic, buffs, and robust assault sorts, you may be in good condition.

Like a Dragon is not with out its faults, nonetheless. It’s fairly obvious in the previous couple of chapters that the sport started to depend on lengthy drawn-out fights. I nonetheless needed to keep sharp and maximize harm with every flip or use heals and buffs at opportune occasions to remain alive, however a few of these moments boiled all the way down to a warfare of attrition. Although I really like that Like a Dragon could be actually difficult, somewhat grinding is required to even survive towards some bosses. Thankfully, there is a late-game fight area aspect exercise that gives a ton of EXP and helpful gadgets, however the necessity of it breaks a number of the momentum as you heard in direction of the conclusion. (And beware that there’s a level within the story the place you are required to have a number of cash, and if you have not invested time to earn cash, effectively you higher get on it.)

There’s More To Life Than Fisticuffs

It’s not all drama, combating, and foolish superpowers, although. While the situation of Kamurocho has develop into a type of character itself, the a lot bigger Ijincho (a mashup of the actual Yokohama) does provide its personal distinct vibe. Compared to Kamurocho, it seems like taking a deep breath of recent air if you stroll via the open areas of Hamakita Park, purchasing retailers on Isezaki Road, and the streets of Chinatown. Even the alleyways and homeless camps of the lower-class areas breathe life into Ijincho in equal measure. The metropolis is bustling with issues to do exterior of the principle story, as is Yakuza custom.

My private favourite of karaoke is again. The rhythm minigame presents one other avenue for the characters to precise themselves in an particularly charming style. Nanba brings again the traditional “Baka Mitai,” and Adachi belts out his personal efficiency of “Machine Gun Kiss.” Saeko’s friendship anthem “Spring Breeze” warms my coronary heart as she performs the piano whereas the remainder of the gang enthusiastically cheers her on. And Ichiban’s personal music, “The Future I Dreamed Of,” showcases his personal inspirations as he displays on his upbringing. When a number of different characters be part of the celebration, the karaoke playlist grows. Having it again at Survive Bar, the place everybody meets up and drinks collectively, actually creates a homelike ambiance for Like a Dragon.

One of the very vital money-making minigames is Ichiban Confections, the enterprise administration simulator. You assist a household enterprise develop from promoting sweets at a hole-in-the-wall store to turning into C-suite executives with a number of ventures featured in commercials. It’s goofy as hell however fairly concerned, as you must handle staff, assign jobs, and make funding selections. You additionally must play a separate and hilarious minigame the place you frantically argue with shareholders to earn their assist. There’s additionally Dragon Kart, which is a whole kart-racing minigame with its personal ridiculous aspect story and tournament-style challenges. The final one I’ll point out is the quiz minigame, which exists beneath the guise of an grownup college the place Ichiban learns about historical past and tradition (and even has its personal Sega-themed quizzes), serving to him enhance social stats. These actions are vigorous and rewarding in their very own small methods, whether or not it is cash, perks, gear, or genuinely humorous aspect tales that construct up the wild lifetime of Kasuga Ichiban.

Even after spending 40 hours with Yakuza: Like a Dragon to finish its principal story and expertise an honest chunk of optionally available content material, there’s nonetheless extra to see and do with substories and conclusions to optionally available quests.

The Future Is Bright For Yakuza

As the sport executes on a melodramatic, multi-faceted conclusion typical of a Yakuza recreation, you are inspired to mirror on the hardships and tragedies Ichiban needed to endure. It’s uncommon, nonetheless, to additionally see the protagonist of a Yakuza recreation additionally do the identical. You can see the journey, the struggles, the challenges, the expansion, and the friendships worn plainly on his face. Yakuza has a penchant for exaggeration, this recreation actually goes for it, and it really works. Ichiban is an expressive character, typically to the purpose of parody, however it’s endearing and infrequently inspiring. Ichiban is an idealist and a bit naive, however he is additionally what his pals have made him via their very own personalities and their sense of justice: a hero.

At so many moments, I stood up screaming at my TV in absolute pleasure (and shed a number of tears right here and there), seeing how Ichiban develops, and the way Like a Dragon ties again into the broader Yakuza lore for long-time followers. Ichiban stands tall among the many legends that the Yakuza video games have created, and Like a Dragon is not shy about drawing from that effectively once more. Maybe it is a bit on the nostril, however for me, I can not assist however really feel a reinvigorated ardour for the franchise.

For RGG Studio’s first crack at an RPG, it is a rattling fantastic outcome. It delivers what I really like most about Yakuza and introduces new concepts that largely repay. Ichiban is not doing it alone, both. He has pals and mentors, ones who’ve helped him struggle and overcome private tragedies. It was an absolute thrill to look at him develop, and that is what’s most vital for a recreation so targeted on its characters. Yakuza: Like a Dragon is a passing of the torch, and a incredible entry in a beloved franchise that proves that it is in good arms with Kasuga Ichiban.

You want a javascript enabled browser to look at movies.

Size:640 × 360480 × 270

Want us to recollect this setting for all of your units?

Sign up or Sign in now!

Please use a html5 video succesful browser to look at movies.

This video has an invalid file format.

Sorry, however you possibly can’t entry this content material!

Please enter your date of delivery to view this video

JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031Year2020201920182017201620152014201320122011201020092008200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990198919881987198619851984198319821981198019791978197719761975197419731972197119701969196819671966196519641963196219611960195919581957195619551954195319521951195019491948194719461945194419431942194119401939193819371936193519341933193219311930192919281927192619251924192319221921192019191918191719161915191419131912191119101909190819071906190519041903190219011900

By clicking ‘enter’, you comply with GameSpot’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

enter

Now Playing: Yakuza: Like A Dragon Video Review

PhoenixLoader.gdprConsentCallback("facebookPixel", function () { !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)}; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1664416907029093'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); }, 'social'); Source link

The post Yakuza: Like A Dragon Review – The Power Of Friendship appeared first on TapaTap Review.

[lokgifsandmusings]

Definitive Ranking of Book 1 Episodes, #10/12

10. 1x11 Skeletons in the Closet

Bending is ILLEGAL, Asami drops it like it’s hot, a wild fanservice appears, and Noatak and Tarrlok build a snowman.

*Back a month later with Starbucks and more nitpicks*

Actually, real talk: can someone explain why part of the goyim gets upset with Starbucks not being Chirstmasy enough? Because I was just in one and it looks like Rudolph threw up everywhere. What ever happened to a nice autumnal display...

No, let’s get back to definitively ranking Book 1 episodes!

And let me just say: this has been a struggle. I know logically that Book 1 is fine. Obviously it engaged me enough to watch Book 2, even if I only saw the back-half in one sitting while I was drunk. But still, like I said in my first essay on this season, it just doesn’t get any deeper, unlike the other books. Instead, you notice all the hanging threads, and tugging on them leads to...well, whatever this is.

The thing is, I purposely do these definitive rankings in reverse order so that I sound increasingly more enthused. But when I saw I’d be writing about this one, I sat staring for five minutes trying to come up with a reason as to why it was better than “The One With All The Love Triangles” or “The One Where Amon Gets Caught.” It has slightly fewer contrivances?

Okay, stepping back, this episode isn’t all that complicated, or all that bad, really. The Equalists have taken over Republic City after their carpet bombing of it (you know...for equality!), so the Krew is underground in the sewers, eatin’ street gruel and flirtin’ with the person they’re not dating 10 feet away from the person they are dating. We get a glimpse of Republic City under the Equalists, which includes the apparent outlawing of bending, coupled with a line of handcuffed and blindfolded benders being paraded before Amon to be “cleansed of their impurity.”

Iroh II sails his face into a trap, and then he, Bolin, and Asami decide to go after Hiroshi’s army of biplanes (to prevent them from doing the same to Bumi’s fleet), while Korra and Mako want to go after Amon himself. They sneak onto Air Temple Island so they can ambush him, only to find a de-bended Tarrlok locked up. He explains how he and Amon are both sons of Yakone, and they can all bloodbend any day of the year. That’s how Amon has been taking away people’s bending. Korra and Mako then decide they’re going to expose Amon as a waterbender at his Equalist rally.

Let’s leave the Noatuk truth-bomb for last, cause that’s worth digging into a bit. Character-wise, this isn’t a very strong episode for any member of the Krew. Asami finally pulls the plug on Mako, I guess, which given that he’s acting like Korra’s boyfriend anyway makes plenty of sense. So that’s something? Otherwise, the biggest moment is Korra deciding she has to go after Amon herself. Which is kind of regressive? I mean, she doesn’t really have the skills or capacity to beat the guy, and the last time she tried to seek him out to fight on her terms, she got captured and very nearly lost her bending.

Korra: Wait, I'm sorry, but I'm not going with you tomorrow.

Mako: What?

Asami: Why not?

Korra: I'm sick and tired of hiding from Amon. It's time I face him.

Iroh: That's not a good plan. We need to stick together.

Korra: I'm not waiting for him to hunt me down. My guts tell me it's time to end this, on my terms.

Iroh: Korra, this is not a mission you should be handling alone.

Don’t get me wrong: it’s totally understandable why Korra would not want to just wait for Amon to go after her, and why she feels she’s not exactly needed in this “destroy the fleet mission.” But like, isn’t the protagonist supposed to have some kind of character growth?

I know I talked about this already in my “Endgame” piece, and yes, I think overall it’s a good thing that she had plenty of space to keep growing after Book 1. It just seems strange that her solution to the Amon situation is more “well NOW I’m going to do something about it!” despite her being no more prepared to take this on. Despite her having no strategy past “ambushing” him on Air Temple Island. And guess what, even when she has more information and tries to approach it in an inventive way, she still gets her ass kicked! She still gets de-bended!

Again, this is a narrative. What is the message supposed to be in Korra pursuing this option? Are we supposed to be cheering with her? Are we supposed to agree with Iroh?

Really, it’s this episode where the backwards nature of the writing becomes clear. Bryke needed Korra and  Mako pursuing Amon alone. They needed them to run into Tarrlok. They needed a way for Amon to get exposed by forcing him to waterbend. They needed Korra to get de-bended but then still airbend. None of this particularly flowed from character actions, and certainly not personalities. Shit just occurred *to* our protagonists, and that’s disappointing to think about in a story as thoughtful and intriguing as LoK.

I’m not saying that plot-points shouldn’t be planned out, btw! I’m just saying that they need to be done with respect to characterization and character journeys. Book 2 was one stumbling block after another, but that finale came together spectacularly well because the focus was on Korra’s arc. She beat Unalaq by literally tapping into the core of who she was and ripping her reality into existence. Sure there were contrivances that set it up, but we’re not talking Korra just randomly going against her own self-interest. That was Civil Wars!

Really, the emotional weight of this episode was Tarrlok’s story (and I know mileage varies there), so maybe this complaint is more along the lines of a nitpick. But it’s incredibly disappointing on a revisit to realize that Korra more or less stagnated after 1x04, with a small exception being in her attitude towards Asami (the result of exposure). Which maybe is what was behind Korra being the one to put up boundaries with Mako this episode? Mildly?

However, this also means that Korra’s most significant character development of the season was in the context of navigating the teenage dating game. And I’d be floored if that’s really what people wanted out of the Avatar franchise, or what Bryke even intended.

That’s maybe the kicker, here. This was the episode where it felt as though Bryan and Mike just had to start wrapping things up, logic-be-damned! But...wasn’t this the season where they had the most amount of time to plan?

Even a very small change could have gone a long way. A common complaint of “Endgame” is that the airbenders just showed up on stage, handcuffed. I don’t mind that it “undercut” Lin’s sacrifice (mostly because I don’t think it *did*. The point was that she was willing to do that), but I do think it felt like a total asspull when we more or less saw them get away. But what if word somehow reached the sewers (or was even intentionally delivered there) that Amon was holding the airbenders captive? Hell maybe Iroh could have brought this information. Then, that would have created a sense of urgency where it made sense for the Krew to split up, and it would have made sense for Korra and Mako to go to Air Temple Island specifically. Did they even have a way of knowing that’s where Amon was operating within this episode?

Again, writers should generally have an endpoint in mind that they write to. But it shouldn’t require contortions in logic to get there. And if you can’t think of a compelling reason for your characters to reach it...well...it’s probably time to rethink those beats, then. “Skeletons in the Closet” is an episode where just about everything that happens felt like it needed a second thought.

A perfectly good example of that is with the Equalists. In “Turning the Tides,” they bombed the entire city and captured enough benders where in this episode, they had an incredibly long line of them just waiting to be de-bended, including more policemen and White Lotus Members. The Equalists also declared bending illegal and stuck an Amon mask on Aang’s statue.

I have just...so many questions about how all this works. Like, logistically how have The Equalists actually taken over a city? I mean first of all, the crowd to whom Hiroshi announced bending being outlawed makes Trump’s inauguration look impressive.

Second of all, if we just talk about power dynamics of the universe, how does this work:

These are the SUPERPOWERED people. And the ones we’re seeing in this picture are literally trained fighters. They’ve got blindfolds on so...that’s it? Game over? No seismic-sense earthbenders? I’m not trying to victim blame here, but when you’ve got such a disparity in skill, to see these proportions of the benders to nonbenders here, with the benders doing absolutely nothing but being faceless and passive, it really pushes the envelope of believability.

Wasn’t the implication of the Equalist revolution that there actually was a revolution? That the *masses* went along with this, since they were the ones abused, ignored, and/or silenced under bender rule? Except then that makes the Equalists carpet-bombing the city even weirder, because this aftermath doesn’t seem to follow. Unless the only survivors were the people at Hiroshi’s rally.

Again, it’s the backwards writing. They needed the Equalists to have taken over, so they did. I’d totally buy the Equalists just controlling Air Temple Island and camping out there, maybe with important prisoners, but no. They successfully destroyed the United Forces and it was bad enough that their general had to retreat into the sewers and communicate his orders through Gommu.

I almost don’t even want to touch Iroh. He’s fanservice, and pretty heavy-handed fanservice at that. I really don’t care about giving people *something*, but fanservice that works is like...the picture of Aang airbend-juggling sushi rolls. It’s not some rando Mary Sue (and I truly mean a textbook Mary Sue here) showing up, ordering around our main characters to get us to the next action set-piece, and then watching him literally fly around with no explanation as he grounds Hiroshi’s fleet and saves the day.

He’s significant to us because we recognize his namesake, and because he’s voiced by Dante Basco. But just imagine if you were a viewer watching LoK without having seen ATLA. Wouldn’t this character feel incredibly odd to you? Wouldn’t you wonder why we were focusing on him at the cost of our regulars getting more time to contend with this new situation?

Like, oh I don’t know...ASAMI? I know, I know what this sounds like. At this point I’m gonna just lean into my reputation. But seriously, her FATHER just bombed the city, he’s making speeches about illegal bending, he blows up Iroh’s fleet here with inventions we didn’t know existed, they make a plan that revolves around facing head-on, and we get a single line of dialogue from her about it. Which the transcript hilariously describes as “somewhat bitterly”:

“It's time to take down my father.”

Yes, that was somewhat of a reaction. Does anyone want to check in if she’s conflicted?

Or like, Korra is apparently driven by extreme impatience now. Even though Mako says she won’t go alone, is there a reason we don’t get anyone actually challenging this or asking why she can’t help with the airfield and *then* go after Amon? Especially Mako, since he’s signing up for it, and he was the one with a slightly more cautious approach to sneaky things in 1x03?

“Hmm ... My grandfather would respect the Avatar's instinct. So will I.”

Aaaaand finally, speaking of “who are you and why are you suddenly the focal point?”, we’ve got the infamous bloodbending brothers.

Uh, so. Confession: I actually kind of like them? I mean, they ranked halfway up my list in the Definitive Ranking of Complicated Familial Dynamics, so that’s something. But really, I think their story in and of itself is fine. It’s about the futility of revenge, I guess, and there’s the poetic tragedy of the way both brothers did become instruments of their father’s plans despite the fact that they both wanted to escape that fate. Tarrlok wanted to be the city’s savior and have influence through upstanding, noble means; a clear backlash against his crime-boss father ruling from the “underbelly” through brute force. Noatak, meanwhile, truly believed that so long as people had the potential for the fighting dominance his father displayed, there could be no justice in the world. He was a bender who hated his own power, and emulated Aang’s course of action with Yakone, which somewhat ironically led him to think that he truly needed to debend Korra.

It’s a bit of flawed logic, I guess. “I’ll never become an instrument of revenge against the Avatar! Instead, I’ll apply what the Avatar did to you to *all* benders...including the Avatar!”

I guess he’s just an equal-opportunity debender who understands the symbolic importance of taking away Korra’s bending? Oh look, I made a pun.

But yeah, it’s a fine enough story, and I’m not sure we’re supposed to be viewing Amon as the world’s most balanced thinker anyway.

The problems with Amon are that the Equalist logistics don’t make much sense, as I noted, and the guy himself gleefully debending the sole survivors of genocide in the name of justice is a bit much to swallow, especially after Bryke tried to demonstrate how nonbenders really do have legitimate grievances with regards to their treatment by members of triads and law enforcement alike. Of course the puppy-kicker had to go down, and it’s kind of a shame that what was a nuanced issue was turned into something so black-and-white.

The problem with the bloodbending brothers, however, is actually one that’s kind of similar to the problem with Kuvira. Their personal stakes are entirely disconnected from Korra herself. She runs into them, and has altercations with them, and as the Avatar she has a unique symbolic and political importance. Therefore she “matters” in both of their plans, which is why Tarrlok kidnapped her (what was the long term of that, exactly?), and Amon purposely didn’t take away her bending when he first captured her. It’s similar to how Kuvira understood that Korra had an importance to the people of the Earth Kingdom and for that reason, took pleasure in knocking her down a peg after her absence for three years; but she was driven by personal reasons relating to the Beifongs.

And this is fine, by the way. I’d say LoK’s most successful antagonist was Zaheer, who again, was targeting Korra for strategic reasons, but not exactly personal ones. Not every conflict is going to be Clark Kent vs. Lex Luthor, with years of history and damage between them. I do happen to think that kind of dynamic is the most effective (Zuko and Azula, anyone?), but again, villains being motivated by something entirely external to the protagonist is absolutely fine, even if it’s their own personal familial baggage.

However, given that Book 1 tripped over itself and couldn’t actually land the beats of the main plotline, nor provide Korra with any sort of growth in its telling...having the focus on the bloodbending brothers is incredibly weird. Like, why was the creative energy put here, of all things? It’s a sad story, sure, but what does it actually mean to Korra?

Being generous, it allows her to create a plan where she exposes Amon instead of trying to brute-force the situation, but...that plan doesn’t work at all, and she wins by punching. Was this showing development in her strategic thinking? This goes back to the issue of her wanting to hunt down Amon again.

What it sort of feels like, and forgive me for saying this, is spin-off fanfic that people wrote who got interested in the villains. It’s not *bad* by any means. There’s interesting dynamics here. But it shouldn’t come at the cost of Korra’s journey, which it did. In the end, the biggest moment of the season was Tarrlok’s murder/suicide. It’s a tragic story, sure. It’s just not Korra’s. And at least with Kuvira, it was her arc that bent to suit Korra’s needs, not the other way around.

I’m pretty sure from here on out I’ll actually have some positive things to say about Book 1 episodes, don’t worry. It’s just the final chapter of the season is really where all the flaws of the storytelling came into full view, and though “Turning the Tides” arguably started that, this is the episode where the wheels came off. “Endgame” was the crash.

#12 1x12 “Endgame”

#11 1x05 “The Spirit of Competition"

1x11 photo recap found here

Book 2 ranking/essays found here

Book 4 ranking/essays found here

[plutonic-astrology]

Uranus & Past Life Trauma

In Evolutionary Astrology, Uranus is a trauma signature. This is because Uranus is considered the higher octave of Mercury, which pertains to the lower mind or short term memory. Uranus then represents the higher mind, or long term memory, reaching so far back that it’s actually able to give us an idea of difficulties we may have faced in the past. We may not remember, but Uranus does and typically responds well to meditation and regression. And because karma is considered to be a series of patterns, these traumatic themes are likely to play out in our lives at one point or another. There could be subconscious fears or issues surrounding the archetypal themes Uranus embodies in our chart, and this can go so far as to create triggers, much like a form of PTSD. When looking at Uranus in a chart, it’s important to consider the sign, house and aspects it’s making to other planets, namely the conjunction, square or opposition. (Sources: Uranus: Freedom From The Known by Jeffrey Wolf Green and Healing The Soul by Mark Jones.)

Uranus in Aries, the 1st house or in aspect to Mars: Here there is trauma on an instinctual, bodily level and is not necessarily rational. This can indicate some type of physical struggle, violence, sexual violence or overexertion. There’s a strong need for freedom and a sense that the will has been thwarted in some way. There could be subconscious memories of having died young, which can cause the individual to push themselves physically or sexually, trying to overcome a feeling of being ineffectual or having been cut down in their prime. 

Uranus in Taurus, the 2nd house or in aspect to Venus: Trauma here can correspond to a narrowing of the self, as if the person shuts themselves off from other possibilities before those possibilities have even occurred. This is because they've experienced a loss of security and have been met with famine, lack of resources, sexual assault, perpetual anxiety, or mass catastrophe. They subconsciously fear the loss of self that comes from being reduced to survival mode. As a self-fulfilling prophecy, the life experience is reduced as they build a wall around themselves out of fear and seek to fulfill their own needs in a very narrow way that leaves no room for possibility or anything “new.” There could be a subconscious aversion to intimacy (an indicator of sexual assault) and they may struggle to open up to others as a result. 

Uranus in Gemini, the 3rd house or in aspect to Mercury: Trauma occurs when others contradict or disagree with their viewpoint. There may be memories of alienation, imprisonment or having been tortured for speaking their mind, seeing a political or cultural conflict differently, or being the messenger of news no one wanted to hear. Trauma can also occur through siblings in the form of incest, bullying or opposing viewpoints. They may feel trapped in a narrative or a pattern of thinking, often feeling intensely victimized by things others have said or done to them. Over time this narrative can become deeply toxic and re-traumatizing to the point where even talking about the trauma can feel frustrating because they’ve already exhausted themselves analyzing it.

Uranus in Cancer, the 4th house or in aspect to the Moon: Traumatic fragmentation and dissociation within the inner child. This indicates very difficult family experiences and a core wounding to the emotional body. In this instance the family itself will mirror past life experiences, playing out a narrative drama the individual has gone through themselves in order to help the child learn and grow. Uranus here can indicate intense losses that have shattered the emotional body and sense of safety in the form of intense abandonment from loved ones. There could have been violent separations through war or betrayal, having been taken away from the family or given up for adoption. Either way there has been a theme of separation, lack of nurture, or difficulty with the mother or caregivers in past lives and as a result this person will have unmet childhood needs. 

Uranus in Leo, the 5th house or in aspect to the Sun: Trauma occurs when the person realizes they are unable to create from a highly inspirational place at all times and burn themselves out. There can be a sense that their creativity has been hurt or damaged in some way or that they’re dissociated from it. They may have thrown themselves into one too many situations that didn’t work out, and feel crushed, futile or depressed as a result. There could be memories of aristocracy or a certain amount of artistic achievement that brought them money, power or prestige. There may be memories involving the loss of such power and a sense of having fallen from grace. Their creativity may have been met with hostility by others capable of inflicting great damage on the individual and as a result they can feel intensely traumatized if their creative contribution to life is not acknowledged, or worse, is negatively received. There could also be memories that involve the loss of a child or difficulty with children, which could make them particularly averse to the idea of being a parent.

Uranus in Virgo, the 6th house or in aspect to Mercury: The individual has desired to understand themselves and the nature of other people in a humble way. Unfortunately this has manifested as intense critical feedback from others and that feedback being deeply internalized. The mind runs like tape loops of negative thoughts and there’s a considerable amount of effort applied in finding evidence of why they’re shameful, bad, or why other people don’t like them. Without learning self-acceptance they will continuously struggle to quiet their anxiety and go out of their way to prove their own guilt. 

Uranus in Libra, the 7th house or in aspect to Venus: Traumatic separation or termination of relationships that were experienced as shattering due to codependency. Because they believed they needed these individuals, once they died or left there was a feeling of having been cut off from what was considered joy in life. There has been excessive codependency in the past, an over-definition of the self through others. More weight has been given to how others see them versus how they see themselves. Trauma through having been disappointed and let down by others or a feeling that their true potential was never acknowledged by them. 

Uranus in Scorpio, the 8th house or in aspect to Pluto: Trauma through relationships experienced as conflict. There is a sense of having been used or abused by others. Because of an intense desire to be close to other people, they may have found themselves soulfully engaged with another person only to feel a tremendous sense of betrayal once that person suddenly turned away from them or began acting selfishly. They could have been betrayed by a friend, lover, family member, or anyone they believed to be a trusted confidant. The overall experience has been one of psychological power dynamics prevailing over love and friendship. There could possibly be memories of destruction, the torturing and killing of someone close to the individual or perhaps they were the victim themselves and were utterly destroyed by someone they once trusted. 

Uranus in Sagittarius, the 9th house or in aspect to Jupiter: The individual’s beliefs, vision of reality, or view of the world religiously or culturally has been the source of trauma. They may have been fundamentalists or died in a religious war. There’s a tremendous fire and purpose and a tendency for the person to want to do it all, but at some point they may have become messianic or over-driven. Ultimately it’s the way the individual has seen themselves fitting into all of life that has caused trauma. 

Uranus in Capricorn, the 10th house or in aspect to Saturn: The way the individual is perceived by society, religion, their parents, or any situation in which authority applies itself judgmentally has been a source of trauma. There may be memories of being born into very cold family situations in which duty, devotion to order and social standing took precedence over love and understanding. There may also be memories of intense persecution or imprisonment from society or political regimes for not fitting in or having acted in a rebellious way. A sense of having to “follow the rules” could invoke anxiety due to memories of having been punished for breaking them. There’s a certain futility or despair in regard to following the rules since in certain families or totalitarian regimes, these rules could have changed frequently. Because of this, these people crack under societal pressure. Whether it’s filling out medical forms or applying for a job, these day to day societal customs evoke memories of such regimes or dysfunctional families in which power was used abusively. In this life or other lives there is a theme of having been at the mercy of insecure, absent, tyrannical or bullying fathers, bosses, and political figures. People who wielded their power and authority without empathy and mistreated others as a result. 

Uranus in Aquarius or the 11th house: Here there is tremendous dissociation, as if the self has become a fragmentary identity. Trauma occurs when the individual has reached some kind of recognition that the way they’re living is not true to their own nature or who they really are. When they have recognized that there are parts of them that aren’t real or are distortions, fictions made up about the self in order to protect against the vulnerabilities of life. 

Uranus in Pisces, the 12th house or in aspect to Neptune: Trauma often accompanies a sense of being overwhelmed by larger forces. This can cause distressing inner states of futility, meaninglessness, and feeling victimized or attacked by life. It can also correspond to certain psychological states of imprisonment or enslavement, or even chosen imprisonment. 

[christiansunraysang]

Balance to the Force: An In-Depth Fan Analysis of how Rey is the Sequel Trilogy’s Chosen One

Written by Christian Ang

Beloved by generations of fans, Star Wars was first introduced on screen in 1977, and has since been an iconic piece of cinematic and pop culture history, that has since influenced the genre to come. Yet, as Lucasfilm would later be helmed by a new team after The Walt Disney Company had purchased the company and all subsequent franchises, including Star Wars, new films had been proposed to continue the legacy that came before it. However, the lore of the Star Wars films are coveted by many, and those that had been with the series in its early days, hold many of its elements, including original cuts of the first trilogy dear to them. As such, Lucasfilm and its founder, George Lucas, were vital in shaping and preserving the growing mythos that would later be expanded in books, comics, and animated television shows. One core component of the pantheon of characters that exist is the focus of the films in which the first six movies centralized in telling the tragic story of Anakin Skywalker, a boy destined to influence the galaxy in great and powerful ways. Below is an analysis of all canonical films and television shows that currently exist at the time of writing this essay, and how the future of the films would play out in reintroducing the concept of the Chosen One. While there have been recent books and comics that also elaborates the details in between the on-screen media, not including those from the Expanded Universe banner, these will be otherwise unacknowledged on the basis that both Disney and Lucasfilm had stated that the main canon of the series is primarily kept within the aforementioned films and television programs.

Star Wars tells its narratives in a circular fashion. This is often supported by George Lucas, himself, in which he states that the nature of the prequel and original trilogy functions as a symbolic circle. We begin with the rise and fall of Anakin and then his rise to redemption as Darth Vader. Kathleen Kennedy, president of Lucasfilm, has gone on record with different press junkets to reinforce that the Star Wars films have always been about family dynamics, and Lucas also mentioned, before Disney’s acquisition, that the films have always been about the character of Anakin Skywalker. Through this logic, though Anakin may not exist as a physical character, his spiritual essence is reinvigorated through Rey.

 If Lucasfilm is continuing the tradition in maintaining this circle, this can be denoted in the way that The Force Awakens heavily draws its influence on A New Hope. However, in 1999, when The Phantom Menace was released, this was also supposed to be the prequel equivalent of the same film. It is also the same film that introduces the Chosen One concept into the mythos of the films. As a result, it would not be surprising for Lucasfilm to take both films’ concepts and merge them into the first film of the sequel trilogy. On the other hand, it can be argued that when Poe Dameron destroys Starkiller base, it does not necessarily line up with the Circle Theory, as it is Luke and Anakin that have the climactic moment in their respective space battles. This can be a narrative oversight, in which it was more important to emphasize the conflict between Rey and Kylo. Yet, we see Rey have the same natural piloting prowess that Anakin had as a child, with her telling Finn that she had no prior experience in doing so.

 The catalyst in which Anakin, Luke, and now Rey embark on their journey usually comes from someone from outside their world and bringing them into the fray of the conflict. When we first meet Anakin as a young boy, it is through meeting Qui-Gon Jinn, Padme, and Obi Wan who are not residing in the planet and takes him along on their journey. This is echoed in A New Hope in which R2-D2 and C-3PO, who were recently on Leia’s ship, encounter Luke and Ben Kenobi, and serves as an expositional tool set Luke on his path. As such, this is the same with Rey, in which her way of living is disrupted upon meeting BB-8 and Finn. Further parallels to Anakin and Luke persist throughout The Force Awakens, in which she encounters the other characters. Maz Kanata asks Han who is this girl, and the rest of the dialogue in the film keeps reiterating the same question: who is Rey? It is an obvious trope in which the mystery of Rey is made known to the audience, and yet there is a distinctive connection, though it is currently unknown how. There is a strong, unspoken bond between her and Han Solo, as well as Leia in the conclusion of the film. If there was a direct familial relation, they would have recognized her. However, if she was the Chosen One, then it would make sense for the original trilogy characters to be drawn to her in a spiritual sense, though they might not understand why.

 Rey’s vision further dives into exploring this connection, in which by touching the lightsaber, she sees a cryptic series of events. First, she hears Vader’s breathing as the scene unfolds into the corridor in Bespin in which Luke would subsequently lose his hand, dropping the lightsaber that Rey had just touched. This can be interpreted as the last time the audience had last seen this saber, as well as a connection to her past life as Anakin and the fact that he encountered his former saber once again. Later, the scene continues to shift into showing R2-D2 and what the audience assumes to be Luke in a robe. Though one can deduce that since she doesn’t know what Luke looks like, this could be why Luke’s face is not shown on screen. However, this would not make sense, as we also see the forest that Rey would battle Kylo Ren, and even sees a massive slaughter from the Knights of Ren. This is all before Rey actually meets Kylo Ren in person. Through that logic, one can even further speculate that it was not even Luke under that robe, but rather Anakin before his battle on Mustafar. This is also inconsistent, however, as much of Anakin’s attire is darker tones of black and maroon, as seen in the Clone Wars animated television show, and in both The Attack of the Clones, and The Revenge of the Sith. This can even be delved in further as this may possibly be Rey in the future, for some reason on a lava planet that is meant to be significant. This may also allude to a return to Mustafar in either a flashback, if it was Luke, or in the future if it was Rey. Regardless, in Rogue One, the audience encounters Darth Vader in a large castle-like structure on a lava planet, thus providing plausibility as to why one would see either Luke or Rey at a similar environment. If the films are really about Anakin’s character, then it would not be out of context to revisit this castle if the protagonists believe there is something important hidden within there. Furthermore, in the vision, the voices of both Yoda and Obi Wan (both as a young and old man), can be heard in whispers throughout this sequence. Despite never meeting them, this would only make sense if Rey was channeling this through her past life as Anakin. In effect, both Jedi masters played a huge role in influencing Rey, and the latter being Anakin’s former master.

 Throughout the prequel trilogy, Obi Wan wrestles with the question if Anakin really is the Chosen One, to which the Council also can be seen discussing this as well. Qui-Gon, however, is convinced that Anakin will fulfill this prophecy, as he is unusually strong with the Force, and desires to train him before his demise at the end of The Phantom Menace. As a result, this is an obvious reference and parallel to the life of Jesus Christ. Shmi states that Anakin has no father and that she was mysteriously pregnant. Moreover, much like Jesus, there is doubt that Anakin is a messianic figure. In the climax of Revenge of the Sith, Obi Wan tells Anakin of this prophecy and that he was intended to “destroy the Sith, not join them”. This is not necessarily true, as the prophecy is said that the Chosen One would bring balance to the Force. Anakin accomplishes this, in fact, by helping wipe out most of the Jedi Order as they were too powerful over the Dark Side. However, Obi Wan’s claims would later be fulfilled as Vader kills Palpatine and himself, thus ending the reign of the Sith, and thus balancing the Force once more. Years later within The Force Awakens, the only characters that are trained in the Force or are familiar with sensing it when meeting Rey, would be Kylo Ren, Snoke, and Maz Kanata. Maz senses a connection between the former lightsaber of Anakin with Rey, and Kylo also notes to Snoke that she is incredibly powerful in the Force though untrained. Lastly, Snoke senses an “awakening”, which is implied to be Rey. It is not uncommon for young children to be born with a potential connection in using the Force. In fact, this is mentioned in the Rebels animated series in which Stormtroopers are searching for children who may be proficient in the Force, just as Ezra would later be. In effect, Rey’s use of the Force should not alert, let alone worry Kylo or Snoke, as this should be common in the galaxy, unless she is the new Chosen One to bring balance once again to the Force.

 Kylo Ren’s journey is made to parallel Ben Solo’s descent into the Dark Side like his grandfather, Anakin, and becomes obsessed with fulfilling his idea of his familial legacy. In fact, Kylo can be interpreted as Rey’s antithesis. In conjunction with Circle Theory and the tendency of the franchise to rely on symbolism, Rey is everything that Kylo desires to be: his grandfather. When trying to extract the map leading to Luke’s location, Rey resists, despite lacking any training, and overwhelms Kylo, only to tell him his fear of not living up to the legacy of Darth Vader. The parallelism that surround them both continue to be riddled throughout the film. Both characters belong to opposing factions, and both have an important connection to Han Solo. In the final battle, Kylo attempts to reclaim his grandfather’s lightsaber, which instead goes to Rey, as she uses the very weapon belonging to his family against him. It is important to note that this saber was easily called upon by Luke, Kylo’s uncle, and the notion that the saber would be easily drawn upon the Force to a girl who he believes to be unrelated to himself would be devastating. Kylo desires to be the Chosen One, while Rey simply is thrust into that role. Rey is ultimately the true successor to Anakin’s legacy, and Kylo is rather a false prophet that believes his own idea of what that legacy means.

 Lightsabers are built through a Jedi’s will in union with the Force. Thus, it represents a personal symbol, and source of identification of that respective Jedi. In the Clone Wars and in Rebels, the construction of a lightsaber is explored, and in Rogue One, the Kyber crystals that are used to power the Jedi weapons are bastardized into functioning as the main power source for the Death Star. Throughout the Clone Wars television show, the connection to one’s saber is important, and this is seen in A New Hope in the symbolic “passing of the torch” to Luke as Obi Wan hands over Anakin’s saber. In fact, Anakin makes note of how personal and important this is to him in an episode of the Clone Wars. As stated above, Luke and Rey are both able to call upon the saber with ease, while Kylo, a descendant of Anakin, cannot. Maz even states that the saber was calling upon Rey, and notes the legacy of its former users. If Rey is revealed not to be Luke’s daughter, as that would be a reveal that would not have had paid off as well, and is in fact the new Chosen One, the dramatic connection would be more impactful. Furthermore, Luke already has his own saber, as seen in Return of the Jedi, and would no longer need his father’s, thus giving it to Rey.

 Much speculation had risen, in anticipation of the film, that Kylo Ren and Rey were in fact a new iteration of Jacen and Jaina Solo, and are related to the Skywalker family, as seen in the Expanded Universe of books and comics. While the former was in fact revealed to be related to this lineage, Rey’s family is intentionally kept a secret. If it was the intention of the film to preserve the reveal that Rey was somehow blood related, why bother revealing Kylo Ren’s connection so immediately? This can be resolved in application with Circle Theory in which Episode VIII would emulate many of the same elements of both Empire Strikes Back and Attack of the Clones. Within Empire Strikes Back, Vader unveils the truth and tells Luke that he is, in fact, Anakin Skywalker. Though Attack of the Clones does not have a tantamount reveal parallel to this, both Anakin and Luke lose their hands in combat with a Sith Lord. While Kylo is not defined as a Sith Lord, Episode VIII, if it follows a narrative pattern like The Force Awakens and A New Hope, would see Rey facing off against Kylo Ren once more. The parallels between VIII and Empire Strikes Back is further supported as Lando Calrissian is expected to return, just as he was introduced in the latter. Luke also parallels Yoda’s role, in which he is now the exiled Jedi on a remote planet that is intended to train Rey. Yet, what is more important is the further character development that is to be expected in the upcoming film, and the reveal of Rey’s connection is undoubtedly a core component as well, in its plot. Paralleling the middle films in both trilogies that came before it, a single iconic piece of dialogue that overall shaped the importance of the films to come after it in the franchise was built upon the twist that Darth Vader was the fallen Anakin Skywalker. For Kylo Ren as he questions who Rey is to him, Rey would subsequently call him to the Light, just as his grandfather attempted to do the inverse to his uncle many years ago. As Ren resists, he would claim that he intends to accomplish what his grandfather tried to, only for Rey to knowingly say, through the Force, that, in fact, she is the risen Anakin Skywalker.

[edarabia]

Dubai, UAE: Flying taxis, driverless cars, robot professors - it seems the next generation may not find artificial intelligence (AI) as "new and exciting" as us. They will be growing up with it, possibly making AI the norm for them, just as we are now accustomed to the internet, mobile applications and Siri. However, are today's schools preparing the young ones for the hyper tech-savvy future that is approaching? The Fourth Industrial Revolution has been making headlines worldwide, with various artificial intelligence projects becoming a main focus for many countries. A step ahead, the UAE recently appointed the world's first Minister of Artificial Intelligence. In the blink of an eye, today's parents may see their children inside flying taxis, in driverless cars or studying in virtual classrooms. But are they being taught about the ins and outs of AI, a technology that will possibly be part of their everyday lives? A few Dubai teachers shared their thoughts on whether AI should be adopted as a core subject within school curriculums, which would allow educators to teach it just like other regular fields, such as Math, Science and History. The robotics manager at Gems Dubai American Academy, Sreejit Chakrabarty, believes teaching students AI at an early stage can help them in their literacy skills. He thinks it should be considered as a core subject. "We at Gems Dubai American Academy believe that AI education is not just about technical aspects, but the development of cognitive and collaborative processes wherein students can create a new type of literacy from a young age," Chakrabarty said. Elaborating, he said: "Naturally, this AI literacy brings in and helps students to extend their knowledge of English, maths and coding. For example, by seeing how their programming strategies are reflected in the learning and behaviour of a machine, they can better grasp abstract concepts such as cause and effect. They can also get immediate feedback from the machine and iterate their ideas based upon this. These are powerful opportunities for learning in a cross-disciplinary way." The school actually has coding as one of their core subjects. Their students are programming robots at a quicker pace and with more depth, thanks to programming languages. "To mention just a few of our robotics projects - we have high school students creating robotic representations of their poetry readings using multisensory inputs and outputs, middle school learners designing robotic solutions for the threat from genetic diseases, elementary students programming humanoid robots to tell interactive stories with alternative narrative paths, and primary learners doing rhythmic art using superhero robots," Chakrabarty said. Although one educator, the head of curriculum at the Kindergarten Starters Gauri Meghani believes, AI should not be taught as a stand-alone subject, but integrated with all other subjects simultaneously in order to follow a blended approach for children and machine interaction. Meghani said that students should remember that machines should not be considered a substitute for personal interaction. "Relying too much on these machines to grade or tutor may lead to educational oversights that hurt learners, more than helping them. It should not become an addiction to make our everyday tasks more efficient," she said. "Our students at Kindergarten Starters have picked up programming skills very quickly as we offer Robotics as a part of our regular curriculum. Our Grades 3, 4 and 5 have learnt to Program LEGO Education Wedo 1.0 and 2.0. They have used all the sensors, motion and display blocks to make their robot do different tasks. like sailing a boat, for example. These activities have instilled a deeper understanding of math and science concepts and evidence based reasoning."

Amy helps educators customise teaching

It may be a while before the students of today take a flying taxi to work, but they already have the necessary means to interact with an artificial intelligence (AI) application inside their classrooms. 'Amy' is an AI-based private tutor in math. The founder of Amy, Raphael Nolden, has brought the invention from New Zealand to Dubai in the hope that schools here would adapt her into their everyday learning. Nolden, the CEO of Jaipuna (the firm that invented Amy), told Khaleej Times that Amy also helps teachers be more effective in their classrooms. "She works just like a human tutor, but she is always there to help you even when you are learning at school. She helps students by giving them really specific feedback as they solve problems, and understands why they made mistakes so she can teach them exactly what they need to learn," Nolden said. "This means she can automatically fill student knowledge gaps before they even notice them, which means students don't get stuck and give up when they do math. She can also make classrooms much more effective by individualising every student's assignments so everyone learns exactly what they need to complete today's class. She allows each student in the class to work at their own pace, so good students move ahead and students struggling with a certain component do not fall behind." Amy will also give teachers realtime feedback about each student and the class in general, so teachers know which student exactly needs help. It automatically answers questions most students have, so they don't have to wait for the teacher. "She also allows teachers to individualise what each student learns. With traditional assignments, everyone in the class gets the same thing, but this means that the assignment is either too easy or too hard for most students. Amy's dynamic assignments allow teachers to simply specify what they want students to know at the end of the class or assignment, and she automatically creates one that teaches them exactly what they need to achieve this." Amy will also do all of the marking for teachers and take care of reporting requirements, which means that teachers have much more time to inspire their students and create better classes, Nolden noted. However, Nolden made it clear that AI should not take over the roles of traditional teachers. He believes AI and teachers working in a symbiotic relationship will give best results. Nolden has carried out testing with schools in New Zealand in 2017 and will be rolling out a full version of the product from the start of 2018. Now, he hopes to find schools that would be interested in doing pilots with Amy.

Re-skill the children as today's jobs won't be available by 2030

Bhawna Sajnani, chief digital and innovation officer, The Kindergarten Starters As the education industry booms, the quality of instruction is becoming more progressive and challenging. We aim to prepare our children for the 21st century, where they will enter a job market that rewards creativity, flexible thinking, on-the-job learning and ease with technology. They will be living an expanded civic life where citizens are active in physical communities, online and through social media, getting involved in local politics as well as global initiatives. Education today has changed and progressed from how we learnt in our conventional setups. This is appropriate for the jobs that are available today. But will the same jobs be available for our children in 2030? Definitely not! I think the exciting new efforts to make computers think and working with 'machines with minds' will not only personalise learning but also allow them to customise the curriculum based on the child's readiness. As a teacher, personalising instruction is a challenge and I think with AI, we will be able to reach out to all children. AI's intelligent tutoring system, adaptive group formations, facilitation by examples, intelligent moderations, essay grading software, real problem-solving assessment and game-based learning environments are some of the features that every teacher dreams about when she takes a class. I dream about this because I want to reach out to every child and want each one to succeed. Business owners today are actively deciding whether their next hire should be a person or a machine. After all, machines can work in the dark and don't require time off for holidays, personal illness, overtime, chronic stress or anxiety. By overhauling our entire education system and providing means for people to re-skill, it is important that we start to act now. In addition to this, we also need to accept that learning doesn't end with formal schooling. The accelerating pace of technological change means that learning must be a lifelong pursuit, constantly re-skilling to meet an ever-changing world. Making huge changes to our education system, providing means for people to re-skill, and encouraging lifelong learning can help mitigate the pain of the transition. It's unlikely that the future will play out like the past. There's no guarantee that more jobs will be created than are destroyed by AI and automation. Even if the future does play out like the past, the jobs being created will require re-skilling and better education. These services aren't currently provided, so unless we make major changes, we'll have millions of people who can't get jobs and we'll all suffer from it. Even if we manage to deal with this transition effectively, most jobs will eventually be eliminated by machines. Hence, I feel that teaching them AI from an early age will benefit them in the future.

How important is teaching artificial intelligence?

Trisha Sayani,Gems Our Own English High School, Dubai Teaching AI is very important because it's our future. Everybody needs to know how it works; its advantages and disadvantages, etc. One main source of artificial intelligence is STEAM and currently the whole world is moving towards it. This is the reason why I think teaching AI is very important. Krista Fidelia, Al Diyafah High School In this technologically advancing world filled with tech savvy students like us, I believe it is crucial to be taught the basics of AI. As we go further each year, almost every career's fundamental base will be AI. If taught in school, students can step out into the world as confident individuals with the ability to set up a strong career. Nada Fathima, New Indian Model School, Dubai AI not only reduces human effort, but also helps us to understand things in a better way. Our world, as we know, is running on AI. Facebook suggests our friends, computers trade our stock and now we have cars that park themselves. Soon we will have robots teaching students in school. It helps the teacher focus on the children's needs. Today, teaching AI is as important as teaching Math. Nakshatra RP, New Indian Model School, Dubai Studying AI opens a world of opportunities. At a basic level, you will understand the system and tools you interact with on a daily basis. It can prepare you for a job as a software engineer, creating AI software programmes or even a hardware engineer developing electronic parking assistants or home assistant robots. © Khaleej Times

[jobs-in-dubai-uae]

Dubai, UAE: Flying taxis, driverless cars, robot professors - it seems the next generation may not find artificial intelligence (AI) as "new and exciting" as us. They will be growing up with it, possibly making AI the norm for them, just as we are now accustomed to the internet, mobile applications and Siri. However, are today's schools preparing the young ones for the hyper tech-savvy future that is approaching? The Fourth Industrial Revolution has been making headlines worldwide, with various artificial intelligence projects becoming a main focus for many countries. A step ahead, the UAE recently appointed the world's first Minister of Artificial Intelligence. In the blink of an eye, today's parents may see their children inside flying taxis, in driverless cars or studying in virtual classrooms. But are they being taught about the ins and outs of AI, a technology that will possibly be part of their everyday lives? A few Dubai teachers shared their thoughts on whether AI should be adopted as a core subject within school curriculums, which would allow educators to teach it just like other regular fields, such as Math, Science and History. The robotics manager at Gems Dubai American Academy, Sreejit Chakrabarty, believes teaching students AI at an early stage can help them in their literacy skills. He thinks it should be considered as a core subject. "We at Gems Dubai American Academy believe that AI education is not just about technical aspects, but the development of cognitive and collaborative processes wherein students can create a new type of literacy from a young age," Chakrabarty said. Elaborating, he said: "Naturally, this AI literacy brings in and helps students to extend their knowledge of English, maths and coding. For example, by seeing how their programming strategies are reflected in the learning and behaviour of a machine, they can better grasp abstract concepts such as cause and effect. They can also get immediate feedback from the machine and iterate their ideas based upon this. These are powerful opportunities for learning in a cross-disciplinary way." The school actually has coding as one of their core subjects. Their students are programming robots at a quicker pace and with more depth, thanks to programming languages. "To mention just a few of our robotics projects - we have high school students creating robotic representations of their poetry readings using multisensory inputs and outputs, middle school learners designing robotic solutions for the threat from genetic diseases, elementary students programming humanoid robots to tell interactive stories with alternative narrative paths, and primary learners doing rhythmic art using superhero robots," Chakrabarty said. Although one educator, the head of curriculum at the Kindergarten Starters Gauri Meghani believes, AI should not be taught as a stand-alone subject, but integrated with all other subjects simultaneously in order to follow a blended approach for children and machine interaction. Meghani said that students should remember that machines should not be considered a substitute for personal interaction. "Relying too much on these machines to grade or tutor may lead to educational oversights that hurt learners, more than helping them. It should not become an addiction to make our everyday tasks more efficient," she said. "Our students at Kindergarten Starters have picked up programming skills very quickly as we offer Robotics as a part of our regular curriculum. Our Grades 3, 4 and 5 have learnt to Program LEGO Education Wedo 1.0 and 2.0. They have used all the sensors, motion and display blocks to make their robot do different tasks. like sailing a boat, for example. These activities have instilled a deeper understanding of math and science concepts and evidence based reasoning."

Amy helps educators customise teaching

It may be a while before the students of today take a flying taxi to work, but they already have the necessary means to interact with an artificial intelligence (AI) application inside their classrooms. 'Amy' is an AI-based private tutor in math. The founder of Amy, Raphael Nolden, has brought the invention from New Zealand to Dubai in the hope that schools here would adapt her into their everyday learning. Nolden, the CEO of Jaipuna (the firm that invented Amy), told Khaleej Times that Amy also helps teachers be more effective in their classrooms. "She works just like a human tutor, but she is always there to help you even when you are learning at school. She helps students by giving them really specific feedback as they solve problems, and understands why they made mistakes so she can teach them exactly what they need to learn," Nolden said. "This means she can automatically fill student knowledge gaps before they even notice them, which means students don't get stuck and give up when they do math. She can also make classrooms much more effective by individualising every student's assignments so everyone learns exactly what they need to complete today's class. She allows each student in the class to work at their own pace, so good students move ahead and students struggling with a certain component do not fall behind." Amy will also give teachers realtime feedback about each student and the class in general, so teachers know which student exactly needs help. It automatically answers questions most students have, so they don't have to wait for the teacher. "She also allows teachers to individualise what each student learns. With traditional assignments, everyone in the class gets the same thing, but this means that the assignment is either too easy or too hard for most students. Amy's dynamic assignments allow teachers to simply specify what they want students to know at the end of the class or assignment, and she automatically creates one that teaches them exactly what they need to achieve this." Amy will also do all of the marking for teachers and take care of reporting requirements, which means that teachers have much more time to inspire their students and create better classes, Nolden noted. However, Nolden made it clear that AI should not take over the roles of traditional teachers. He believes AI and teachers working in a symbiotic relationship will give best results. Nolden has carried out testing with schools in New Zealand in 2017 and will be rolling out a full version of the product from the start of 2018. Now, he hopes to find schools that would be interested in doing pilots with Amy.

Re-skill the children as today's jobs won't be available by 2030

Bhawna Sajnani, chief digital and innovation officer, The Kindergarten Starters As the education industry booms, the quality of instruction is becoming more progressive and challenging. We aim to prepare our children for the 21st century, where they will enter a job market that rewards creativity, flexible thinking, on-the-job learning and ease with technology. They will be living an expanded civic life where citizens are active in physical communities, online and through social media, getting involved in local politics as well as global initiatives. Education today has changed and progressed from how we learnt in our conventional setups. This is appropriate for the jobs that are available today. But will the same jobs be available for our children in 2030? Definitely not! I think the exciting new efforts to make computers think and working with 'machines with minds' will not only personalise learning but also allow them to customise the curriculum based on the child's readiness. As a teacher, personalising instruction is a challenge and I think with AI, we will be able to reach out to all children. AI's intelligent tutoring system, adaptive group formations, facilitation by examples, intelligent moderations, essay grading software, real problem-solving assessment and game-based learning environments are some of the features that every teacher dreams about when she takes a class. I dream about this because I want to reach out to every child and want each one to succeed. Business owners today are actively deciding whether their next hire should be a person or a machine. After all, machines can work in the dark and don't require time off for holidays, personal illness, overtime, chronic stress or anxiety. By overhauling our entire education system and providing means for people to re-skill, it is important that we start to act now. In addition to this, we also need to accept that learning doesn't end with formal schooling. The accelerating pace of technological change means that learning must be a lifelong pursuit, constantly re-skilling to meet an ever-changing world. Making huge changes to our education system, providing means for people to re-skill, and encouraging lifelong learning can help mitigate the pain of the transition. It's unlikely that the future will play out like the past. There's no guarantee that more jobs will be created than are destroyed by AI and automation. Even if the future does play out like the past, the jobs being created will require re-skilling and better education. These services aren't currently provided, so unless we make major changes, we'll have millions of people who can't get jobs and we'll all suffer from it. Even if we manage to deal with this transition effectively, most jobs will eventually be eliminated by machines. Hence, I feel that teaching them AI from an early age will benefit them in the future.

How important is teaching artificial intelligence?

Trisha Sayani,Gems Our Own English High School, Dubai Teaching AI is very important because it's our future. Everybody needs to know how it works; its advantages and disadvantages, etc. One main source of artificial intelligence is STEAM and currently the whole world is moving towards it. This is the reason why I think teaching AI is very important. Krista Fidelia, Al Diyafah High School In this technologically advancing world filled with tech savvy students like us, I believe it is crucial to be taught the basics of AI. As we go further each year, almost every career's fundamental base will be AI. If taught in school, students can step out into the world as confident individuals with the ability to set up a strong career. Nada Fathima, New Indian Model School, Dubai AI not only reduces human effort, but also helps us to understand things in a better way. Our world, as we know, is running on AI. Facebook suggests our friends, computers trade our stock and now we have cars that park themselves. Soon we will have robots teaching students in school. It helps the teacher focus on the children's needs. Today, teaching AI is as important as teaching Math. Nakshatra RP, New Indian Model School, Dubai Studying AI opens a world of opportunities. At a basic level, you will understand the system and tools you interact with on a daily basis. It can prepare you for a job as a software engineer, creating AI software programmes or even a hardware engineer developing electronic parking assistants or home assistant robots.

KT Nano Edit

Prepare them for the future There's merit in getting our children acquainted with new age technology and giving them hands on experience in classrooms on how to invent, manage, and utilise scientifically evolved products. AI, flying taxis, autonomous vehicles, and its likes arguably are the future. The sooner children learn, the better it will be. While the jury is still out on when is the right time to introduce such technology to the classrooms, there is a clear consensus that children do need to be in the loop. © Khaleej Times via Edarabia.com