#I reject this. There are NOT fundamentally good nor fundamentally bad people | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dukeofriven · 2 years

Text

Saw a really bad take today that basically boils down to "why bother separating art from the artist when there's so much other art out there: just go enjoy the other art. Nobody cares if you have fond memories of the old art just go make new ones lol."

It’s bad for a few reasons. Let’s get down to cases. (Warning: I talk about Barthes.) 1) That's not how brains work. I can’t tell someone to stop being in love with someone. I can’t tell someone that their favourite city is a hellhole. I can’t even tell someone to stop enjoying kale. I mean... I can, but not with any expectation of a serious result. Neither you nor I can usually meaningfully affect the desires, wants, and tastes of others: we can provide counterfactuals to taste, such as ‘the person you’re in love with is cruel to me and other people you care about maybe you shouldn’t love them,’ or ‘LA is a vapid town full of vapid people and it smells bad you shouldn’t like going there,’ or especially ‘kale was forged in the darkest pits of Utumno by the dark lord Melkor in mockery of spinach and your mouth cringes at the flavour stop eating that shit,’ but that usually has no effect. And that’s fine. That’s how brains work. Especially in the neuro-divergent community, in which hyper-fixations are something people can have really no control over, swanning-in and telling someone to just... like something else, telling someone to just abandon the thing their brain has subsumed into its quintessence as a form of day-to-day stability, their wellspring of pleasure in a brutal word—that’s not going to work (and a smug little ‘lol’ at the end of your post does not change the fundamental rudeness of the imperative.)

2) Especially in regards to bigger media franchises (and speaking as someone who finds critique really important), there's something unhinged in acting like we can all just divorce ourselves from things that have had inescapable impact on culture because we don’t like them, either from a taste standpoint or a moral standpoint (although the two are far too often conflated these days.)

To pick an example at random: The Mists of Avalon is one of the most important books in all of feminist fantasy. It is extraordinarily influential and traces of it can be found in the writers who followed in its wake, writing homages, writing counters, all encouraged or driven by these later writers relationships to Mists. Mists of Avalon’s author is, alas, someone whom we would now, socially, very much like to shove down the memory hole, but we cannot reverse the effects of Mists. It will never go away, and to pretend that it has—to act as though it never existed, or that by not acknowledging it and its influence (or, perhaps more crucially, by not studying it or engaging with it to understand why everything that came after it owes it a debt) is the morally correct choice is an approach to art that I reject. It is based on a wrong-headed belief that art should only ever be a form of comfort, both textually and meta-textually. The viewpoint seems to be that if the art has a ‘problem,’ if it cannot be fully comforting, then it should be abandoned. Absurd. Idiotic. Juvenile. We hobble ourselves as critical thinkers (which we should always strive to be) when we ignore these nested layers of understanding—the strata of pop culture—that everything is built on. I find that dangerous. If you don’t know what came before then you can’t understand what got you here or where you’re going, and you don’t really comprehend all that a text might be trying to say. All sorts of important things fall through the cracks when you start ignoring any art you find personally distasteful.

3) If you cannot separate art from artist then you're going to lose a lot of good, interesting, or challenging art, particularly in places where the divergence between your opinion and the artist is relatively small. For every criminal whose work you might reasonable find no longer palatable, there's other nuanced authors for whom you are simply not similar. I disagree with Tolkien in several major ways, but I think excising his art out of culture or simply my life results in a much poorer experience of living. Which leads to:

4) The farther back you go the more art and artist are intrinsically divorced because we simply don't know all that much about the artist. Most great paintings are functionally anonymous, and there are entire centuries where biographies (at least to the degree modern fandom content consumption seems to demand) essentially do not exist. We cannot study Shakespeare and know if the man was more distasteful than we might like in his personal life. I cannot promise you that Shakespeare was never gross to someone in a bar. I cannot promise you he never pressured people unduly, or scammed people out of money, or defended a really gross friend. I cannot prove that away from his writing he wasn’t gross to women, or queer people, or foreigners, that there was not the Tudor equivalent of Twitter receipts for scandalous, problematic behaviour lurking in his life. We just don’t know enough about Shakespeare to speak with much certainty on his moral virtue as an artist—and that needs to be okay. We actually need to separate art from artist more, because the assumption that social media has brought is that we should have intimate, daily access to an artist’s life, opinions, political beliefs, and even location. That’s wrong. That’s grotesque, and intrusive, and it is just messed up! No! You don’t need to know anything about an artist to enjoy their work! Shit, you shouldn’t have to know anything about an artist to consume their work if the work gives you pleasure, or interest, or does anything to you that art is meant to do. Despite the extremely bad fandom interpretation, Roland Barthes’ Death of the Author (which, hey, opens with an sentence that some might well consider transphobic, so are we going to declare Barthes problematic and stop using Death of the Author to justify our awful fan fic choices? I mean that would require any of you to have ever read it, but, y’know...) does not argue that the author had no influence on the content of a work, that an author’s beliefs, politics, and choices can be separated from (or, more specifically, ignored-in)the text—especially if we don’t like it. Barthes’ argument is, in fact, that that act of transmission, the alchemy of art-creation, forever sunders a work from its author by the very nature of language itself. Even should I tell you the extremely autobiographical short story of “yesterday I went to see Bob’s Burgers: The Movie. It was a delight and I think you should go,” that sentence is not truly about me, but the crafted “I” of the story: I, the real person, am not the I of the thrilling tale of the trip to the cinema. The author is dead: they cannot live in their work because the moment it is transmitted is no longer a living moment. (Italo Calvino covers the same strange nature of I-as-Character in his seminal work of metafiction If On A Winter’s Night A Traveller...)

In other words, though the author can never be absent from their work, meaning in art can only ever come from what you, the observer, bring to it. As Barthes puts it: “Every text is eternally written in the here and now.” No understanding of an author as a person is needed, necessary, or arguably even desirable when approaching art: your connection to it, how you understand it, what it means and how you are shaped by that meeting, exists only in the present, in the act of engaging with the art. (For the record I think Barthes is somewhat too encompassing in his beliefs, I don’t agree with him in full, but the underlying point is: art can not only be separated artist, art is always separate from artist. The artist cannot be the art.)

5) Purity culture is boring. According to these bad takes, we must demand ideological compliance with all our consumed art, and we are somehow bad or stupid people when we form connections with art made by problematic, challenging, or perhaps even reprehensible people> This is such a childish complaint. This standard to which all artists and art-consumers must be held is an irrational one. Modern fandom culture seems utterly unable to accept artists as humans: people who err, who have biases, blind spots, and beliefs. I have been around ling enough to see the term ‘problematic’ lose all meaning, to mutate into a yimakh shemo, a denunciation from which there can be no remorse. Modern fandom culture frequently seems to expect a certain level of investment nomadism: you stick with a work until its author errs, at which points you are to immediately move on, abandoning the old thing completely. Again, it is the quote up at the top that inspired this whole tirade: we are to know all aspects of an artist, we are to judge those actions unceasingly, and at the first ‘error’ we are to just abandon the art and find something new. We should simply like something else at will. It’s tiring. It’s boring. And I am sick of the animosity, the smug judgement, the crucifixions and the damnatio memoriæ. I’m just tired of this puritan impulse in which I must justify my pleasures to the masses in order to prove that my free time is spent virtuously. I must be quick to denounce all that is ungodly, and allow no wickedness to sully my heart. I read no evil, I listen to no evil, I ship no evil. Piss off. [Edit: in response to some comments, I should note that yes, there is a distinction between engaging with the art of a problematic artist, and handing them money. While we cannot often just ‘stop liking something’ we discover comes from a morally complicated place, we can quite easily not support an amoral person financially.]

#Roland barthes #death of the author #fanfic #fandom culture #purity culture #literary critique #criticism #literature #mists of avalon #melkor #neurodivergencies #hyperfixation

100 notes · View notes

sunkcost · 2 years

Note

On Jimmy being willing to change himself to however Kim wants, it really hurts my feelings that those lines are almost the exact same as when he’s begging Chuck in “Nacho” (I’d also add to the pile Inflatable where he actually admits he tries to be what they want, and the Fall commentary where they said he steals costuming and lines from everyone else). Like I’m not trying to woobify, but fuck he deserves a little peace with himself, and not just hiding behind a loud and colourful mask.

no, i'm totally with you. there's something so sad about jimmy's desperation for acceptance. i think that's one of the major contributing factors in how he reaches this point. he's constantly chaffing against people's expectations but he also cares so much about what other people think of him. he wants to be wanted. i really never stop thinking about that peter gould quote saying walt turned out to be driven by a desire for power but jimmy's always been driven by a need for approval and acceptance and it's something he never quite gets. i think that one of jimmy's major problems is that he is so fixated on how people see him, even as he doesn't want to be. it's the same problem he has with morality, really, that he's too caught up in external justification.

trying to refrain from getting too into the weeds on it, but if the show is in many ways about the non-existence of objective morality, the idea that there are things which can be existentially proven to be right or wrong, then there's something really perfect about how jimmy's need for external approval is so tied up in his struggle with identity. looking at morality from an existential perspective, the idea is really that if you cannot objectively prove things to be wrong or right then justifying your actions is fundamentally impossible. there's no logical foundation to base your argument on because the ideas of 'wrong' and 'right' themselves are ideological constructs. they only mean as much as you decide to allow them mean. therefore, the idea is more about acting in good vs. bad faith than being wrong or right, deciding what you personally believe to be correct or incorrect courses of action, knowing there's nothing objective to dictate that decision and that you cannot justify it to anyone else. all that to say, jimmy steps outside the law, the socially agreed upon idea of morality, but he isn't ever really able to give up the need to justify his actions to other people. he has left the social standard of moral acceptance but he doesn't have the internal conviction to stand by his decisions when they aren't understood by other people.

i think he has the same problem with identity. he doesn't want to live his life defined by societal norms but he also can't deal with the fact that people reject him when he steps outside of them. there's a constant tension between him not wanting to conform and him wanting to be wanted. he has an identity in there somewhere, i do believe that, but his identity is incompatible with his need for acceptance and so he gets stuck in this awful place in the middle where no one understands or accepts him and he doesn't understand or accept himself. that is my very longwinded way of saying that i completely agree. to me it feels like the only way he can really move forward is to start relying on internal conviction instead of external validation. he has to give up on being accepted, which for him i think is an extremely difficult thing to do. at the same time, there is something about him going from jimmy, a person torn between being who he is and being who people want him to be, to saul, who is neither who he is nor who people want him to be, to gene who is, like he says, a shadow or a ghost, not really a person at all.

i also think it kind of has to do with observation. saul is about controlling how people look at him, even if negatively. on the surface it seems to be about giving up on what people think of him, but i think it's the opposite. i think it's nothing but an awareness of how people think of him, and it's at once an attempt to control it (he can't make them love him but he can make them hate him), and to punish himself (he's existing in his own personal hell, a world where no one understands him and no one wants him). gene is also something like that, but different as well. saul is like a perversion of jimmy, all the things people dislike about him taken to the extreme, playing into their preexisting perceptions even as they don't actually reflect what he wants or who he is. gene is totally average, accepted by people, but not in a real way, because no one knows him well enough for the acceptance to mean anything. jimmy's real identity is still somewhere inside of him but it's not perceived by anyone and so he remains unknown and unwanted. that's a big part of the reason why i don't think further punishing jimmy is the best outcome for the series. it feels like the trajectory of his identity has pushed him to a point where he could either disappear entirely or realize his identity as something outside of other people's perceptions. to me that feels like the only way to stabilize his struggles with morality and identity.

#better call saul #i mean honestly what i think is really interesting about jimmy vs a character like walt #is that i think jimmy's actions have already had consequences #and not just external consequences #he's already essentially died #like what he did destroyed him #and so continuing to punish him just feels so unsatisfying #there's hardly anything left to punish you know #i don't want to see him face more consequences i want him to be able to come out of this a whole person #the real jimmy mcgill that got buried under all the desperation and doubt #even before saul #because i think the real jimmy mcgill is a good person #whatever that identity is i think it's good #but it's never been in total control of his choices #he's always been halfway driven by what other people want

47 notes · View notes

ina-nis · 1 year

Text

I feel like one of the fundamentals of my relationship issues (and the bane of my existence) is breadcrumbing, aka being fed crumbs of attention and affection.

I didn’t know there was an actual term for the phenomenon but apparently this is, indeed, a thing, and I should say I’m a little bit surprised about the fact that I’m also guilty of doing that to others.

Mayhaps, I try to flaunt myself, as if I’m immune to certain behaviours and actions that hurt me so, of course, I would not want to do that to others, but a lot of my defenses are mirrors: I’ll do these things even if I don’t realize.

When I “breadcrumb” others, I believe, it might be my way of keeping these relationships and connections superficial and lighthearted. When shit hits the fan, I’ll be “safe” from further harm (and believe others are safer too, since nothing too profound was established in the first place). That’s why I am capable of cutting off bonds with ease, and why it doesn’t feel as painful, and it’s almost as there were no real links, even if they were there at some point.

I believe that makes me untrustworthy, and unreliable, just like the wind - which one can’t control - or like a ghost or apparition. I can be fun and lovely to have around, I can inspire and lift others up, I try to be friendly and a safe space, and it all might look like a facade, not totally false, neither totally true. If you give me the right amount of triggers and discomfort, I’ll vanish like smoke. It just takes a while for that to happen usually.

I used to think I have a low tolerance for a lot of interpersonal issues, but the truth is that I’m extremely resilient. I take it and take it, for too long even. I try because I know that’s what one should do. I give chances and I guess I try to communicate to the best of my ability. But I’m not at a place where I’ll just stay passively waiting for things and people to change. It’s hard for people to change and they will not change for others so... if something, or someone, isn’t good for me, I’ll simply leave. Conflict resolution can only do so much.

Of course, I could try harder. Of course I should work more on desensitizing myself and my triggers or... I could dedicate my energy and time to things and people that will make me feel good - they’re out there, I don’t have to put up with bullshit, and I will not.

I withhold deep affection because, well as much as I’d love to deny it forever, I’m afraid of (the inevitable) rejection. Like I’ve been saying for over an year now, I still haven’t had any positive experiences to balance out the bad and traumatic ones, I still didn’t have anything long lasting enough that could tilt the scales and aid me into a less turbulent recovery. Instead, I just feel stuck, and bad things keep on happening.

On the other side, when I’m on the receiving end of crumbs of attention, it immediately make my alarms go off. I try to not hold it against people, nor blame or judge, I know it can be hard, all things considered. At the same time, I know my worth and I’m not going to bow down to eat crumbs off the floor like a dog, no thanks!

This time, it’s others that feel untrustworthy and unreliable - most of them are in my eyes - and I rarely get a chance, or rather I haven’t had any chances, to be proven wrong.

So in these interpersonal “games”, where it feels like someone has to concede, I feel like that someone is almost always me, and it always ends up poorly for me. One-sided things never really work for long anyway. It’s hard to trust my bowing down and trying to appease will bear any fruits.

So far, I’ve been right in thinking it will go wrong. It’s more a matter of how much I’m willing to put up with and for how long.

It’s hard to change this mindset on my own, it’s hard to give people a chance because they are people through and through, it’s hard to remain hopeful about someone different being out there, but I guess I am because I feel like I’m someone like that myself - I’m not perfect, far from that, but I’m making an effort however I can.

I’m not expecting perfection, I’m not expecting The One... I’d like, at least, reciprocity and proper communication, for a start. To me, that’s the bare minimum.

#avpd #avoidance #avoidant #avoidant personality disorder #inanis post

4 notes · View notes

teabooksandsweets · 2 years

Text

It’s a good thing when young adults realise that, though there is NOTHING wrong with liking stuff meant for kids and teens, or sometimes feeling younger, that they are fundamentally adults and, in when it really comes down to it, in the same group as other adults. Like, if you’re in your early twenties, you are closer to people several decades older than you, than to people just a few years younger than you. That doesn’t mean you have to get on or be close with much older people; it doesn’t mean you couldn’t be jolly good buddies with teens. But fundamentally, though not mathematically, 25 is closer to 50 than to 15. Don’t forget that.

This is also especially important when it comes to romantic or sexual relationships. If someone assaults you or gets too close to you in ways that make you uncomfortable then that is ALWAYS wrong. But, say, a much older person is not a creep or pedo just for being attratced to you when you are a young adult – they are a creep and an assaulter when they don’t respect your No. But the same goes for a person your age. On the other hand, being a twenty something who likes cartoons or stuff doesn’t make it okay to be in relationship with a teen – “feeling like a kid” doesn’t change anything. On tumblr in particular many adults like to “categorize” themselves as children, in ways that are truly concerning, especially in their attutude towards actual children.

I do not play down the vulnerability or inexperience of very young adults, nor the complexities of growing up or the fact that legally coming of age doesn’t mean that one isn’t just a full blown adult just now, or the dangers of people who want to exploit just that. But infantilizing actual adults is NOT the solution to that. It’s better to point out that people who are not pedophiles can be really bad people and exploit aspects of a person’s development or life circumstances, rather than to pretend that anyone pushing thirty is in acute danger of becoming a victim of child abuse. It’s also important to point out that mere sexual attraction to an adult person – if unrelated to any sort of misbehavious – is not a sign of perversion, even if that adult person is young. And also that there is a growing problem of young adults who think their “childishness” and youth would justify a sexual or romantic approach to actual kids and teens.

And because this is tumblr, let me repeat:

Sexual assault is BAD. People have to respect your rejection. BUT people are not perverts or creeps or pedos if they are attracted to you when you are a LITERAL ADULT.

You can like and be friends with kids if you’re an adult. You can just... not vibe with older adults, but you need to recognize that they are not some evil different species.

Liking kids’ stuff as an adult is FINE. But it doesn’t make YOU a kid. It does not make the STUFF for adults either. Just deal with being an adult enjoying children’s media.

At a certain age your liking of children should be from the perspective of an adult; not from the perspective of a peer. If you’re a very young adult who’s attracted to an older teen, then that is actually normal – but you’re the one with the responsibility to handle that for yourself and leave them out of it. If you dislike the attentions of an older adult, you are absolutely in the right for that, but don’t pretend that’s because “you’re still a kid”.

People always develop, even adults. People can always be predators, people can always be assholes, and people can always exploit a person’s “deficiencies” or circumstances. But being some years younger than someone else doesn’t automatically place an adult person in a very terrible situation, even if it is a factor to consider in romantic, platonic, professional or other relationships – one of many factors.

#this post might get me kicked out of tumblr #but here it is!#signed someone who was really creeped out in her late teens by a grown dude who still thought of himself as a kid and considered it there #fore normal to have a young teenage girlfriend #and thought people his age were old #the true creeps are not older adults who are attracted to younger adults #it's the people who think they're children's peers and who really fear other grown people #and they don't KNOW

9 notes · View notes

wisdomfish · 27 days

Text

THE FREED ATHEIST

Naturalism is the belief system that regards the natural, material, and physical universe as the only reality. Nature is the whole show. This viewpoint is often characterized by corollary beliefs such as monism (all reality is one), materialism (reality is ultimately matter), antisupernaturalism (all supernatural explanations are to be rejected a priori), scientism (only the scientific method yields “truth”), and humanism (humanity is the ultimate outcome, hence “value”).

According to naturalism, everything (things, people, and events) can be reduced to “matter in motion.” Everything is reducible to, or explained in terms of, certain fundamental natural phenomena (physics, chemistry, and biology). Carl Sagan expressed the position of strong naturalism in a famous statement in his television series Cosmos:

“The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

Thus, If God is dead and the grave our final destination,

"nothing would be immoral any longer, everything would be permitted, even anthropophagy [i.e., cannibalism]."

They [i.e., atheists] are now free, if they so choose, to become nihilists or sadists or solipsists on their own account.

Some theories of 'the Superman' [Ubermensch] derive from atheism, and a person who thought that heaven and hell were empty could conclude that he was free to do exactly as he wished. The fear that this might be the outcome-well-expressed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky-underlies many people’s reluctance to abandon religious dogma.

Not all showed such reluctance. Ted Bundy being one such person,

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.” I even read somewhere that the Chief justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself: that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any “reason” to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring — the strength of character — to throw off its shackles. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block, and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.

[Kenneth Samples; Mitch Stokes; Fyodor Dostoevsky; Christopher Hitchens; Ted Bundy.]

#scientific enlightenment #relativism #nihilism #atheism #anthropophagy #final destination #cannibalism

0 notes

truthandlove · 11 months

Text

Some are asking: "How do we show mercy and love without compromising or affirming sin?"

This question shows a total lack of understanding. It shows a DANGEROUS confusion between God's love and human social niceness.

We show mercy and love by NOT compromising or affirming sin. To be friendly with sin is abuse and the opposite of love. To not confront sin is to enable a person's slide into hell.

We show love by speaking raw truth on the matter! Love WARNS. Love DISRUPTS and CONFRONTS all lies. Love is not niceness. Love is disruptive truth that does not play with or tolerate that which destroys.

Exactly, you love by not tolerating it. Your bad behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. This is because it is damaging you and those around you. For this reason, since I care about you, I will not let you do this around me and to whatever degree I can control. I am acting on what is best for you, whether you feel that or not. Because degradation/compromise will not be tolerated, we can foster that which is truly good and beneficial. Here are the exact boundaries and here are the exacct repercussions / consequences for violating those boundaries. You will be held 100% accountable because that is what love does. They confusion between love and niceness has us DOING TOO LITTLE TOO LATE, and thus becoming an ACCOMPLICE to evil, a COLLABORATOR with degradation. To be soft on evil IS evil.

As I posted yesterday: The FALSE church and the FALSE gospel tries to make Christianity into something comfortable and entertaining. It thus utterly misses the BIBLICAL ADVENTURE of submitting to Christ and fighting evil. By failing to fight evil, it strips people of meaning and purpose. Sadly, it puts them to sleep instead of vibrant and responsive to the Holy Spirit.

IF YOU ARE ASKING: how to be firm against evil while also being soft on evil... aka how to love BIBLICALLY while also being SOCIALLY NICE, then such a question shows a fundamental lack of comprehension as to what is at stake. Our culture has swung RADIALLY over to the side of tolerance and niceness towards sin, lawlesness... and the results are predictably DISASTROUS. So don't be part of the problem, friends.

Come back to REAL love. Come back to Godly love that confronts and disrupts evil, EVEN AT THE RISK or rejection and being misunderstood. If you are afraid of refection, or accusations, of being misunderstood, then you fundamentally CANNOT love as Jesus demonstrated love in the 4 Gospels.

Know that REAL REAL REAL love has never been nor will ever be mainstream or socially acceptable. You cannot be a lover AND be socially acceptable at the same time, so choose one of the other. If you try to do BOTH, you run squarely into the destroyed society we see all around us today.

Love BOLDLY. Jesus does not just "love", He loves HEROICALLY. And this is EXACTLY what your heart was made for - heroic love. I suggest this book to disabuse you of rampant and dangerous confusion between social niceness and Biblical love. Without courage and risk, there is no genuine love. The book talks about how to hold various kinds of sinful/evil people ACCOUNTABLE in a way that fosters change.

Let me quote the summary of the book:

We’ve come to view love as being “nice,” yet the kind of love modeled by Jesus Christ has nothing to do with manners or unconditional acceptance. Rather, it is disruptive, courageous, and socially unacceptable. In Bold Love, Dr. Dan Allender and Dr. Tremper Longman III draw out the AGGRESSIVE, UNRELENTING, PASSIONATE power of GENUINE love. Far from helping you “get along” with others, Bold Love introduces the outlandish possibility of making a significant, life-changing impact on family, friends, coworkers―even your enemies. Learn more about forgiveness, maturity, and seeing others through Jesus’ eyes.

0 notes

choppedearthquakecheesecake · 1 year

Text

What are morals?

We made them, didn't we?

Our morals are made so that others can feel comfortable. How would you feel if a random person on the street didn't mind killing you? Like it was nothing but a normal conversation about the weather.

They are all for selfish reasons

Our morals. Be kind so you wouldn't hurt people's feelings. Be accepting of others, so they wouldn't feel left out even if you don't want to associate with them. Put others before yourself, so that they may benefit by your generous attitude

Good labels to have, like kindness, thoughtfulness, empathy, forgiveness, are all to benefit the person in front of you. Not yourself

Why do you think so many people drop you after you stop being a people pleaser?

Why do you think we feel the need to antagonize someone?

The answer? To make ourselves feel better. Simple. We hate to see qualities in others that we recognise in ourselves and see as 'bad' so that they don't hurt our ego. The blazing need to feel stronger

Everything, and anything in today's society, in every aspect of our being, is to benefit us as as a whole. To be kind to our ego, to our hidden want to be better, to make us feel like we are worth something again

Being kind to people is just to make them feel better. Not yourselves. And that's our morals. The very begining of your thoughts. The very essence of your every day decisions. Because you would rather put somebody else's well being above your own, rather then think if you are the one that actually needs to receive the same kindness. Forgive yours enemies? Because they've made a mistake and don't want to live trough with the consequences

Murder tho? It makes us feel alive, like so many killers have spoken before. We read about them, watch them take a big part in our daily lives trough the media.

Feels good doesn't it?

The thought of holding somebody else's life at the palm of your hand, the mind clouding power of having control over a completely different being other than you. But, it wouldn't benefit the said being, would it? Not a her, nor a him or they, an it. We operate off of fear. Not being seen, of being an outcast, of not being the center of attention, of being rejected, of uncertainty, of betrayal, of being hurt. Killing goes against all of that, right? It's in the very essence of our fears, of feeling somebody control you in that very moment. Makes you think- do I really deserve this? Is this how It end? I don't want to die. I'm scared. Can somebody even help me?

Yet, our morals are what's stopping it

A random person on the street. Can you imagine? Wandering on with your day in fear of who could be the next one that kills you? What would happen, if our darkest fears were put into the spotlight?

Look around you. Everything you see, was made to benefit you. To make life easier, more comfortable than it would be otherwise. Same things to protect us from our greatest fears, like drowning or height. Safety webs. Lifeguards. Better tasting food? To bring a sense of comfort or belonging. We crave comfort in our everyday broken-like state, just to feel warm. It's in our very nature, at the very fundamental level of our instincts

So I shall ask again, what are morals?

#morals #psychology #positive mental attitude #hopesomebodyreadsthis #self help #encouragement #fiction #science #motivation #nothing really matters #fuck life #killed #i need sleep

0 notes

fangirleaconmigo · 2 years

Note

Do you think it's bad for a cis woman to read gay smut fanfictions or the opposite, as it's not really about exploring the reader's own sexuality?

Hi Anon,

I know this question is controversial in fandom, and liking peace and quiet as much as I do (and disliking Discourse as much as I do), it would be much smarter for me to just delete your ask.

However, I have some extremely strong feelings about this, so I’m going to dive in and hope for the best in how it is received. (famous last words) It is going to be long, because I do think it warrants careful thought. The question of shame, fetishization, and homophobia is an important one, so I will address that. This may be a lot more than you wanted, but asking me any questions about morality is going to open up a huge ol can of worms. I am a wordy bitch. So here we go.

Firstly you ask, is it ‘bad’. To explain my own personal system of morality, my measurement for whether something is bad always boils down to, does it hurt people or does it help people? And when the thing we’re judging is a personal action someone has taken, I ask myself, is this person making a choice for themselves (as is their right to do) or are they making a choice for other people?

Obviously this can get very complex. I studied political philosophy in college, so I know that when you are in the fuzzy areas, you can debate these things until the end of time. People are still arguing over moral ideas put forward centuries ago. BUT that is the basis, the starting point for my own system of morals.

So. Does reading fiction in private, or being horny harm others or even affect others? No. Obviously not. Does it help anyone? Yes! It helps the person reading it! People really really really underestimate how much pleasure, a release, a bit of serotonin, can turn your mood and therefore your mental health around. I’m all for profound emotional shit, but let’s not overlook the fundamental role simple things like pleasure, fun, play, and release make in our quality of life and mental health. Eat a cookie! Smell a flower! Laugh! Orgasm! It’s all the good brain chemicals, folks.

That’s even setting aside (for the moment) the more profound ways reading smut can help you with your own trauma, shame, or general desire to explore your sexuality. It’s also even setting aside the way that smut fics often also have strong emotional elements of love, connection, learning to trust, and healing from trauma. I am setting that aside because even though it is true, it is not necessary to my argument.

So, it doesn’t hurt anyone (I will get to the fetishization question, bear with me.) And it is usually great for you. Or not! You’re a human being. You get to decide what is best for you.

Further, asking “should a woman with X gender identity and X sexuality be reading gay smut of two men” requires a few things. It implies that I am going to pass moral judgement on someone for what fiction they read, and base that judgment on their gender identity and sexuality. So, it requires me to know what that gender identity and sexuality is. Then, it requires me to say...you should or should not be reading that.

So my first issue with that is that I always reject efforts to police, restrict, or gatekeep art. Yes, even horny art is art. Even art created to provoke a sexual response, which many people (often very religious people, but also a subset of online fandom activists) consider a “lower” or “base” function of the human experience, IS art. (I don’t believe the human experience can be dissected in that way, but that is neither here nor there.)

Just as importantly, I viscerally recoil from any effort to police people’s gender or sexuality to see if they are allowed to read (or are just shamed for reading) certain material. Just. Whooooeeee, no thank you. Dear god, no.

Setting aside the fact that people’s sexuality and gender evolve, and they may not even know how to label themselves, this mentality, this sort of approach, often requires people to ‘out’ themselves. It demands that they publicly disclose their own sexual and gender identities in order to enjoy fiction in peace. It is, and I cannot stress this enough, toxic, abusive, and always damages queer people far more than anyone else. It is the exact opposite of queer liberation. Please look up Isabel Fall. There is an article on Vox that thoroughly walks you through one example of people shaming someone and demanding their identity, sending a trans woman into the hospital, and back into the closet.

Cishet white men literally do not give a fuck what you think about what they read. It is always and I mean ALWAYS LGBTQ people that suffer under the policing and forced outing of sexuality and gender. It also stinks of fascism.

I hear people saying “we aren’t burning books, it’s not censoring, relax.” What if we aren’t actively restricting material? What if we just judge, stigmatize, and shame in order to bully straight people into changing their reading habits? Isn’t that ok?

And what kind of disaster would we call upon ourselves if we don’t force anyone to out themselves? I mean, if you just ‘let’ lgbtq people do what they want without disclosing, you could get a bunch of straight cis women slipping through! They could just be out there! In their homes! On their devices! Being horny for fun!!!

I’m completely fine with that.

I am aware that the conversation happening in fandom spaces is whether it’s inherently fetishizing for women to think two men together in fiction is hot, and whether the smut is the cause of a tendency to fetishize gay men. Since I care a whole lot about fighting homophobia, I’ll take that seriously and address that.

People always use the example of “but how is this different from men lusting after lesbians? Don’t women hate it when men fetishize lesbians? How is this different?” That is always the question. “What if the genders were reversed?”

So I am going to start there.

As a gay woman, I can tell you, what a man beats it to in private is his business. I could not be less interested in the details of that. It doesn’t affect or harm me. It is literally none of my business.

What harms me is when a man mistreats gay women. When he thinks he can ‘convert’ a woman, says that she hasn’t had the right dick yet, or asks gay women to perform for him.

And I can say with confidence that men reading explicit material about two women has zero to do with this.

(People often bring porn into this, but bringing real human beings performing sex into the equation would require a broader ethical conversation and you asked about smutty fiction, so I’ll keep it focused on that.)

So, to really drive this point home, we need to separate two concepts out.

Sexual attraction vs dehumanization.

Sexual attraction is being hot for someone. It is morally neutral before you have acted on it in a way that involves another human being.

Dehumanization is seeing someone as less than human in some way. Dehumanization is when people believe they have the right to touch, harm, or even kill another person. It makes people believe that another human doesn’t doesn’t need or deserve to decide what happens to their own body. Dehumanizing is how you get young army recruits to kill complete strangers. Dehumanization facilitates bigotry. It shuffles sexual assault under the rug. It devalues life.

Misogyny is a form of dehumanization. It is a form of violence. It is what causes men to feel entitled to demand sexual favors from a woman, and to disregard her sexuality and autonomy. It is not sexual attraction. It is misogyny.

And you do not “get” or “catch” misogyny from smutty fiction.

When men are still boys, before they even pick up a device or a book, they are taught to see women as commodities. They are taught by their parents, their pastors, even CHILDREN’S MEDIA that sexual harassment is comedic, stalking is romantic, and women are prizes to be won. That if they achieve certain milestones required of men, they are entitled to a ‘prize’ of the woman they desire.

Misogyny is systemic. It is everywhere. It’s in the water, the air of our society, no matter where you live. It is global. The thing that makes men walk up to women and demand their bodies is one thing: sheer, mind boggling, entitlement. Audacity. Gall. Fucking nerve. Insidious misogyny.

I know this sounds dramatic to people who don’t experience it. But think about it. Every time someone tells a girl that she is ‘mean’ for not responding to a ‘nice’ guy's advances they are saying...you are a commodity to bestow on someone as a reward. You are not someone who gets to just simply have preferences. That is for ‘real’ human beings. This kind of mentality, in the mind of a violent angry person, is quite literally why men kill women for breaking up with them.

(I know that men, and people of all genders, suffer abuse and violence against them. I am not denying that, I am just having a conversation focused for the moment on violence against women.)

NOW, the constant violence against women in this context (and you may not experience it, but please look at the numbers for rape and domestic violence and other gendered violence) has made people CONFLATE men’s sexual desires with predation.

That is how you get people who profess to be leftists and care about oppressed peoples treating the ENTIRE CONCEPT of men’s attraction to women as predatory and therefore stigmatizing and demonizing the entire concept of sex and men's sexuality. I’ve heard people talk about leftist puritans online and I think a lot of stems from a misguided reaction to a society that allows sexual predation to become rife. No, darlings, no.

The problem isn’t men or their sexuality. The problem is misogyny.

If we are to have even a prayer of a healthy, kind society, we need to separate those two things out. Get a crowbar. Pull them apart. Don’t allow the patriarchy to poison you against something that is an important, fundamental part of who we all are! There is nothing dangerous or shameful or predatory about men being sexually attracted to women.

If men think women are hot as fuck? If they want to read about or think about hot gay ladies together in order to get off? Shit, me too, man!!! ME FREAKING TOO.

We can apply this to the concept of women fetishizing gay men. When we talk about women fetishizing gay men, we are talking about women who ask creepy intrusive questions. Who call gay men demeaning pet names against their wishes. Who touch them without their consent. Who go to gay clubs just to treat it like their own personal entertainment and make everyone feel uncomfortable and on display. These are women who don't give a shit about the personal boundaries or comfort or well being of gay men.

This behavior is revolting. But the root of that behavior isn’t lust. It is homophobia. Homophobia isn’t just ‘I hate gay people’ or ‘I want to beat up gay people’ or ‘I think they shouldn’t get married'. It is also, ‘gay peoples’ sexuality isn’t real or important, and it just exists to entertain me or get me off.’

Again, we are taught homophobia from the cradle in a thousand different insidious ways. People have their homophobia deeply rooted far before they even find out what AO3 is, my friends. Homophobia is a violence. It is evil. It is systemic.

And we cannot combat it without NAMING it. Without UNDERSTANDING IT. Bigotry is baked into our society (whichever one you live in). You have to learn to IDENTIFY IT to COMBAT IT.

And to do that, I am begging people, BEGGING THEM, my god I am on my knees people, (cue Boyz II Men, down on bended knee) to learn the difference between sex and violence. Between attraction and assault. We don’t have a prayer of eliminating bigotry or the shame and stigma around sex until we do that.

Because the stigma and shame we attach to our bodies and to sexual desire (or lack of sexual desire, ace people are valid, all level of sexual desire is valid) are pernicious, violent, and toxic to our self worth and to our very spirits.

This goes back to the question I asked earlier. If we aren’t forced outing people or actively censoring material, isn’t a little shame and bullying ok just to keep the straights on their toes?

It really is not.

Please take it from me, a person with a metric fuckton of experience working through PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder, and dissociative symptoms, most of it due to sexual abuse as a child, that shame about your body and your natural desires (or, again, lack of) is what keeps their boot on your neck. It is what keeps you from healing. It makes you live a half life. It steals joy and health and peace from you. It is the enemy of the human spirit.

My god! There is nothing wrong with experiencing sexual desire for fictional characters or scenarios! There's nothing wrong with being horny in your own house! Lol Just imagine the damage that kind of shame and stigma does to people!

I was raised by fundamentalist Baptist right wingers. They tried to teach me the same thing. That the natural things my body did were shameful and disgusting outside the bounds of a marriage to a Christian man. It turned out all that did was make me a perfect target for predators because no matter what happened I would always feel at fault.

Besides all the abuse, I was also told point blank by my father and my pastors that gay people are all sexual predators, child molesters, and deserve to be executed. You may not see much of this attitude anymore in public spaces like twitter or tumblr. But it is still very very common all over the world. In fact, it is more common than not. And I internalized that to the point that even as a grown woman I am not whole. I still have work to do to get rid of the shame I have around my own sexuality. But I will get there!

And reading sexy fiction online (along with a metric fuckton of therapy, self help books, meditation, several inpatient hospitalizations, and, well, you get the picture, I’ve done a lot of stuff) helped me work through some of the damage that did to me.

So….thanks, sexy fic writers! (I’m going to talk to the sexy fic writers for a second) You cannot know how much you have helped me! Even all the fics that are ‘just’ pwp or ‘just kink’. You cannot know! It has been a process of shedding shame and being able to face up to who I am after having a whole bunch of self loathing dumped into my brain while it was still mushy and forming.

And reading sexy fic that doesn’t contain any representations of my own body has been really, really important to ease into learning to accept myself, because it offers me a space that will not trigger any hatred or shame I have attached to my own body. That is how it has helped me.

But it doesn’t have to ‘help people’. It can just be fun.

So, when women enjoy smut of two men, and people point and say “Look! Look! Those women aren’t gay. They’re just...(gasp, choke) attracted to men!!! And therefore!!! They like two men together!!!” as though it is just a fucking S C A N D A L. I just. It’s hilarious. Most people are horny, and GOD FORBID, some of them like men! (MEN?? NOOOOO, NOT M E N) Let me notify the church real quick. Let me clutch my pearls. Light some flares. Call the red phone. Turn on the bat signal. Help, Batman, help.

So, dear anon, I don’t know why you asked the question. I don’t know whether you believe it is bad, or whether someone has told you it is bad and therefor you feel bad about yourself, but my answer for you and women of any sexual or gender identity who love gay smut, I promise that you are not inherently bad.

Certainly, if people are like ‘I don’t trust women who only ship men’ or if they have critique about the way fics are written, that is their right. You must respect their feelings and their decisions about what they read and who they associate with. They have the right to feel however they want, and read whatever they want. Being a person is complex, and we all have our own perspectives.

But as for you? Being inherently bad? No, no, no.

And as for gay men, I can guarantee you that the absolute last people on planet earth to be horrified by an attraction to men, are gay men.

Just don’t treat real people like they exist to be your little pet or that their queerness exists to fucking entertain or serve you.

Just don’t confuse fiction and reality. That should be easy enough. One is words on a page. The others are living, breathing, human beings.

#ask #fandom #fandom thoughts

4K notes · View notes

flightlessnightingale · 3 years

Text

On Lesbianism

I’ll state it at the top here, because many have not understood my stance. The purpose of this essay is not to say that Lesbian cannot mean “Female homosexual.” Rather, my objective is to show that Lesbian means more than that single definition suggests. Female Homosexuals are lesbians, unless they personally do not want to use that label. Now, on with the show: Lesbianism is not about gatekeeping, and I don’t want to have to keep convincing people that the movement popularized by someone who wrote a book full of lies and hate speech then immediately worked with Ronald Reagan is a bad movement. In the early ’70s, groups of what would now be called “gender critical” feminists threatened violence against many trans women who dared exist in women’s and lesbian spaces. For example, trans woman Beth Elliott, who was at the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Feminist Conference to perform with her lesbian band, was ridiculed onstage and had her existence protested. In 1979, radical feminist Janice Raymond, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, wrote the defining work of the TERF movement, “Transsexual Empire: The Making of the Shemale,” in which she argued that “transsexualism” should be “morally mandating it out of existence”—mainly by restricting access to transition care (a political position shared by the Trump administration). Soon after she wrote another paper, published for the government-funded, National Center for Healthcare Technology — and the Reagan administration cut off Medicare and private health insurance coverage for transition-related care.

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism is a fundamentally unsustainable ideology. Lesbianism is a fundamentally sustainable existence.

There used to be a lesbian bar or queer bar or gay bar in practically every small town — sometimes one of each. After surviving constant police raids, these queer spaces began closing even Before the AIDS epidemic. Because TERFs would take them over, kick out transfems and their friends. Suddenly, there weren’t enough local patrons to keep the bars open, because the majority had been kicked out. With America’s lack of public transportation, not enough people were coming from out of town either.

TERFs, even beyond that, were a fundamental part of the state apparatus that let AIDS kill millions.

For those who don’t know, Lesbian, from the time of Sappho of Lesbos to the about 1970′s, referred to someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. It was not only a sexuality, but almost akin to a gender spectrum.

That changed in the 1970′s when TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, working with Ronald fucking Reagan to ban insurance for trans healthcare.

TERFs took over the narrative, the bars, the movement, and changed Lesbian from the most revolutionary and integral queer communal identity of 2 fucking THOUSAND years, from “Someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy” to “A woman with a vagina who’s sexually attracted to other women with vaginas”

How does this fit into the bi lesbian debate? As I said, Lesbian is more of a Gender Spectrum than anything else, it was used much in the same way that we use queer or genderqueer today.

And it’s intersectional too.

See, if you were to try to ascribe a rigid, biological, or localized model of an identity across multiple cultures, it will fail. It will exclude people who should not be excluded. ESPECIALLY Intersex people. That’s why “Two Spirit” isn’t something rigid- it is an umbrella term for the identities within over a dozen different cultures. In the next two sections, I have excerpts on Two-Spirit and Butch identity, to give a better idea of the linguistics of queer culture: This section on Two-Spirit comes from wikipedia, as it has the most links to further sources, I have linked all sources directly, though you can also access them from the Wikipedia page’s bibliography: Two-Spirit is a pan-Indian, umbrella term used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe Native people who fulfill a traditional ceremonial and social role that does not correlate to the western binary. [1] [2] [3] Created at the 1990 Indigenous lesbian and gay international gathering in Winnipeg, it was "specifically chosen to distinguish and distance Native American/First Nations people from non-Native peoples." [4] Criticism of Two-Spirit arises from 2 major points, 1. That it can exasperate the erasure of the traditional terms and identities of specific cultures. a. Notice how this parallels criticisms of Gay being used as the umbrella term for queer culture in general. 2. That it implies adherence to the Western binary; that Natives believe these individuals are "both male and female" [4] a. Again, you’ll notice that this parallels my criticisms of the TERF definition of Lesbian, that tying LGBT+ identities to a rigid western gender binary does a disservice to LGBT+ people,—especially across cultures. “Two Spirit" wasn’t intended to be interchangeable with "LGBT Native American" or "Gay Indian"; [2] nor was it meant to replace traditional terms in Indigenous languages. Rather, it was created to serve as a pan-Indian unifier. [1] [2] [4] —The term and identity of two-spirit "does not make sense" unless it is contextualized within a Native American or First Nations framework and traditional cultural understanding. [3] [10] [11] The ceremonial roles intended to be under the modern umbrella of two-spirit can vary widely, even among the Indigenous people who accept the English-language term. No one Native American/First Nations' culture's gender or sexuality categories apply to all, or even a majority of, these cultures. [4] [8] Butch: At the turn of the 20th century, the word “butch” meant “tough kid” or referred to a men’s haircut. It surfaced as a term used among women who identified as lesbians in the 1940s, but historians and scholars have struggled to identify exactly how or when it entered the queer lexicon. However it happened, "Butch” has come to mean a “lesbian of masculine appearance or behavior.” (I have heard that, though the words originate from French, Femme & Butch came into Lesbian culture from Latina lesbian culture, and if I find a good source for that I will share. If I had to guess, there may be some wonderful history to find of it in New Orleans—or somewhere similar.) Before “butch” became a term used by lesbians, there were other terms in the 1920s that described masculinity among queer women. According to the historian Lillian Faderman,“bull dagger” and “bull dyke” came out of the Black lesbian subculture of Harlem, where there were “mama” and “papa” relationships that looked like butch-femme partnerships. Performer Gladys Bentley epitomized this style with her men’s hats, ties and jackets. Women in same-sex relationships at this time didn’t yet use the word “lesbian” to describe themselves. Prison slang introduced the terms “daddy,” “husband,” and “top sargeant” into the working class lesbian subculture of the 1930s. This lesbian history happened alongside Trans history, and often intersected, just as the Harlem renaissance had music at the forefront of black and lesbian (and trans!) culture, so too can trans musicians, actresses, and more be found all across history, and all across the US. Some of the earliest known trans musicians are Billy Tipton and Willmer “Little Ax” Broadnax—Both transmasculine musicians who hold an important place in not just queer history, but music history.

Lesbian isn’t rigid & biological, it’s social and personal, built up of community and self-determination.

And it has been for millennia.

So when people say that nonbinary lesbians aren’t lesbian, or asexual lesboromantics aren’t lesbian, or bisexual lesbians aren’t lesbian, it’s not if those things are technically true within the framework — It’s that those statements are working off a fundamentally claustrophobic, regressive, reductionist, Incorrect definition You’ll notice that whilst I have been able to give citations for TERFs, for Butch, and especially for Two-Spirit, there is little to say for Lesbianism. The chief reason for this is that lesbian history has been quite effectively erased-but it is not forgotten, and the anthropological work to recover what was lost is still ongoing. One of the primary issues is that so many who know or remember the history have so much trauma connected to "Lesbian” that they feel unable to reclaim it. Despite this trauma, just like the anthropological work, reclamation is ongoing.

Since Sappho, lesbian was someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. For centuries, esbian wasn’t just a sexuality, it was intersectional community, kin to a gender spectrum, like today’s “queer”. When TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, they redefined Lesbian to “woman w/ a vag attracted to other women w/ vags”. So when you say “bi lesbians aren’t lesbian” it’s not whether that’s true within the framework, it’s that you’re working off a claustrophobic, regressive, and reductionist definition.

I want Feminism, Queerness, Lesbianism, to be fucking sustainable.

I wanna see happy trans and lesbian and queer kids in a green and blue fucking world some day.

I want them to be able to grow old in a world we made good.

#Lesbian #Trans #Transgender #Queer #Queer positivity #Queer history #Police brutality #Gay #Linguistics #Sappho #History #Femme #Butch #R #TERF #Terf friendly haha jk fuck tERFS

245 notes · View notes

ppgxrrblove · 2 years

Text

I just read partially? PPG More Then Human...

....It's a bad one for me, but first before I put my thoughts on here, criticism; remember how i stated a year or more ago that I would never read watta pad (??, I put this here as a reminder when I think it was posted in wattapad but i may be wrong here) fanfiction? unless this certain fiction goes through comic I would read it? Well that's how i read it, someone in the art community decided to draw, and go based off the entire fan fiction completely 100%.

Too bad I don't like it at all, here's why;

Blossom; I love that her personality is the same buuuut I don't like the part in which she breaks her character a couple of times, a) the part in where she rants about brick to buttercup - blossom no matter her age as seen on the official comics, to her being turn into a teenager in city of clipsvile (yes it's real, Canon, Craig did it - watch that episode to understand how the girls would be 100% as teenagers) has never used a foul word - it goes against her fundamentals of who she is; example; it breaks the entire thing about blossom telling buttercup to not curse, cause that's a thing we all know in the community as an AU that works. But this doesn't. b) the punch scene...why in the heck would blossom stoop low to punch butch out of all the boys? or people in general? why would blossom easily loose her temper? that is again breaking her character she is a mature leader - goodness sakes, someone thankfully uploaded canon scans of who the girls are, what they like, how they would react certain types of situation's; blossom states it herself she would always go by justice, that includes not stooping to the 'villians' level here is the link to the post with the scans; https://hafanforever.tumblr.com/post/126292746083/rocketcandycouture-ppg-profiles-from So that scene was uneeded.

I am pretty sure that I will miss other scenes from this distasteful watta pad fanfiction but I couldn't do it right after knowing the story of it so far, - this is early to state this here but i will go back to edit this blog post if needed be for new info on said fanfiction.

"Bubbles"??; I love that you tried to keep bubbles personality in there but you flopped I cannot see bubbles at all nor her character rather a flirtatious, river dale blond hair rejected cheerleader, that speaks great french..nice touch I will admit, but I still cannot see bubbles...her behavior just screams like little sister..of someone else, i- to make it clear; bubbles isn't what you see in this wattapad fanfiction they got her wrong which surprised me because this person tried to get blossom right - like at least you got her go to sense of being leader, justice good girl type its just contradictions that bugs me, but I digress, bubbles is a sweet heart, not a girl that would bad mouth at anyone at all, nor will she try to argue with buttercup - out of all the girls bubbles wouldn't argue with her own sister at all especially buttercup because that is just breaking the mold of how they're sisterhood relationship is in the comics to the animated series so, to continue on, bubbles wouldn't flirt with brick at all..she wouldn't flirt - at all, it's not like her, she would be over boomer more then anything because that's who she is.

Funny thing is that him admits it in the comics one of the issues - that bubbles is a light she has no sin in her that her two sisters had which by the way i would see buttercup and blossom arguing more then what I read here in this watta pad because it makes sense. You got a sister who is sense is justice, good, no foul mouthing, and when they also found out about bad words they regretted it completely. Yeah I remember that episode.

To continue; then you got this complete opposite of blossom, buttercup who is a rebel, even though i don't like it, but she is heroic in a sense of thirst for fighting which is her flaw. Blossom has her flaw too but since these two don't coexist - it will naturally clash that's why when you see these two bickering on TV to comics it will make you laugh and make sense. Buttercup is smart mouth come back one not bubbles. - Don't change a character just because you don't like her being the light of the group, sweet, innocent when that keeps the balance in whole - if you see that as something you don't lean towards then we'll all you are gonna get is a different person not bubbles.

I get that this is a fanficition but if you are going to make one based off characters from a cartoon at least make them act like who they are - seen many comics out there from community members of cartoons/anime and at least they get the characters their fanfiction is based off right, however some don't, to others struggling with understanding a character, I believe you struggled to understand who bubbles truly is and if not then, you did a bad move on changing who bubbles is.

Buttercup; Er...you got her kind of right but there..for one thing buttercup doesn't take crap from anyone lmaoo so the fact that she would date a boy that she doesn't like at all - it has been established in the show itself, and this would be extremely off character of her; to add on the mitch topic, the reason why i don't see mitch being a teenager like this in your comic even if it is a fanfiction - it has to make sense for him to turn out good all of a sudden when we seen how mitch life is in the show itself, us as a viewers who related to this characters living situation, how he was taught, etc- know that mitch will never grow up to be this kind, cool, charming boy at all...he would be a complete bully, and a terrible person.

Cause his living situation is a painting of his future and we all know that people who live in that type of environment - even if it's fictional it makes sense it connects - don't grow up as teenagers who are going to be fine at all..they would end up being trouble makers sadly, like he tried to kill a hamster...as a child...his grandma is his caretaker...and she is like sleeping 24/7 or just not there..he also lives in a poor state..I don't think his character would turn out like this, however...!! Before you get at me, I am glad that you did change his character to being this then being well what he is destined to being miserable, misguided.. so thanks.

But to continue :D buttercup would never chop her hair off just for a boy like mitch at all - I mean we seen that she has her eyes set, glued to butch lol xD - cough, ahem, she would just be upset but hide her feelings very well until she burst possibly in front of her sisters, but the approach for her handling it seems off character more like a street style...which is awkward again..but at the same time yeah i guess it works but it doesn't at the same time..I don't know. Also it wasn't best to have buttercup act all super tough like a guy..would if that make sense, it's a bit off.

Onto the boys.

Brick; what i am not into is brick knowing how to dance...number 1 it's cute to make it connect with blossom but no, I would love it if he wasn't a dance instead idk a skateboarder or..rapper? I can't figure something out..maybe something that doesn't seem like a copy of blossoms character and what she likes to do.

Butch; I know butch is a wild card but you went over board on the whole him being a pervert...I just don't see it particularly happening like that much rather he would try to hit on girls then just get bored of it..I just don't connect well with this butch personality much but it's fine just eh, also his flirting is fine, it's not bad lol. this is from what i read so far..if it gets to a point of him stalking, hitting on a girl of creeper pervert then nooopee destroyed him there at that point.

Boomer; eh..he's fine just have to comment on him joining a band...really weird move..don't got any critique on him..not unless someone points out more info for me to learn about him that way i can add more critique but he's fine.

'Finale' remaining thoughts;

The story for me feels...eh, fine not bad, I am interested in it but I don't know something feels rocky..can't put my finger on it. But i am sure it will construct itself possibly well but i won't be able to know this because i am stopping like i said i can't do it due to their personalities, and possibly the matter? of the fanfiction having a sex scene...now calm down, I am getting this information based off the readers who like this fanfiction, and read it till whatever point it stopped - posts they made...and some..make it apparent that there is sex in this even though their teenagers...which makes me want to puke, and to further add on even if they aged them up; makes it worse because you are using that au as excuse to justify your perverted thought process of making kids having sex...just no.

I hope I am wrong on the sex scenes being in this fanfiction. But that's all I got..kind of half butted here man...wow this is bad or not idk. Oh crap forgot to mention that through the countless of artwork from the group of readers that did like this fanfiction, I did read from said posts to art displayed - that some scenes i do like..will admit that but I just..yeah.

#the powerpuff girls #ppg #sbj more than human #powerpuff girls #bubbles #blossom #buttercup #cartoonetowrk #critique #criticism #thoughts #fanfiction #wattapad #messy #topic #story #personality #link

70 notes · View notes

shihalyfie · 3 years

Note

Hi :) If it's not too much trouble, could you please share your take on why they'd continue the Adventure brand after tri. was such a flop? (and a tangent: what does "dark history" even mean?). We got Kizuna, the reboot, and a 02 movie. Logically, it doesn't really make sense they'd keep investing in it.

This is a thorny topic, and I'd like to reiterate that although I've ended up making more posts related to this series and the discourse surrounding it recently (probably because it's even more on the mind now that another movie is on the horizon and a lot of people are apprehensive for various reasons), I do not want this blog to be making a brand out of being critical of this series. I’m writing this here and in public because I figured that there is a certain degree I need to clarify what I mean about audience reception/climate and how it might impact current or future works, and I’m admittedly also more than a little upset that I occasionally see Western fanbase criticisms of the series getting dismissed by people claiming that the only people mad about it are dramamongering or ignorant Westerners (which could not be further from the truth). However, this is mainly to address this and to answer your question, and is not intended to try and change anyone's existing opinion or impression of the series as much as it's me trying to explain (from my own personal reading of the situation) what practically went down with critical reception in real life; no more, no less.

The short summary of the matter is:

The series was a moderate financial success (albeit with some caveats; see the long version for details) and definitely outstripped a lot of prior attempts to revive the franchise;

However, the overall Japanese fanbase-side critical backlash from tri. was extremely and viciously negative to the point where even acknowledging the series too much could easily result in controversy;

Kizuna’s production and the PR surrounding it very obviously have this in mind with a lot of apparent “damage control” elements.

The long version is below.

Note that while I try to be diligent about citing my sources so people understand that I’m not just making things up wholesale, I’m deliberately refraining from linking certain things here this time, both because some of the things mentioned have some pretty crude things written there -- it’s not something I feel comfortable directing people to regardless of what language it’s in -- and because I don’t want to recklessly link things on social media and cause anyone to go after or harass the people involved. For the links that have been provided, please still be warned that some of them don’t really link to particularly pleasant things.

I am not writing the following information to suggest that anyone should agree or disagree with the sentiments being described. I know people tend to take "a lot of people like/hate this" as a signal of implication "it is correct to like/hate this" when it's not (and I especially dislike the idea of implying that Japanese fanbase opinions are the only correct ones). There's a reason I focus on "critical reception being this way" (because it influences marketing decisions and future direction) rather than how much this should impact one's personal feelings; this is coming from myself as someone who is shamelessly proud of liking many things that had bad critical reception, were financial failures, or are disliked by many. As I point out near the end, the situation also does seem to be changing for the better in more recent years as well.

Also, to be clear, I'm a single person who's observing everything best I can from my end, I have no affiliations with staff nor do I claim to, and as much as I'm capable of reading Japanese and thus reading a lot of people's impressions, I'm ultimately still another “outsider” looking in. These are my impressions from my observation of fan communal spaces, following artists and reading comments on social media and art posting websites, and results from social media searches. In the end, I know as much as anyone else about what happened, so this is just my two cents based on all of my personal observations.

A fanbase is a fanbase regardless of what part of the world you're from. There are people who love it and are shameless about saying so. There are people who have mixed feelings or at least aren't on extreme ends of the spectrum (as always, the loudest ones are always the most visible, but it's not always easy to claim they're the predominant percentage of the fanbase). That happens everywhere, and I still find that on every end I've seen. However, if I'm talking about my impressions and everything I’ve encountered, I will say that the overall Japanese reaction to tri. comes off as significantly more violently negative on average than the Western one, which is unusual because often it's the other way around. (I personally feel less so because the opinions are that fundamentally different and more so because we're honestly kind of loud and in-your-face people; otherwise, humans are mostly the same everywhere, and more often than not people feel roughly the same about everything if they’re given the same information to work with.)

This is not something I can say lightly, and thus would not say if I didn’t really get this impression, but...we're talking "casually looking up movie reviews for Kizuna have an overwhelming amount of people casually citing any acknowledgment of tri. elements as a negative element", or the fact that even communal wikis for "general" fandoms like Pixiv and Aniwota don't tend to hold back in being vicious about it (as of this writing, Pixiv's wiki refuses to consider it in the same timeline as Adventure, accusing it of being "a series that claims to be a sequel set three years after 02 but is in fact something different"). Again, there are people who openly enjoy it and actively advocate for it (and Pixiv even warns people to not lord over others about it condescendingly because of the fact that such people do exist), and this is also more of a reflection of “the hardcore fanbase on the Internet” and not necessarily the mainstream (after all, there are quite a few other Digimon works where the critical reception varies very heavily between the two). Nevertheless, the take-home is that the reputation is overall negative among the Internet fanbase to the point that this is the kind of sentiment you run into without trying all that hard.

I think, generally speaking, if we're just talking about why a lot of people resent the series, the reasons aren't that different from those on the Western side. However, that issue of "dark history" (黒歴史): there's a certain degree of demand from the more violently negative side of the fanbase that's, in a sense, asking official to treat it as a disgrace and never acknowledge it ever again, hence why Kizuna doing so much as borrowing things from it rather than rejecting it outright is still sometimes treated like it’s committing a sin. So it's somewhat close in spirit to a retcon movement, which is unusual because no other Digimon series gets this (not even 02; that was definitely a thing on the Western end, but while I'm sure there are people who hate it that much on their end too, I've never really seen it gain enough momentum for anyone to take it seriously). If anyone ever tells you that Japanese fanbases are nice to everything, either they don't know Japanese, are being willfully ignorant, or are lying to you, because there is such thing as drama in those areas, and in my experience, I've seen things get really nasty when things are sufficiently pushed over the edge, and if a fanbase wants to have drama, it will have drama. This happens to be one of those times.

(If you think this is extreme, please know that I also think so too, so I hope you really understand that me describing this sentiment does not mean I am personally endorsing it. Also, let me reiterate that the loudest section of the fanbase is not necessarily the predominant one; after all, as someone who’s been watching reactions to 02 over the years, I myself can attest that its hatedom has historically made it sound more despised than it actually is in practice.)

My impression is that the primary core sentiment behind why the series so much as existing and being validated is considered such an offense (rather than, say, just saying "wow, that writing was bad" and moving on) is heavily tied to the release circumstances the series came out in during 2015-2018, and the idea that "this series disrespected Adventure, and also disrespected the fanbase.” (I mean, really, regardless of what part of the world you’re from, sequels and adaptations tend to be held to a higher bar of expectation than standalone works, because they’re expected to do them justice.) A list of complaints I’ve come across a lot while reading through the above:

The Japanese fanbase is pretty good at recordkeeping when it comes to Adventure universe lore, partially because they got a lot of extra materials that weren’t localized, but also partially because adherence to it seems to generally be more Serious Business to them than it is elsewhere. For instance, “according to Adventure episode 45, ‘the one who wishes for stability’ (Homeostasis) only started choosing children in 1995, and therefore there can be no Chosen Children before 1995” is taken with such gravity that this, not anything to do with evolutions or timeline issues, is the main reason Hurricane Touchdown’s canonicity was disputed in that arena (because Wallace implies that he met his partners before 1995). It’s a huge reason the question of Kizuna also potentially not complying to lore came to the forefront, because tri. so flagrantly contradicts it so much that this issue became very high on the evaluation checklist. In practice, Kizuna actually goes against Adventure/02 very little, so the reason tri. in particular comes under fire for this is that it does it so blatantly there were theories as early as Part 1 that this series must take place in a parallel universe or something, and as soon as it became clear it didn’t, the resulting sentiment was “wow, you seriously thought nobody would notice?” (thus “disrespecting the audience”).

A lot of the characterization incongruity is extremely obvious when you’re following only the Japanese version, partially because it didn’t have certain localization-induced characterization changes (you are significantly less likely to notice a disparity with Mimi if you’re working off the American English dub where they actually did make her likely to step on others’ toes and be condescending, whereas in Japanese the disparity is jarring and hard to miss) and partially due to some things lost in translation (Mimi improperly using rough language on elders is much easier to spot as incongruity if you’re familiar with the language). Because it’s so difficult to miss, and honestly feels like a lot of strange writing decisions you’d make only if you really had no concept of what on earth happened in the original series, it only contributes to the idea that they were handling Adventure carelessly and disrespectfully without paying attention to what the series was even about (that, or worse, they didn’t care).

02 is generally well-liked there! It’s controversial no matter where you go, but as I said earlier, there was no way a retcon movement would have ever been taken seriously, and the predominant sentiment is that, even if you’re not a huge fan of it, its place in canon (even the epilogue) should be respected. So not only flagrantly going against 02-introduced lore but also doing that to a certain quartet is seen as malicious, and you don’t have as much of the converse discourse celebrating murdering the 02 quartet (yeah, that’s a thing that happened here) or accusing people with complaints of “just being salty because they like 02″ as nearly as much of a factor; I did see it happen, or at least dismissals akin to “well it’s Adventure targeted anyway,” but they were much less frequent. The issue with the 02 quartet is usually the first major one brought up, and there’s a lot of complaints even among those who don’t care for 02 as much that the way they went about it was inhumane and hypocritical, especially when killing Imperialdramon is fine but killing Meicoomon is a sin. Also, again, “you seriously think nobody will see a problem with how this doesn’t make sense?”

I think even those who are fans of the series generally agree with this, but part of the reason the actual real-life time this series went on is an important factor is that the PR campaign for this series was godawful. Nine months of clicking on an egg on a website pretending like audience participation meant something when in actuality it was blatantly obvious it was just a smokescreen to reveal info whenever they were ready? This resulted in a chain effect where even more innocuous/defensible things were viewed in a suspicious or negative light (for instance, "the scam of selling the fake Kaiser's goggles knowing Ken fans would buy it only to reveal that it's not him anyway"), and a bunch of progressively out-of-touch-with-the-fanbase statements and poor choices led to more sentiment “yeah, you’re just insulting the fanbase at this point,” and a general erosion of trust in official overall.

On top of that, the choice of release format to have it spread out as six movies over three years seems to have exacerbated the backlash to get much worse than it would have been otherwise, especially since one of the major grievances with the series is that how it basically strung people along, building up more and more unanswered questions before it became apparent it was never going to answer them anyway. So when you’re getting that frustrated feeling over three whole years, it feels like three years of prolonged torture, and it becomes much harder to forgive for the fallout than if you’d just marathoned the entire thing at once.

For those who are really into the Digimon (i.e. species) lore and null canon, while I’m not particularly well-versed in that side of the fanbase, it seems tri. fell afoul of them too for having inaccurately portrayed (at one point, mislabeled) special attacks and poorly done battle choreography, along with the treatment of Digimon in general (infantilized Digimon characterization, general lack of Digimon characters in general, very flippant treatment of the Digital World in Parts 3-5). If you say you’re going to “reboot” the Digital World and not address the entire can of worms that comes with basically damaging an entire civilization of Digimon, as you can imagine, a lot of people who actually really care about that are going to be pissed, and the emerging sentiment is “you’re billing this as a Digimon work, but you don’t even care about the monsters that make up this franchise.”

The director does not have a very positive reputation among those who know his work (beyond just Digimon), and in general there was a lot of suspicion around the fact they decided to get a guy whose career has primarily been built on harem and fanservice anime to direct a sequel to a children’s series. Add to that a ton of increasingly unnerving statements about how he intended to make the series “mature” in comparison to its predecessor (basically, an implication that Adventure and 02 were happy happy joy series where nothing bad ever happened) and descriptions of Adventure that implied a very, very poor grasp of anything that happened in it: inaccurate descriptions of their characters, poor awareness of 02′s place in the narrative, outright saying in Febri that he saw the Digimon as like perpetual kindergartners even after evolving, and generally such a flippant attitude that it drove home the idea that the director of an Adventure sequel had no respect for Adventure, made this series just to maliciously dunk on it for supposedly being immature, and has such a poor grasp of what it even was that it’s possible he may not have seen it in the first place (or if he did, clearly skimmed it to the extent he understood it poorly to pretty disturbing levels). As of this writing, Aniwota Wiki directly cites him as a major reason for the backlash.

In general, consensus seems to be that the most positively received aspect of the series (story-wise) was Part 3 (mostly its ending, but some are more amenable to the Takeru and Patamon drama), and the worst vitriol goes towards Parts 2 (for the blatantly contradictory portrayal of Mimi and Jou and the hypocritical killing of Imperialdramon) and 4 (basically the “point of no return” where even more optimistic people started getting really turned off). This is also what I suspect is behind the numbers on the infamous DigiPoll (although the percentage difference is admittedly low enough to fall within margin of error). However, there was suspicion about the series even from Part 1, with one prominent fanartist openly stating that it felt more like meeting a ton of new people than it did reuniting with anyone they knew.

So with all of that on the table: how did this affect official? The thing is that when I say “violently negative”, I mean that also entailed spamming official with said violently negative social media comments. While this is speculation, I am fairly certain that official must have realized how bad this was getting as early as between Parts 4 and 5, because that’s where a lot of really suspicious things started happening behind the scenes; while I imagine the anime series itself was now too far in to really do anything about it, one of the most visible producers suddenly vanished from the producer lineup and was replaced by Kinoshita Yousuke, who ended up being the only member of tri. staff shared with Kizuna (and, in general, the fact that not a single member of staff otherwise was retained kind of says a lot). Once the series ended in 2018 and the franchise slowly moved into Kizuna-related things, you might notice that tri.-branded merch production almost entirely screeched to a halt and official has been very touchy about acknowledging it too deeply; it’s not that they don’t, but it’s kind of an awfully low amount for what you’d think would be warranted for a series that’s supposed to be a full entry in the big-name Adventure brand.

The reason is, simply, that if they do acknowledge it too much, people will get pissed at them. That’s presumably why the tri. stage play (made during that interim period between Parts 4 and 5 and even branded with the title itself) and Kizuna are really hesitant to be too aggressive about tri. references; it’s not necessarily that official wants to blot it out of history like the most extreme opinions would like them to, but even being too enthusiastic about affirming it will also get them backlash, especially if the things they affirm are contradictory to Adventure or 02. And considering even the small references they did put in still got them criticism for “affirming” tri. too much, you can easily see that the backlash would have been much harder if they’d attempted more than that; staying as close as possible to Adventure and 02 and trying to deal with tri. elements only when they’re comparatively inoffensive was pretty much the “safe” thing to do in this scenario (especially since fully denying tri. would most certainly upset the people who did like the series, and if you have to ask me, I personally think this would have been a pretty crude thing to have done right after the series had just finished). Even interviews taken after the fact often involve quickly disclaiming involvement with the series, or, if they have to bring up something about it, discussing the less controversial aspects like the art (while the character designs were still controversial, it’s at least at the point where some fanartists will still be willing to make use of them even if they dislike the series, albeit often with prominent disclaimers) or the more well-received parts of Part 3; Kizuna was very conspicuously marketed as a standalone movie, even if it shared the point of “the Adventure kids, but older” that tri. had.

(Incidentally, the tri. stage play has generally been met with a good reputation and was received well even among people who were upset with the anime, so it was well-understood that they had no relation. In fact, said stage play is probably even better received than Kizuna, although that’s not too surprising given the controversial territory Kizuna goes into, making the stage play feel very play-it-safe in comparison.)

So, if we’re going to talk about Kizuna in particular: tri. was, to some degree, a moderate financial success, in the sense that it made quite a bit of money and did a lot to raise awareness of the Digimon brand still continuing...however, if you actually look at the sales figures for tri., they go down every movie; part of it was probably because of the progressively higher “hurdle” to get into a series midway, but consider that Gundam Unicorn (a movie series which tri.’s format was often compared to) had its sales go up per movie thanks to word of mouth and hype. So while tri. does seem to have gotten enough money to help sustain the franchise at first, the trade-off was an extremely livid fanbase that had shattered faith in the brand and in official, and so while continuing the Adventure brand might still be profitable, there was no way they were going to get away with continuing to do this lest everything eventually crash and burn.

Hence, if you look at the way Kizuna was produced and advertised, you can see a lot of it is blatantly geared at addressing a lot of the woes aimed at tri.: instead of the staff that had virtually no affiliation with Toei, the main members of staff announced were either from the original series (Seki and Yamatoya) or openly childhood fans, the 02 quartet was made into a huge advertising point as a dramatic DigiFes reveal (and character profies that tie into the 02 epilogue careers prominently part of the advertising from day one), and they even seemed to acknowledge the burnout on the original Adventure group by advertising it so heavily as “the last adventure of Taichi and his friends”, so you can see that there’s a huge sentiment of “damage control” with it. How successful that was...is debatable, since opinions have been all over the board; quite a few people were naturally so livid at what happened with tri. that Kizuna was just opening more of the wound, but there were also people who liked it much better and were willing to acknowledge it (with varying levels of enthusiasm, some simply saying “it was thankfully okay,” and some outright loving it), and there was a general sentiment even among those who disliked both that they at least understood what Kizuna was going for and that it didn’t feel as inherently disrespectful. (Of course, there are people who loved tri. and hated Kizuna, and there are people who loved both, too.)

Moreover, Kizuna actually has a slightly different target audience from tri.; there’s a pretty big difference between an OVA and a theatrical movie, and, quite simply, Kizuna was made under the assumption that a lot of people watching it may not have even seen tri. in the first place. An average of 11% of the country watched Adventure and 02, but the number of people who watched tri. is much smaller, in part due to the fact that its “theater” screenings were only very limited screenings compared to Kizuna being shown in theaters in Japan and worldwide, and in part due to the fact that watching six parts over three years is a pretty huge commitment for someone who may barely remember Digimon as anything beyond a show they watched as a kid, and may be liable to just fall off partway through because they simply just forgot. (Which also probably wasn’t helped by the infamously negative reputation, something that definitely wouldn’t encourage someone already on the fence.) And that’s yet another reason Kizuna couldn’t make too many concrete tri. references; being a theatrical movie, it needs to have as wide appeal as possible, and couldn’t risk locking out an audience that had a very high likelihood of not having seen it, much less to the end -- it may have somewhat been informed by tri.’s moderate financial success and precedent, but it ultimately was made for the original Adventure and 02 audience more than anything else.

I would say that, generally, while Kizuna is “controversial” for sure, reception towards the movie seems to be more positive than negative, it won over a large chunk of people who were burned out by tri., and it clearly seems to have been received well enough that it’s still being cashed in on a year after its release. The sheer existence of the upcoming 02-based movie is also probably a sign of Kizuna’s financial and critical success; Kinoshita confirmed at DigiFes 2020 that nothing was in production at the time, and stated shortly after the movie’s announcement that work on it had just started. So the decision to make it seems to have been made after eyeing Kizuna’s reception, and, moreover, the movie was initially advertised from the get-go with Kizuna’s director and writer (Taguchi and Yamatoya), meaning those two have curried enough goodwill from the fanbase that this can be used to promote the movie. (If not, you would think that having and advertising Seki would be the bigger priority.) While this is my own sentiment, I am personally doubtful official would have even considered 02 something remotely profitable enough on its own to cash in on if it weren’t for this entire sequence of events of 02′s snubbing in tri. revealing how much of a fanbase it had (especially with the sheer degree of “suspicious overcompensation” Kizuna had with its copious use of the 02 quartet and it tagging a remix of the first 02 ED on the Hanareteitemo single, followed by the drama CD and character songs), followed by Kizuna having success in advertising with them so heavily. Given all of the events between 2015 and now, it’s a bit ironic to see that 02 has now become basically the last resort to be able to continue anything in the original Adventure universe without getting too many people upset at them about it.

The bright side coming out of all of this is that, while it’s still a bit early to tell, now that we’re three years out from tri. finishing up and with Kizuna in the game, it seems there’s a possibility for things improving around tri.’s reception as well. Since a lot of the worst heated points of backlash against it have a very “you had to have been there” element (related to the PR, release schedule, and staff comments), those coming in “late” don’t have as much reason to be as pissed at it; I’ve seen at least one case of a fanartist getting back into the franchise because of Kizuna hype, watching tri. to catch up, casually criticizing it on Twitter, and moving on with their life, presumably because marathoning the whole thing being generally aware of what’ll happen in it and knowing Kizuna is coming after anyway gives you a lot less reason to be angry to the point of holding an outright grudge. Basically, even if you don’t like it, it’s much easier to actually go “yeah, didn’t like that,” not worry too much about it, and move on. Likewise, I personally get the impression that official has been starting to get a little more confident about digging up elements related to it. Unfortunately, a fairly recent tweet promoting the series getting put on streaming services still got quite a few angry comments implying that they should be deleting the scourge from the Internet instead, so there’s still a long way to go, but hopefully the following years will see things improve further...

In regards to the reboot, I -- and I think a lot of people will agree with me -- have a bit of a hard time reading what exact audience it’s trying to appeal to; we have a few hints from official that they want parents to watch it with their children, and that it may have been a necessary ploy in order to secure their original timeslot. So basically, the Adventure branding gets parents who grew up with the original series to be interested in it and to show it to their kids, and convinces Fuji TV that it might be profitable. But as most people have figured by now, the series has a completely different philosophy and writing style -- I mean, the interview itself functionally admits it’s here to be more action-oriented and to have its own identity -- and the target audience is more the kids than anything else. As for the Internet fanbase of veterans, most people have been critical of its character writing and pacing, but other than a few stragglers who are still really pissed, it hasn’t attracted all that much vitriol, probably because in the end it’s an alternate universe, it doesn’t have any obligation to adhere to anything from the original even if it uses the branding, and it’s clearly still doing its job of being a kids’ show for kids who never saw the original series nor 02, so an attempt to call it “disrespectful” to the original doesn’t have much to stand on. A good number of people who are bored of it decided it wasn’t interesting to them and dropped it without incident, while other people are generally just enjoying it for being fun, and the huge amount of Digimon franchise fanservice with underrepresented Digimon and high fidelity to null canon lore is really pleasing the side of the fanbase that’s into that (I mean, Digimon World Golemon is really deep in), so at the very least, there’s not a lot to be super-upset about.

#tri negativity #shiha's ask box #springcrafter

52 notes · View notes

nanakah · 3 years

Text

about Ishigami, his growth and Miko's role

most people, myself included, thought at some point that Tsubame's rejection (or acceptance) could wrap up Ishigami's arc and even his past's flashbacks neatly, but Osaragi's arc suddenly revealing there was more to his relationship with Miko made me reflect more and think nah...if anything we're halfway there. It also showed glimpses of him already struggling to find his place in the world by quitting his clubs, even though he was successful at them and there was no Ootomo incident yet to undermine his self-image.

It seemed odd that despite everything he went through he still has his "hair=shield/averting eyes" theme going strong, but it makes sense if you consider even though Tsubame helped him see the way to be more accepting of people and cleared his name, his self-esteem still is super low. I spoke of this in my "sutera" meta, but to Ishigami, his life still has been a sucession of failures and almosts. At his core, he still hasn't fully opened up to people or learned to use his vulnerabilities to his advantage.

If I have grabbed your interest thus far, keep reading for more considerations!

Tsubame is kind to anyone and attempted to do good for him, but ultimately he was never fully himself around her, nor she tried/he alllowed her reaching out to the deepest parts of his insecurities. She doesn't show her own flaws to him either and to this day we get the feeling we don't know her well, just the best parts that Ishigami wanted to see. Kaguya, Miyuki and Chika contribute a lot in a sibling-like way, but there's a limit to how much Kaguya in particular can inspire him. Miko however, has scratched a little beneath the surface and has expressed an interest in helping him with that, even if he himself is still avoiding the topic. She's also more relatable to him in the sense that the rest of the stuco has a history of successes in their lives, while he was able to watch Miko's hardships and failures closely. Their panic attacks even look similar and they're always watching the other to provide backup (in a very roundabout way, at least before) when they happen.

While their personalities are fundamentally different, his arc and struggles remind me a lot of Miyamura from Horimiya and today, as I was musing on what is so different about them as of now, I believe it's how Miyamura didn't have a single *traumatic* mistake to get over, so he goes down his development road much faster. Putting it another way, it's ultimately that Ishigami hasn't yet learned to be kind to himself like Miyamura has through Hori. Like Shirogane and Kaguya are through themselves. In Miyamura's case, sympathizing with how Hori despite her strong exterior can be very fragile inside but still support him (fight for him, defend him, accept his true self, not judge him, hear him, make him feel good enough) made him feel compelled to grow stronger to protect her back.

Miko as she was at the beggining of the story couldn't provide Ishigami this sort of stability (and that's where Osaragi's "prettier story"/"you weren't there for him" reasoning fails) even if deep down she wanted to, but now after making many mistakes, learning from them and becoming more flexible, she absolutely can. Both Ishigami and Miko have deeply rooted issues that took them more than just each other to flesh out and develop, but they're very much the missing puzzle piece the other needs.

Miko still very much has room for growth as well, mainly concerning finding a middle ground between her "bad girl" and "good girl" personas that Ishigami can easily see through, as demonstrated by the consolation chapter. She tried being "bad", she attempted lying but was still saying half-truths, because her love of justice isn't just out of parental abandonment issues or loneliness - she does believe them sincerely. The moment Ishigami headpated her and shared genuine, spot-on words of concern and admiration (thus a hint of fondness), it was all over for her trying to keep up the love-warfare upper hand.

That's not actually new - Ishigami has always demonstrated he was able to see glimpses of her true self, be it teasing how she's an otaku or a closet pervert and such, he never fully bought the strait-laced image she aspired to make real. But it did take him being around her more to see she could be sweet to him and as he puts it, that smiling more is not a bad look on her. Miko says to Osaragi your true self only comes through interacting with others, so given how lonely she has always been (and how the one person close to her - Osaragi - was actually keeping things between them superficial because of her own problems), it's no surprise she's only finding out now who she is. Ishigami can help Miko find a better compromise of good/bad after both not following any rules at all for so long and recently learning that hard work can pay off. Miko immersing herself in his hobby will clash with her rigid study schedule sooner or later, and he'll know how to help her with that better than anyone else.

On the other hand, Ishigami's moral compass, romanticism (love for flowers, planing dates etc) and idealism aren't things he is proud of...yet. He protects himself with layers of cynism, especially in his first appearances, but he is always being contradictory and letting it slip how idealistic/pure he is at heart. He also is only now learning to like his outward image with things like fitness/studying and finding out it's not like he never cared about it - it's just that he was scared shitless of failure, thus never even tried hard in the first place to avoid being hurt. And as I have advocated for in the Sutera post, I expect Miko in some level to help him come to terms with seeing good in himself. Heck, even being able to game with her now and showing off how good he is and having her appreciate it is gonna do wonders to make him feel more "adequate". Tsubame's arc had a lot of him changing himself to become "better", but Miko on the other hand is trying to put herself in HIS shoes to maybe go "hey, I like you as you are. I'm trying to understand you more and put effort in for you".

Ishigami and Miko start out watching out for each other behind their backs - which instead of helping their relationship, drives them further apart because they think the other side is showing no appreciation. As the story progresses, they're slowly learning to make each other more aware of their support, and it is making them open up more in general.

They have a strong belief the other wants to be rescued and there is truth in that. Both want help and to be recognized for their efforts, but won't cry out for it. In the unplugged earbuds chapter Ishigami takes it upon himself to protect Miko's reputation in spite of himself, the election arc has him actually putting effort into the campaign just for the sake of protecting her and at first posing as a rival of hers to Shirogane only to reveal he's trying to "make Miko smile", he is constantly fending off men from interacting with her as protection (while also sounding jealous), he was way more protective of her when she was wearing that cast than needed and is now being able to openly headpat her and sounds almost like her "soothing sounds" from the days of yore lol Sure Tsubame seems like his start to becoming "a better man", but all the way back on the election, it was for Miko's sake that we first SEE him putting effort into *anything* without being coerced by anyone to take action.

And while it's more discreet compared to Ishigami's "white knight" attitude, Miko also tries hard to protect him - cheering him on during the sports festival race and wanting to console him before the stuco intervened, telling him he should study (but he thinks it's just nagging), christmas (which I'll elaborate bellow), making sure he was able to graduate middle school by actually confronting school staff and, of course, their very first meeting as recently revealed.

Many people hated the entirety of Osaragi's arc, but 232 gave very juicy info indeed. Ishigami's reason for supporting Miko from the shadows comes from admiration AND part gratitude for her attempting to talk to him and listen to what troubles him, and seeing they actually had a "falling out" argument was game changing.

He looks sad and troubled to have shut her down there, not simply angry, and so does she (there's tears in her eyes when her face is shown in the next page) - despite her black and white sense of justice at this point of the story, she still wanted to listen to him. And even after that outburst she still believed the rumors weren't real, unlike Osaragi sees it - otherwise she wouldn't have made the effort for him to be able to move on to high school. Why would she care, if she truly hated him and thought he was in the wrong?

If any further proof was needed at all that this info is important, I'm happy to say we have more. I noticed the Christmas stairs scene mirrors this exact falling out moment: "Go away"/"Suit yourself"

But this time Miko had already decided to change, had already seen the mess their relationship became the last time she did not reach out to him and thus already had their previous falling out in mind - meaning she decides to chase after him.

I don't like how the scanlations handled this scene because reading the japanese raws, my interpretation was that Miko was sounding "annoying" because she was still kinda drunk/unfiltered and freaking out when talking to Ishigami, not outright berating him like the Jaimini's box translation made it look like. She also sounds too angry after the fall, so I generally thought Viz's version (the panel shown above) was closer to the original.

"I always have to take care of you! You keep putting youself in danger. You can't make it on your own." is a better translation than Jaimini's, and also parallels better what Ishigami is often telling Miko as well (That she keeps putting herself in danger and that he has to be around to keep her in check). But with 232 in mind, I think it misses a nuance of the original line: "ほんとあんたは私が居ないと危なっかしく駄目ね" - "Honto anta wa watashi ga inaito abunakkashiku dame ne" - while I'm a novice at japanese studies, gathering from what I can read and trying to get a feel of the whole sentence, it's closer to "So it really is dangerous to you if I'm not there/ It's no good if I'm not around you". You can take that as her being full of herself, which is the route Jaimini's goes ("You'd be screwed without me") but that's too hostile - Viz's got the spirit of wanting to protect him better, but the original has an implication that she has "tested not being there"/failed being there before (due to not fully siding with him in middle school) that's absent elsewhere.

IMO the reason Ishigami's "closed his eyes" arc is not over yet is because he hasn't accepted or gotten over or fully learned from his past yet, he simply shut it down. That's why briefly during the sports festival his eyes are in plain view, then go back to their usual for the balloon gag. I'm not sure if Ootomo herself will make a comeback, may or may not - regrets are regrets and sometimes the only solution to them is letting them stay in the past. But the topic of how he saw Miko in middle school and the letter certainly are being set up to still show up in the story.

If I compare him to Miyamura again, he'd still be at the point before Miyamura's haircut - not wanting to face the parts of himself he doesn't like, not quite ready to change. Not quite ready to patch up his own wounds yet and instead silencing everything from his past.

In this sense, Miko does wonders to make him feel more confident even if he hasn't realized it yet, and she's always dropping little hints she'd like him to worry about his future not in a naggy way, but because she genuinely prays for his success. He unconsciously wants Miko to think well of him and it fills him with confidence and a more prideful image of himself he doesn't really display to anyone else, not even Tsubame - like his usages of "ore" (a more manly/confident way of addressing himself) around her (AND HER ALONE):

( I don't like the available translations to the staircase scene either, lol. Zaibatsu has conveyed the tone of the second scene up there perfectly. For the staircase line, I've seen "I'll be there to catch you" and "I'll save you" which are contextually correct, but to me the original "俺が絶対守る" - "I (ore) will absolutely protect you" carries a much more romantic nuance or ambiguity, regardless of him realizing it at that point. It's like, the title to one of the most romantic moments/songs in the CCS Clear card anime ost, for instance. OF COURSE MIKO LOVES HIM. The narrator doesn't overexplain or take apart Ishimiko's interactions like for Prezguya, but all the evidence needed is there. And I gotta add the very next chapter to the staircase one is the "eternal love" x "real love" I'm super fond of that says fate is irrelevant and to find real love you must use your head to realize/understand things, so makes the romantic subtext even greater.)

This whole affair is also making me open my eyes that I should try to study japanese more...of course I'm happy to have translations and scanlators working hard, but there is something inherently lost in adaptations because it robs you of connecting with the author's intentions unless it was the author who wrote the translation in the first place

Thinking back on Ishigami's early "i wanna die/i'm going home/don't look at me" role, it seems unbelievable we're at the point he's now able to directly confront a "stranger" (lololol) or make serious promises with so much confidence.

PLEASE DON'T END SO SOON MANGA, I NEED MORE.

( off-topic kind of, but i'm lazy to make a separate post just for it: Since I mentioned things lost in translation, I saw something on Discord about Ishigami having an unreliable narrator moment in the "compliments" chapter/Iino Miko cannot love part 4 and holy molly, it is true. He first says something akin to "You're just too beautiful" out of context, Miko HEARS IT - and that's why she looks so shocked before asking for clarification - and he DID SAY IT in the speech bubble, but after she's nice to him and he thinks back to what he said he adds a "Your handwriting is just too beautiful" to his flashback. I'm ONTO HIM. ONTO HIM I SAY. It is what he meant, but it's like his mouth betrayed him. Whether it's unconscious or denial...it totally is something. The scanlation completely skips this and had the same line both times it's mentioned.)

#kaguya-sama #kaguya-sama spoilers #meta #ishigami yu #yu ishigami #ishimiko #it's ishigami focused but i'd be a dirty liar to say i'm not at least a lil bit biased #longpost #spoilers #yes i am an overthinker and overanalyzer did u notice #horimiya spoilers #yeah i kinda mentioned miyamura lol #i'm not even procrastinating anything this time i just rly care for them #kaguya-sama meta #this is a clown here that procrastinated 3 months to write a thesis but is churning out meta after meta for manga #plz forgive typos i'm still lazy to spellcheck this one lol #ishiino #ishigami using ore again to invite miko to the dance makes this post qualify for fridge brilliance now

37 notes · View notes

youuuimeanmee · 3 years

Text

Eren Meta From 139

Many people believe chapter 139 butchered Eren's character because of this scene.

Because out of nowhere, Eren's motivation is to reach Mikasa's choice to satisfy Ymir's wish; thus, everything he said from the beginning about his motivation is all lies or meaningless.

No. And I'm no writing this to justify or condemn him. This post is more for myself, because I'm trying to understand his character.

Now let's see at his words. "All of it, was to arrive at that result. That's why I moved forward." What does he mean by it? Which actions?

This.

All the events, starting from ch 123-139, are going according to Ymir's wish.

Right after Eren told her to decide for herself.

She wants to end the world, at least 80% of it. She wants to push Eren's friends to stop him, even if they have to betray their nation. The Battle of Heaven and Earth, all of the clusterfucks in chapter 135-138 happens because it's Ymir's will to push Mikasa to make a choice. She chooses to end the titan curse after she gets to see what she wants.

Ymir did all of this, she watched all the events that unfold because Eren released her.

Then, what about Eren's will?

This is why I'm okay with the idea of Eren following Ymir; Eren doesn't have a reason to reject Ymir's wish because he got what he wants. He got the future he saw on the medal ceremony, the eradication of titans. He got the "freedom" to flatten the earth, and if his gamble paid off, he'd get his friends' safety; because they will become the world's savior after they stop him. It's a win-win situation, thus, putting him in a position where he becomes Ymir's ally and stands by her side.

The reason why Ymir chose Mikasa is not clear, but Eren had a hunch and it's something he could relate to; another reason for him to not object to Ymir's wish. It has something to do with that day when Mikasa practically confessed her love for him, the day where he could use the Founder's power for the first time. I leave this scene up to your interpretation.

What about Eren's will from before 123? What did he try so hard to achieve?

This scenery. Aside from the eradication of titans.

Here's the thing. Doesn't matter if fate favors you or not, you have to work hard to get what you want. To work hard, you need to know the reason. I take Isayama's artistic choice that the future memories he saw are fragments without context; he doesn't know why it happens the way it would. So, even if he saw the scenery, even if he saw the eradication of titans, why he has to go to hell first? Why he has to go through all of the suffering? Why he has to keep moving forward? He doesn't have to; but the world, destiny or whatever keeps feeding him reasons to move forward, until he reached a conclusion that the titan world is fucked up system and has been going for far too long. For Eren, this needs to end, and he wants to reach that scenery no matter what.

This is the man who saw how unforgiving the outside world is. The fact that a little girl got eaten by dogs just because she's an Eldia is proof that a subject of Ymir can never gain freedom, can never gain the privilege of human rights the way a normal human does. (I suggest you to read Gross' monologue from ch 87). The man saw how the world keeps pushing Paradis to be the source of evil without listening to what the other parties have to say. The man is manipulated to euthanize his own people as if Eldia doesn't deserve to be born. He saw the fucked up history of titans from 2000 years ago. He was so disappointed the world is not like in Armin's book, it's not like his ideal world. So he wants to wipe it away. He wants to bury the history and the civilization that created it, deep to the ground. He wants to destroy every last one of those animals, that's on this earth; titans or humans alike. He wants to leave the surface a blank plain. This is his ideal world, his freedom.

Eren said it himself. Even if he didn't know that his friends would stop him; even if it's not Ymir's will, he'd still trample the earth. To me, the reason why Eren commit genocide, the reason he said to Armin is no different than the reason he said to Zeke.

It's just the way he is ever since he was born.

A freedom seeker.

The wording is different with the receiver. With Zeke, it's different, because he's trying to make a point that this is who he is. But with Armin? He is going to die, with his best friend as his judge. He knew exactly why he wanted it: because he is free, ever since he was born. But somehow he couldn't say it outright with confidence. Maybe he's afraid to be judged as a monster by the person closest to him, or maybe he started to question his definition of freedom. Because to me, his eyes look like wonders.

Now. What is freedom? Many people believe that any acts out of violence is not freedom. But to Eren, that is freedom, his freedom. There's a meta that perfectly explains Eren's version of freedom, up until he did the rumbling. This is my highlight from that meta:

So freedom is the power of the individual to do as one wants. When you do something, you are imposing your internal desires onto the external world. If freedom is thus the power to impose your individual Will onto the outside world, then whoever has more power has more freedom.

This concept was highlighted when he told his friends in Paths that he's free to destroy the world and they're free to defend it; meaning that they're bound to clash, and they have to fight.

Freedom is not good. Nor is it bad. It is a force beyond good and evil, and that is precisely why it is terrifying. This, I believe, is why so many baulk at the idea that such a ruthless manipulator could be the avatar of freedom in this story. What I have always loved about SNK is how it delves ever deeper into its themes as the story goes on and discovers such fundamental paradoxes that your understanding of the idea is changed forever. If this is the horrifying face of freedom, perhaps we should not be free.

I don't know how much Isayama's involvement in this, but Grisha's commentary from the Lost Girls captures this concept perfectly.

For Eren, that "great power" is his own concept of freedom: A world without oppression. Doing what you want to do. He's free to protect his homeland by whatever necessary, whatever cost, and leave the rest of the world as an open plain.

Usually, the more we're obsessed with something, the more we stray from our humanity. After witnessing firsthand the vision-he-so-called-freedom, he doesn't know how to feel. He gets what he wants, but he's not happy at all, only the hollow scenery remains.

Eren realized how messed up he is, even before he did this. He tried to reach out to Mikasa that night after he saved Ramzi, to save his humanity left. It's one of the reasons why he asked her, "what is he to her?" Surely if he was loved –even after he killed those men when he saved her that day– would mean he's still human, right? And by running away with her, he could live in peace, maybe he could free himself from his obsession. But he's doing it so half-heartedly, that when everyone interrupted them, he just... let it go. He didn't bother to sneak with her or anything. He couldn't let go of the future he saw, he's losing himself to his desire/inner demon, to his obsession of freedom. Or maybe he's winning over his pathetic self so he could focus on what he needs to do? One could interpret this scene as Eren trying to break free from his obsession for "freedom." One could interpret this scene as Eren trying to break free from the shackles of his conscience. It's up to you.

Eren's outburst over Mikasa in this chapter is his pent-up feeling over her. It is, but after I write this meta, maybe it's more than that. It's because she's the proof of his humanity left. Many, many times, Mikasa is there to stop him from ruining himself. Mikasa's love creates a subconscious understanding that she will always be there for him. That's a part of her that he loves, and by feeling love, it means his humanity still exists. If Mikasa chooses to move on with another man, it means she will forget all the times they had together, she will forget the most human side of him. The only person who loves him as who he is, his home, would be lost. He would be lost. That idea scares him, even though he knows he doesn't deserve her love after everything he has done.

One more thing; another reason why Eren doesn't mind to be stopped, aside from Ymir's wish will get him what he wants –as I already explained. People argue that the conflict won't end until Paradis or the rest of the world remains; thus, Eren's half-hearted genocide is meaningless. No. No matter how angry he is that he wants to eradicate everything, he has enough maturity to understand, even back from the Battle of Trost, that humanity is far from united even if they're faced against a threat beyond human understanding. During the after-party night before the Battle of Shiganshina, he accepts that great power comes from joining ourselves together. We all need to find our own roles. Humans are created differently, because of times like this. By sparing the rest of the world, it keeps both Paradis and the world from collapsing. By keeping the diversity of people, someday it will open a path for peace because it's a part of human nature to try to understand each other; he learned it from the SC. Eren believes Armin could take him there, after he died. Maybe he forgot all of that because he's too caught up in his hate and anger up until 122, the same way he forgot back in the days.

Even if it's not explicitly explained in this chapter, I'd like to think that Eren got plenty of time to reflect on this matter when he did the Rumbling, to fill the emptiness he felt after he reached what he wants wanted.

Eren wins in the end, but at what cost? This chapter is calling out his tyrannical mindset, and it's great to see him realized his error, even if it's too late for him to go back.

Maybe this is what Isayama decided to focus on the last chapter, even if it's rushed. Maybe he (or his editor, idk) wanted the ending to focus on the protagonist's story about humans vs titans. The way Eren is so determined to wipe it out from this world, no matter how messed up his method, no matter how much he suffers, it doesn't matter if it's predestined or not. Because "freedom" is what he seeks ever since he was born. Because Eldia, every person deserves to be born in this world. Yes, every person, including everyone he killed. He knew the gravity of his action and choose to accept his death. Maybe it's the reason why Isayama doesn't delve into the aftermath of genocide further.

He wants the ending to be about Eren Yeager, The Attack Titan's journey about Attack. On. Titan.

#eren's character writing is still great in my eyes #or am i just too blind?#shingeki no kyojin #snk #snk spoilers #snk 139 #attack on titan #aot #aot 139 #aot spoilers #eren yeager #eren jaeger #snk meta #snk analyses

83 notes · View notes