#And we most certainly wouldn't call it “liberation.” | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

China blocked Tumblr because of pornography and censorship problems in 2013.

#And we most certainly wouldn't call it “liberation.”

yourtongzhihazel · 2 months

Note

thoughts on anarchism?

The anarchists I've met IRL, especially while organizing, have been some of the most wonderful comrades and I wouldn't hesitate to work with them again. I'm sure there's many online too who're just like them. I do admire how quickly they are willing to use direct action, even if it's not the best tactic to be used or the only means to an end. Some anarchist ideas, while not necessarily achievable on a large scale, are certainly is very helpful for short term, small scale survival, like mutual aid for example.

Anarchism as an ideology though, I do have strong disagreements with. When I was first dipping my toes into studying political-economy, I had a very brief time where I was following both anarchist and marxist accounts and forums. And often, when I asked the marxists a question about how things would or potentially could work, they could point to real examples as much as they could theoretical ones, and they could point out the pros and cons of their own systems. But when I asked anarchists similar questions, there was generally a kind of hesitancy or wishy-washiness or vagueness which I really didn't get from the marxists. As a poc, I remember a black man had asked anarchists what the solution to a group of racist factory workers voting him out of their work force was and no one had any answers beyond, "well at that stage you really wouldn't expect racism on that level". But the marxists would say racism is a social ill that takes time to combat, even after the revolution thus the proletarian state exists to ensure cases like that are investigated and corrected. A more poignant example would be like the Chinese trans woman who sued her former place of work for firing her for being trans and the state sided with and supported her rights. In some ways, I think I was always inevitably going to go down the marxist route given my family background, but that's not to say I didn't give anarchism a fair shot in the beginning.

More theoretically, the roots of anarchism has always been deeply entwined with petite bourgeois ideology. Similar to liberalism, it supposes that the liberation of the collective comes from the liberation of the self. That's not to say anarchists are liberals (well, actual anarchists anyway), but rather, has been influenced by a deeply individualistic ideology like liberalism. The reason we marxists tend to call anarchists idealists can mainly stem from our biggest disagreement, which is the utilization of the state. It's unreasonable to destroy the greatest tool a class has in the class war once that class gets its hands on it, especially since the bourgeoisie have no qualms about using it as a bludgeon against the proletariat. The state has always been used as a mediator for class warfare and whichever class controls it controls the arbitration on class conflict. Like it or not, revolution, just like the construction of socialism, will come at different times with different arising conditions for every country. It's simply not enough to rely on hopes of either a total revolution or to defend your own revolution without the tools provided by a state. After the October Revolution, the nascent USSR was invaded by over 20 foreign countries and they threw them all out. During the second world war, more than 4 million fascists were killed on the eastern front and the Red Army marched into Berlin in the end. Both feats would be impossible without strong state apparatuses. There's more to it than just this, of course. If you want, you can read a (admittedly, pretty scathing) critique by J.V. Stalin, Anarchism or Socialism?, for some more detailed information.

My last point is that in many online spaces, there's no doubt a big overlap between radlibs and anarchism or at the very least, anarchist aesthetics. I can't tell you how many times I've been called some slur or 'tankie' or some variation of the two by someone presenting themselves to be anarchist who then turn around and say the most unbelievably liberal talking points. I've now come to realize that the reason for this overlap is two-fold. The first is that in liberal democracies, where individualism is extremely strong and thus anarchism, as a more individualistic ideology, appeals more to radlibs. The second is that anarchism is very easily marketable, even more so than marxism. These two kind of go hand-in-hand as well.

In the west and usamerica in particular, we don't have much of a choice in regards to who we side with and I would actually take an anarchist comrade over the "queering the MIC" libs in the DSA or whatever. I'll still jest about about anarchism tho.

#hazel's press releases

278 notes · View notes

jung-koook · 10 months

Text

I think one of the most amazing things we can experience is seeing the growth of a person we love and care about. seeing that person become the most confident version of themselves, seeing that person want to be what they want to be no matter who likes it or not. and that's one thing i've always wanted for jeongguk. out of all the members jeongguk was always the one who cared the most about the opinion of others and the one who cared the most about maintaining a "maknae image". even in simple things like, having a muscular body. a few years ago jeongguk said he wanted to have the a muscular body but his company said he had to maintain a maknae image. jeongguk ever since his first interview when they debuted he always showed how much he loved tattoos and piercings. then he started getting "armys" telling him to not get any more piercings and never get tattoos. when he became an adult he even said that he was giving up on getting more piercings and tattoos because these people wouldn't like it. like??? he was always an apologetic person for things he shouldn't need. so after that jeongguk started to mention many times in interviews how he saw jungkook artist and jungkook offstage as a totally different person. he was often very hard on himself offstage. he truly believed that he was two different people. and it was something that lasted for some years. it was at the same time that he shared with us the maspierce called 'decalcomania'. it was a time that I was really so worried. I just wanted him to feel that we were here for them. i wanted so much to help him see that we love bangtan on stage but one of the things that makes bangtan so special is the members. the personality of each member. that we love bangtan on stage but also the bangtan offstage that they feel comfortable sharing with us. I just love it so much when they share with us personal things about their personalities, their personal thoughts. this is something that makes us connect even more with them.

so after that time bangtan had that time for them and jeongguk came back with tattoos. that was such an amazing thing for me. because for me that was also him making it clear that he was now becoming someone who won't let anyone else say what he can or can't do with his body. this may be a small thing for some people but not for others. even for a person who doesn't have a work like his, tattoos can be a liberation and you saying "this is my body and I do what I want with it". him having tattoos certainly had a huge and amazing impact.

after that we could already see how jeongguk was becoming a much more confident person. we could feel it watching him on stage. his stage presence literally changed into something so confident. it was such a beautiful thing to see. then onstage he did something i never thought he would do which is say he doesn't care who doesn't like him screaming "SO WHAT" loudly. It was something that really moved me lol. just see him making it clear that he doesn't care "so what" ;).

after this wave of confidence on stage and off stage jeongguk came with these lives. I've seen from the beginning people criticizing him for that. saying "he's feeding the delusional fans". as if he needed to do something to feed the people. these people will already act like this without or with these lives. he has no control over how someone will react to something he does. I don't think it's his fault that these people don't know how to separate things. everyone has their own opinion, but mine is that it's out of his control. these people live in a world they create. anything he or the other members does is going to be interpreted super wrong by them.

but back to talking about THE lives. since the beginning of them I feel that jeongguk wanted to show the real him to us, with these lives he wanted to show us that he is a human being like us. I really feel like he wants to take away that "perfect idol" image for a "person like all of us". i feel him wanting to break more free from the idol on the pedestal to a more two way communication between friends, equals. that's why I think he always mentions that we are friends, best friends. because I really feel like he wants us to see him as a normal person who has a work that's a little different than most people but in the end, he's just a 25 year old guy. and I find it really refreshing to see him showing it to us. this could be something that shouldn't even come to that point but many people put idols on a pedestal. and that idols have to be perfect and we know it's not like that. they just have a different work than most people but in the end they are human beings like us. who will make mistakes and that people will not always agree. he wants us to respect that he is a real person and an individual with his own wants and needs. i really believe jeongguk is being so real in these lives. a lot of things can be interpreted as fanservice but honestly I think it's something so natural to him that he doesn't realize it. I think you can tell that jeongguk is something that "flirts" naturally, especially it seems like he gets even more when he drinks a little lmao. I really see it as his thing. you can see that nothing feels forced. it's him just being himself in these lives. it's just him being real. in these lives besides showing him being himself, a 25 year old guy, he is really putting boundaries on his relationship with armys. and I LOVE IT! he's making it very clear and in a very gentle way that it's his life. he's also making it very clear that he's going to do things that maybe some armys won't agree with and he's aware of that but he's going to keep doing what he wants. he's also making it pretty clear to anyone who hasn't figured it out yet that he's A 25 YEAR OLD PERSON. AN ADULT AND WHO WANTS TO BE TREATED LIKE AN ADULT. I really see jeongguk wanting to create a very healthy relationship between him and his fans. obviously there will be people who won't see it that way but it's not his fault.

we don't know what he plans for his album but decolcomania was something he wrote at that time when he's feeling like a totally different person. I really think it's not a song that relates to today's jeongguk anymore.

i've been here with jeongguk since 2013. watching him grow into this wonderful person. this year with jeongguk has been very emotional for me and this live today was another thing that made me really emotional. seeing someone who didn't have self esteem, didn't have much confidence and didn't believe in himself (from the things he's said in the past) grow up like this is something soo beautiful. see how confident he is, how much he is believing in himself, trusting himself. seeing him saying "armys I understand that not always everything I do you will love but please believe me" and not "armys I'm sorry" is something really beautiful. it's like see a flower starting to bloom, its great.

I really wanted him to talk about the explicit version but I wanted it to be something he decided to talk about and not because someone called the song "dirty". what the hell??? but i was glad he talked about it and made it clear that HE decided he wanted to sing this version and that he is an ADULT and that he sees nothing wrong with singing this type of song. you may not like or feel uncomfortable listening to these songs but you cross the line when you say he can't sing that kind of song. you can't decide that.

one of the things I love the most to experience with my friends, family, people I love and care about is watch that person start to be the them they always wanted to be without caring what others say. it's really beautiful to see someone becoming a confident person. it seems that this person really gets a different light. I don't know how to explain it but the person really transforms into a beautiful version of themselves. it really is so beautiful. so I really am so happy to have the opportunity to see his growth. I love him so much! I'm so proud of him! he is someone so important to me. every member has such a positive influence on my life. I hope that with all that confidence from jeongguk he also influences some people to be more confident, to be more of themselves without caring about what others will say.

130 notes · View notes

idiotic-b-gilson · 3 months

Text

The Prank Theory: Or, Why Toby won't make an explicit announcement that Kris' pronouns are they/them despite that obviously being canon.

Disclaimer: people who use they/them for Kris are NOT the butt of the joke here. Although calling it a prank might be a little misleading to begin with, you'll see why.

I know for a fact, judging from my dashboard, that I am not alone in being mad at people misgendering the humans of Undertale and Deltarune (although, I will admit I used to be part of the problem up until quite recently). And we all wish for Toby to just go out and publicly announce that Kris, Frisk, and Chara use they/them only, that Mad Mew Mew is canonically transfem, etc., just to stop all the misgendering. It would certainly be nice and very helpful for the LGBTQ community. However, after giving it some thought, I've come to the conclusion that it most likely cannot happen, and the reason why is the Prank Theory. Treat it as an explanation, but not an excuse.

I came up with Prank Theory over something that's completely unrelated to the above, funnily enough. You see, I have this headcanon that Asriel Dreemurr is not cisgender. I'm not entirely sure what his gender is, but he's not cis male for sure. And I've seen a variety of different takes on this concept. For example, AUs like (Ask) Fallen Royalty by @starlightshore present Asriel as having transitioned in a more feminine direction ((A)FR specifically describes her gender as feminine nonbinary). Others still write Asriel (chiefly the Deltarune one) as transgender male (I've mostly seen that take in NSFW fanfics on AO3, which is a shame cuz it has great potential beyond that. Please tell me where I can find more). Other others still, like my beloved mutual @sukifoof, have proposed that Asriel might be agender. And, let me be clear about something: those are all great ideas, and I love them. But I started to wonder, which of these ideas is the closest to canon? Like, if we also factor in authorial intent, which of these options would fit under it, and which ones wouldn't? That was when I came up with Prank Theory, as a way to kind of imagine at least one aspect of said authorial intent.

Spoiler alert, according to Prank Theory any kind of transfeminine Asriel is incompatible with canon, but again I want to make it clear that that doesn't mean I think they're "wrong" or "bad" or anything like that, and I want to reiterate my endorsement of writing Asriel this way. Besides, my theory could be completely wrong, so...

So, after all that stuff, what does the Prank Theory actually say? Well, in summary: Undertale and Deltarune are some of the most "woke" video games ever made, but conservatives and reactionaries don't seem to have realized that yet, funnily enough. Now, calling it a prank is a wee bit misleading, since it implies that tricking right-wingers into loving a video game with a very progressive setting and message was at least part of what Toby intended. And I don't believe that's the case. He simply makes video games he wants to make, and they just happen to reflect his views on the world, and these views just happen to fly over the heads of some people.

This in and of itself would probably not make it a huge problem for Toby to put in one of his newsletters, or even in an X (as in, former Twitter) post, a correction regarding the genders of his characters. However it does start to become a problem when you factor in that the UTDR community has hundreds of thousands of people in it (although as of the March 2024 it might be a rather liberal estimate), and many of them would be quite pissed off if the video game they like had "suddenly" "gone woke" (ignorant of the fact that both it, and its main creator have been openly "woke" the whole time). And that is a problem in the current environment, because it means that Toby, as well as other people on the UTDR dev team, would be at a significant risk of hate and harassment, which in the Year of Our Lord 2024 could lead to Angel knows what.

On a more cynical capitalist (and much more speculative) level, attracting political controversy this way could sour Toby's relationship with big video game companies which have (as far as I know) played an important part in why Toby's got basically unlimited resources to work on the game of his fever dreams. They saw the widespread, universal acclaim that UT, DR1 and DR2 received, and drew the conclusion that DR3-4 (and the future chapters) will also get a similar reception, and they will get great returns no matter how much money they pour into it. This belief could be shaken if Toby attracted the ire of his transphobic fans by correcting their misgendering of his characters, and thus limiting the reach Chapters 3 and 4 would otherwise have (but again, this is pure speculation, I'm not an economist, nor do I know how much companies like Nintendo have actually invested in Deltarune. So I could be, like, way off).

And that is, in the end, why I believe Toby Fox will not make a statement regarding the canon gender of any UTDR character, at least not while Deltarune is still in development. After it's finished I think he might feel free enough to take that step. But we'll have to see.

Now, I don't know if I'm right. I feel pretty confident in my own theory, but there's a good chance I missed something. So, if I did, please lemme know. In the meantime, let's hope Toby will disprove my theory soon and set things right. And I'll see you around.

#gilson originals #text post #undertale #deltarune #utdr #long post #prank theory #the prank theory #toby fox

33 notes · View notes

morlock-holmes · 1 year

Text

I think I've finally thought of a way to put into words something I've been thinking about in conspiracy thinking.

Because there are, certainly, real conspiracies out there, but I'm more and more convinced that there is a kind of difference in mindset that characterizes what we call conspiracy thinking.

And that mindset is,

"Everyone believes the same things I do"

A completely batshit article by Rod Dreher crystalized this for me:

There's a Satanic convention -- SatanCon -- coming to Boston next month. Lucien Greaves, the founder of sponsor The Satanic Temple, is a master troller of liberalism. He tells the Boston Globe:

In 2016, TST requested to deliver an invocation before a Boston City Council meeting — a request that City Council denied. As a result, the dedication to Wu is an attempt to highlight what TST co-founder Lucien Greaves called “clear corruption on the part of the Boston City Council” for violating the religious freedoms of the Satanists. TST is also currently suing the City of Boston for denying their invocation request.

“The Supreme Court ruled in favor of such invocations of prayers being given so long as they are open and available to everybody,” Lucien said to the Globe. “They need to still respect pluralism and still respect people’s religious liberty and recognize that no government agency has the right to limit the civic capacities of any one viewpoint over another.”

He's right, isn't he? Isn't this what "religious liberty" means in a neutral public square? The Constitution doesn't say "but not Satanists," does it? That's because it never would have occurred to the Founding Fathers that this would be an issue. It probably wouldn't have occurred to anybody prior to the last few decades that it would be an issue. Now, the usual liberal suspects will tut-tut that Greaves is only trolling, and that this doesn't really mean that the most evil spirit of all is being honored and worshiped. I think this is nothing but liberal cope, the sort of thing right-thinking secularists tell themselves to calm themselves down when dark and freaky stuff is irrupting.

Emphasis mine.

Look, Satanism is not that new or that novel, you can read the Satanic Bible. You can read about their tenets on their website.

Rod knows everything that Satanists claim to believe is just a liberal cope; If they do things Dreher doesn't like it is not because they have a different set of beliefs which creates a different internal logic and thus a different set of behaviors than Dreher would prefer; the very idea is inconceivable and only a naïve fool could believe such a thing.

Instead, they actually believe the exact same things that he does. Therefore, if they do things Dreher doesn't like, it is out of a conscious desire to do bad things and to place Dreher and people like him in danger.

This is one of the main things that distinguishes this kind of thought from just believing in something crazy or weird.

83 notes · View notes

prettykikimora · 8 months

Text

Some psycho loser blew up our 5G tower a few years ago and they just never really put up a new one so sometimes I gotta get in my car and drive a town over if I want to make a serious phone call. Our country's economy and culture is designed to drive people crazy I guess it's easy to blame the freaks but really its a failure of amerikkka to both provide proper infrastructure for modern citizens. Infrastructure in the sense of utilities and aid for people because anyone can just lock someone up for a crime it takes the hard work of radically transforming our social relations from the hyper competitive, cruel, uncaring rich man's genocide economy maintained by war and millions of left permanently disabled workers we have, to a compassionate one that is maintained by and for the lowest and most populous of us. Maybe then conspiracy wouldn't be so venomously pervasive everywhere, periods of uncertainty in the imperial centers have typically led to periods where esoteric beliefs in magic and the occult take hold because our system is not democratic and doesn't allow for any education or action towards alternative paths forward as a civilization, it keeps us stuck in superstition darkness. Certainly running your car into the big group of freaks burning books like they did the other day would Feel good, it might even be morally good to remove them from the earth and at the same time it's a symptom of our death worshiping culture that praises a good man's body nailed to a tree 2000 years ago but calls his teachings liberal and wrong.

11 notes · View notes

spastuetheobsessedphylosopher · 1 year

Text

Some thoughts

What I'm interested in knowing right now is what was supposed to happen at the end of episode two if Showfall Media had succeeded. Ranboo finds himself with two opportunities: use the Puzzler's key to exit through the set, possibly continuing the cycle of the game (since the Puzzler himself seemed to be under the control of Showfall to a certain degree) and dooming Ranboo to the same fate as the Puzzler, or be liberated of the mask by the mysterious TV helper, which is the road they end up taking, for better or for worse. But none of these seem to be the plans Showfall media had for Ranboo. They blew up the Puzzler for trying to help our Hero, and naturally they weren't hoping to have Ranboo find out he's stuck in this show set in the middle of an abandoned mall.

This leads us to various options.

First off, we could assume the Puzzler was another piece in the game, and his supposed rebellion to help Ranboo escape had been scripted from the beginning. The fact is that Showfall has shown no remorse killing off its pawns. Charlie, much like the Puzzler in this episode, was The Big Bad in episode one, and was easily discarded early in this episode when Ranboo cut him open. Who's to say the same fate wasn't intended for the Puzzler? There's a whole bit about Charlie's fate being caused by the Puzzler's misspeaking and not something that was actually supposed to happen, but we learn later on it had been planned since the beginning.

Maybe Showfall has noticed Ranboo's subconscious fight against the mask's control, and their way to have them continue playing the game is by giving him a false sense of security, having his subconscious believe he's actually making progress in escaping. Or perhaps, this was a horror show from the start, and much like Generation Loss itself, Showfall likes to give everything away bit by bit. It certainly wouldn't be surprising, what with all the deaths involved in the show.

Therefore, it is possible Showfall intended for Ranboo to trust the Puzzler and use his key, but mysterious TV man interfered before Ranboo could once again get stuck on this loop.

Then, there's always the theory dictating that mysterious TV man is part of this whole sick game, perhaps even the founder (I've been told this guy is called H but I have no clue why so I'm sticking to mysterious TV man till I figure that one out). We have seen he's able to access the mask's control on Ranboo and configure it to his liking. This leads me to think the mask apparently turning off doesn't reinforce Ranboo's safety in the slightest. Just because they're able to see reality now doesn't mean they're free.

Cc!Ranboo mentioned the possibility of a face reveal, which implies them taking the mask off. Whether this is an event we'll get to see next episode or not doesn't concern me, but I'm interested the implications of it. Since mysterious TV man turned off the mask, there's no reason Ranboo should have to take it off. I don't think the plot would turn in a direction where mysterious TV man is unable to reach Ranboo and the mask is turned back on. And in the event that it happened, it's not as if Ranboo would have the ability to take it off while under its control, nor do I think anyone would take it off them (additionally, I have a theory going on the extent to which Ranboo, the Puzzler and all the others are being controlled, but I'll develop that further in another post).

The fact that cc!Ranboo entertained removing the mask on camera, especially when he talked about it close enough to the release that we can assume most of the plot was completely worked out by that point, means it is in some way imperative to the story. I don't think he would consider it if not, as he treats that subject very seriously. I think because of this it's fair to assume that simply by wearing the mask Ranboo is subject to be controlled. I believe the mask being on simply serves the purpose of hiding what they can see behind filters, whereas the controlling aspect doesn't fade away when it's turned off. If there's a chance Ranboo might take the mask off, it must be because simply turning it off doesn't set him free. I think that, regardless on how they decide to act it out (whether Ranboo's face is shown or it is implied he takes it off without his face being revealed), it is incredibly likely the mask will be removed at some point in the last episode.

If we entertain this theory, there's two possible ways to interpret it. Either the Puzzler was actually trying to help Ranboo escape the mysterious TV man, and the key he gave him actually lead somewhere potentially safe, or, once again, everything was part of the game, and the key was meant to throw Ranboo off their rhythm in the case the mysterious TV man couldn't reach him for whatever reason.

I think it's possible that the result will be some sort of mix of these two theories. Both cases can play into what the overall plot is, which according to the title, is a social experiment. Working off of theory number one, we have Showfall Media running various tests, on our Hero and his altered perception, on our various contestants and how well they play the part, and probably even on the audience response (which may be why the teasers implied we should not watch). They build the perfect stage under the perfect guise, and it seems they liberate the control on the participants ever so often to see how they react.

That could explain why Austin seemed to be much more genuine than everyone around him, as perhaps he wasn't being controlled, and why Sneeg temporarily regained control. I don't believe what ocurred with Sneeg was an error, I don't think Showfall Media can afford those kinds of mistakes. It may have been on purpose. This is something I've been thinking on and will develop in the other post I mentioned earlier.

But some details don't fit into that theory, like why they would choose to give the side players those liberties instead of experimenting with their Hero. They might not want to take their chances, or maybe they do in a much more controlled way, which is why they make Ranboo wear the mask.

Either way, I find the second theory to be a better fit for the whole social experiment theme. It would make sense that mysterious TV guy were the one directing this whole ordeal, making up the perfect scenario. A character is presented with an altered reality, which they slowly gain control over to uncover its real appearance, and are presented with a whole corporation that seems dedicated to ruining their life. With a little coach along the way to inform them of certain details (this coach being mysterious TV man himself), the experiment seeks to find out whether the character will fight or flee, seek freedom or vengeance.

Remember, this is only the first generation (that we see in recording) of countless characters that have been and will be tagged as Heroes and put inside this nightmare show to track their behavior.

I find it more plausible that a mysterious team would continue this for generations, rather than a corporation that streams this content and is relatively easy to be reached by the authorities, specially when they don't do a whole lot to hide the death in their shows. I don't think Showfall Media is broadcasting this at all, and it's just a cover that plays into the nighmare our Heroes are introduced to (it is true that there's audience participation to take into a count, but we have realized our choices don't really affect the end result and may be completely rigged, invented even, part of the ruse). Instead, I think these records are kept to be analized by a secret few. That is, after all, how GenLoss was introduced to us in the teaser. As a bunch of tapes someone had found laying about.

Or maybe it's simply a detail to be overlooked, but seeing how everything has turned out, I don't think it's the kind of thing Ranboo would skip over. It may all be left up to interpretation though. Be as it may, I'm incredibly excited for the last episode. I won't be able to watch it until probably a whole day after its release, but I will be eagerly waiting until I get the chance to do so.

#genloss #generation loss #generation loss spoilers #generation loss the puzzler #generation loss ranboo #generation loss charlie #generation loss sneeg #ranboo #generation loss theories #the brainrot is real #never before have I done theories this is the most fun #thx ranboo for giving us this great content #the social experiments #the mastermind of the warehouse #the spirit in the cabin #please entertain my rambling #genloss spoilers

19 notes · View notes

thesinglesjukebox · 5 months

Text

MELANIE MARTINEZ - "EVIL"

youtube

We just couldn't help ourselves: Amnesty 2k23 is continuing for a few extra days before wrapping up for good. First, Micha asks us to revisit an artist we last covered eight years ago...

[3.75]

Ian Mathers: Whenever we cover someone on the Jukebox I'm not already familiar with, I wind up looking up what I can about the artist/album/song, just for my own edification. In this case, between having a Wikipedia page with a "Sexual assault allegation" subheading, the language I saw her fans using to defend her/defuse said allegations on reddit, and reading the lyrics to "Evil" afterwards... well, I got the ick. (For the record: the genders and identities of the relevant people do not exacerbate or mitigate any of the accusations for me, and even if I grant for the sake of argument the most steel-manned version of Martinez's defenses, even if her accuser was every bad thing claimed here or else, that still does not eliminate the ick or make me like the song.) And seeing as how I am not a court of law and I can neither punish Martinez in any way nor do I have any desire to do so, having the ick does not need to meet any further burden of proof for me to say I don't particularly want to hear this one again. [4]

Nortey Dowuona: Maybe you shouldn't make a song about how someone is calling you evil when you abuse your friend's love and trust and can only say they didn't tell you that is what you did. That IS evil. [0]

Taylor Alatorre: Thank you, Melanie Martinez, for deciding to stop making kindercore concept albums with song titles like "Sippy Cup" and "Lunchbox Friends," so I can listen to your stuff without feeling like I'd be aiming a flamethrower at my eternal soul. "Evil" is still rooted in the rococo fantasy impulses that have animated Martinez's career -- there's a stock sound effect of an egg being cracked -- but it puts them to more workmanlike ends, crafting a realistically spiteful break-up narrative that's upsetting within the song's moral universe but not viscerally so in ours. That straight-outta-Guyville guitar chug, steady and reliable as ever, helps ground the spritely vocal theatrics in something tangible, and the decision to let the chorus marinate for a few extra bars was a bold yet correct one. I'm probably grading on a curve due to low expectations, and judging from the Alex Garland-meets-Tim Burton aesthetics, I assume the rest of the album is nothing like this. But still: "tears of oxalate"? That's one of the most genuinely grunge-sounding lyrics this side of No Code. [8]

Michael Hong: She snarls and fills the whole thing with cool details (the sound of an egg cracking when she sings, "wanna see the yolk"). Neat moves until the muffled framing lifts, the realization that she's not the victim of this story, but the girl who once wrote a diss track against someone who leveled accusations of sexual abuse against her. [0]

Frank Kogan: Interesting vocal, halfway between cute and smoky. [4]

Alfred Soto: The professionalism of its structure -- the hooks go boom-boom -- doesn't endear to me this honing of angst and decent rhymes. [4]

Tara Hillegeist: This wouldn't have been out of place on Everything Is Embarrassing, which does about track for where Martinez's general inspirations draw from, compared to her contemporaries; she's still about two decades out of date, only now she's grown out of her kinderwhore-but-make-it-more-coquette era and settling herself solidly in A&Rechtshai'd also-ran wonderland. To be clear -- there's nothing that is unappealing about that steady grunge-fuzzed bass lick keeping the song grinding along beneath its childish piano twinkling and vocals that sound like they were sung into enough sheets of gauze to cover Martinez' signature squeaky pitch, with more sheets layered on the squeakier her voice threatens to get. And the lyrics are some of the strongest I've seen from her yet; certainly, her target demo could do worse for a self-liberation anthem than a singalong that proves this catchy and caustic beneath the sandpaper faux-distress sonically draped over every word -- better this than, say, "Alice Practice", almost certainly, yes? But I still feel like something's missing, here, and I wonder what it says about myself and Martinez alike that the best way I can think to articulate that lack is, indeed, to ask all over again, if wincing for different reasons this time than the last: what if she just -- acted her age, for once? [5]

Will Adams: Because I refuse to stop melting my brain on Twitter, I log on daily and am continuously confronted with the fact that Melanie Martinez has many, many fans. Specifically, Stan Twitter, who regularly include her in prompt tweets like "WHICH POP GIRL IS TAKING IT IN 2023" or "YOU HAVE $15. WHAT ARE YOU BUYING" alongside everyone from Lana and Taylor to Charli and Carly. Having only ever heard approximately 1.5 songs of hers, my reaction is always, "is she really that special?" Listening to "Evil," I hear the appeal: "Kill Bill" cuteness over scuzzy indie pop. I still don't hear the special. [3]

Jacob Sujin Kuppermann: An innovative, path-breaking exercise at the intersection of Yeule and Disney Channel Original Movie Soundtracks. [5]

Katherine St Asaph: This is such a crowded genre, there's no reason to listen to songs this plodding by people this shitty. [1]

Joshua Minsoo Kim: The plinking piano doesn't set itself up against the rest of the instrumentation to provide the necessary contrast: her knowing devilishness just comes off poorly rehearsed. The schoolyard chant of a chorus doesn't help. [4]

Micha Cavaseno: Me, the late Prodigy, and Melanie Martinez all have at one point hailed from the greater Hempstead/Queens area and similarly have a miserable personality. Now, while I am not shooting up Demerol in order to function, nor have I had any issues with sexual assault allegations (P and M, respectively, for those who don't know), I too suffer from a sort of paranoia and gothic mistrust around the world around me; gothic in the general instability and unreliable nature... and y'know, overbearing maudlin evil spooky shit. Which is why I have always had time for how "cringe" Martinez's music has read for people with her kinderwhore one-trick pony provocations. I don't mind the Hot Topic narcissism and edgelord tendencies because at the end of the day, it's a reminder of how easy it is to believe in truth as victimhood. "See the horns on my head they're from goddesses; On God." is easily my favorite non-rap lyric this year to overanalyze because it's a perfect synthesis of New York ethnic AAVE blended in with faux-feminist self-appointed martyrdom in an alt-rock style. The witches you could not burn wearing fishnets and Timbs, but without any of the seams from such a wave of clichés showing. But whereas Prodigy's foes were the great peril of fake MCs and/or fake thugs, Martinez's foe are her own fans. She already demonstrated her obsession with this on the APPALLINGLY BAD K-12 record, one of the worst artistic expressions about "cancel culture" you could ever ask for and a distasteful response to accountability. "Evil" (and most of Portals) is better for avoiding jeering in favor of defiance, yet it still makes me incredibly sad that all Martinez wants to do (like so many people in the world) is see snakes and betrayal, and those who would tear her down and live life in hopeless nihilistic rebellion in any direction. I remember craving that sense of power to mask for my own senses of guilt and cowardice, and how worthless that feels after you've had to live on it for so long that it's all that defines you. Maybe there isn't a world without armor and thorns, but I wish to God I knew people dreamed about it anymore. It made being unable to believe feel less painful. [7]

[Read, comment and vote on The Singles Jukebox ]

#music #pop #pop music #music writing #music reviews #music criticism #the singles jukebox #Youtube

3 notes · View notes

tea-with-evan-and-me · 1 year

Note

I think a lot depends on where you live and who you are. Cause celebrities always had affairs, were chaeting and hooking up with multiple people, even in 50s or 30s. Also in tv shows people hook often and there is lot of cheating. I tkink hook up culture is common in america, friends with benefits etc. Maybe also in some bigger cities in Europe. But i personaly live in a small city in Europe and it is not popular here. My friends and people i know have sex only in relationsips, some after marriage. Not to mention many asian countries where most people wait till marriage. So it is not suprising for me that some people even on this blog are suprised that someone can live that way and hook up with random people. In my city lot of people would call this type of person a wh**e which is even worst that to be shoocked

i agree, it definitely does. and people have been hooking up and cheating since the dawn of time! it's just that it was too taboo to talk about publicly. and certainly not something you could do openly unless you wanted to be shunned.

many cultures are still deeply conservative about sex. particularly parts of the world where the majority are religious. america, for instance, is becoming less religious, but there's still parts of the country that are very conservative and christian. overall, as each generation passes we become more socially liberal and that has included sexual freedom.

i think it's totally fine if, for instance, the people you know have saved sex for involved relationships and even marriage, so long as it was their choice and not out of oppression or fear of being hated. i think the moral of the story is that your sex life is a deeply personal thing. our feelings about sex are shaped by our culture, how we are raised, religious beliefs, social circle.. you name it. what works for me might not fly for you. just because something shocks you and feels foreign doesn't mean you immediately have to lash out negatively, especially when it does not affect you. it's like how if i have a plate of food, i like to eat it all together and i might mix some stuff up. my friend is extremely anal about none of her food on the plate touching each other and she eats each item one at a time. that is absolutely inconceivable to me, and i wouldn't enjoy my meal if i had to eat it that way. but it works for her. so i'm not going to sit down and tell her she needs to stop doing it and eat her food like me. just let people live their lives peacefully if it's not harming anyone :)

1 note · View note

thoughtsaladblog · 5 months

Text

Sunset Purple Glasses Don't Look Good On You

It's been a blue and lavender haze these last couple of weeks. Imagine finding someone that's your mirror in so many ways and your flip side in so many others? It's a high. And that's what it's been for me with Mr. Morally Grey. My brain on overdrive, I keep wondering why I'm so attracted to him. I mean I know it's his intellect and wit- always the most attractive quality in someone... But also maybe it's knowing that this will go nowhere.

I've finally met my match. I've met the man who wants all the same things as I and shares very similar ideals and I can't have him. And if there's one thing I know I want- it's what I can't have. I mean, don't we all?

Everytime he talks I feel drawn to him- I just want to curl up on a couch, glass of wine in hand and just listen (probably not quite keeping my hands to myself, but either way). It's so erotic to find someone with so much knowledge to share and at the same time thinks like you; sexually liberal and kind. He comes off all secretive- and he is- but I have him figured for the most part.

I'm still trying to figure out if he genuinely cares or likes to control the situation in how he handles the Friday gang. It has a certain endearing quality to it- almost big brotherly and protective (something I feel for my monsters)- if he is in fact doing it out of concern for them. But there's also the possibility that it's because he is used to controlling situations- and I can't help but wonder if he is trying to protect them but also perhaps control the path their lives take with his influence. But to be fair I have on many occasions been the same- and it has taken a while to teach myself to take a backseat in my kids' lives and not to control the path they take- regardless of how good my intentions are. I'm still learning, when it comes to Dinuth. I have a lot of trouble letting him go make his own mistakes- I always feel like protecting him. So to see similar characteristics in Mr. Grey just feels like meeting a kindred spirit.

I also know that he is very self aware- he knows very well the effect he has on women and that's a thing with him... He needs power and control. He does it so seductively though- pretends to rescind control all in an effort to control the whole situation. He says all the right things- things I like to hear, and I know he does this becasue he knows very well what he stands to gain from it. He is always in control and always needs to be- but wants us to think that somehow we are the ones in control. His mind games are on the level of an advanced psychological thriller- but he always holds the power. Unfortunately as much as it turns me on to be dominated during sex, I'm not used to giving up control at any other time. But he certainly controls me at other times- because he decides when to text back/call and the direction our chat takes. He is a master manipulator...But still I'm drawn to him and his red flags. He's a giant Chinese flag and I'm like the Sri Lankan government at this point- just waving my white flag in surrender, asking to be invaded, pillaged and plundered. He always deflects when I try to make a conversation real or personal, so I'm constantly left obnubilated. But my clouded heart still wants to be his.

Logic and sanity have left the chat. My heart is at the helm now and I'm a tangled mess of emotions, meandering through whatever this is. Wishing it to turn into something it wouldn't- something that can only leave me in a similar state as I was in 2015. But what can I do when my head and heart play tug-o-war and my heart is winning?

So I live in this lavender haze, sunset purple glasses casting a seductive glow on this barren wasteland as I pray for rain in the time of lasting drought.

0 notes

a-tale-never-told · 6 months

Note

So Henry Kissinger has just died a couple of days ago. Seeing as this is a historical story blog, thoughts on the man?

//Ah yes, Henry Kissinger. One of the most important and prominent US Secretary of State in American politics. For a politician who had officially been elected to the Secretary of State post by Nixon, and eventually became one of his most trusted secretaries, he's done some groundbreaking accomplishments for U.S. foreign policy and also has involved himself in his numerous fair share of controversies.

//That being said, I wouldn't exactly call him a morally right individual because considering his comments on certain topics and his involvement in some highly questionable decisions, that had been orchestrated by him.

//One of his first accomplishments was the decision to accompany Nixon to his official state visit to China and try to improve diplomatic relations between the two countries, which have been extremely tense and hostile since the end of the Chinese Civil War in the 40s. This visit was historically symbolic, mostly due to the factor that it was a normalization in American-Chinese relations, and paved the road to the improved relations between the USA and China that we still have today. He also negotiated an end to both the Vietnam War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and the rest of the Arab states.

//He also played a central role in promoting Nixon's new foreign policy of detente, which was relaxing tensions with the Soviet Union and the rest of the communist world in general, while at the same time financially funding and covertly supporting anti-communism movement in several proxy wars across the rest of the world, and I can confidently say that while Kissinger was a pretty excellent foreign policy expert, he certainly wasn't a man concerned with ethical decisions.

//Perhaps the most controversial move of the entirety of Kissinger's decision-making was without a doubt, Operation Condor. Operation Condor was an American-backed campaign of widespread state terrorism, political repression, and CIA-backed right-wing military coups all across South America, with affected targets including Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, and especially Chile. Beginning in 1975, the CIA funded and covertly supported several military dictatorships all across South America, like Augusto Pinochet's regime in Chile or Alfred Strossner's in Paraguay, who had been in power since 1954, all under the guise of protecting the nations from communist influence.

//If you lived in Latin America in the 1970s to 1980s, it was a literal nightmare, as you would probably hear about tales of numerous human rights violations like mass torture, literal death squads executing political opponents and dissidents of the juntas that existed in the systems, babies being kidnapped and taken away from mothers that were in prison or detention camps, never to be discovered again. Consider this like how the Tragedy played out, except in a far more excruciating and covert secret way. And guess who was involved in all of this.

//Kissinger's involvement with the military dictatorships in South America was extensive. While he wasn't the mastermind behind the whole operation, he was certainly closely involved in whatever diplomatic relations the US had with the rest of the nations involved in Operation Condor, even being personally invited by Argentian dictator Jorge Videla to celebrate the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina. He also prevented a warning that was supposed to be sent out to those political opponents who were to be assassinated during the operation, and when a French judge confronted him about the disappearance of five French nationals in Chile, he automatically decided to leave Paris instead of answering the question.

//Condor wasn't the only dirty situation Kissinger got himself involved, as he was also involved in the Bangladesh Liberation War between Pakistan and the Bengal people, an ethnic group in South Asia. When the Pakistans were committing what basically amounted to genocide in the region, Kissinger sneered at those who would die for the Bengals and refused to respond to any telegrams from US ambassadors talking about the genocide. Sound familiar? He also hated Jewish Americans who supported Soviet Jews, which is absolutely ironic considering that he's Jewish and lived during the Nazi era.

//Overall, I believe that while Kissinger was certainly an accomplished politician, especially during his time as the foreign policy advisor to two presidential administrations, his motivations, and strategies on how to conduct foreign affairs were obviously the subject of numerous controversies, some of which are still being felt today. Alas, that is the reality of having to deal with fighting anti-communists in the Cold War, with it always having to involve making difficult decisions and absolutely complicated, messy compromises. Still, I believe that you could handle how you try to contain the threat of communism without resorting to such immoral and disgusting measures as this, and Kissinger should've known better.

//That's now how the world works, however. So even if I may dislike Kissgener, we are officially left with the ramifications of what Kissigener's actions foretold, especially when it comes to Latin American-US relations. But that's just my perspective.

#mod talks #a tale never told #united states #latin america

1 note · View note

eliothochberg · 7 months

Text

My Thoughts (pt 3)

This leads to an uncomfortable but necessary review of what it means to have a Jewish state. Israel, by many accounts, is a democracy. But, we have to acknowledge that it has some limitations. The main one being: no matter what kind of a state you create, in order to remain a Jewish state, it has to be run by Jews. This is antithetical to the philosophy of most liberal, democratic loving, people. After all, how can you be a democracy if you don't allow people of other religions to live there? Well, that's not exactly the case. In theory, a non-Jewish person can live in Israel. However, you would not be able to hold significant office, and you wouldn't be allowed the power to change the state of Israel into anything other than a Jewish state. The reason is obvious: Arab Palestinians vastly outnumber Jewish Israelis. If Israel was a democracy in the mold of the U.S. or a parliamentary nation where all citizens had an equal chance to hold office, eventually Israel would not be a Jewish state. While one could conceive of various ways that Jews in the region could live in Palestine/Israel safely, the fact is that Jews remember how they were treated in other "democracies" and those who call themselves Zionist have little interest in creating another such state. It's hard to blame them, although we certainly can debate the merits. In any case, in the context of the Arab countries in the region failing again and again to erase Israel by force, and being unwilling to make any compromises on the idea of ending Israel, another strategy needed to be created. It's my personal observation, and I see some experts support this, that a new strategy was proposed: to emphasize Israeli actions against civilian Palestinian Arabs, to give those Arabs no choice but to fight for an Arab Palestine, and to hope to drag Israel into the position of being an oppressor.

0 notes

grandhotelabyss · 1 year

Note

One must wonder indeed- verbosity aside (which we are in agreement on) would pronoun maximalism (in other words, taking all of em) qualify as bien-pensant as you’ve stated you find they/them? In any case I was relistening to the Beloved episode of the pod the other day, some of your finest work, one the best podcast episodes I’ve ever had the privilege of listening to- I mourn that we didn’t get that episode on Mason & Dixon. I do see what you mean when you’ve judged the pod not entirely successful at what it set out to be- for the most part I found the aesthetics sensible (or acceptably beyond the pale) and the politics within the threshold of acceptable (old) liberalism regarding/excitement over disreputable ideas (the only thing I remember thinking could be read as objectionable outside of humanitiesworld was the very brief intimation in one of the shock jocks episodes that you thought the left needed to return to center on gender issues) and if you’re going to go for the Red Scare crowd you probably do need to take off the gloves and say some stuff that’s genuinely offensive to regular people. That said I do miss it-there are so very few literary podcasts worth a damn out there.

Thank you! Yes, the Beloved episode is almost certainly the best, along, I think, with the aurally pyrotechnic one on Eliot. I was at times dancing around some perhaps unacceptable views, but, given the time of recording, these were more of the old-fashioned anti-war left variety. I don't regularly listen to Chapo, but I checked out their Norman Finkelstein interview out of curiosity and had to laugh at their nervous silence after he gave the full-throated Marxist anti-imperialist perspective on Putin and Ukraine. I don't go nearly as far as that, or maybe my views aren't that systematic, but still, my mission in life is not to lend my talents to the defense of NATO, especially since the CIA doesn't even pay writers for those services anymore. (Admittedly, on foreign policy the left and the right may have switched sides since my youth, as they have before.) I wouldn't have said any of the Steve Sailer stuff Anna and Dasha eventually fell for, not because I was hiding it, but because I don't believe it or don't care about it. Even Anna and Dasha seem to have ended their Sailer arc with the recent Thomas Chatterton Williams episode where he genially upbraided them for it. Surely it's "problematic" enough in this atmosphere to agree with Thomas Chatterton Williams's racial politics!—which, for the most part, I do.

Re: the pronoun question, partially Major Arcana is an attempt to find out. I have they/them characters later on and am finding it basically impossible to avoid referential confusion, so I'm just leaning into it for a delirious effect. (When Joyce Carol Oates objected to they/them on strictly linguistic rather than gender grounds—as we've seen lately, on gender per se, she's with the left—it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that she did so from the perspective of someone who wants to write 800-page novels as quickly as possible.) On the other hand, the constant repetition of "Simon Magnus," not to mention that I've elected to call every character by first and last name, has an almost Steinian avant-garde abrasiveness I both love and hate, or in any case wouldn't have thought myself capable of. I'm not usually warm to mere verbal hijinks in a novel, but it seems to me that this experimental fiction is running a large-scale social experiment on these linguistic interventions and their underlying logic and effect rather than just for the sake of toying with the signifier or whatever.

#podcasts #chapo trap house #red scare #norman finkelstein #thomas chatterton williams #creative writing #literature #toni morrison

1 note · View note

rantingcrocodile · 2 years

Note

Ok so i came across an actual former radfem who complained that most radfems groom each other into becoming lesbians… and i have to agree. Im bi and if i had a radfem blog id have to constantly defend and tak about that part of my sexuality to other feminists because theres a huge amount of radfems who blame women who date men for anything that happens to them. Ive def felt pressure to ignore or hide my sexuality…. And ive seen there’s young hetero girls that like radfem beliefs who are told theyll probably be murdered or raped and it’s their fault for going around the men we warned you about if it does happen. Anyways you probably know that because I’ve certainly seen it around and its a very popular sentiment. Like when thatfemalecharacterthatyouhate said het women were weak links. Fucked up. Caused a huge shitstorm lol my point is theres just a huge amount of radfems trying to control other women’s bodies and sexualities… and that is not very feminast~

Outside of personal experiences of gender dysphoria, one of the major factors pushing the rise of trans people is social contagion. Teens (and even adults) have a friend who comes out as trans, then another friend, then another, and then they come out as trans, too. Or they find themselves in communities with a fair number of trans people, get told how evil "cis" people are, how great it is to be trans, are fed some misogyny/etc about what dysphoria is, then they identify as trans, too. They will go so far as to actually start hormones or have surgeries.

You have to be living on another planet if you don't believe that there are at least a handful teen girls and women on or around radfem spaces that have been groomed into falsely calling themselves "lesbians" the same way.

For anyone that doesn't believe me, I refer you back to the "lesbian masterdoc."

This also isn't a new phenomenon.

This Twitter user posted a full essay by Sharon Dale Stone entitled, "Bisexual Women and the "Threat" to Lesbian Space" written in 1996, and she discusses exactly how biphobic lesbians were, the desperation to call bisexual women lesbians, and the culture that created political lesbianism. The term "political lesbianism" has been rightfully outed as homophobic, but we've seen the push to encourage bisexual women to label themselves "febfems" otherwise we're all "dick worshippers." We've seen plenty of the "lesbians are superior feminists because they aren't attracted to men and are only attracted to women" tiering of women.

This space says it's "radfem," but it's just "lesbian separatist feminism," where the point isn't women's liberation, but merely "let's make lesbian spaces where lesbians can pretend that other women who aren't lesbians are just celibate lesbians and then everything will be fine because we can pretend men don't exist." And then plenty of women believe that that's feminism, and it just... isn't.

Pure separatism is anti-feminist because it simply does not liberate women. There will always be women who value relationships with men. Romantic, familial, friendship-based. Actual liberation means that women can make full choices freely and, no matter what, won't face misogyny. True equity and equality. Separatism as prioritising women to support women and not centre men is good and should be practiced. Separatism as creating women-only spaces for healing purposes is good, too. Creating a women-only land like Themyscira and nothing else wouldn't give liberation, it would make a women-only country and that is literally it.

Sexuality being as moralised as it is, where you're taught either overtly or subtly that relationships with women mean good feminist vs relationships with men mean handmaiden doesn't encourage women to explore our sexualities naturally or fall in love or teach them to create high boundaries that they can enforce, it encourages women to fetishise lesbians and hate straight women, and then hate bisexual women the most because sexuality and relationships are reduced to "choice."

The "superior" lesbian can do as she pleases as a feminist. The "good straight" feminist has to make a choice to be celibate. The "good bisexual" feminist has to only partner with other women and hate the bisexuals who aren't partnered with women or who don't loudly proclaim that they’re one of the “good bisexuals.”

This obsession with “relationships/desires for relationships = feminism” is just as anti-feminist, because it always boils down to victim-blaming and ignoring reality, whether “feminists” realise it or not.

After all, if women’s liberation is reduced to “stop dating men and you’ll basically be fine,” then that reframes domestic violence against women as the woman’s fault. It comes down to, “You know how bad men are, so if you’re abused, then you did it to yourself.” The only answer that’s given to global male violence is “teach women to separate from males” because that’s the childish, easy answer, instead of the difficult truth that we have to work towards a real cultural shift. “I told that woman over there to stay away from men, she didn’t, so it’s her fault!” is easy, victim-blaming “activism,” unlike the long, hard slog that’s needed to change attitudes.

It’s an easy trap to fall into, too. Change takes time. We’ve seen it. The battle for suffrage, for one. But everyone wants change to happen right this second, and that’s just impossible. There are constant arguments that “men can’t change” with the additions about how long it’s taken to get the rights that we have now, but... although it took time, men in certain societies have changed. That’s why there’s contention between things like “makeup is oppressive and women should feel free to dress modestly with headscarves” vs “headscarves are oppressive and women are empowered when wearing makeup,” because different cultures have different issues that still need to be faced, and there’s no simple one-size-fits-all, which makes feminism even more complicated.

“Lesbian separatist feminism” is an easy, incorrect answer. Instead of all the questions and realisations that different groups of women have different needs, that we have to come up with answers to extremely difficult questions like how to make it so women and men are truly equal and can live in peace, it’s all simplified to an extreme degree. Every single individual man bad, no redemption. Lesbians and women in same-sex relationships good. Women in opposite-sex relationships have to be taught they’ll be abused and when they’re taught, if they stay with a man and end up being abused or raped, that’s their fault. Confronting the full range of female socialisation is too hard, so if you’re in or want a same-sex relationship, you’re immune to ever prioritising men/being misogynistic/etc.

I think that’s why there are genuine “ex-radfems” who believe that this is all that radical feminism is and can ever be, so they come to realisations that they’re not bad people if they’re not lesbians, that they do actually know a man who’s misogynistic in some words and minor actions but is trying, or otherwise realise that the goals aren’t going to actually lead to women’s liberation, only an internalisation of misery and self-hatred, only sanctioned misogyny towards women who are deemed “bad,” and then they end up thinking... if this is what being a feminist is, then I don’t want to be a feminist.

If critical thinking were actually valued here by women that genuinely wanted women’s full liberation, then all of this would be extremely obvious.

Any actual, good feminism is genuinely intersectional, polices against all bigotry, finds common ground between all women, understands that there are different contexts from different cultures and backgrounds that need to be fought in unique ways, needs to address how women can be liberated through frank discussions and reality-based thinking, needs concrete stepping-stone goals to improve things at least a little for women per generation as we know that change can be glacially slow, and work from a basis of anger about our oppression to keep fight in us, but also a place of compassion so that even the most tradwife anti-feminist woman will always feel safe, prioritising female solidarity before anything else and providing spaces for women to unlearn whatever bigotries they individually have where they know that with work, there is always space for forgiveness, love and acceptance for them.

That’s exactly why it’s incredibly hard to be feminist, it’s why every feminist has moments of failure and frustration, but also why this and other “feminist” spaces are more eager to embrace blatant misogyny and fetishisation and hatred and abuse than actual feminism.

#crocodilian answers #radfems are biphobic #ex radfems

32 notes · View notes

cappymightwrite · 3 years

Text

Jon Snow, Manfred & The Byronic Hero: Part 2

Previous Posts: PART 1

Hopefully Part 1 served as a good introduction on the topic and characteristics of the Byronic Hero, as well as how Jon Snow in particular is likely an iteration of this figure. But now we come to the real meat of this meta series — a closer look at Byron's dramatic poem Manfred (1816–1817), and more importantly, its titular character in comparison to Jon Snow. I was originally going to do an analysis and comparison of two key episodes in Manfred and A Storm of Swords, Jon VI, but have since decided to give that its own post... that's right kids, there will be a part 3!

(Detail from Lord Byron, Thomas Phillips, 1813)

So... why Manfred? Why not Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, or The Corsair, or Don Juan, or any other work by Lord Byron? Well, I'll tell you why, my sweet summer children. It's because of THIS:

Manfred/Manfryds and Byrons in ASOIAF, by order of first appearance and publication:

Ser Manfred Swann (ASOS, Jaime VIII)

Ser Manfred Dondarrion (The Hedge Knight)

Manfred Lothston (The Sworn Sword)

Manfryd o' the Black Hood (AFFC, Brienne I)

Manfryd Yew (AFFC, Jaime V)

Ser Byron the Beautiful (AFFC, Alayne II, TWOW, Alayne I)

Ser Byron Swann (ADWD, Tyrion III)

Manfryd Merlyn of Kite (ADWD, Victarion I)

Manfryd Mooton, Lord of Maidenpool (The Princess and the Queen, TWOIAF)

Manfred Hightower, Lord of the Hightower (TWOIAF)

Manfred Hightower, Lord of the Hightower (Fire and Blood)

Like... what the hell, George?

I find this very interesting, very interesting indeed! *cough* intentional, very intentional *cough* And I have to thank @agentrouka-blog for reminding me of the existence of these Manfreds/Manfryds, and thus pointing me in this particular direction. This evidence is, for me, my smoking gun, it's why I feel justified in exploring this specific work. In my opinion, it really strongly confirms that GRRM is aware of Manfred, he is aware of its author — as a literary name, it is pretty much exclusively connected to Byron, it's like Hamlet to Shakespeare, or Heathcliff to Emily Brontë. In fact, GRRM likes it enough to use this name several times in fact, its frequency of use aided by a slight variation on its spelling.

So, as we can see, there are a striking number of Manfred/Manfryds (9!!) featured in the ASOIAF universe, whereas Byron (2) is used a bit more sparingly — perhaps because the latter, if more liberally used, would become far more recognisable as an overt literary reference? Interestingly, though, we can see a direct link between the two names as both bear the surname Swann: Ser Manfred Swann and Ser Byron Swann (note the exact spelling of Manfred here, as opposed to Manfryd). Ser Byron was alive during the Dance of Dragons and died trying to kill the dragon Syrax, whereas Ser Manfred was alive during Aegon V's reign and had a young Ser Barristan as his squire. So, in terms of ancestry, Byron came before Manfred, which makes sense since Lord Byron created the character of Manfred; he is his authorial/literary progenitor, if you will.

But why Swann, though? Is there any significance to that surname? Well, I did a little bit of digging and turned up something very interesting, at least in my opinion. In Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem Lines written among the Euganean Hills (1818), in its sixth stanza, the poet addresses the city of Venice... the “tempest-cleaving Swan” in the eighth line is clearly meant to be his friend and contemporary, Lord Byron, that city’s most famous expatriate:

That a tempest-cleaving Swan Of the songs of Albion, Driven from his ancestral streams By the might of evil dreams, Found a nest in thee;

(st. 6, l. 8-12)

Ah ha! But let's not forget that the Swanns are also a house from the stormlands — stormlander Swanns vs. "tempest-cleaving Swan." It seems a nice little homage, doesn't it? You could also argue that the battling swans of House Swann's sigil are a possible reference to Byron's fondness for boxing (he apparently received "pugilistic tuition" at a club in Bond Street, London). But to make the references to Byron too overt would ruin the subtly, so it isn't necessary, in my opinion, for the Swanns to be completely steeped in Byronisms.

All in all, it would be very neat of GRRM if the reasoning behind Byron and Manfred Swann is because of this reference to Lord Byron by Shelley. How these names and the characters that bear them might further reference Byron and Manfred is a possible discussion for another day! It's all just very interesting, very noteworthy, and highlights how careful GRRM is at choosing the names of his characters, even very minor, seemingly insignificant ones.

(Illustration of Villa Diodati from Finden's Illustrations of the Life and Works of Lord Byron, Edward Finden, 1833)

Now onto the actual poem, and the ways in which Jon Snow could being referencing/paralleling Manfred. First things first, a bit of biographical context. Take my hand, and let's travel back in time, way back when, to 1816, the year in which Lord Byron left England forever, his reputation in tatters due to the collapse of his marriage and the rumours of an affair with his half-sister, Augusta Leigh (plus he was hugely in debt). No doubt, most of us are familiar with the story, but in 1816 Byron travelled to Switzerland, to a villa on Lake Geneva, where he met the Shelleys and suggested that they all pass the time by writing ghost stories.

The most famous story produced by them was, of course, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1818) — which may have served as the partial inspiration behind Qyburn and Robert Strong! Byron himself did begin a story but soon gave it up (yesss, we love an unproductive king); it was completed, however, by his personal physician, John William Polidori, and eventually published, under Byron's name, as The Vampyre (1819). But Byron didn't completely abandon the ghost story project, as later that summer, after a visit by the Gothic novelist M. G. Lewis, he wrote his "supernatural" tragedy, Manfred (1817).*

*I've seen it dated as 1816-17, but the crucial thing to rememeber, in terms of Byron's own biography, is that unlike The Bride of Abydos, he wrote it after his departure from England... this theme of exile will come up later.

Manfred is what is called a "closet drama", so is structured much like a play, with acts and scenes, though it wouldn't have actually been intended to be performed on stage. Indeed, Lord Byron first described Manfred to his publisher as "a kind of poem in dialogue... but of a very wild—metaphysical—and inexplicable kind": "Almost all the persons—but two or three—are Spirits... the hero [is] a kind of magician who is tormented by a species of remorse—the cause of which is left half unexplained—he wanders about invoking these spirits—which appear to him—& are of no use—he at last goes to the very abode of the Evil principle in propria persona [i.e. in person]—to evocate a ghost—which appears—& gives him an ambiguous & disagreeable answer..."*

*As in Part 1, more academic references will be listed in a bibliography at the end of this post.

To sum up the narrative for you, Manfred is a nobleman living in the Bernese Alps, "tormented by a species of remorse", which is never fully explained, but is clearly connected to the death of his beloved Astarte. Through his mastery of poetic language and spell-casting, he is able to summon seven "spirits", from whom he seeks the gift of forgetfulness, but this plea cannot be granted — he cannot escape from his past. He is also prevented from escaping his mysterious guilt by taking his own life, but in the end, Manfred does die, thus defying religious temptations of redemption from sin. He therefore stands outside of societal expectations, a Romantic rebel who succeeds in challenging all of the authoritative powers he faces, ultimately choosing death over submission to the powerful spirits.

According to Lara Assaad, the character of Manfred is the "Byronic hero par excellence", as he shares its typical characteristics found in Byron's other work (as discussed in Part 1), "yet pushed to the extreme." As noted above, there is a defiance to Manfred's character, which is arguable also found in Jon. Certainly though, in all of Byron's works, the Byronic Hero appears as "a negative Romantic protagonist" to a certain extent, a being who is "filled with guilt, despair, and cosmic and social alienation," observes James B. Twitchell. I'll come back to those characteristics presently.

As noted by Assaad, "Byron scholars seem to agree on this definition of the Byronic Hero, however they focus mainly, if not exclusively, on the dynamics of guilt and remorse." Indeed, it is only in more recent years that the incest motif, as well as the influence of Byron's own biography, have been more widely discussed. But perhaps the most compelling aspect of the Byronic Hero is his complex psychology. Although trauma theory only really started to flourish during the 1990s, thus providing deeper insight into the symptoms that follow a traumatic experience, it nevertheless seems, at least to Assaad, that "Byron was familiar with it well before it was first discussed by professionals and diagnosed." As we know, GRRM began writing his series, A Song of Ice and Fire, during the 1990s, and character trauma and its effects feature heavily in his work, most notably in the case of Theon Greyjoy, but also in the memory editing of Sansa Stark in terms of the infamous "Unkiss".*

*The editing, or supressing, of memories is not exclusive to Sansa, however. E.g @agentrouka-blog has theorised a possible memory edit with regards to Tyrion and his first wife Tysha.

But if we return back to that original quote, in which GRRM makes the comparison between Jon and the Byronic Hero, his following statement is also very interesting:

The character I’m probably most like in real life is Samwell Tarly. Good old Sam. And the character I’d want to be? Well who wouldn’t want to be Jon Snow — the brooding, Byronic, romantic hero whom all the girls love. Theon [Greyjoy] is the one I’d fear becoming. Theon wants to be Jon Snow, but he can’t do it. He keeps making the wrong decisions. He keeps giving into his own selfish, worst impulses. [source]

As noted by @princess-in-a-tower, there is a close correspondence between Jon and Theon, with each acting as the other's foil in many respects. In fact, Theon does sort of tick off a few of the Byronic qualities I discussed last time, most notably standing apart from society, that "society" being the Starks in Winterfell, due to him essentially being a hostage. Later on, we see him develop a sense of deep misery as well due to his horrific treatment at the hands of Ramsey Snow. Like Theon, his narrative foil, Jon is also a character deeply informed by trauma (being raised a bastard), but the way they ultimately process and express that specific displacement trauma differs profoundly — Theon expresses it outwardly through his sacking of Winterfell, whereas Jon turns his trauma notably inwards.*

*Obviously, I'm not a medical professional — I'm more looking at this from a literary angle, but the articles I've read for this post do include reference to real medical definitions etc.

Previously, I observed how being "deeply jaded" and having "misery in his heart" were key characteristics of the Byronic Hero, as well as Jon Snow — this trauma theory is a continuation of that. Indeed, to bring it back to Manfred, Assaad goes as far as stating that the poem's titular hero "suffers from what is now widely recognised as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)." I am purposely holding off on discussing what the origin of that trauma is, in relation to Manfred specifically, because, well... it needs a bit of forewarning before I get into it fully. Instead, let's look at the emotions it exacerabates or gives rise to, as detailed by Twitchell, and how they might be evident in Jon and his feelings regarding his bastard status.

(Jonny Lee Miller as Byron in the two part BBC series Byron, 2003)

Guilt

Does Jon suffer guilt due to him being a bastard and secretly wanting to "steal" his siblings' birthright? I'd say a strong yes:

When Jon had been Bran's age, he had dreamed of doing great deeds, as boys always did. The details of his feats changed with every dreaming, but quite often he imagined saving his father's life. Afterward Lord Eddard would declare that Jon had proved himself a true Stark, and place Ice in his hand. Even then he had known it was only a child's folly; no bastard could ever hope to wield a father's sword. Even the memory shamed him. What kind of man stole his own brother's birthright? I have no right to this, he thought, no more than to Ice. – AGOT, Jon VIII He wanted it, Jon knew then. He wanted it as much as he had ever wanted anything. I have always wanted it, he thought, guiltily. May the gods forgive me. – ASOS, Jon XII

But I think Jon's sense of guilt also extends to the high expectations he sets for himself, his "moral superiority" in the face of his bastard status, as discussed in Part 1. He feels guilt pulling him in two different directions, in regards to Ygritte: guilt for loving her, for breaking his vows, and potentially risking a bastard, but also guilt for leaving her, for abandoning her, and potentially leaving her unprotected:

His guilt came back afterward, but weaker than before. If this is so wrong, he wondered, why did the gods make it feel so good? – ASOS, Jon III Ygritte was much in his thoughts as well. He remembered the smell of her hair, the warmth of her body... and the look on her face as she slit the old man's throat. You were wrong to love her, a voice whispered. You were wrong to leave her, a different voice insisted. He wondered if his father had been torn the same way, when he'd left Jon's mother to return to Lady Catelyn. He was pledged to Lady Stark, and I am pledged to the Night's Watch. – ASOS, Jon VI "I broke my vows with her. I never meant to, but..." It was wrong. Wrong to love her, wrong to leave her..."I wasn't strong enough. The Halfhand commanded me, ride with them, watch, I must not balk, I..." His head felt as if it were packed with wet wool. – ASOS, Jon VI

This guilt surrounding leaving the women/girls he cares about unprotected also extends to Arya. Yet it was his need to prove himself as something more than just a bastard, by joining the Watch, which initially prevents him from acting, and which also makes him feel guilt for being a hyprocrite:

Jon felt as stiff as a man of sixty years. Dark dreams, he thought, and guilt. His thoughts kept returning to Arya. There is no way I can help her. I put all kin aside when I said my words. If one of my men told me his sister was in peril, I would tell him that was no concern of his. Once a man had said the words his blood was black. Black as a bastard's heart. – ADWD, Jon VI

I think there is a lack of reconciliation between Jon and his bastard status, between what being a bastard implies in their society: lustful, deceitful, treacherous, more "worldly" etc. Deep down, subconsciously, Jon really rebels against it. You can see that rebellion more clearly in his memories as a younger child, less inhibited:

Every morning they had trained together, since they were big enough to walk; Snow and Stark, spinning and slashing about the wards of Winterfell, shouting and laughing, sometimes crying when there was no one else to see. They were not little boys when they fought, but knights and mighty heroes. "I'm Prince Aemon the Dragonknight," Jon would call out, and Robb would shout back, "Well, I'm Florian the Fool." Or Robb would say, "I'm the Young Dragon," and Jon would reply, "I'm Ser Ryam Redwyne." That morning he called it first. "I'm Lord of Winterfell!" he cried, as he had a hundred times before. Only this time, this time, Robb had answered, "You can't be Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born. My lady mother says you can't ever be the Lord of Winterfell." I thought I had forgotten that. Jon could taste blood in his mouth, from the blow he'd taken. – ASOS, Jon XII

But Jon knows this truth about himself, he knows that he has "always wanted it", and that causes him so much guilt because he can't allow himself to be selfish in that regard, because to do so would confirm for him his worst fears... that he truly is a bastard in nature as well as birth — treacherous, covetous, dishonourable.

Despair

As he grows up, learning to curb his emotional outbursts from AGOT, Jon appears more and more stoic upon the surface. But beneath that, buried in his subconscious in the form of dreams, you have this undyling feeling of despair, this trauma connected to his bastard status, his partially unknown heritage:

Not my mother, Jon thought stubbornly. He knew nothing of his mother; Eddard Stark would not talk of her. Yet he dreamed of her at times, so often that he could almost see her face. In his dreams, she was beautiful, and highborn, and her eyes were kind. – AGOT, Jon III

These recurring dreams, sometimes explicitly involving his unknown mother, sometimes not, represent a clear gap, a gaping blank in Jon's personal history and his perception of his identity:

"Sometimes I dream about it," he said. "I'm walking down this long empty hall. My voice echoes all around, but no one answers, so I walk faster, opening doors, shouting names. I don't even know who I'm looking for. Most nights it's my father, but sometimes it's Robb instead, or my little sister Arya, or my uncle." [...]

"Do you ever find anyone in your dream?" Sam asked.

Jon shook his head. "No one. The castle is always empty." He had never told anyone of the dream, and he did not understand why he was telling Sam now, yet somehow it felt good to talk of it. "Even the ravens are gone from the rookery, and the stables are full of bones. That always scares me. I start to run then, throwing open doors, climbing the tower three steps at a time, screaming for someone, for anyone. And then I find myself in front of the door to the crypts. It's black inside, and I can see the steps spiraling down. Somehow I know I have to go down there, but I don't want to. I'm afraid of what might be waiting for me. The old Kings of Winter are down there, sitting on their thrones with stone wolves at their feet and iron swords across their laps, but it's not them I'm afraid of. I scream that I'm not a Stark, that this isn't my place, but it's no good, I have to go anyway, so I start down, feeling the walls as I descend, with no torch to light the way. It gets darker and darker, until I want to scream." He stopped, frowning, embarrassed. "That's when I always wake." His skin cold and clammy, shivering in the darkness of his cell. Ghost would leap up beside him, his warmth as comforting as daybreak. He would go back to sleep with his face pressed into the direwolf's shaggy white fur. – AGOT, Jon IV

"That always scares me", he says quite tellingly. From this key passage, in particular, we can see that Jon feels a deep rooted despair at essentially being unclaimed, unwanted... being without a solid (Stark) identity around which to draw strength and mould himself. He's afraid of being a lone wolf, because as we all know, "the lone wolf dies, but the pack survives," (AGOT, Arya II).

This dream points him in the direction of the crypts — "somehow I know I have to go down there, but I don't want to" — which actually does have the answers he seeks because that is where Lyanna Stark is buried. Yet Jon is "afraid of what might be waiting for [him]", and wants to "scream" with dispair because of the darkness. So, this need for a confirmed identity is a double edged sword, which will no doubt be further complicated when his true parentage is revealed.

Elsewhere, Jon's dreams continue to have this despairing quality to them, often involving Winterfell, the Starks, and especially Ned, which is very interesting on a psychological level:

The grey walls of Winterfell might still haunt his dreams, but Castle Black was his life now, and his brothers were Sam and Grenn and Halder and Pyp and the other cast-outs who wore the black of the Night's Watch. – AGOT, Jon IV

Last night he had dreamt the Winterfell dream again. He was wandering the empty castle, searching for his father, descending into the crypts. Only this time the dream had gone further than before. In the dark he'd heard the scrape of stone on stone. When he turned he saw that the vaults were opening, one after the other. As the dead kings came stumbling from their cold black graves, Jon had woken in pitch-dark, his heart hammering. Even when Ghost leapt up on the bed to nuzzle at his face, he could not shake his deep sense of terror. He dared not go back to sleep. Instead he had climbed the Wall and walked, restless, until he saw the light of the dawn off to the east. It was only a dream. I am a brother of the Night's Watch now, not a frightened boy. – AGOT, Jon VII

But it is never "only a dream", is it?

And when at last he did sleep, he dreamt, and that was even worse. In the dream, the corpse he fought had blue eyes, black hands, and his father's face, but he dared not tell Mormont that. – AGOT, Jon VIII

Even Jon's conscious daydreams in AGOT revolve around his dispairing search for a solid identity:

A lot of these early dreams occur in A Game of Thrones, probably in response to his removal from Winterfell... his self exile. But later on in the series Jon continues to have dreams that tie him to the Starks and to Winterfell, ominous and sometimes despairing too. There's honestly too many instances to list, but if you want to understand the root of Jon's existential despair... it's in his dreams.

Cosmic Alienation

Cosmic alienation, now that's an interesting one in regards to Jon, since he definitely hasn't reached this state... yet. Life and his belief in the divine (the old gods) still hold meaning for him, but then he gets murdered by his black brothers. In the show, the writers hint at some cosmic alienation through Jon stating that he saw "nothing" whilst dead, but then they take it no further and generally do a piss poor job of post-res Jon. This characteristic of Manfred coming to the fore in Jon depends on what happens in The Winds of Winter, but I don't think it is at all that far fetched to assume that Jon will return to his body with a darker, altered perception of things.

Social Alienation

In Part 1, I discussed how Jon, like Byron's heroes, could be read as a "a rebel who stands apart from society and societal expectations." On a more psychological level, we can see how this Otherness, stemming from his bastard status, deeply affects Jon and his perception of himself and the world:

Benjen Stark gave Jon a long look. "Don't you usually eat at table with your brothers?"

"Most times," Jon answered in a flat voice. "But tonight Lady Stark thought it might give insult to the royal family to seat a bastard among them." – AGOT, Jon I

In his very first chapter, we see him quite literally alienated from the rest of his siblings, made to sit apart from them, an apparent necessity he seems fairly resigned to. Also in Part 1, I gave examples of instances in which Jon is mockingly called "Lord Snow," as well as a "rebel", "turncloak", "half-wildling", all of which serve to alienate him from the rest of the brothers of the Night's Watch.

Stannis gave a curt nod. "Your father was a man of honor. He was no friend to me, but I saw his worth. Your brother was a rebel and a traitor who meant to steal half my kingdom, but no man can question his courage. What of you?" – ASOS, Jon XI

The above interaction may seem on the surface to be about one thing — whether or not Jon will be of help to Stannis, offer him loyalty etc. — but tagged onto the end we have quite a poignant question: "what of you?" What are you, essentially. Who are you? The truth of his parentage may, in part, solve these questions... but it may also serve to alienate Jon from his perception of himself further. Ultimately, who exactly he is — what he believes in, who and what he fights for, etc. — will be solely his decision to make going forward.

So, the Byronic Hero, certainly in Manfred's case, but also in later iterations, is arguably traumatised by his own past. But regardless as to whether his trauma is related to a mysterious past, a secret sin, an unnamed crime, or incest, aka "secret knowledge", what is clear in Assaad's interpretation, is that the Byronic Hero is "living with the traumatic consequences of his own past and so suffers from PTSD." But why is Manfred traumatised, what is the specific cause of this trauma, or how might it reveal something deeper about Jon's own trauma? Now, here we come to the unavoidable... I'm going to start talking about Byronic incest and the pre-canon crush/kiss theory, and how it potentially parallels certain aspects of Manfred.

I should preface this by stating that I don't think Jon is suppressing trauma because he committed intentional incest with Sansa, but I do think (or at least somewhat theorise that) Byronic incest does come into play regarding his intense feelings of guilt and existential despair.

But still, stop reading now if are opposed to discussions of the pre-canon crush/kiss theory and the literary incest motif as a whole!

(Detail from The Funeral of Shelley, Louis Édouard Fournier, 1889)

Hey there to the depraved! If you aren't already familiar with the theory, here are some previous discussions/metas on the subject:

Full Blown Meta:

A Hidden and Forbidden Love by @princess-in-a-tower

Ask Answers (Long):

Jonsa as a more positive mirror to Jaime and Cersei? by @princess-in-a-tower, with additional comment by @jonsameta

Discussing the theory by @jonsameta

Evidence for pre-canon Jonsa? by @agentrouka-blog

Kissing in the godswood? by @agentrouka-blog

Why don't we read about Jon's reaction to Sansa and Tyrion? by @agentrouka-blog

More on Jon's supposed non-reaction by @agentrouka-blog, with additional comment made by @sherlokiness

A Jonsa "Unkiss"? by @fedonciadale

A hidden memory? by @fedonciadale

Sansa's misremembering by @fedonciadale

Descriptive parallels between A Song for Lya and Jonsa by @butterflies-dragons

Ask Answers (Short) & Briefer Mentions:

Jealous Jon by @princess-in-a-tower

Your new boyfriend looks like a girl by @butterflies-dragons

Like in Part 1, I've tried to cite as much as I could find, but as always, if anyone feels like I've missed someone important or that they should be included in the above list, please just drop me a line!

Now, it's a controversial theory, and not everyone's cup of tea — I think that's worth acknowledging! I myself am not wholly married to it, I'd be fine if it wasn't the case, but that being said, I can't in good faith ignore it when considering Lord Byron and the Byronic Hero. The incest is, unfortunately, very hard to ignore, both in his work and in his personal life. It's pretty hard to ignore in Manfred, for that matter, which is why I've held off talking about it... until now!

All aboard the Manfred incest train *choo choo* !!

First stop, Act II, scene one. Oh, wait, an annoucement from your conductor... apologies everyone, I purposely neglected to mention quite a key detail. Remember "Astarte! [Manfred's] beloved!", (II, iv, 136)? Yeah... it's heavily implied that Astarte is in fact Manfred's half-sister. *shoots finger guns* Classic Byron! *facepalms*

Oh, and that's not all! Let's consider the context surrounding the writing of this work for a moment, shall we? Unlike The Bride of Abydos (1813),* Manfred was written notably after the fallout of his incestuous affair with his half-sister, Augusta Leigh, composed whilst in a self-imposed exile. *spits out drink* Woah, woah there cowboy... what in tarnation?! EXILE?!

*As referenced in Part 1, @rose-of-red-lake has written an excellent meta on the influence of Lord Byron's work (and personal life) on Jonsa, paying special attention to the half-siblings turned cousins in The Bride of Abydos.

Although, as noted by rose-of-red-lake, The Bride of Abydos bears strong parallels to the potential romance of Jon and Sansa, as well as Byron’s own angst regarding his relationship with Augusta Leigh, the context surrounding Manfred seems... dare I say it, even more autobiographical. Because like Byron himself, Manfred wanders around the Bernese Alps, solitary and guilt ridden, in a state of exile heavily evocative of Byron's own — as I mentioned earlier, the beginnings of Manfred occured whilst Byron was staying at a villa on Lake Geneva, in Switzerland... the Bernese Alps are located in western Switzerland. In light of this, I think it's very understandable that some critics consider Manfred to be autobiographical, or even confessional. The unnamed but forbidden nature of Manfred's relationship to Astarte is believed to represent Byron's relationship with his half-sister Augusta. But what has that got to do with Jon?

Look, I don't know how else to put this:

Byron self-exiles in 1816, first to Switzerland, to Lake Geneva, where it is unseasonably cold and stormy — his departure from England is due to the collaspe of his marriage to Annabella Milbanke, unquestionably as a result of the rumours surrounding his incestuous affair with his half-sister.

Displaced nobleman Manfred wanders the Bernese Alps, in a kind of moral exile, where "the wind / Was faint and gusty, and the mountain snows / Began to glitter with the climbing moon" (III, iii, 46-48), traversing "on snows, where never human foot / Of common mortal trod" (II, iii, 4-5), surrounded by a "glassy ocean of the mountain ice" (II, iii, 7). He feels extreme, but unexplained guilt surrounding the death of his "beloved" Astarte, who is heavily implied to also be his half-sister.

In A Game of Thrones, Jon Snow chooses to join the Night's Watch, with the reminder that "once you have taken the black, there is no turning back" (AGOT, Jon VI). By taking the black, Jon arguably exiles himself from the rest of the Starks, from Winterfell, to a place that "looked like nothing more than a handful of toy blocks scattered on the snow, beneath the vast wall of ice" (AGOT, Jon III). But we aren't given any indication that he does this due to incestuous feelings regarding a "radiant" half-sister, akin to Byron/Manfred, are we? And it's not like we have several Manfreds/Manfryds AND Byrons namedropped within the text, is it? Oh wait... we do. *grabs GRRM in a chokehold*

What the hell, George?!

(Lord Byron on His Deathbed, Joseph Denis Odevaere, c. 1826)

But lets get back on track here and take a closer look at that section of Manfred I mentioned at the beginning — Act II, scene one, aka the part where all the incest and supressed trauma really JUMPS out.

So, early in Act II, in the chamois hunter's abode (a chamois is a type of goat?), according Assaad's analysis, Manfred is "hyper-aroused by a cup of wine." The wine is offered in an attempt to calm Manfred; however, to the chamois hunter's great dismay, it instead agitates him and makes him utter words which are "strange" (II, i, 35). Rather than wine, Manfred sees "blood on the brim" (II, i, 25). His sudden agitation and erratic behaviour confound the chamois hunter, who observes that Manfred is losing his mind: "thy senses wander from thee" (II, i, 27). Assaad's analysis of this scene, which she believes "is the most revelatory in the entire play" discloses "a bitter truth: Manfred's traumatic past informs his present life."

We might compare this with Jon, in particular, how his dreams reveal certain bitter truths to do with his past, now subconsciously informing his present. I've already looked a bit at his crypt dream from AGOT, Jon IV, but we see a sort of recurrence of this dream again in ASOS, Jon VIII. The imagery of being in a crypt, somewhere underground, buried, in the dark, a place of ghosts and spirits, is extremely evocative. Indeed, to go back to Byron's own description of Manfred, the setting of a crypt is extremely suggestive of certain bitter truths "left half unexplained", of secrets buried... and we know that's true because the secret of Jon's parentage is hidden down there, in the form of Lyanna Stark.

He dreamt he was back in Winterfell, limping past the stone kings on their thrones. Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed, and their grey granite fingers tightened on the hilts of the rusted swords upon their laps. You are no Stark, he could hear them mutter, in heavy granite voices. There is no place for you here. Go away. He walked deeper into the darkness. "Father?" he called. "Bran? Rickon?" No one answered. A chill wind was blowing on his neck. "Uncle?" he called. "Uncle Benjen? Father? Please, Father, help me." Up above he heard drums. They are feasting in the Great Hall, but I am not welcome there. I am no Stark, and this is not my place. His crutch slipped and he fell to his knees. The crypts were growing darker. A light has gone out somewhere. "Ygritte?" he whispered. "Forgive me. Please." But it was only a direwolf, grey and ghastly, spotted with blood, his golden eyes shining sadly through the dark... – ASOS, Jon VIII

I don't think it's outlandish to state that, unquestionably, Jon's bastard identity is a source of ongoing pain for him. I talked about the theme of despair in Jon's characterisation and it is very evident in the above, and it stems from this "bitter truth" of not being a trueborn Stark, of not being "welcome", or having a true place. The emotions/mindset this trauma, concerning his birth and identity, evokes in Jon is arguably what brings him, on first glance, so closely in line with the Byronic Hero:

Their grey granite eyes turned to follow him as he passed / The crypts were growing darker = A mysterious past / secret sin(s)

You are no Stark / I am no Stark = Deeply jaded

There is no place for you here / I am not welcome there / This is not my place = standing apart from society and societal expectations / social alienation

He dreamt he was back in Winterfell / He walked deeper into the darkness = Moody / misery in his heart

He fell to his knees / Forgive me = Guilt

He walked deeper into the darkness / Please, Father, help me / He fell to his knees = Despair

These aren't all the Byronic characteristics I've addressed in relation to Jon, but it is a substantial percentage of them, all encapsulated, in one way or another, within this singular dream passage. As far as what is fairly explicit in the text, being a bastard is Jon's "bitter truth", it is the "traumatic past inform[ing] his present life." But what is Manfred's "bitter truth", what past trauma is informing his present? And can it reveal a bit more about another layer to Jon's trauma? Because there is a key distinction — Manfred's trauma, his PTSD, stems from a specific event, notably triggered by the (imagined) "blood on the brim" of his wine, whereas for Jon, we have no singular event, we have no momentus experience, we just have this "truth."

As mentioned previously, Assaad has recognised the character of Manfred as displaying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In Assaad's article, she remarks that "an experience is denoted as traumatic if it completely overwhelms the individual, rendering him or her helpless," and this is quite evident in the interaction between Manfred and the chamois hunter. Sharon Stanley, an educator and clinical psychotherapist, writes that "the word trauma has been used to describe a variety of aversive, overwhelming experiences with long-term, destructive effects on individuals and communities."

So, if trauma is related to an experience, or experiences, is it still accurate to say that Jon experiences trauma, connected to being a bastard? Because there is seemingly no singular or defining root experience, or event that it stems from, it just is… it is a compellation of several moments, revealed to the reader through Jon’s memories and/or dreams. What is being "left half unexplained” here?

Assaad makes reference to the American Psychiatric Association's definition of PTSD, in which it observes that for an individual to be diagnosed with PTSD, they have to suffer from one or more intrustion symptoms, one or more avoidance symptoms, two or more negative alterations, and two or more hyperarousal symptoms. The dreams Jon has certainly suggest something, but it seems like a stretch to say that, like Manfred, he is suffering from PTSD, right? We and Jon are very much aware that he is "no Stark", at least not in the sense that he is Ned's trueborn son, this isn’t something Jon is actively suppressing. By comparison, it is incontrovertible that Manfred committed something in the past, which he deeply wishes to forget and disassociate from:

Man. I say ’tis blood—my blood! the pure warm stream Which ran in the veins of my fathers, and in ours When we were in our youth, and had one heart, And loved each other as we should not love, And this was shed: but still it rises up, Colouring the clouds, that shut me out from heaven, Where thou art not—and I shall never be. C. Hun. Man of strange words, and some half—maddening sin

(II, i, 28-35)

However, we cannot be sure what this traumatic point of origin is, though we know that it is related to something he has done to his beloved Astarte, which subsequently led to her death. Many critics have suggested that his sin is that of incest, and as I noted earlier, that Manfred as a whole is more than just a bit autobiographical and/or confessional in nature. Manfred's incestuous sin therefore re-enacts Byron's incest with his half-sister Augusta. But regardless of the true cause, Manfred is traumatised by his past and cannot overcome it. Is there something in Jon’s past, that may have subconsciously, or consciously, influenced his departure to the Wall — his self exile — which he cannot overcome, and which is closely tied to the issue of and pain he feels due to being a bastard, not just the illegitimacy, but also the negative characteristics it assigns? Is there an event, or experience, we can pinpoint as the origin of Jon’s trauma and potential PTSD?

To circle back to Jonsa, there is some, not unfounded, debate amongst us concerning the validity of the pre-canon crush/kiss theory. I've always found it an interesting theory, but until now, I haven't really given it too much thought. In light of the Byron connection, however, as well as the textual analysis I have for Part 3, I think this scenario, as detailed by agentrouka-blog, seems more and more likely. And I don't say that lightly, I really don't. It is a somewhat uncomfortable speculation to make, even if the interaction was more innocent rather than explicit (this is the side I firmly fall down on), however, it’s ambiguity does potentially parallel Byron’s Manfred and Astarte. This post would be even longer if I included my side-by-side text comparisons, so you may have to trust me for the moment that there are some very striking similarities between Act II, scene I of Manfred, and Jon's milk of the poppy induced dream in ASOS, Jon VI, as well as the actual buildup to that vision.

But, that sounds frankly terrible doesn't it? And it doesn't bode well for his future relationship with Sansa, does it? And what does it mean if Jon is suffering from PTSD due to an incestuous encounter with Sansa? What does that mean for Sansa, Sansa who is doggedly abused and mistreated by men within the present narrative? This is awful, why would GRRM root their romance in something traumatic? Oh I hear you, and these are questions I needed to ask myself whilst compiling this. But you see... now bear with me here... it isn't the actual encounter itself that was traumatic, for either Jon or Sansa, and that is reflected in both their POVs, because, though they think about each other sparingly (explicitly at least), it is never done so negatively. No, the potential PTSD Jon suffers from this experience isn't connected to Sansa, to whatever occured between them. Rather, I believe, it's connected to either the fear, or the reality, that Ned, his assumed father, saw and/or caught him (either Sansa had left at this point, or didn't fully grasp the issue), and this fear, this guilt, this sense of despair, is made evident in this passage:

When the dreams took him, he found himself back home once more, splashing in the hot pools beneath a huge white weirwood that had his father’s face. Ygritte was with him, laughing at him, shedding her skins till she was naked as her name day, trying to kiss him, but he couldn’t, not with his father watching. He was the blood of Winterfell, a man of the Night’s Watch. I will not father a bastard, he told her. I will not. I will not. “You know nothing, Jon Snow,” she whispered, her skin dissolving in the hot water, the flesh beneath sloughing off her bones until only skull and skeleton remained, and the pool bubbled thick and red. – ASOS, Jon VI

That's the traumatic experience, I believe, not the kiss — yep, I strongly suspect there was a kiss. Moreover, Jon's recurring assertion, throughout the series, that he "will not father a bastard" is tied to this in some way, it’s tied to Ned, it’s tied to some sense of guilt and shame. It’s not tied to Sansa. But we'll look at this passage, what it means, what it parallels, and what directly precedes it, in comparison to Manfred, a lot more closely next time.

I'll leave you with a slight teaser though — the parallel that made me really sit up and take notice:

C. Hun. Well, sir, pardon me the question, And be of better cheer. Come, taste my wine; 'Tis of an ancient vintage; many a day 'T has thaw’d my veins among our glaciers, now Let it do thus for thine. Come, pledge me fairly. Man. Away, away! there’s blood upon the brim! Will it then never—never sink in the earth?

(II, i, 21-26)

Note this imagery!!!

Maester Aemon poured it full. "Drink this."

Jon had bitten his lip in his struggles. He could taste blood mingled with the thick, chalky potion. It was all he could do not to retch it back up. – ASOS, Jon VI

In both instances, a drink is offered, with "blood upon the brim", and "blood mingled". In Manfred's case, this is an explicit trigger for him, whereas for Jon? Well, it bit more hidden, a bit more buried, but this moment is, to my mind, the catalyst, because its imagery strongly evokes the colours of the weirwood tree — "blood" red and "chalky" white — you know, the "huge white weirwood" he later on envisions.

*spits out drink*

Maybe the magnitude of this parallel isn't completely evident as of yet, but it will be... or at least I hope it will be, so stay tuned for Part 3!

(Starting to run out of Byron pics so... I dunno, here's Rupert Everret, from The Scandalous Adventures of Lord Byron, 2009)

In Conclusion

To summarise, why is the Manfred connection so monumental to me? Why do I find the pre-canon kiss theory, specifically the scenario detailed by agentrouka-blog, now very hard to dismiss? Because:

The nine (!) Manfreds/Manfryds included within the text, as well as the two Byrons, one of which, the first mentioned in fact, first appears in Sansa's POV. But crucicially the direct link made by GRRM between Byron Swann and Manfred Swann.

The strength of the similarities that can be observed between Jon and the Byronic Hero, but also notably to Byron's Manfred, the "Byronic hero par excellence", according to Assaad. Especially the recurring emotions of guilt and despair, the latter exemplified perhaps most clearly in Jon's dreams.

The prominent theme of self-exile to escape something, something that perhaps cannot be openly stated, present in Manfred, Byron's own life, and Jon's narrative.

Those pesky half-sisters: Augusta, Astarte, and Sansa.

The PTSD symptoms clearly present in Manfred, but left "half unexplained", and seemingly not explained at all in Jon's POV — I'll dig more into this in Part 3.

The "blood upon the brim", and "blood mingled" — more on that in Part 3, I hope you guys like in depth imagery analysis!

Obviously, this is all still just speculation on my part, and it's speculation in connection to a theory that is understandably controversial. I'd be happy to dismiss it... if it weren't for the above. So, I suppose I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand, however you look at it, it's more trauma in an already traumatic series... which is *sighs* not what you want for the characters you care strongly about. But on the other hand, that literary connection to Manfred (and by extension to actual Lord Byron), the way it's lining up, plus that comparison GRRM himself made between Jon and the Byronic Hero... that's all very compelling and interesting to me as a reader, as a former English literature student. So, I don't want it to be true because... incest hell. But then, I also want it to be true because then it makes me feel smart for guessing correctly.

But anyway, we're going to be descending into incest hell in Part 3, so... we'll just have to grapple with that when we come to it. I hope, if you stuck with it till the incesty end, that you enjoyed this post!

Stay tuned ;)

Bibliography of Academic Sources:

American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edn (Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013); online edition at www.dsm5.org

Assaad, Lara, "'My slumbers—if I slumber—are not sleep': The Byronic Hero’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder", The Byron Journal 47, no. 2 (2019): 153–163.

Byron, George Gordon Noel, Byron’s Letters and Journals. Ed. Leslie A. Marchand. 12 vols. London: Murray, 1973–82.

Holland, Tom, "Undead Byron", in Byromania: Portraits of the Artist in Nineteenth- and Twentieth- Century Culture, ed. by Frances Wilson (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000).

MacDonald, D. L. "Narcissism and Demonality in Byron’s 'Manfred'", Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal 25, no. 2 (1992): 25–38.

Stanley, Sharon, Relational and Body-Centered Practices for Healing Trauma: Lifting the Burdens of the Past (London: Routledge, 2016)

Twitchell, James B., The Living Dead: A Study of the Vampire in Romantic Literature (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1981).

#jonsa #jon x sansa #jonsa meta #jon as the byronic hero #byronic hero #lord byron #tw: incest #cappy's thoughts #grrm and the Romantics #Jonsa and Romanticism #percy bysshe shelley #romantic poets #literary references #damn this was a long one!#glad a split it into another part!#i started to get a bit unhinged by the end not gonna lie

94 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs