#and it makes Abram only MORE resistant | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

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

Fun Fact

Tumblr is used by 21% of adults online aged 18-29 years.

#and it makes Abram only MORE resistant

slut4strombolis · 3 months

Text

Hi!!!

My name is Brittany but you can call me Brit!

I'm 14 (I know I'm young but I'm not one of them annoying sensitive fans I promise you)

I ❤️ the Sturniolo Triplets, Sam and Colby, Jake Webber, Johnnie Gilbert, Larray, Tara Yummy + many more!

My favourite artists are Madison Beer, Reneè Rapp, Sabrina Carpenter and Nessa Barrett + loads more and my favourite songs at the minute are tummy hurts by Reneè Rapp, MINOR by Gracie Abrams, Scott Street by Phoebe Bridgers and Dear Society by Madison Beer!!

My favourite show is pretty little liars but I'm only on season 1 so if you've watched it please don't spoil!!

I'm new on here I made this account last night and was just lurking through tumblr and decided to do it up and make it pretty today i heard about tumblr through twitter and I thought it seemed cool! I've not read too many fics yet but my fav writers and fics so far have to be

head over heels by @sturnioloshacker

East Side and friends with benefits by @lovingmattysposts

Guilty conscience by @lacysturniolo

and part 1 of dont resist this by @m0telwh0r3 so I recommend you read those if you haven't already!!

I hope I can make a bunch of friends on here and eventually write a few fics!

#sturniolo triplets

17 notes · View notes

omniscientstoryreader · 9 months

Text

AU by aftg, neil can recognize lies.

When Nathaniel was little, his father beat him half to death, so that Mary got scared and called Stuart, and he, having learned what was happening in the Wesninski family, immediately killed Nathan. So Nathaniel lives a relatively quiet childhood, but his childhood skills come in handy, he can read facial expressions, recognize tension, and so he becomes a walking lie detector. Growing up, he leaves the UK, because he does not want to associate life with the mafia, he changes his name to Abram, enters the university and starts a new life. There he meets new people, he makes friends, but even in a calm atmosphere, his skills have not gone away. All his friends and in general all acquaintances lie, sometimes important things, but more often for insignificant reasons, so he lives accustomed to the fact that all people lie. And then one day, through his friend Kevin, he meets Andrew Minyard. Andrew is laconic, often rude to people, and sometimes openly cruel, but only to those who will harm his family. And most importantly, Andrew never lies. Never!And how can Abram resist the temptation to get to know such a person better.

#aftg #aftg andrew #andrew minyard #neil josten #nathaniel wesninski #all for the game

19 notes · View notes

ethanhuntfemmefatale · 8 months

Note

One of my favorite bits about mi1 is that the initial team is half women, something that never occurs ever again. but I also think it’s sweet and I like that ethan has a girl squad especially because the later movies love to make up a woman with the exact same problem that Ethan has in that movie. It’s great!

somehow i never actually answered this but it's an excellent point and im thinking about it. yes I also love the MI1 team dearly and I'm grateful to mcq for steering us back in that direction (it seems) finally for dr2. and MI1 generally has some really fun women, max is so much of what makes MI1 great, so is Claire IMO. I have a complicated relationship with the way MI1 condemns Claire morally, which is a topic for another post, and weakens the MI1 themes to me as well as my overall feeling about how MI1 treats its women.

one thing MI does really well as a rule is giving ethan thematic parallels with the women he's paired with, making them a narrative foil instead of (or as well as) a love interest. Claire/Ethan parallels are essential to MI1 working as well as it does. Nyah/Ethan parallels are what save MI2 in my estimation. Julia/Ethan parallels are the weakest, and tbh i blame JJ Abrams for that, it's more of a situation where Julia is a conduit for Ethan's arc which...it makes sense given how much shit he's projecting on her but I would like it if she had a "reality" that resisted the "fantasy" and made her more of a thematic partner to Ethan. Maybe she's using Ethan as an escape too, maybe she needs Ethan to fill some thematically relevant emotional wound, anything that would center her mental state more in the movie, JJ. anyway moving on--jane/Ethan! Jane is not a love interest at all but she's a massively interesting narrative foil! Ilsa/Ethan is fascinating, Ilsa's arc has so many echoes of MI2, MI3 era Ethan. Ilsa incorporates Ethan's showmanship, his physicality, his earnestness, while still having her own "code." She's a killer, she's a fighter, and she is way less passive than Ethan in reaction to getting hurt. fucking Alanna/Ethan is a whole can of worms that i think about no joke every single fucking day recently but in a phrase alanna embodies Ethan's corruption in MI1 that ethan has been running from and hiding from everyone for a very long time now. And she's a strong parallel with MI1 Ethan and i would argue Max and Claire, the corrupt power-hungry women. Grace/Ethan, Grace embodies the criminal past Ethan is finally ready to accept as part of him, and her arc of being able to make the radical choice to protect others is the culmination of the entire franchise. Anyway to get into the weeds a bit i have an issue with MI and it's that the women are young. Angela Bassett is a nice exception in Fallout but her role is minor and administrative. I just wish Ethan had a powerful narrative foil that was his age. He's survived so much, he's one of the only people who's lived as long as he has in this business, and I think it would be really cool for him to be interacting with another player in the field, where you feel their age and the weight and power of it, and have that character be a woman. Idk this is why in my unrealistic fantasies claire survived mi1 to replace kittridge's role in DR1, obviously that's not in the control of mcq or anyone but it would just be so cool. Anyway that's my only beef with MI's treatment of its female characters, which is generally so much better than I normally see. I get so irritated when movies try to make me invested in a relationship based on attraction rather than a thematic connection between the characters, and part of that is that I've been spoiled by MI, where female characters play such meaty roles and have their own arcs alongside and in parallel/conflict with ethan.

#some long rambling thoughts for you 1 month late<3 #excellent ask thank you!!!!!!!#mission impossible

7 notes · View notes

stellanslashgeode · 5 days

Note

Also on the subject of star wars. It will forever be tragic to me that JJ Abrams in the Force Awakens wasted Yayan Ruhian and Iko Uwais from the raid films on some random no name characters. If you don't know, the raid 1 and 2 are two of the greatest martial arts action films ever. They have absolutely crazy choreography. They are genuinely the best Asian action films of the 21st century and these two actors were wasted on some fucking tentacle monster.

Like rogue one had Donnie yen kicking ass with great choreography and they couldn't whip something up for the guys from the raid?

Oh totally! Wasted! JJ wasted a lot of opportunities. It’s kind of what he does. They should bring back those actors for spin offs and give them an opportunity to shine.

They should have generally took more time with the sequels, maybe taking a full three years on them rather than rushing to fulfill their 4 billion investment. There’s a lot to love about the sequels, not only the new cast but the side characters like those two you mentioned and the Crimson Corsair that just pop in and out.

And the First Order fell flat for me as well. It would have been interesting to have them be like Neo Nazis rather than The Empire reborn with slicker costumes and bigger super weapons. The OT was all about rebellion. I would have liked a sequel trilogy about the former rebels having to maintain order and form a just government as they struggle against a fash resistance movement. Sort of a shoe is on the other foot now thing. Having the New Republic collapse so quick just makes all the death and drama in the previous series seem cheapened.

#dude you owe the dead Alderaan do a better job #I want to be pro sequel trilogy believe me

3 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 1 year

Text

I managed to open a post by the Substacker Big Serge from last August. I mistakenly assumed it was more recent because the high level take seemed current. I therefore read his comment that “I believe Russia has absolutely no interest in ending the war this year” as applying to 2023, not 2022 as written. I thought it was a bold and interesting call.

But even though Big Serge actually made no such forecast, upon reflection, this scenario is worth considering.

Mind you, this post is not intended to be a prediction but what consultants call a forcing device.

From the outset, your humble blogger maintained that Russia could win the war but lose the peace. That problem has become even more apparent as the war has progressed and more facts have come forward, such as:

The animosity of the West toward Russians The bad faith dealing of Western leaders, as confirmed by their duplicity in using the Minsk accords as a vehicle to better prepare for war with Russia. There’s an old saying among commercial lawyers that a contract is only as good as the parties that sign it. US and European officials have made clear they see no obligation to honor agreements with Russia. The use of Ukraine as a US/NATO proxy. Suspecting that is one thing, having it confirmed is another.

The prevalence of magical thinking among Western elites. For instance, the EU plans a tenth round of sanctions. Giving Ukraine longer-range missiles to shoot at Crimea will cause so much foment in Russia that Putin will have to sue for peace to prevent his ouster. And the never-ending projection, like the Russians suffering horrific casualties.

One concern that many Russia experts say influences its strategy is avoiding NATO escalation. Even though the alliance is revealing itself to be more resource constrained and on top of that, not well equipped for this war, that does not mean it could not work itself up to a much higher level of operation in say 24 months if it felt threatened. And the Balts and Poles keep the dial at 11, so there’s a lot of crazy angry background messaging.

And we have this overarching problem, the map that Big Serge presented:

I haven’t seen anyone come up with a viable plan for what to do about that big blue area of Western Ukraine.1 Medvedev’s map (which shows a rump Ukraine that amounts to Greater Kiev, with Poland, Romania, and Hungary gobbling up other bits) would be a great outcome for Russia. But I don’t see how that comes about, and Russia being seen as trying to engineer that would make that outcome even less likely.

In the meantime, as Alex Christaforu pointed out yesterday, just like the father figure in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, who used Windex as a remedy for all ills, so to is the Collective West’s answer to every Ukraine problem more weapons. But as the press is reporting today, in the runup to a monthly NATO “what do we do now” session today, the US and Germany are having a spat over tanks. Ukraine is begging for more and recent Russia MoD “clobber lists” confirm why. Russia is reporting very few tank kills, and those are considerably outnumbered by pickup trucks and passenger cars, the sort of thing you should not see used on a battlefield.

As Brian Berletic has explained long form over many videos, the armored vehicles that the US and France have offered to send are part of a tank entourage and not a substitute for a tank. The US Abrams is too heavy, too much of a fuel hog, requires way way too much maintenance and a ton of training. The Germany Leopard 2 can only be called less unsuitable. It’s too heavy, presupposed maintenance facilities nearby, and did not perform well in Syria against mere insurgents.

The Germans are sensibly resisting giving up a tank devised for national defense to be thrown away in Ukraine. Expect them to relent and send a token number. Which leads to another favorite issue of Berletic’s: the West sending a hodge podge of equipment will create a logistical, training and staffing nightmare for Ukraine and could even make matters worse.

By contrast, a fresh and long news conference by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gives an inkling of current official Russian thinking. Virtually at the start, Lavrov called out the conflict as a NATO war:

What is happening now in Ukraine is the result of many years of preparation by the United States and its satellites for the start of a global hybrid war against the Russian Federation. No one hides it. If you read unbiased Western figures, including political scientists, scientists, and politicians, you can see this for yourself. Just the other day there was an article by Professor of Columbia University J. Bremmer. He texted: “We are not in a state of cold war with Russia. We are in a “hot war” with Russia. NATO is not fighting it directly. We are fighting through Ukraine.” Quite a frank confession. This conclusion lies on the surface. It is strange that they are trying to refute it in some way. Recently, the President of Croatia Z.Milanovic said that this is a NATO war. Frankly, honestly. A few weeks ago, H. Kissinger (before his last article called for Ukraine’s admission to NATO) clearly wrote that what is happening in Ukraine is a clash, a competition between two nuclear powers for control over this territory. It’s pretty clear what we’re talking about.

Our Western partners are deceitful when they deny it and ” foam at the mouth “prove that they are not at war with Russia, but only help Ukraine cope with” aggression ” and restore its territorial integrity. The volume of support clearly indicates that the West has put a lot of money on its war against Russia. This is understandable..

Returning to the declaration of NATO and the European Union. Interesting document. The two structures have been declared the ” union of democracies against autocracies in the context of global competition.” A deliberately confrontational agenda has been proclaimed to the whole world. At the same time, Europe lost its independence. The Joint Declaration explicitly puts the Europeans in a subordinate position in relation to the North Atlantic Alliance. Contains their commitment to serve American interests in the geopolitical deterrence of Russia and China. The goal was announced (it was known to everyone, but now it is once again documented) – to achieve the global superiority of the alliance led by the Americans.

NATO is not limited to organizing the life of the European continent. Since the Madrid summit in June 2022, the global responsibility of the military bloc has been proclaimed, especially in relation to the Asia-Pacific region, which NATO calls the Indo-Pacific.

In response to the first question, which was about negotiations, security arrangements, and if the “power phase,” which I take to mean kinetic war, would end this year, Lavrov stayed close to the formula that the SMO goals would need to be achieved, and added:

In Ukraine, as in any other territory bordering the territory of the Russian Federation, there should be no military infrastructure that poses a direct threat to our country, discrimination, or persecution against our compatriots. They are citizens of the Ukrainian state by the will of fate, but they want to preserve their language, culture and traditions, and bring up their children in these traditions in full compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine, which guarantees the free use and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities. The Russian language is specifically highlighted there. This Constitution remains in force.

That implies a big blue rump Ukraine would need to be a radically different beast, and that charitably assumes citizens will prefer to get back to a semblance of their old lives rather than invest in vendettas.2

Big Serge’s latest observations on Twitter:

Big Serge did point out that the NATO members with the biggest forces ex the US, and hence the most independence, Turkey and France, were holding back.

So where does this high-level ramble leave us? As Douglas Macgregor said, Russia had already burned through two Ukraine armed forces, the one it started out with and then the one NATO reconstituted. The West is putting together a third force, which Macgregor notes will be smaller, and he anticipates Russia will dispatch that one too.

If the West tries more stunts, as in non-strategic destruction, like shelling Crimea, expect an acceleration of Russian strategic responses, like taking out the electrical grid faster.

But how does Russia get a measure of security? Even attriting NATO militarily won’t achieve that, unless NATO does the most epically stupid thing it could, which is oust Turkey.

Here I think Big Serge was on to the end game, but it is not coming as fast as he anticipated:

Russia’s energy weapon remains the bomb in the heart of the EU. With all the “winter is coming” memes floating around, it can be easy to write this off as simply a figment of the internet. Far from it – small businesses around the EU are already closing in the face of crushing energy bills, energy intensive industrial sectors like smelting are shutting plants entirely. Europe is facing a perfect economic storm, as the Federal Reserve hikes rates, leading to a general tightening of financial conditions, energy prices explode into the stratosphere, and export markets dry up amid a global economic slowdown.

All of this is likely to tip over into a cataclysm over the winter. I would not be surprised to see a financial collapse and unemployment in the EU in excess of 30%. Given the fact that the EU is notoriously bad at solving problems of any kind, there’s a non-negligible chance more countries try to leave the EU.

The EU is getting through this winter due to luck in the form of warm weather, weak demand out of China, aggressive stockpiling of Russian gas, and cutting into muscle, in the form of capacity reductions at energy intensive European, particularly German, companies. And EU leader, largely correctly, think the green energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act are predatory as far as European businesses are concerned. EU leaders at Davos discussed an US-European trade war as a real risk.

The EU is reported to be considering sanctioning Russian nuclear fuel, which would result in yet more blowback since there’s no ready replacement.

Note that Lavrov refused to address the question of whether the fighting might end this year. The big reason is no one knows and Russia seems to be revising its plans in light of events. But the difficulty of ending a conflict with a completely feckless opponent, one that can’t be trusted to respect any treaty, suggests that Russia needs to attrit the West top to bottom, economically as well as militarily. A continued grind would be a way to get there.

______

1 Your truly has suggested fully de-electrifying it, since Russia is the only place that can provide the needed parts (putting in a new Western-standards systems is an impossible task). John Helmer has pumped for a massive DMZ, but that would require agreement from an agreement-incapable counterparty.

2 Colonel Macgregor has argued that Ukraine is not geographically suited to an insurgent war, but you could see IRA-type campaigns in cities in the newly “liberated “oblasts.

#russia #ukraine #ukraine conflict #nato #us imperialism #world war 3 #naked capitalism #european union #politics

17 notes · View notes

libertariantaoist · 7 months

Text

https://libertarianinstitute.org/news-roundup/news-roundup-9-27-2023/

Here is your daily roundup of today's news:

News Roundup 9/27/2023

by Kyle Anzalone

US News

Senator Robert Menendez denied the allegations levied against him by the Department of Justice. Last week, a grand jury indicted the powerful Senator on bribery charges. Investigators found hundreds of thousands of dollars said to be payments to access the Senator’s influence. The Institute

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced the US would increase its military ties with Kenya. Washington agreed to provide additional security assistance to Kenya after Nairobi agreed to lead a UN mission to Haiti. The Institute

Russia

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Monday that the first batch of US-made Abrams tanks have arrived in Ukraine, which are armed with toxic depleted uranium (DU) ammunition. AWC

The Biden administration on Monday announced a $2 billion loan for Poland that will go toward modernizing Warsaw’s military. AWC

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said Budapest was ending support for Kiev on international issues due to a 2017 Ukrainian law that limits the rights of Hungarians. The announcement comes as Ukraine’s support in Eastern Europe wanes, with Poland halting all weapons transfers to Kiev after President Volodymyr Zelensky criticized Warsaw. The Institute

Four American advanced fighter jets arrived in Romania and will begin conducting patrols over the Black Sea region, according to NATO. The deployment comes as Washington wages a proxy war against Moscow in Ukraine that has stretched into the Black Sea. The Institute

The commander of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet attended a Russian Defense Ministry video conference on Tuesday, a day after Ukraine claimed he was killed in a September 22 missile strike on the fleet’s headquarters in Sevastopol, Crimea. AWC

A senior US official told The Washington Post that the Biden administration is not pressuring Ukraine to hold elections, while some Western officials do want to see a wartime vote. AWC

A report from 60 Minutes that aired Sunday detailed how US taxpayer dollars are not only funding weapons in Ukraine but are also subsidizing small businesses and paying first responders salaries, among other things. AWC

Senate leaders on Tuesday announced they reached a deal on a stopgap funding bill that needs to be passed by September 30 to avert a partial government shutdown. The bill includes $6.2 billion for Ukraine and $6 billion for natural disasters. AWC

On Tuesday, the Kremlin said US-provided Abrams tanks in Ukraine will not impact Russia’s operations and will “burn” like other Western armored vehicles. AWC

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday that the Turkish parliament will ratify Sweden’s NATO membership as long as the US follows through on its plans to sell Turkey F-16 fighter jets. AWC

China

President Biden is hosting Pacific Island leaders for a second annual summit in Washington that’s part of his administration’s strategy to counter China in the Asia Pacific. AWC

The Philippines is taking steps to retake Scarborough Shoal, a disputed chain of rocks and reefs in the South China Sea that has been effectively controlled by China since 2012. AWC

Middle East

Israeli Tourism Minister Haim Katz arrived in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday for a UN conference, making him the first senior Israeli official to publicly visit the Kingdom, which comes as the US is pushing for a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal. AWC

After weeks of clashes between the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Arab tribesman aligned with Deir Ezzor Military Council (DEMC), the SDF has imposed a curfew following a resumption of fighting on Monday. These ethnic tensions are boiling over in eastern Syria’s Deir Ezzor province, illegally occupied by the US and its SDF partners, as the Arab majority resists Kurdish rule. The Institute

#kyle anzalone #libertarian institute #news roundup

3 notes · View notes

dalekofchaos · 1 year

Text

Knights Of Ren rewrite

Small Sequel Trilogy rewrite to make the focus of the trilogy to be on Rey, FInn, Ben and the Knights Of Ren. Basically doing more with the Knights Of Ren because that idiot JJ Abrams set them up and only brought them in to be killed off.

The Knights Of Ren are former students of Luke who fled with Ben after Luke tried to kill Ben. Their bond was forged that night and they have been Ben's true family, a brotherhood.

There are 8 members in total. 8 Masters of each Lightsaber form

The Knights Of Ren hold power in the First Order like a mix of Inquisitors and Moffs in the Empire and this pisses Hux off

Kylo Ren is basically the Witch King of the group while the Knights are the equivalent to Nazgul

The Knights are tasked with hunting BB-8 down

One of the Knights was shot down on Jakku by Rey and Finn, he survived and reports to Kylo. Ben, thinking it was Han is enraged, but hearing the girl ignites the canon "WHAT GIRL?"

Kylo is the one who confronts Rey on Takodana as per canon

Rey on kills one of the Knights on Starkiller base

When Kylo arrives, their duel ends in a draw and being split by Starkiller's destruction.

TFA ends with Kylo pledging to turn Rey to the dark side and Rey focusing on bringing Luke back

Rey and FInn both go to Luke. Finn being the more natural Jedi, while Rey struggles and lacks patience. Ben, sensing Rey's inner darkness is drawn to her. Rey and Ben still share the same force bond scenes and hides this from Luke and Finn

Eventually Ben learns where Rey and Skywalker are.

Before leaving, Kylo and the Knights have decided to pull a coup and kill Snoke. Kylo Ren takes his place as the Supreme Leader. His first act. The death of Skywalker and the Resistance and bringing in a new member of the Knights of Ren. Rey.

The climax of the movie is Rey, Finn and Luke vs Kylo and the Knights Of Ren on Ach-To

Rey leaves with Ben to spare her friends.

Rey in Episode IX, she is inducted into the Knights Of Ren as Kira Ren

Finn finishes his Jedi training and causes a Stormtrooper Rebellion

The movie is about Finn saving Rey or doing what must be done. However something worse is on the horizon. Palpatine

So in the end our three heroes will work together and end Palpatine

The Knights of Ren returning to the light and helping Rey, Ben and Finn founding a new Order

#Star Wars #Knights Of Ren #The Knights Of Ren #Reylo #Rey #Kylo Ren #Ben Solo #Finn #Jedi Finn

2 notes · View notes

jdgo51 · 3 months

Text

JANUARY 21, 2024

Moving On

Carol Purves (England, United Kingdom)

"'The Lord said to Abram, “Leave your land, your family, and your father’s household for the land that I will show you.”' - Genesis 12:1 (CEB)

"As I have gotten older, I have felt more resistant to change. So when I felt God asking me to make a major life change — moving to live in a city on the other side of my country where I knew no one — I didn’t want to go. It would mean leaving behind my friends and my church. But while I continued to disobey this urging, I had no peace.

I tried to calm my unsettled soul by reading about characters in the Bible who had been asked to move by God. Abram was prompted by God to move to an unknown destination; at least I knew where God wanted me to go. God asked David to change his location and his status; I would only be changing my location. Gideon was so reluctant to obey that he questioned God and tested God’s intentions with a fleece; I didn’t need a fleece.

I obeyed God’s instructions questioningly and reluctantly. I am now living in a house that is better suited to my older age. I am happy in my new church, and since moving I have learned that my former church has closed. The city I now live in has more opportunities for service. I will be forever grateful God urged me to move. God always knows best." God knows what is best for you. Accept that and make changes. You will not regret this.

TODAY'S PRAYER

"Dear God, may we always obey your still, small voice. Give us courage to follow your leading." Amen.

Judges 6:33-40

"'33 Some time later, all the Midianites, Amalekites, and other easterners joined together, came over, and set up camp in the Jezreel Valley. 34 Then the LORD’s spirit came over Gideon, and he sounded the horn and summoned the Abiezrites to follow him. 35 He sent messengers into all of Manasseh, and they were also summoned to follow him. Then he sent messengers into Asher, Zebulun, and Naphtali too, and they marched up to meet them. 36 But then Gideon said to God, “To see if you really intend to rescue Israel through me as you have declared, 37 I’m now putting a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece but all the ground is dry, then I’ll know that you are going to rescue Israel through me, as you have declared.” 38 And that is what happened. When he got up early the next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung out enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water. 39 Then Gideon said to God, “Don’t be angry with me, but let me speak just one more time. Please let me make just one more test with the fleece: now let only the fleece be dry and let dew be on all the ground.” 40 And God did so that night. Only the fleece was dry, but there was dew on all the ground."' You do not have to "throw out the fleece" for verification. You can trust God when He gives instruction. Be blessed! Joe

0 notes

snazzy-specter · 1 year

Note

Lauren Montgomery, the other Voltron showrunner, is set to direct a ITSV spin off about Spider-Gwen. When it comes to movies directors have more power than writers do, they can even make changes unlike with television where showrunners have the most control and directors don't

i didn't know about the spider-gwen thing. curious to see how that goes, but those are just talks for now.

as far as directors in movies go, you're not wrong, but that's also not entirely accurate. it really depends on the project. considering Lord was not a director on the first movie, i think he and Miller have more creative power than you think, considering how you can kinda feel their -isms in it and that are also in The Lego Movie and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs.

(for the sake of clarity, the first movie's directors were Bob Persichetti [his first directing credit], Peter Ramsey [previously directed Monster's vs Aliens and Rise of the Guardians], and Rodney Rothman [his first directing credit too]).

even with that in mind, i think Montgomery has enough good stuff under her belt that, if nothing else, the end product will be acceptable.

also, again, film and television are collaborative. everyone plays are roll in the final product. you can't pin the blame for the failures of any on a single person. the most you can do is notice patterns in the end products that an artist is involved in and infer where their weaknesses lie. my brother's favorite punching bag, J.J. Abrams, has a very noticeable habit of prioritizing spectacle in the projects he leads at the cost of character and logical story progression. once you see it, you can spot it in a lot of his work, but there are times where that weakness can be mitigated by others. i'd argue a chief problem with his Star Wars movies is he was given to much control without anyone to properly balance his -isms (setting up mysteries with no solution being key amongst them).

furthermore, animation is especially collaborative, as not only are writers and directors making story decisions, so are storyboard artists, animators, hell even songwriters for some of the musicals.

here's an example; Howard Ashman is, in many ways, the linchpin of the DIsney Renaissance. i know i just said that film is the result of everyone working together, and i stand by that, but it was his knowledge and experience in theatre that created The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and to a lesser extent Aladdin. he also is not credited as a writer or director in any of them. he is only credited as producer in The LIttle Mermaid because he passed away before he could be more involved in the following two.

heck, for when it comes to John Musker and Ron Clements, you can notice their -isms in the movies they did later (Hercules, Princess and the Frog, Moana), and you'll notice the -isms of Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise carry over to The Hunchback of Notre Dame (and possibly Atlantis: The Lost Empire, but i haven't seen that).

while i have no idea what went on behind the scenes, i have a very strong feeling that vld had some stuff go very, very wrong during production. a lot of it comes across as very rushed and first draft. my guess is that they wanted to tell a sweeping space opera epic about a small resistance gaining traction through forging careful alliances with the people disenfranchised by the galaxy-spanning empire with some additional science-fantasy elements for flavor (think Star Wars if it were on the scale of Legend of the Galactic Heroes). a show that would be too mature to get a green light from most TV execs because they wouldn't be able to fully market to kids, and not wanting to fall into the trap of "adult" animation on television. basically "what if we made a YA novel, but it was actually a cartoon?"

i think vld could have been a good show if it had been able to follow the old television model of being given a 65 episode order while following the more modern trend of linear narrative storytelling without the constraints of TV marketability. i also think Montgomery and Dos Santos, having come off of working on a show that had almost that exact model, were not prepared for whatever release deadlines were placed on them by their bosses, especially Netflix.

i don't want to write them off completely as "bad artists" or pretend that every project they so much as glance at will be terrible because of one stain on their career. i think the hatred to vld is kinda overblown and is the result of a lot of people not wanting to acknowledge that they really enjoyed it at first and felt hurt watching it become to crushingly mediocre.

hell, i've been that fan. i brought up Danny Phantom in my last post, so i'll just use it again, but when i first finished the show, i was one of those fans who would say the third season was just the worst, and it was all Butch Hartman's fault because he couldn't write. that the finale was the worst single episode of television (completely ignoring it wasn't even the worst episode of that season). i didn't want to except that, while i thought a show would get better, it only got worse. in Danny Phantom's case, it was absolutely because Hartman is not a terribly good writer and the guy in charge of the project that was at least better was no longer involved. with vld though, it's really hard to say, and short of a tell-all interview with Dos Santos and/or Montgomery, we'll probably never know what went wrong.

i'm willing to throw them both a bone, and with a project with a lot of very strong creative involved, i trust that their weaknesses will be more than covered.

#spooks speaks #answers #this got a lot longer than i intended #long post

0 notes

robertreich · 2 years

Text

Staying hopeful in turbulent times

Friends,

The reason I write is not just to inform (and occasionally amuse) you, but also to arm you with the truth so you can fight more effectively for the common good.

The forces undermining our democracy, polluting our planet, and stoking hatred and inequality have many weapons at their disposal — lobbyists, media megaphones, and money to bribe lawmakers. But their most powerful weapon is cynicism. They’re betting that if they can get us to feel like we can’t make a difference, we will give up — and then they can declare total victory.

Which is why we have to keep up the fight even when feeling deeply discouraged.

I’m not going to pretend. There’s a lot to be discouraged about right now — from Manchin’s torpedoing of “Build Back Better” to the surging Omicron variant of COVID-19 and the politicization of public health, from the Republicans’ assault on voting rights to environmental disasters all over the world. My message to any of you who feel overwhelmed, disappointed, or ready to drop out: I get it.

I’ve been in the trenches for five decades and sometimes I despair as well. Again and again over the years I’ve seen hard-fought dreams go up in smoke. Or been sidelined. Or ridiculed. Or I’ve watched them succumb to bribery and corruption. Two of the leaders I counted on most in my lifetime were assassinated.

But notwithstanding all this, we are better today than we were fifty years ago, twenty years ago, even a year ago.

I can point out so many examples in our own country, or all across the world, where movements that were once small and stacked against seemingly impossible odds, ended up winning and making America and our earth a better place to live. From Martin Luther King, Jr., to Mahatma Gandhi, to more recent examples like Stacey Abrams and Greta Thunberg, people have repeatedly changed the course of history by refusing to believe that they couldn’t make a difference.

It’s not only the famous leaders who are agents of change. Movements are fueled by individuals giving their time, energy, and hope. Small actions and victories lead to bigger ones, and the improbable becomes possible.

Nothing strikes fear in the hearts of those who want to prevent progress more than a resistance that is undeterred.

This fight, this struggle, all these big problems, can be exhausting. No one can go all in, all the time. That’s why we need to build communities and movements for action, where people can give what effort they can, and can be buoyed in solidarity with others. Strengthening our resolve. Sharing information and analyses. Fortifying ourselves.

Over the next few years the fight will become even more intense. We are even battling for the way we tell the story of America. There are those who want to go back to a simplistic and inaccurate narrative, where we were basically perfect from our founding, where we don’t need to tell the unpleasant truths about slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and all the other injustices.

But there is another story of America, one of imperfection but progress. In this story, which is far more accurate, reformers have changed this nation many, many times for the better. We got labor rights, civil rights, women's rights, and LGBTQ rights. We got clean water laws and clean air laws, and health insurance for most Americans. We’ve torn down Confederate statues and expanded clean energy. We’ve got a new generation of young, progressive politicians determined to make the nation better. The list goes on and on.

The outcome of the fight ahead will not be determined by force, fear, or violence. It will be decided on the basis of commitment, tenacity, and unvarnished truth.

Here’s my deal. I’ll continue to give you the facts and arguments, even sprinkle in drawings and videos. I’ll do whatever I can to help strengthen your understanding and your resolve. Please use the facts, arguments, drawings and videos to continue the fight. To fight harder. To enlist others.

If at any time you feel helpless or despairing, remember that the struggle is long, that progress is often hard to see in the short term, and that for every step forward regressive forces are determined to push us backwards. Also remind yourself that the fights for democracy, social justice, and a sustainable planet are necessary and noble, that the stakes could not be greater or more important, and that we will — we must — win.

I wish you a restful, enjoyable, and restorative holiday.

Robert Reich

PS: If you’d like to join me on a (nearly) daily basis, please subscribe at https://robertreich.substack.com/

#hope #actiivism #democracy #social justice #sustainability #movement

944 notes · View notes

artist-issues · 2 years

Text

Okay, I’ve decided to organize my thoughts on the Star Wars Sequels. The way I see it, the movies had an acceptable start, peaked in excellence with The Last Jedi, and then utterly destroyed all of their potential in the finale as The Rise of Skywalker. This was unfortunate, because the explosion that was TROS crashing and burning cast a weird, hellish light of suckiness on the two films that came before it. Like, when you go back and watch TFA or TLJ, you can’t see characters who grow and change, anymore. You can only look at the potential they had which was wasted and had no payoff.

I have a friend who totally disagrees and says that the Star Wars Sequels sucked simply because Disney was in charge, and Disney sucks. He doesn’t think the Sequels were ever good or had any potential to be good at any point. He thinks TLJ was the worst of the three and helped set up the dumpster fire which was TROS by being so bad.

He’s wrong. TLJ was the best one. I would argue that because most fans were blinded by wanting TLJ to revive their idealization of classic Star Wars characters, they missed all the good that The Last Jedi was doing for the franchise. And I would not be surprised if it was the negative fan response to Rian Johnson’s excellent setup that contributed to JJ Abram’s horrible swing-and-a-miss with TROS.

I feel like the best way to explain this is by addressing the complaints everyone spewed after TLJ premiered. Is it way too late to make these points? Yes. Does anyone care? Nnno probably not. But if you do care and you disagree, guess what? Yes I am making this argument and yes, I take criticism. Let’s gooo

Complaint 1: Snoke’s Death

People hated that Snoke died in TLJ because they wanted him to be something. Anything. Anything important. Why did they want that? I really don’t know. I suspect it is because Emperor Palpatine, in the Sacred Original Trilogy, was so hardcore evil and endured to the finale as the “final boss.” Fans must’ve obviously expected that pattern to repeat. And while it repeated, they wanted it to uncover lore; Snoke is a clone, Snoke is Plagueis, Snoke is The Son, Snoke is a time traveler, Snoke is Palpatine. They just wanted him to be something they could point at and say “oh! That! I know what that is!” But whether you wanted Snoke to be a copy of the phenomenon that was The Emperor from the OT, or you wanted him to be a something obscurely interesting from the extended universe of Star Wars, guess what?

That was never the point of Snoke. Snoke is not the main bad guy. Snoke isn’t even interesting. He’s a copy of what we’ve seen before: a dark, shadowy puppet master who is vaguely overpowered and hideously ugly, as well as shrouded in mystery. He fulfills the same role the Emperor did, in Force Awakens. He’s just there to be the authority behind more interesting or relatable villains like Hux and Kylo Ren. You might say “well, why did they even need to have Snoke in the first place? They shouldn’t even have created a character that was a copy of the Emperor; but since they did, they DEFINITELY shouldn’t have killed him off!!”

But that is silly too. Obviously Star Wars narratives aren’t going to ever be super logical, but one thing makes sense: if you have a super powerful head of a movement which is challenging the government, like the First Order, why would that super-powerful head jeopardize himself by going into battle? Chasing down Resistance Pilots? Giving speeches personally? It makes more sense for such a super-powerful head to maximize the power that being mysterious gives him, for one, and keep his head out of sniper crosshairs for another. Meanwhile, he sends underlings like Hux and Ren to be extensions of his will.

So Snoke needs to be around for logic purposes. But what about story purposes? Did he need to be a copy of the Emperor?

No. And he’s not. Well, functionally, in some ways he is. Like I already said, in The Force Awakens, he’s just around for a brief cameo as a hologram telling his underling what to do, and ominous mentions by the First Order, very similar to Palpatine in A New Hope. But take a look at some differences.

Palpatine ran his Empire by planning several steps ahead so that he could destroy the Jedi and conquer the galaxy from the inside of a pre-established government system. That took patience and living a double life. Snoke, on the other hand—we’re not told (until TROS) how he came to power. But it is easily seen that his method of conquering is not patience and subtlety. First he targets and sways to his side the son of the existing government (the New Republic’s) heroes. That puts a big old “HEY I’M SNOKE AND I’M EVIL” sign on his back. And he openly waged war against the forces of good in the galaxy with an organization that’s not even trying to pretend it isn’t a holdover from the Empire. Like, his soldiers are called “Stormtroopers” and he uses Star Destroyers and everything. It would be like if Palpatine, in Phantom Menace, never ran for Senate or plotted with several apprentices to undermine the Jedi prophecies. Forget all that. What if, instead, some time before the beginning of Phantom Menace, this Nabooian, Sheev Palpatine made a name for himself by being super strong in the Dark Side, gathered as many cultists as he could, dressed them in obviously evil uniforms, and declared open war on the Galactic Republic as a leftover faction of the Sith Empire? And everyone identified him and his cultists as "a holdover from the Sith Empire." Oh, but first, he found, like, the child of a hero from the Old Republic and turned him into his own personal evil puppet.

Palpatine wasn’t that bold (or stupid, take your pick.) The Emperor wasn’t standing on the ruins of another evil and openly reviving a war that had already been lost, with all the subtlety of a hammer blow. He played the long, gigantic, centuries-old game and by the Revenge of the Sith, he was the overlord of the entire galaxy with all the power strategically placed to tip over to his own side in one fell swoop. So he has a much more established, much further-reaching influence as the Big Bad Villain in the Original Trilogy. Honestly, when you compare Snoke in TLJ, Snoke starts to look like some fanboy upstart who just has great stage presence and uncommonly long reach with the Force.

The point being, Snoke isn’t fulfilling the same EXACT mold as Palpatine. His “rule” only really started after he destroyed the planets of the New Republic at the END of Rise of Skywalker. It’s brand new. He’s not an established ruler, even if everyone on his payroll is commanded to call him, and treat him as, the “Supreme Leader.” So cutting the tentative, brand new warlord of the Galaxy in half in your second movie instead of in the last is more feasible, because you don’t have to build as much into it. Snoke has only been a mover and shaker of significance, to our knowledge, since Ben’s adolescence.

And all comparing Snoke’s interesting-ness to Palpatine’s aside…that’s not even the argument here. Snoke never needed to be “somebody important” because all he ever needed to do was serve as the character propellor for Kylo Ren. Kylo Ren needed to have someone encouraging him to do horrible things, like kill his own father or capture the only person who’s ever understood the conflict in him. It was not only fascinating to have Snoke die one movie early, but to have him die as a nobody? Someone who was there, powerful, and then gone? Wow! What a move! Think about it.

Star Wars is built on tension between who you are, who you choose to be, and what legacy you leave. To have Snoke be set up as someone important, but cut down by the character that we’re all ACTUALLY interested in, is the best way those themes have been played with in years. When Kylo Ren cuts him down, it means that the stakes are high. It means that it doesn’t matter if a character’s history is a mystery, or meaningful—it yanks the audience’s attention into the present moment. Forget about who this Snoke guy WAS and where he WAS during the events of your sacred Original Trilogy—look at the character standing here NOW. He’s got a crazy crackling lightsaber and an unhinged mentality, and you no longer know what he is going to do next.

Conclusion: Snoke was never meant to be somebody. He was just meant to make the actual Somebodies of the film stand out more.

And what was SET UP by this was the idea that Kylo Ren was now the leader of the First Order. The character you thought was a Vader stand-in is now the Emperor stand-in. And yeah, he can’t possibly be good at it—right? All we’ve seen him do up until the moment he declares himself Supreme Leader is ignore careful planning and do whatever his tantrum-happy heart desires in the moment. He shows no signs, during his few minutes as acting Big Bad at the end of TLJ, of changing that pattern of “leadership.” In fact, he just seems more lost and confused by the last shot of Adam Driver in that film. What does a Big Bad who is lost and confused look like in a trilogy finale?

I guess everybody was thinking “waaah, I can’t take Kylo Ren seriously as a threat! He’s a tantrum-throwing kid! The Resistance doesn’t even have anybody worth fighting if he’s in charge.” But guess what? Rian Johnson took care of that…because by the end of the film, the Resistance is like ten alien misfits flying away on one beat-up freighter. Their most powerful defense against the new, unhinged Supreme Leader is an emotionally drained orphan with Jedi texts to maybe study and no lightsaber. And if you think that makes Kylo Ren too overpowered to have an interesting third movie fighting ten alien misfits, remember that Rian Johnson also had Kylo Ren’s fleet blown up by HyperSpace Kamikaze. So they're back down to more manageable odds, a much smaller war (in scale) and more potential screen time for the characters. Characters, like Kylo Ren, who are going in bold new directions, like “kill all old things” and “how do we build a rebellion from this?” It just freed up MORE time and space for them to focus on and develop the themes/characters we all care about. AND, that, as an added benefit, would have allowed the Sacred Original Trilogy to keep its laurels as the Big War of Star Wars.

But no. You guys were mad that Kylo Ren was going to be the Big Bad, and so we got Palpatine back. Boring, tired old Palpatine. And Kylo Ren took steps BACKWARD and became the conflicted power-hungry puppet of an old man, again.

Complaint 2: Luke’s “Character Assasination”

I’m going to try to keep my response to this short and sweet. Basically everyone wants to dump on Rian Johnson’s explanation of Luke Skywalker hiding on Ahch-To and almost killing his nephew once a long time ago. They think Luke Skywalker, strong and heroic at the end of A New Hope, would never do such things. “He’d never give up on Ben! He’d never leave Leia and Han and the galaxy to defend themselves!”

Okay but think for one second. Think OUTSIDE the Original Trilogy.

The best characters are believable. Luke is believable because he has multiple levels to who he is. Yes, when met in the OT, he is hopeful and adventurous, and he sees the good in others. Old recluse Ben Kenobi, irritating but lovable smuggler Han, treacherous father Vader, you name it. If it breathes, Luke seems willing to believe it has good in it. But Luke is more than just your standard Hopeful, Forgiving Hero. He is also prideful. LET ME FINISH. Luke is told by Yoda that he cannot be trained because he is too young, but Luke insists that he can. Luke is told not to go confront Vader until he is ready, but he goes anyway because he believes he is the only one who can save his friends. He is told not to go to his father, because it is too late for Vader to be saved, but he goes anyway. It turns out all right in the end; Luke goes, in his pride believing he can resist the Dark Side and the Emperor. He almost turns to the Dark Side, believing he can stop his sister’s endangerment and the death of the Rebellion. He is goaded into fighting Vader, and almost kills his own father. But then he chooses to have mercy and be a Jedi, instead. If not for Anakin’s return to the Light, even that decision would have gotten him killed. But like I said, it turned out okay and Luke was remembered as the hero who kept up belief in the Light.

So let’s say you’re Rian Johnson, and the character everyone believes is a super powerful god of hope and heroism has, for some reason, been sitting on an island while his nephew kills his best friend and almost kills his sister and destroys everything Luke worked for. You have to explain that.

You have to keep Luke in-character. So what part of Luke Skywalker, in the OT source material, might have grown in the lifetime since we saw him last? What would the Sacred Original Trilogy Luke do if he had a family member who, leaning into the dark side, might be revealed to someday destroy everyone he loved?

Wasn’t there a moment where Young, Sacred Original Trilogy Luke Skywalker almost killed a family member under the same circumstances? Oh yeah. When he had Vader at his mercy at the end of Return of the Jedi. So it looks like, sometimes, it IS in-character for Luke Skywalker to have “a briefest moment of pure instinct,” and “I thought I could stop it,” and then “it passed.”

Okay, so maybe Luke threatening his nephew in a moment of fear and weakness can be said to be in-character. But what about after that? What about, in the consequences of that, Luke deciding not to make up for it but instead go into hiding? That’s super out-of-character, right? I mean, who would do that? Who would fail to save the Galaxy from a new darkness after driving his apprentice to that darkness, then choose to isolate himself and seek answers about where he went wrong by studying ancient Jedi artifacts?

Oh. Ben Kenobi. Who failed to prevent or defeat the darkness in his apprentice, and so decided to isolate himself and study the Force with his Master’s ghost. Ben Kenobi, who was one of Luke Skywalker’s only two role models in the Force did that same thing. Of course, Ben Kenobi was guarding Luke all the time, so he wasn’t totally abandoning the galaxy. But maybe, when Luke ran from his failure, he thought he was going to find some sort of answer to the problem. Some sort of insight to where he went wrong, so he could go back and save Ben. Only to find, on the island, that the only insight he could reach was the utter hubris of the Jedi Order he used to idolize. Then he starts internalizing that hubris, projecting it onto himself, coupled with the crippling added weight of having failed the only family he has…and he truly believes that the world is better off without him.

Okay, but who would, after failure, begin a young woman’s training and then leave her to go fight the danger you’ve been avoiding, all alone? When you know she might be killed?

Oh. Master Yoda. Who started an ill-advised apprentice’s training in Empire Strikes Back, and then when that apprentice stubbornly flew off to confront his nemesis, warned against it and ultimately stayed behind. Master Yoda, Luke Skywalker’s other only role model in the Force who did the same thing. Now, luckily, Yoda corrected this. Yoda finished Luke’s training, and gave him advice on his destiny, then passed into the Force. And when Luke was getting ready to leave Rey to her fate, it wasn’t until Yoda reappeared on Ahch-To that Luke returned to hoping. He realized that, yes, Rey was going to fail to turn Ben Solo the same way he failed to prevent Ben Solo from turning to the Dark Side. But thanks to Yoda, he also realized that that didn’t mean she needed to do what he did and isolate herself, or close herself off from the Force. She needed to learn from the failure and grow beyond it. That is what Luke is doing in the final Act of TLJ. He is proving to Rey, through a dying connection to the Force, that she can focus on and have peace in her purpose.

That IS in-character for Luke. Maybe, if Ben Solo hadn’t been Force sensitive and Snoke hadn’t turned him to the Dark Side from afar during training, Luke would have had a different in-character development between OT and ST. Maybe, if some galactic threat that had no direct, dark-side connection to his family had appeared, he would’ve kept fighting and become an even stronger beacon for hope in others and perseverance. But that’s not what happened. It’s a little tragic, but then, the story isn’t about him any longer. The story is about Rey. And Rey needed to learn that “her place in all this” wasn’t important. (Which is paralleled beautifully by Luke choosing to give himself up literally, and thematically, for her to go on. He was choosing to pass into the Force BECAUSE he didn't need to be the one in the spotlight, saving the galaxy, with everything rising on him, anymore.)

Rey didn’t need to be the answer to Kylo Ren’s problem, and she didn’t need to find out that her parents gave her meaning. It was just finding a purpose in helping others, passing on the Jedi growth to new generations, that mattered. That's what Luke's whole role is in this movie. He learns that in hiding away on an island, he was still acting out of hubris; like if he joined the galaxy again and came out of hiding, he'd cause more problems just by being a living legend. But in this movie he essentially learns from Yoda "it ain't that serious." Just pass on your strengths and your weaknesses because it ain't all about you.

Which is hard for people to understand, because Star Wars fans love Luke Skywalker. He's Luke Skywalker. But this isn't Part 4 of the Sacred Original Trilogy. It's a BRAND NEW trilogy, FOLLOWING Luke's story, but not HIS story any more. If this were the new "Luke Skywalker" tv show, and we opened on our main hero running from his problems, then yeah, we could have a legitimate offense. But that's not what this is. Context is the only way out of the plastic bags Luke fans seem to be suffocating under.

And also, it’s actually kind of great, the way Luke passed on. It echoes the OT, but in a better way. In the OT, Ben Kenobi dies by choosing to deactivate his light saber after deliberately engaging Vader, a “lost cause,” when he knew there was a young hero who could carry on the mission after he was gone. Luke deliberately engages Ben Solo, but NOT as a "lost cause." In fact, by being a Force projection, Luke NEVER gives Kylo Ren the option to "strike him down in anger." He won't be the instrument of Ben Solo choosing more darkness. And he even says to Leia, "nobody's ever really gone." Where Ben Kenobi sacrificed himself so that Luke could defeat his fallen apprentice in the future, Luke sacrifices himself so that Rey could live on and SAVE his fallen apprentice.

If that's not Luke Skywalker, tell me what is.

And it goes perfectly with the best theme in the film, "We won by not killing what we hate; saving what we love."

Complaint 3: Canto Bight/Finn/Rose

I put these all together because they GO together. Trying to separate Finn, Rose, and their adventure on Canto Bight would unravel the whole point of that B-Plot. And there is a point.

I have heard several different complaints about this. First, that the creators didn't know what to do with Finn, so they sidelined him. Or the creators didn't know what to do with Finn, so they brought in Rose, a "useless love interest." And at the center of all complaints is Canto Bight. "Pointless," "boring," "preachy" Canto Bight. Some people even say Canto Bight was only in there to push a political, anti-capitalism message.

What? Seriously, what?

That's SO not the point of Canto Bight. I feel like this is so obvious but evidently it needs to be said because some people have been watching the same Sacred Star Wars Original Trilogy for so long, they've forgotten how movies work, or something.

Canto Bight is a sci-fi object lesson on the only good which can come of war. Canto Bight juxtaposes BAD profit associated with war (literal rich people getting rich off of slavery and brutal conflict) with the GOOD outcome of war (a shakeup or overhaul of that very system, leading to freedom for those who couldn't free themselves without help.)

Rose and Finn arrive on Canto Bight looking for a master code breaker to try and stop the First Order. Instead, they find a foil for Finn. They escape by setting the alien deer-creatures free, and at first, Finn is just happy they "made those guys hurt." But Rose (who is a GREAT character, especially when interacting with Finn's character) teaches him that it's only worth it if they get caught because they freed the deer-aliens. Why? They're just dumb beasts. They didn't get to free the slave children, or blow up the corrupt, bloated gambling town. Why would setting a few creatures free make failure worth it?

For the same reason escaping with a handful of survivors was worth more than heroes sacrificing to blow up a big Dreadnaught.

The theme of the film is YOU AREN'T THAT IMPORTANT. The CAUSE is important. The GREATER GOOD, the BIG PICTURE, is important. And if your sacrifice for the greater good looks like FAILING the battle so you can WIN the WAR, GOOD.

You don't get to be the hero who hops in an X-Wing and blows up a dreadnought, or hops in an X-Wing and takes a shot at the dreaded Kylo Ren. Sometimes you don't get to be that hero. Sometimes, it's worth more to run and keep more people alive; and with them, hope.

You don't get to be the hero who learns her true heritage as an heiress to a glowing role in the great Story of the Galaxy, or the great hero who turns the most fearsome evil back to the Light. You don't even get to be the hero who brings Luke Skywalker back to the world. Sometimes, it's worth more to lift some rocks out of the way and do what you can, in the present, to save your friends.

You don't get to be the hero who liberated all of Canto Bight, AND sabotaged the First Order, AND kept your Jedi Chosen One friend. You don't get to be the hero who throws himself into the cannon and blows it up with your noble death. Sometimes, it's worth more to LEARN FROM YOUR FAILURE and do the HARDER thing and STAY with the tiny, near-hopeless underdogs fighting a losing battle.

They failed. Rose sacrificed everything from her sister to her sentiments to her own life and they still got caught. Finn finally decided to fight against the First Order instead of fleeing, but he still failed; he didn't get to sabotage them or sacrifice himself. And FROM that failure they LEARNED. Finn learned that it's not enough to pick a side. It's not even enough to die fighting. You have to LIVE fighting, out of love, not hate. And he was a former stormtrooper. He was RAISED on the rhetoric of establishing right using might. So when he tries to blow up the battering-ram cannon with himself, it's out of a furious, last-ditch effort to keep them from winning. He wants the First Order to lose. He wants to strongarm a solution, go out in a blaze of glory, show them!

But it's HARDER to live and fight on. (Cue George Washington line from Hamilton.) It's harder to control your hate and your desire for vengeance or victory, or your desire to show your former masters that they'll never own you again...and instead spend your effort strategically, carefully, because you're thinking more about the people you love and the galaxy you're leaving behind than you are the statement a brash sacrifice would make.

And ROSE? Oh my gosh, Rose is such a great character! Especially when you compare her to the only other person Finn seems to have such a strong bond with: Rey.

Finn's relationship with Rey is, that she was the first person who ever looked at him like he could be important. Or a hero. "I've never met a Resistance fighter before." He related to her instantly, because both of them have been living with no family. Nobody to latch on to. Nobody to care about. When he meets her, (obviously there's some attraction but whatever) they're kindred spirits, in a way. He's found someone to care about, and he throws himself into it. He doesn't want to lose her. She winds up being the only thing he's willing to sacrifice for.

Then he meets Rose. And if you think about it, she looks at him with even more admiration than Rey did, initially. Then she realizes he's leaving (yes, because he only really commits to Rey) and her reaction is that much more extreme than Rey's was upon learning Finn was the kind of guy to flee. She tazes him.

From that moment on, Rose is the one teaching Finn what living for a cause looks like. Something bigger than himself, and his attachment to one other person. She just lost the only person she had--her sister. For all they know, with Rey out on dangerous unknown missions, Finn could soon be in the same boat. Losing the only person he has. To Finn? That is unacceptable.

But here's Rose. This perfect character to parallel him. She doesn't have anybody else; her sister is gone. But she's still with the Resistance. Still fighting. How must that look, to Finn? And he sees her sacrifice over and over for this greater cause. She could have given up. Run away. Her sister is gone; what was preventing her from getting in the escape pods and running away?

She's the balance (another huge theme in this film) to DJ. DJ says don't join. Rose's whole character says "save what you love." She does hate Canto Bight. Much more than Finn. But when he's ready to get excited about causing Canto Bight pain, she's showing him it's better to be excited about setting animals free.

Rey could not, ultimately, teach Finn. She was having her own identity crisis. So introducing Rose, and having her, an ordinary, nobody mechanic just working for the Resistance, be his greatest teacher, was beautiful AND perfect.

I think what puts a sour taste in everyone's mouth about Rose is that kiss at the end of her appearances in the film. And I'm not going to argue about why the kids made sense--all I'll say is that FINN didn't seem to reciprocate. He was too busy reeling over the moral mic drop she said before she kissed him. Because the point is she's always surprising him, making him think differently about the world and his place in it and what sacrifice is really FOR. And she kissed him because she's got nobody else in the whole galaxy and clearly already held on to some admiration for him for defecting from the First Order, and John Boyega is attractive. So she's just saved his life and he cares enough about her to try and help her afterward, and she's clearly a little loopy, and she kissed him real quick. Get over it, guys. That wasn't the point of her. She was EXCELLENT.

Complaint 5: Hyperdrive Ramming

This is maybe the dumbest one. But also maybe the most excusable one? At least this complaint is about something technical. Somehow that feels like a more forgivable prejudice than the kind that might prompt someone to have a complaint about why older Luke Skywalker didn’t behave exactly like 20 year-old Luke Skywalker, or other character-based complaints.

Hello, welcome to the Star Wars fandom. A fandom where fans will accept scientific fallacies, like the sound of blaster fire and engines roaring in the vacuum of space. Or scientific fallacies like a laser which, instead of continuing as an infinite beam, somehow reroute itself into the shape of a blade, and is called a “‘lightsaber.” It’s a fandom where fans will accept that there is something called “‘The Force” —which can be measured by something called “midicholrians” and yet cannot be defined in…literally any other way; it’s even rumored to be able to resurrect the dead, and have a will of its own, and sometimes heroes randomly fade out of existence and “‘become one with the Force.” — In the Star Wars fandom, fans can accept that. Heap the Force on every plot. Do it. We love it. In the Star Wars fandom, you can have a galaxy full of droids on every planet and in every system, and yet those droids are rarely used to fly ships alone. And fans accept this. In the Star Wars fandom, cloning is shown in one set of movies, and then the technology is never seen, cinematically, again. And fans accept this. In the Star Wars fandom, galaxy-dominating empires aren’t bright enough to have soldiers who can aim, or stop building sensitive equipment like shield generators outside of their actual shields. And fans accept this. A Force-sensitive young woman, Leia, who was raised by a politician that used to be close to the Jedi Council spends most of the first film in the presence of her actual birth father, yet the two Force-sensitive beings never sense any kind of connection with one another—despite that being a thing that the Force is known to cause in almost every other relational case. But fans accept that. But Heaven help you if you try to tell the fans that Admiral Holdo could have turned her ship around and destroyed her opponents by engaging it’s Hyperdrive too close to them. “If a ship is traveling at the speed of hyperdrive, it jumps instantly, and could never have collided with anything around it! It literally leaves that plane of existence!! If anyone can do that, all of Star Wars is pointless. If anyone can do that, then they would’ve been doing it in every space battle before. They would’ve been able to destroy the Death Star that way. Hyperdrive Ramming breaks Star Wars!! It’s an assasination of the whole franchise!! It’s an abomination! It’s the stupidest thing—”

Oh my gosh, shush. If that is not the epitome of nitpicking, I don’t know what is.

So what if you haven’t seen this type of warfare before? Guess what, it’s a science fiction movie; you never saw any of this before you SAW IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. That’s how the “fiction” part of “science fiction” works.

So what if Hyperdrive wouldn’t work like that in real life? Guess what? Neither would a lightsaber. Neither would the Force. Neither would sound effects. Get over it.

So what if they didn’t use that on the Death Star? You know what? The point of having the Death Star be destroyed by missiles was to show that Luke Skywalker, our protagonist, had decided to trust the Force. A kid from the desert with no formal training was able to out-fly the most deadly pilot in the galaxy and make an impossible shot without the use of his targeting system because it made narrative sense, and for no other reason. Welcome to Star Wars. Holdo’s Hyperdrive Ramming makes sense because it fits the narrative. It shows what the right kind of sacrifice looks like.

Sometimes I think the Star Wars fandom doesn’t know how to watch a movie.

30 notes · View notes

fybillielourd · 4 years

Link

I grew up with three parents: a mom, a dad and Princess Leia. I guess Princess Leia was kind of like my stepmom–technically family, but deep down I didn’t really like her. She literally and metaphorically lived on a planet I had never been to. When Leia was around, there wasn’t as much room for my mom–for Carrie. As a child, I couldn’t understand why people loved Leia as much as they did. I didn’t want to watch her movie, I didn’t want to dress up like her, I didn’t even want to talk about her. I just wanted my mom–the one who lived on Earth, not Tatooine. I didn’t watch Star Wars until I was about 6 years old. (And I technically didn’t finish it until I was 9 or 10. I’m sorry! Don’t judge me!) My mom used to love to tell people that every time she tried to put it on, I would cover my ears and yell, “It’s too loud, Mommy! Turn it off!”–or fearfully question, “Is that lady in the TV you?” It wasn’t until middle school that I finally decided to watch it of my own accord–not because I suddenly developed a keen interest in ’70s sci-fi, but because boys started coming up to me and saying they fantasized about my mom. My mom? The lady who wore glitter makeup like it was lotion and didn’t wear a bra to support her much-support-needed DD/F’s? They couldn’t be talking about her! I had to investigate who this person was they were talking about. So I went home and watched the movie I had forever considered too loud and finally figured out what all the fuss was about the lady in the TV. I’d wanted to hate it so I could tell her how lame she was. Like any kid, I didn’t want my mom to be “hot” or “cool”–she was my mom. I was supposed to be the “cool,” “hot” one–not her! But staring at the screen that day, I realized no one is, or ever will be, as hot or as cool as Princess F-cking Leia. (Excuse my language. She’s just that cool!) Later that year, I went to Comic-Con with my mom. It was the first time I realized how widespread and deep people’s love for Leia was, even after so many years. It was surreal: people of all ages from all over the world were dressed up like my mom, the lady who sang me to sleep at night and held me when I was scared. Watching the amount of joy it brought to people when she hugged them or threw glitter in their faces was incredible to witness. People waited in line for hours just to meet her. People had tattoos of her. People named their children after her. People had stories of how Leia saved their lives. It was a side of my mom I had never seen before. And it was magical. I realized then that Leia is more than just a character. She’s a feeling. She is strength. She is grace. She is wit. She is femininity at its finest. She knows what she wants, and she gets it. She doesn’t need anyone to defend her, because she defends herself. And no one could have played her like my mother. Princess Leia is Carrie Fisher. Carrie Fisher is Princess Leia. The two go hand in hand. When I graduated from college, like most folks, I was trying to figure out what the hell to do with my life. I went to school planning to throw music festivals, but always had this little sliver of me that wanted to do what my parents pushed me so hard not to do–act. I was embarrassed to admit I was even slightly interested. So when my mom called me and told me they wanted me to come in to audition for Star Wars, I pretended it wasn’t a big deal–I even laughed at the concept–but inside I couldn’t think of anything that would make me happier. A couple weeks later I went in for my audition. I probably had never been more nervous in my life. I was terrified and most likely made a fool of myself, but I kind of had a great time doing it. I assumed they would never call me, but after that audition, I realized I wanted to give the whole acting thing a shot. I was definitely afraid, but as a wise woman once said, “Stay afraid, but do it anyway … The confidence will follow.” About a month later, they somehow ended up calling. And there I was, on my way to be in motherf-cking Star Wars. Whoa. Growing up, my parents treated film sets like a house full of people with the flu: they kept me away from them at all costs. So on that fateful first day driving up to Pinewood, I was like a doe-eyed child. I couldn’t tell my mom, but little sassy, sarcastic, postcollege me felt like a giddy, grateful middle schooler showing up to a fancy new school. On that first day, my mom and I sat next to each other in the hair and makeup trailer. (Actually, she wasn’t really one for sitting, so she paced up and down and around me, occasionally reapplying her already overapplied glitter makeup and feeding Gary, her French bulldog.) Between glitterings, the hairstylist crafted what was to become General Leia’s hairstyle, then it was on to me: little Lieutenant Connix. Funnily enough, my mom had more to say about my hairstyle than her own. Even though she complained for years about how the iconic Leia buns “further widened my already wide face,” she desperately wanted me to carry on the face-widening family tradition! Some people carry on their family name, some people carry on holiday traditions–I was going to carry on the family hairstyle. So after we tested a few other space-appropriate hairstyles, we decided to embrace the weird galactic nepotism of it all and went with the mini–Leia buns. She stood in the mirror behind me and smiled like we had gotten matching tattoos. Our secret-handshake hairstyle. On the first day of this thing I could now call “work,” I walked into the Resistance Base set for rehearsal and J.J. Abrams, the director, told me where to stand and what to do–basically just press some pretty real-looking fake buttons. But I have to say, just pressing those buttons and observing the rest of the scene was one of the most fun things I had ever done. I had no lines in the scene, but my mom kept checking on me like I was delivering a Shakespearean monologue. “Are you O.K.?” she asked. “Do you need anything?” I scoffed at her maternal questions like a child embarrassed by her mother yelling goodbye too loud in a carpool line: “Mommy, go away! I’m fine. Focus on you, not me!” In the moment, I was humiliated that my mom was moming me on my first day of work, on the Star Wars set, of all places. But now I realize she was just being protective. Sets are extremely intimidating–I was too green at the time to know that–and she assumed I would be scared as hell. But weirdly, I wasn’t. At risk of sounding insane, something about this bizarre new world made me feel right at home. I had found a place with an empty puzzle slot that perfectly matched my weird-shaped puzzle piece. That night, on the long London-traffic-filled ride back from set, she turned to me and smiled. “Bits,” she said. “You know, most people aren’t as comfortable on sets as you were today. Especially on the f-cking Star Wars set, of all places!” (Excuse my language, but that was her language.) “This might be something you should think about doing.” At first I laughed, assuming she was kidding. But she continued to look me straight in the eye with no inkling of irony in sight. My mom was telling me I should act–my mom? The lady who spent my entire life convincing me acting was the last thing I should do? It couldn’t be true. But it was. I haven’t had many moments like this in my life–those aha moments everyone talks about. This was my first real one. My mom wanted me to be an actress. That was when I realized I had to give it a shot. She used to sarcastically quip that she knew all along what a massive hit Star Wars would be. As with most things, she was kidding. She was absolutely and totally beyond shocked by the massive global phenomenon that was the first Star Wars trilogy. It changed her life forever. Then, when it happened again almost 40 years later, she was even more absolutely and totally beyond shocked. It changed her life yet again. But that time, it changed my life too. I thought getting to make one Star Wars movie with her was a once-in-a-lifetime thing; then they asked me to come do the next movie and I got to do my once-in-a-lifetime twice. On our second movie together, I really tried to take a step back and appreciate what I was doing. I couldn’t tell her because she’d think I was lame, but getting to watch her be Leia this time made me feel like the proud mom. Watching the original Star Wars movies as a kid in my mom’s bed, I never imagined the lady in the TV would get older and get back in the TV. And I definitely never imagined we would end up in the TV together. But that’s where we ended up. Two little ladies in the TV together–Leia and little Lieutenant Connix. We wrapped The Last Jedi a little less than six months before she died. I went back to L.A. to film the show I was on, and she stayed in London to film the show she was on. One of the last times we spoke on the phone, she talked about how excited she was that the next movie in the trilogy was going to be Leia’s movie. Her movie. She used to say that in the original movies, she got to be “the only girl in an all-boys fantasy.” But with each new Star Wars movie, the all-boys fantasy started to become a boys-and-girls fantasy. She was no longer a part of a fantasy, but the fantasy herself. Leia was not just a sidekick one of the male leads had on his arm, or a damsel in distress. She was the hero herself. The princess became the general. My mom died on Dec. 27, 2016. Two days after Christmas, four days before New Year’s and about a year before she was supposed to appear in her final Star Wars film. Losing my mom is the hardest thing I’ve ever been through. I lost my best friend. My little lady in the TV. My Momby. And I inherited this weird, intimidating thing called her legacy. Suddenly I was in charge of what would come of her books, her movies and a bunch of other overwhelming things. I was now the keeper of Leia. About a year later, J.J. called me into his office to talk about the plans for Leia. We both agreed she was too important to be written off in the classic Star Wars introductory scroll. This last movie was supposed to be Leia’s movie, and we wanted it to remain that, as much as possible. What I hadn’t known–and what J.J. told me that day –was that there was footage of my mom that they had collected over the years that hadn’t made it into the movies, footage that J.J. told me would be enough to write an entire movie around. It was like she had left us a gift that would allow Leia’s story to be completed. I was speechless. (Anyone who knows me knows that doesn’t happen very often.) J.J. asked me if I would want to come back as Lieutenant Connix. I knew it would be one of the most painful, difficult things I would ever do, but I said yes for her–for my mom. For Leia. For everyone Leia means so much to. For everyone Leia gives strength to. For my future kids, so someday they’ll have one more movie to watch that Mommy and Grandma were in together. So they can ask me about the lady–now ladies–in the TV and tell me to turn it down because it’s too loud. I grew up with three parents: a mom, a dad and Princess Leia. Initially, Princess Leia was kind of like my stepmom. Now she’s my guardian angel. And I’m her keeper.

#billie lourd #interview #star wars #Carrie Fisher

21K notes · View notes

theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin · 3 years

Note

After that gorgeous sequel rant, would you be willing to share your thoughts on reylo?

Ugh.

Once again, that is the most succinct, easiest, answer I can supply. But it's so short, and that just won't do.

I mentioned in a recent post that Dramione comes in a myriad of disguises. Every fandom usually has at least one Dramione ship, you can usually guess which characters the ship will consist of, and while you might not be able to articulate exactly what about it makes it so damn similar to Dramione you will recognize it on sight.

Usually, to me, a Dramione ship features a strong, independent, female lead who may be varying levels of sexually empowered, varying levels of intelligent (Hermione loves to tell us how smart she is but it's not the heart of the ship), is strong, courageous, and noble who depending on the story du jour might slide into depravity. The real give away is her love interest, always a man, usually a young man of comparable age, who has the bad boy appeal that's not too bad boy where he often is redeemed to the good side for 'reasons' in the course of the story.

Reylo is such a Dramione pairing.

You don't believe me? Look at the authors who write it, I haven't done this too often myself, but I guarantee you that a not small majority of them will either write Draco/Hermione or will have it all over their favorites and bookmarks. It's the same damn pairing.

But worse.

Because Kylo-Ren and Rey aren't really characters.

"Whoa, hold up!", you say, "That's just slander and uncalled for!" Well, change my mind. Rey Palpatine and Kylo-Ren are a series of character tropes and archetypes thrown to us by Disney screaming "LOVE MY CHARACTERS".

Rey is our noble, very Luke like, hero who is a scrappy desert rat with overwhelming mystical powers only acknowledged when the movies feel like acknowledging them (guys, admit Rey kicked Kylo-Ren's ass every time they fought with 0 training, come on, it's not hard).

However, there is nothing underneath her surface. Her hero worship of the resistance feels dull and given to her because it's expected. Of course Rey likes the resistance! The resistance is great! Sign her up! Rey has been living in the desert at the edge of nowhere for presumably 15 years, I'm shocked she's even heard of the new republic let alone the resistance. Despite essentially starving and only having a home that's a broken down old fighter, Rey saves a random droid. We're not really given a compelling reason of why she would do this, that she has a deep respect for droids/is horrified by their use, really really really hates the random trader she sells things to, or really really really hates the empire (if she even realizes it's them behind the bounty). She does it just so that a) the plot keeps moving b) to show Rey is... noble... I guess?

Remember that even Luke (who I have some problems with as a character) started his journey with more backstory and personality than this. Luke loved the empire and desperately wanted to become a pilot. He was very put out that his aunt and uncle kept saying, "Uh, no, bad idea." Luke was ready to skip town and sign on up for flight academy, he just got distracted by pretty women, er, his sister.

So, Rey is never given a compelling reason to do any of the things she does in the series. Just vague feelings of hero worship. And, of course, the drama over her parents. Just... I feel like Disney took out a hat, put a bunch of pieces of paper with words on them, and drew out the one that said "orphan angst about parents" and said "See, now she's conflicted! What a character!"

So yeah, Rey is your cardboard generic hero who is so generic she's not even a person. She has no hopes, no dreams, no fears, just these vague things we're told as an audience she cares about but never shown in any legitimate manner. Rey likes the resistance and rando droids, Rey imprints on Han Solo as the father she never had, Rey has this thing about her parents, Rey is attracted to Kylo Ren.

And that last one, oh boy that last one. It sold me less on the attraction to Kylo Ren than... oh... I don't know... Palpatine's secret Sith planet of doom. I mean, we all saw it coming, The Last Jedi it was very clear where that was going and then Abrams went for it even harder. But what we had was a series of skype conversations where Rey went from "Gr, you killed my pseudo father!" and Kylo-Ren responding, "Yeah, well he was my real father AND HE WAS SO MEAN" to "Oh Ben, I will fly to you through space and we shall save the galaxy together!"

I am given no reason to believe Rey's change of heart. Han Solo's death just suddenly... doesn't really mean much to her anymore (the man was murdered by his son in cold blood so that his son could feel better about himself). She believes Ben Solo is good now because Luke is a dick (never mind that, no matter what a dick Luke is, Ben Solo still murdered dozens of children and then went on to gleefully massacre his way through the galaxy). We're told there's a Force Dyad, which is um... not this thing the writer's made up because they were too lazy to convince me that Kylo-Ren and Rey would end up together in any organic way.

So, yeah, why does Rey like Kylo-Ren? Because the Force told her too? Because it was somehow all Snoke's fault in a way that's never properly described? (Indeed despite us spending quite a bit of time on Kylo-Ren's decision to remain Kylo-Ren being a very internalized thing) Because we saw him shirtless in yoga pants this one time?

It's bad when that last is actually the most legitimate reason I can think of out of the whole lot.

Now let's go to Kylo-Ren. If Rey is boring and nonsensical then Kylo-Ren is a dumpster fire and non-sensical. The guy reminds me a lot of Commodus from the film "Gladiator", the man is cowardly, vile, and murders his father in despair that his father never will be capable of loving him/passes him over for the throne. Kylo-Ren's murder of Han Solo is extremely similar to the murder of Marcus Aurelius in "Gladiator". Han Solo is a flawed father, trying to make his peace with his son, who approaches him unarmed and Kylo-Ren decides to murder him in order to solidify his place in the dark side.

Only, the films never acknowledge that every action Kylo-Ren takes is horrifying.

We're told "oh, Kylo-Ren exists because evil Snoke corrupted him" but also shown repeatedly that Kylo-Ren chooses the darkest path again and again and again. He "struggles with the light" but I don't see it. His opening scene, he has massacred a village and is torturing a man for information (this is presumably a daily routine for him). In the same film he later tortures Rey for information. He serves on a Death Star which wipes out billions in an instant. He murders his father to feel good about himself. He dresses as a man who was reviled and feared throughout the galaxy, a man who murdered countless children, and a man who dressed the way he did because he was barely hanging onto life, because Kylo-Ren thinks it makes him look like a badass. Think about it, this is like if a fully abled Kylo-Ren is wheeling around in a wheel chair, perfectly capable of walking, because he thinks that Professor X is so cool. Now, replace Professor X with Hitler, this is what the movies gave us.

Yet, the films seem to take it for granted that Kylo-Ren is a redeemable character. He's just lost and misguided, he's really struggling with the light and dark side! They don't just tell us this over and over again (which they do) but also just assume we know it.

And base the entire Reylo pairing off of it. Reylo believed Kylo-Ren could be redeemed, they battle Snoke together, then Kylo-Ren stabs her in the back and continues the assault on the Resistance and asks her to be his Dark Queen (TM). Reylo is shocked and appalled, I'm just wondering what movie she thought she was watching, because that was coming a mile away.

Later, when Kylo-Ren is redeemed, we're never given a reason why it happens. Leia just gives him a nagging, one word, phone call and then Han Solo shows up to go, "Ben, are you going to do the right thing?" and Ben goes, "Mumble, grumble, fine" because there's only an hour left in the last film.

Kylo-Ren, like Rey, is the writers' desperate attempt to create a compelling anti-hero with all the anti-hero sauce we love. They just won't admit they made an overgrown genocidal toddler.

Wow, this turned into why I hate both Rey and Kylo Ren, but, uh, back to the ship. Basically, the films give me 0 reason to ever believe it, and even if I wanted to, even if I said "Alright brain, let's make these characters real people for once", I still wouldn't like it. Because the ship itself is just as flat as the characters. It's spicy but not too spicy bad boy gets together with strong female lead.

I know a lot of people enjoy this, and I won't say it's any less legitimate than any of the weirdness I ship, but I'm not one of them. And the whole thing just makes me go "ugh".

#ask #anon #anti reylo #anti kylo ren #anti rey #anti star wars sequels

163 notes · View notes

mythgenderedloki · 3 years

Text

To celebrate Loki being confirmed as canonically queer in the Loki series, please enjoy this 12,000 word, fully referenced dissertation exploring Loki’s genderfluidity in Norse Mythology and Marvel comics....

Myth-gendering Loki: Changing attitudes to gender non-binary in the afterlives of the Prose Edda.

Abstract

This dissertation focuses on the character of Loki in the Prose Edda and in Marvel Comics as a way of exploring non-binary gender. The first chapter will use myths involving Loki as case studies through which a queer reading of the Prose Edda can be performed. Developing on the notion that the gender ambiguity in the Edda sets the foundation for Loki being a queer character, the second chapter will acknowledge how some of the most recent interpretations of Loki have fully embraced this aspect of his character and will therefore examine how this is presented through the two different mediums of comics and novels. The value of queer reading means that greater representation can be found not just in modern texts but can be sought out in the historical as well. Through the course of this dissertation, the importance of queer representation has been argued with regards to its place in history and to young adult audiences.

List of Illustrations

Figure Page

1. Stan Lee et al Journey into Mystery (New York: Marvel Comics, 1952), #85 35

2. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #2 35

3. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #14 35

4. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #2 35

5. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #5 36

6. Al Ewing et al Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #16 36

7. Walter Simonson et al, Thor (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966). #353 36

Contents

List of Illustrations

Introduction: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

Chapter One: Loki in the Edda: ………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Gender Ambiguity: ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

Sexual Deviance: …………………………………………………………………………………………… 10

Race: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

Chapter Two: Loki in Marvel: ……………………………………………………………………………………. 20

Genderfluidity: ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21

Existing as Queer: ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

Identity: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 30

Conclusion: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37

Bibliography: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39

Introduction

‘The greatest power of myth: it never stops changing, yet its appeal is eternal’.[1]

Mythology is not something which is set. With every telling and retelling it changes over and over. Even before Snorri Sturluson wrote the Prose Edda in C.1220, the myths he would commit to paper had undergone countless changes innumerable times. Once they had found their way onto the page, the assumption that they would remain there, unchanged, is therefore unwarranted. As Christopher Abram states: ‘Myths of the Pagan North have grown, changed and developed to meet the needs of the new situations in which they find themselves’.[2] With regards to this concept of changeable mythology, this dissertation sets out to examine how the Prose Edda has been changed and developed to adapt to the requirements of modern societies. Using the character of Loki as a point of entry, this dissertation will examine how the Prose Edda has been interpreted to meet these requirements, centring around the concept of non-binary gender. To achieve this, both the original text and Marvel Comic’s interpretation of Loki will be examined through a critical gender and queer perspective.

Gender as something else which is not fixed is an idea first suggested by Judith Butler. Her 1990 book Gender Trouble theorises the concept of performative gender, suggesting that masculinity and femininity are not fixed and are instead performed identities which are acted out constantly. In short gender is not a matter of biology, but instead something governed by the arbitrary rules of a heteronormative ethos. These rules, therefore, can be broken leading to the rise of gender identities that exist outside the sphere of heteronormativity. Genderfluidity and non-binarism define themselves as resistive to the conformed ideas of a binary between masculine and feminine. These terms are not only useful for defining gender identities found in our modern societies but can also be used as tools to re-examine the Edda with, using a queer lens to scrutinize gender performance in this text.

The queer lends itself effectively to the Edda because of the numerous examples of gender inversions. The Poetic Edda especially features gender deviance, with Thor crossdressing in the Thrymskviða,[3] and the questioning of Odin’s masculinity in the Lokasenna.[4] However, for the purpose of this dissertation, only Loki’s role in the Prose Edda will be examined due to it being the most consistent in terms of gender ambiguity and elements of the queer. Although Loki changes between male and female in both this text and the Marvel texts, the pronouns of he/ him will be used to remain consistent with the primary texts. Queer scholarship of the Edda does have some recent precedents, with critics like Brit Solli examining the role of Odin as a queer god, but historically the queer elements of the Edda have been explained away.[5] The main reason cited for this is the difference between the perception of the queer today and of its perception during the composing of the Edda. Although it is true that placing modern terms onto historical texts and forcing certain characters into categories that did not exist at the time can be problematic, this does not mean that a queer reading does not have relevance. Instead, it opens a new way of understanding a culturally significant text.

The Edda has experienced multiple literary afterlives, from Wagner’s Ring Cycle to a significant influence on Tolkien’s work. Most people, however, will first encounter Norse mythology through the medium of Marvel, especially after the phenomenon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is why two Marvel texts, Al Ewing’s 2014-15 comic series Loki: Agent of Asgard and Mackenzi Lee’s 2019 Young Adult novel Loki: Where Mischief Lies, have been selected as examples of how mythology has been adapted to meet the needs of their new situation, namely queer representation. Loki is canonically queer in these texts, both in his sexual orientation and gender identity. Increasing diversity has been a clear part of Marvel’s agenda over the last decade, though usually through the introductions of new characters, like Kamala Khan as Ms Marvel. Loki is one of the few already established characters to be reinvented as queer. Although Marvel’s Loki is an entirely separate character to the one found in the Edda, he retains the same archetypical characteristics ensuring he resonates with the original. Whether queerness is one of these innate to Loki and is therefore essential to his character will be examined.

Why Loki so effortlessly lends himself to queer interpretations, evidence of his genderfluidity as well as the intersection of the queer, gender and race will be explored in the first chapter. Marvel’s interpretation and embracement of Loki as a genderfluid and queer character will be the focus of the second, examining how genderfluidity is presented, the pressure to conform to heteronormative societies, and the overarching issue of identity. More widely, this dissertation will argue for the queering of characters from the Edda in modern adaptations.

Chapter One: Loki in the Edda

The Prose Edda is one of our main sources for Norse Mythology. However, as it was written in Iceland around C.1220, the Edda was composed several centuries after Norse paganism had been widely practiced with Christianity replacing it as Iceland’s main religion.[6] The author Snorri Sturluson himself was a Christian and, according to Robert Kellogg, ‘largely functions as a collector or reteller’.[7] I mention this not to question the authenticity of the Edda, but to demonstrate that mythology is always subjected to change. Jan de Vries argues that Norse Mythology has undergone three different stages; a period without Christian influence, suppression from Christian forces, and a final version corrupted by a Christian presence.[8] Those backlashing against diversifying mythological figures often cite ‘original’ texts like the Edda, suggesting diversifying is corrupting the ‘real’ version of this figure. If the oldest existing version of Loki was changed to fit a Christian narrative, why should he not be changed again in modern texts to fit a narrative of queer representation? Nevertheless, this chapter will use the Edda as a way of finding evidence that even this version of Loki has innate queerness.

In the Gylfaginning, where Snorri lists all the main gods, Loki is positioned in between the male Æsir and female Asyniur.[9] Anna Birgitta Rooth refers to this position as a ‘special appendix’[10] which separates Loki from the Æsir gods he is ‘reckoned among’.[11] He is listed after the minor Æsir, making him the last of all the male gods, as this denotes his position as an outsider in the gods society. It also places him in between the male and female categories, hinting at his gender ambiguity. Snorri makes sure that Loki’s sexual deviancy is presented to his audience by listing Loki’s monstrous offspring alongside him, ‘One was Fenriswolf, the second Iormungand (i.e. the Midgard serpent), the third is Hel’, in addition to his mixed racial heritage. [12] When stating Loki’s name, ‘He is Loki or Lopt, son of the giant Fabauti’, Snorri identifies him as the child of the enemies of the gods. [13]

In Loki’s first significant appearance in the Edda, it is possible to read gender ambiguity, queer sexual deviance, and racial anxiety. Some readings of the Edda will try to explain these elements of Loki away. [14] For example, Rooth argues against examples of Loki sexual ambiguity as ‘a motif used to produce comical effects and situations’.[15] This dissertation will instead embrace queerness in the Edda, using Loki as a focal point that intersects gender ambiguity, sexual deviance, and racial anxiety. These three elements of Loki will form the structure of this queer reading of the Edda.

Gender Ambiguity

Before analysing the gender binary found in the Edda, it is important to establish what this meant to medieval Scandinavian societies. For the time of the Edda’s creation and the subsequent oral tradition of Norse myths, Thomas Laqueur defines a ‘one sex model’ where ‘to be a man or a woman was to hold a social rank, a place in society, to assume a cultural role, not to be organically one or the other of two incommensurable sexes.’[16] With regards to this model, Carol J. Clover argues that male and female were not considered opposite in the way modern societies tend to view them. Instead there was ‘a social binary, a set of two categories, into which all persons were divided, the fault line runs not between males and females per se, but between able-bodied men (and the exceptional woman) on one hand and, on the other, a kind of rainbow coalition of everyone else’.[17] This meant that gender was not necessarily assigned to biological characteristics but social ones and, consequently, fluctuated with social status. This can be linked to modern gender theories regarding the connection, or lack of, between biological sex and gender identity. Butler’s theory is particularly notable, arguing that ‘there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very “expressions” that are said to be its results’.[18] However, during the Norse period, Clover notes the peril that came with this one-sex system: ‘Not only losable by men, but achievable by women, masculinity was in a kind of double jeopardy for the Norse man’.[19]

The notion of losable and achievable masculinity is illustrated by a story found in the Skaldskaparmal section of the Edda. After the kidnapping of Idunn (which Loki both caused and remedied), the giantess Skadi ‘took helmet and mail-coat and all weapons of war and went to Asgard to avenge her father’ the giant Thassi, who had been killed by the Æsir gods. [20] As part of her compensation for this, Skadi demanded that the gods made her laugh, believing this would be impossible. The task fell to Loki who uses a rather unconventional method: ‘he tied a cord round the beard of a certain nanny-goat and the end round his testicles, and they drew each other back and forth and both squealed loudly. Then Loki let himself drop into Skadi’s lap, and she laughed’.[21] Each character in this tale represents a different aspect of fluidity within the Norse gender binary: Loki represents the loss of masculinity; Skadi represents the gaining of masculinity and the goat itself represents a kind of sexual ambivalence.

Loki’s loss of symbolic masculinity is demonstrated through physical loss in this mock castration. Stefanie von Schnurbein describes this as ‘an act that places his dubious sexuality and gender identity in a grotesque light’.[22] Loki is not only physically sacrificing his masculinity, but his symbolic masculinity simultaneously. This demonstrates ‘dubious sexuality’ because Loki is displaying his testicles in a show of masculinity only to have them symbolically removed by an animal. This willingness to sacrifice his physical gender characteristics supports Butler’s concept that gender is performative and therefore has no relation to biological sex because Loki takes on a performative role, playing a sexually impotent male. Consequently, he is placed into the gendered jeopardy that Clover suggests since he loses his maleness and, therefore, his social status. This reduction in status is a fitting punishment for Loki who betrays both the gods and the giants earlier in this myth so ends up being humiliated for their entertainment. Clover notes how in Medieval Scandinavian society ‘there was finally just one "gender," one standard by which persons were judged adequate or inadequate, and it was something like masculine’.[23] In this system, Loki is undoubtedly found inadequate, and fails to meet the standard of masculinity, placing him on the opposite side of the binary.

Evidence of this decreased masculinity can be found in the position Loki ends up in. He falls into Skadi’s lap, thus ends up sitting on top of her which, in addition to his exposed genitals, creates a sexually charged image.[24] However, Loki is in the female position while Skadi is in the male for this pseudo sex position.[25] Clover notes how, despite gender not being connected to biological sex, the Norse gender system has a ‘dependence on sexual imagery’, meaning that Loki being positioned sexually as female adds to his decreased masculine status. [26] This demonstrates not only how Loki has lost his masculine status, but how Skadi has gained her own masculinity.

This increase in masculinity therefore increases Skadi’s status. She wears a helmet and mail-coat to take on the celebrated masculine image of a warrior; a position that was accessible to women in medieval Scandinavian society as long as they gained the necessarily masculine traits and became, as Clover states, ‘exceptional’.[27] It is this embodiment of the ‘exceptional woman’ that allows Skadi to take revenge in the first place. Preben Meulengracht Sørensen argues that in Medieval Scandinavian society ‘a woman cannot herself take revenge; she must do so through the agency of a man’.[28] Skadi refutes this. Although she does not repay the death of her father in violence, she succeeds avenging her loss through the humiliation of Loki, whose betrayal led to her father’s demise. On the other hand, Sørensen may be right to say only men can take revenge. Skadi has gained enough masculinity to be perceived as socially male within the Norse gender binary. She takes on the image of a warrior and goes to Asgard to demand compensation to restore her family’s honour. The fact her biological sex is female makes little difference. Clover explains that Medieval Scandinavian society was ‘a world in which a physical woman could become a social man’, and this is what Skadi achieves. [29] In later myths, such as the Lokasenna, she is seen feasting with the gods demonstrating her heightened status considering she is not only female, but a giant as well. Moreover, Skadi lives independently without a male guardian. Although she may replace her father with Niord, the husband she gains as part of her compensation for her father’s death, this marriage fails and Skadi lives alone. According to Clover, Medieval Scandinavian society was ‘a universe in which maleness and femaleness were always negotiable, always up for grabs, always susceptible to ‘conditions’.[30] Snorri’s literature provided a safe space to explore these ideas and push the limits of this system. A system that accepted a certain fluidity between genders, but the condition was always one that supported a transition from female to social male but derided the reverse.

The final and most surprising character in this myth is the goat itself. Although seemingly playing only a minor role, the goat symbolises sexual ambiguity and the transition between genders. The nanny-goat is a female animal with male characteristics such as a beard thus combines masculine and feminine in one form, making it a symbol of gender non-conformity. Beards particularly in Norse literature are symbolic of male vitality.[31] There is a connection, quite literally, between Loki and the goat which implies Loki himself is sexual ambiguous. The goat is the one who removes Loki’s masculinity, and therefore, is the vessel through which Loki transitions from physically male to socially female. Margaret Clunies Ross highlights the ‘symbolic equation here between Loki, who plays at his own castration and has a reputation for sex changing, and the sexually ambivalent nanny-goat with the beard and horns’.[32] John Lindow also suggests the presence of the nanny-goat creates doubt over Loki’s perceived masculinity: ‘if the beard attached to one end of the rope is here a false symbol of masculinity, what are we to make of the genitals attached to the other end?’.[33] It is important to remember that Loki himself ties the goat around his testicles. He chooses this method to make Skadi laugh and does so willingly. This disproves Rooth’s notion that Loki’s gender ambivalence is depicted by ‘the epic course of events’[34] since the feminine display here is Loki’s choice and raises the question: why would Loki willingly sacrifice his own physical and symbolic masculinity? Perhaps he does not. It would only be a sacrifice of masculinity if Loki had already embodied the ideals of a Norse man. Loki famously takes on physical female forms throughout the Prose Edda, such as during Baldur’s death[35] and The Fortification of Asgard[36] myths, meaning his masculinity is already questionable. If Loki is prepared to become physically female, becoming socially female matters little by comparison. Loki, after all, is the trickster god; he will use whatever shape, form, or gender to his advantage.

Clover describes the Norse sexual system as a ‘permeable membrane’[37] and stresses an interest in the ‘fluidity implied by that system’.[38] This is a system in which a person can choose to move between feminine and masculine if they do not care about the social consequences for their actions. As discussed previously with reference to Loki’s position in Snorri’s list of gods, Loki is already socially at the bottom of the male Æsir and his status places him in between them and the female Asyniur. With a status already this low, Loki loses nothing when he reduces his masculinity and embraces his position as a social female. To navigate the Norse universe with such a diminished status, Loki uses everything to his advantage, including embracing his own femininity.

Sexual Deviancy

There are multiple terms in Old Norse relating to sexual deviancy with ergi, nið, ragr, and argr, as the most common. Although their meanings do differ slightly, essentially, they are all insults declaring someone as cowardly, weak, and unmanly due to an association with queer sexuality. Ergi especially encapsulates this idea of weakness being associated with sexual deviance, making it the most fitting term to use in this subsection. It fits within Laqueur’s one sex model aligning courage and strength with the masculine, and weakness with the non-masculine. Evidence of the seriousness of these insults can be found within Icelandic law. Grágás, the oldest Icelandic law text to survive, states that ‘one is entitled to kill on account of these words’. [39] Floke Ström also states that ‘the law prescribes its most severe penalty, outlawry, for anyone who imputes womanly behaviour to another in the form of nið’.[40] The severity of the punishment highlights just how negatively sexual deviancy was viewed. Those guilty could be anything from accused magic users, effeminate men or those taking the receptive position in homosexual intercourse, referred to problematically as ‘passive homosexuality’ by some Norse scholars. Loki is associated with all three of these elements, even exhibiting all at same time in the myth of the Fortification of Asgard.

This myth is found Gylfaginning chapter of the Edda. To prevent a disguised giant builder from completing the fortifications around Asgard and claiming the sun, moon and Freyia as his payment, Loki transformed into a mare to seduce the builder’s horse Svadilfæri, which stopped the completion of the wall. However, ‘Loki had such dealings with Svadilfæri that somewhat later he gave birth to a foal’ called Sleipnir who becomes Odin’s own horse. [41] In this myth Loki is clearly ergi; he uses magic to become a female, is sexually penetrated leading to pregnancy thus proving his unmanliness.

Magic, or seiðr to use the Norse term, is associated with the feminine to the extent that ‘males are forbidden to practice seiðr because of its power to damage their essential, defining qualities as males’, according to Ross, and male gods use ‘its power at the price of moral impairment and symbolic feminisation’. [42] It is this moral impairment that closely links Loki and his ergi nature, raising an interesting debate surrounding this association. Is ergi considered immoral because of its association with Loki, or is Loki considered immoral because of he is ergi? Despite also being a seiðr user, Odin escapes most of its negative association with being ergi. It is not mentioned in the Gylfaginning and Kathleen Self explains Odin ‘is made more masculine through the omission of his performance of seiðr, and the distinction between masculine and feminine is maintained’.[43] It is no coincidence that the Gylfaginning, the part of the Edda that contains the introductions of the gods, omits Odin’s magic use while containing myths that highlight Loki’s morally dubious nature. This is the chapter that sets the expectations and conventions for the rest of the Edda and Snorri makes certain that his audience takes away these specified associations. It is only in the Lokasenna that Odin’s dubious use of feminine magic is addressed by Loki himself. Accusations of sexual deviance of are exchanged between the two of them, yet only appears to have a negative effect on Odin.[44] Ström describes Loki as ‘a shameless ergi’.[45] It is this word ‘shameless’ that is the distinguishing difference between the two gods. Like the previous myth, Loki embraces his dubious gender to his advantage, and it is this acceptance that makes Loki so problematic in the Norse conceptual universe. As von Schnurbein notes “(Loki) represents the "effeminate" man and, for that reason, not necessarily because of his malevolence, is subject to derision and considered evil’.[46] He threatens the gods by undermining their one sex system. By embracing magic and resulting unmanliness, Loki challenges the concept that masculine is the pinnacle gender to which members of both genders should strive to achieve.

Further challenge to this system is seen in Loki through the connection his ergi nature has to femininity, specifically effeminate men. According to Ström, if the term was used to insult a woman, it was ‘virtually synonymous with nymphomania, which was a characteristic as much despised in women as unmanliness was in a man’, meaning its connotation of femininity were only applicable to men. [47] In the Fortification of Asgard myth, Loki performs the ultimate female act by both conceiving and giving birth to an eight-legged horse. A further old Scandinavian law that demonstrates just how transgressive this was: ‘the Norwegian laws already mentioned include insults likening a man to a female animal (berendi) among the words liable to the highest personal recompense. To liken a man to a male animal cost only half as much (halfréttisorð). Accusing a man of having given birth to a child… is added by the Gulathing Law to list of ‘full penalty words’ indicating the severest recompense to be paid’.[48] Both insults are applicable to Loki in this myth, demonstrating how morally corrupt he was in the eyes of Medieval Scandinavian society. The fact that these insults are gendered, with the female insult being the costliest, demonstrates how the one sex system impacted life within Medieval Scandinavian society. Everything comes back to the idea that masculine was not just the desirable gender, but the only gender which could gain honour and respect. Sørensen examines the moral repercussions of this connection: ‘the effect of nið was founded on the accepted complex of ideas about effeminacy and of effeminacy as identical with immoral, despicable nature’.[49] The reason these Norse terms for sexual deviance were so offensive is because of their association with femininity; whether it be seiðr’s connection with women, or the idea that a receptive male in homosexual intercourse was taking the female position. Ström agrees ‘that it is the feminine sexual role which makes allegations of ergi particularly injurious and in fact intolerable for the recipient’.[50] This is another aspect of ergi that Loki fulfils.

It is important to note that ergi and the other terms do not translate into modern ideas of homosexuality, something Brit Solli emphasises: ‘the term ergi must be understood contextually and not as a synonym for homosexuality, as we understand it today’.[51] The term is only applicable to those seen as taking the female position, whereas Clover notes ‘the role of the penetrator is regarded as not only masculine but boastworthy regardless of the sex of the object’.[52] Loki represents the concept of the penetrated male in this myth, considering the conception of Sleipnir, and this is an example of his immoral character. Although Loki’s negotiations and tricks save the Æsir, he is not the hero of the myth. That role goes to Thor who kills the giant with his hypermasculine, physical prowess, thus embodying the image of ultimate masculinity and its valued perception within the one sex system. Loki cannot be the hero because of his queer nature with its connotations of cowardice and corruption. Snorri explains that Loki ‘being afraid’ of the Æsir gods’ threats was the reason he changes shape and gender to seduce Svadilfæri which conveys the link between ergi and cowardice. [53] Sørensen explains how ‘in ancient Iceland consciousness, the idea of passive homosexuality was so closely linked with notions of immorality in general that the sexual sense could serve to express the moral sense’.[54] This means that, despite saving the Æsir, Loki still represents immorality. Snorri states Loki ‘is responsible for most evil’ in this myth, even though his only offense was to give poor advice. [55] His supposed evilness therefore comes from the queer gender inversion employed to fix his mistake.

Although not a hero, Loki is still powerful despite deflating his status by transgressing against the Norse gender system. In fact, it is this very transition that gives him power. Anthony Adams acknowledges that ‘Loki represents a type of imprecise, androgynous (or even hermaphroditic), yet still potent sexuality that is entirely at odds with the simpler, overt masculinity of the sagas’.[56] This conflict between Loki’s transgressive position as a queer character and the hyper masculine gives Loki power despite his low status. As much as they distrust Loki, the Æsir need him. The very fact they allow Loki to live amongst them demonstrates how important his transgressive abilities are, especially those associated with ergi such as magic. Soli reasons that ‘Seiðr must have been so important for the maintenance of society that the queerness of its practice had to be accepted as a cosmological necessity’.[57] Therefore, all the Æsir are guilty of engaging with queerness through their tolerance of Loki but only when he can be used to meet their needs.

When it comes to summarizing Loki’s sexual deviance, Ross best expresses how Loki and Odin ‘make good use of their ‘weakness’ (ergi) which allows them access to resources or patterns of behaviour normally regarded as female and hence unavailable to male beings’.[58] By embracing his ‘unmanly’ nature, Loki takes advantage of areas of power restricted from the higher status masculine gods and suppressed within female gods. Unlike Odin, whose ergi is ‘undoubtedly a burden’ (Ström), Loki does not care about the social (or any) consequences of his actions as long as he can use them to survive within the one sex system he simultaneously transgresses against. [59]

Race

Loki’s resistance to fitting within the gender binary is paralleled in his resistance to fit within the mythological race binary between the gods and the giants. His very existence bridges these two opposing races. According to Snorri, Loki is the ‘son of the giant Farbauti. Laufey or Nal is his mother’,[60] the latter Ross theorises was ‘presumably among the Æsir’.[61] This dual heritage unites the two enemy races within one being, meaning Loki is neither giant nor god but an unconventional combination of both.[62] Ross goes on to explain that this means Loki ‘is the embodiment of the most tabooed social relationship in Medieval Scandinavian society’.[63] Existing in between these races, Loki brings together the cultural aspects of both races despite their clear binary differences. By examining the threat Loki’s heritage presents amongst the gods and its connections to femininity, it is possible to see how Loki’s lack of conformity to the Norse racial binary demonstrates his resistance to the gender binary system too.

Loki is not only a product of a taboo relationship, but the participator in one too. From his relationship with the giantess Angrboda, Loki has three children who take the monstrous forms of Fenris, a giant wolf, Iormungand, a giant serpent, and Hel with her half dead body.[64] The gods ‘felt evil was all to be expected of them’[65] and imprison Loki’s children ‘because of their mother’s nature, but still worse because of their father’s’.[66] Despite possibly being half Æsir, it is Loki’s lineage the gods fear more than the full giant blood of Angrboda. This is because he embodies the union of two races whose conflict makes up a key aspect the Norse conceptual fabric. A typical trope of Norse mythology involves the morally superior Æsir gods defeating the monstrous giants, thus maintaining their system of ideals throughout the realms. Even when there is an exception to this, such as Thor being out-witted by Utgarda-Loki, the story still centres around the opposition of gods and giants, not their union as Loki represents. [67]

Loki does not fit within the usual racial structure of the society within Norse mythology. Ross describes Loki as an ‘anomalous being’[68] and notes how ‘the myth of Loki and his offspring indicates the kinds of disorders the gods oppose is not only ‘out there’ in the other world they associate with giants but exists within their own society’.[69] Loki is the product of two races that should be always in contrasting conflict, not uniting sexually, and even his presence amongst the Æsir presents a threat to their strict structures that maintain order. The very fact Loki exists undermines the whole system which sees gods and giants as opposite and opposing binaries.

One reason why the gods and giants live in such opposition is due to their opposing gender systems. While the gods live within a one sex model where hyper masculinity is the true gender and all others are inadequate, the giants’ system contrasts this. They fall within Clover’s ‘rainbow coalition’ making them ‘other’ to the Æsir. [70] Ross explains the connection between giants and femininity as a result of both concepts being treated as ‘other’ and ‘so the combination of the category ‘giant’ with the category ‘female’ represents an intensification of the nation of otherness and therefore an intensification of the association of danger with it’.[71] This adds to the threat of Loki existing within the Æsir gender system. Not only does he embody femininity through his non-binary gender and sexually deviant nature, his giant blood also adds to his innate gender inversion. Self also examines the connection between race and gender: ‘the binary of the gods and the giants echoes the male/female divide with the giantesses appearing more masculine at times and certain giants having a malleable gender’.[72] Skadi is example of this, but her gender is malleable in a way that is in tune with the Æsir one sex system meaning she is the only giant who is welcomed into their society.

Loki also uses his divine heritage as a way of embracing aspects of his femininity. Ross points out that Loki is ‘always referred to as Loki Laufeyjarson (which) indicates the precedence of his divine kinship through his mother’s family’.[73] While it does make sense that Loki would want to be associated with the parent with the higher status and assimilate with the gods by emphasising his racial connection to them, this still transgresses against the Norse patronymic system. By taking a matronymic surname in place of his father’s name, Loki is bestowing an honour usually reserved for men to his mother. This demonstrates his willingness to embrace femininity if it results in increasing his status amongst the gods, therefore we again see Loki using typically eschewed femininity to his advantage.

Although treated as an anomaly, Loki is not the only member counted among the Æsir to have giant ancestry. Both Tyr and Odin also are descended from giants; a fact the Gylfaginning conveniently forgets during their introductions. However, it is no coincidence that both these gods are hypermasculine war gods which places them firmly at the top of the one sex model. Therefore, their desirable masculine traits compensate for their undesirable, unorthodox lineage. Loki’s lack of conformity within the gender system is what makes his mix heritage a problem for the rest of the gods. By not fitting within their system of gender, his race is just another aspect that makes him a threat. Nevertheless, as with his queer nature, the gods will often use Loki’s liminal position between the two races. Rooth notes that Loki’s ‘role is frequently that of mediator’[74] between the gods and the giants but John McKinnell also notes his ‘special role is as a traitor’.[75] The gods depend on Loki’s nonconformity to navigate situations which their strict morality prevents them engaging with, such as magic and interrace relations, and still hold the very aspects of Loki that they need against him. McKinnell reasons that Loki shares these undesirable yet essential traits with other gods but ‘unlike the others makes no attempt to hide them’.[76] This is what makes Loki a true threat to the gods. It is not so much his engagement with taboo practices, but his openness. His refusal to hide his transgressive nature highlights the hypocrisy within the gods and flaws within their binary systems they try to hide.

Conclusion

Loki in the Prose Edda is clearly a transgressive character who resists categorization within the concept on the one sex model. His race, sexual deviance, and complete disregard to gender binaries combine to create a male entity who openly and happily engages with femininity without shame or fear of the social ramifications. However, while modern terms such as gender non-binary, or genderfluid may seem applicable to him, it is important to remember that the gods of the Edda are not characters but mythological concepts, with Thor embodying the concept of strength, Odin wisdom and so on. Loki’s mythology offers a safe arena in which cultural taboos can be broken and their consequences examined. Therefore, he does not have a gender identity in the same sense a modern fictional character has, so cannot identify as gender non-binary or fluid. As A. S. Byatt states mythological figures ‘do not have psychology.... They have attributes’.[77] Loki is instead a vessel through which the concept of gender binary within a one gender system can be explored and ultimately critiqued and punished. As the antagonist of the Edda, he brings forth the destruction of the gods. Loki destroys not only the Æsir hierarchy but the entire Norse universe during Ragnarök.[78] The Norse universe is one that relied on these binaries to exist and collapses once they are destroyed. The concept of Loki cannot survive in the one sex model, and the model cannot last with Loki in it. However, if Loki is removed from this gender system and placed within a modern one, his role and his outcome is entirely different.

Chapter Two: Loki in Marvel

Prior to the 2014 release of Loki: Agent of Asgard, a new comic series which centred around the reimagined, teenage version of the trickster god, the writer Al Ewing confirmed that Loki would indeed be a queer character who would switch between genders.[79] This came as no surprise to many in Loki’s fanbase since evidence of Loki’s queerness can be found throughout his history in Marvel comics. Examples of this include; flirting with a male teammate in Young Avengers Vol 2,[80] the ambiguous sexuality that comes with possessing a female body in Dark Reign[81], to even his first appearance in the modern era of comics in Journey into Mystery #85[82] where he is given a feminised, hourglass figure in contrast to the broad masculine figure of his counterpart Thor. (Fig. 1) However, in his own comic book, Loki’s character could now embrace his queerness and his gender fluidity in his own body much more openly than before.

The recent 2019 young adult novel Loki: Where Mischief Lies written by Mackenzi Lee will be examined alongside this comic. Like the comic, this novel also features an openly queer and gender non-conforming Loki. Both versions of this character face similar problems as they struggle to find their place within the wider narratives of the Marvel universe, especially concerning where they fit within the gender structures and heteronormative worlds and their roles as presumed antagonists.

Unlike the Loki found in the Edda, both Loki in Agent of Asgard and Loki in Where Mischief Lies are fully fleshed out characters with their own identities and motives, especially now they are the protagonists of their stories rather than just antagonists used to highlight the heroism of their adversaries. As a result of their enhanced characterisation, they become representative of genderfluid and non-binary people. Marvel’s acceptance of queer characters is something to be commended. As Mathew McAllister notes ‘comics mirror a pluralistic society’, therefore Marvel presents a fictional society that reflects our own. [83] Underneath stories of gods and heroes, the two texts explore queer gender identities and what it means to exist as ‘other’. This chapter will explore this by analysing how gender non-binarism, transgression and identity feature within Ewing’s and Lee’s stories.

Genderfluidity

By reimagining the mythological concept of Loki in a modern society, he is removed from the one sex model Laqueur suggests for Norse literature and placed in a new gender system. This new system, according to a contemporary critical lens using Butler’s theory of gender, is one based on the notion of performative gender and therefore allows for fluidity between them. However, the concept of gender being directly related to biological sex along with ideas of masculine and feminine being separate and opposite are still prevalent in most societies. Agent of Asgard is set within a society reflective of our own. The comic takes place across Earth and Asgard within their similar performative gender systems.

Where Mischief Lies is slightly more complicated, taking place across two very different societies: the ‘idyllic paradise’ of Asgard and nineteenth-century London. [84] Gender binaries are strictly upheld in the latter, following a system in which women are perceived as inferior to men to such an extent that even wearing trousers is seen as being transgressive, and where homosexuality is criminalised. [85] Asgard contrastingly does not have ‘such a limited view of sex’, instead it is seemingly a society in which all genders are treated equally. [86] Yet, there still is a binary system in place that echoes the one sex model in the Edda. Rather than between male and female, it is between sorcerers and warriors with the latter viewed as the desirable trait and the other as inferior. Loki is encouraged to hide is magical ability and ‘dedicated himself to becoming a warrior’[87] because ‘no one wanted a sorcerer for a king’.[88] There is still a gendered aspect to this system, however. Similarly to the Edda, magic is closely associated with women, with the only magic users in the novel being female (Frigga, Karnilla, Amora) or Loki who is feminised. Whether magic is viewed as inferior because of this feminine association is unclear. Reflective of the one sex model found in the Edda, background female characters who pursue hypermasculine warrior lifestyles, Sif and the Valkyries, are praised while magicians are viewed with fear and suspicion. To observe Lee’s Loki in this system, and Ewing’s Loki in the Agent of Asgard system, this section will examine how the characters exists as both genders, how this is physically presented and how this disrupts each of their gender systems.

Although Loki changes genders several times throughout the comic series, the term non-binary or genderfluid is never used. Nancy Hirschmann identifies the issue of ‘what queer… individuals are called, by themselves and by others,’ as a ‘political, ontological, and epistemological issue’, however, this does not negate from the validity of an identity just because it is not labelled nor means it is not applicable. [89] The first example of Loki changing gender is in issue #2 where Loki takes the pseudonym ‘Trixie’ to infiltrate a heist. Although it could be argued that Loki only becomes female because it is a necessary disguise, as Rooth argues in the Edda, Loki explains that his illusion magic would not have worked in that situation. [90] ‘I am always myself,’ Loki states explaining that being female is no different from being male. [91] This is best demonstrated by a single borderless panel depicting Loki shifting between female and male. (Fig. 2) The lack of borders symbolises the lack of boundaries between Loki’s genders and the single panel means both genders are contained in a singular space as both genders exist within Loki. Panelling in issue #14 again demonstrates how Loki regards shifting between genders. (Fig. 3) The three panels picture male Loki putting on a shirt as he changes to female as if changing gender is no different from changing a shirt. According to Sandra Bem, an individual can contain both female and male traits, which means Loki exists as both female and male simultaneously; changing genders therefore is not an artificial act made capable through his magic abilities and is not done just because it is convenient for the situation. [92]

The most obvious evidence of Loki’s genderfluidity in Where Mischief Lies takes place in Victorian London, due to the scrutiny Loki faces when removed from the supposedly gender equal Asgardian society. Theo, trying to find out Loki’s sexual orientation, asks his preferred gender which Loki misinterprets and answers ‘I feel equally comfortable as either’.[93] When Theo argues that this is again simply because of Loki’s magical abilities allowing him to change appearance, Loki states ‘I don’t change my gender. I exist as both’.[94] The confusion between gender and sexuality highlights, according to Jonathan Alexander, how ‘sexuality intersects with and complicates are understanding of gender’ and further demonstrates the difference between the two gender systems of Asgard and Earth. [95] Loki’s misunderstanding conveys how gender and sexuality intersect so frequently on Asgard that he cannot separate them, while Theo is accepting of homosexuality yet struggles to understand genderfluidity. This is perhaps because Loki has to appear more masculine during his time in London, ‘he missed his heeled boots’, although, he still defends his feminine identity. [96] Whenever feminine terms are applied to him, Loki accepts them: ‘“It’s the feminine version of enchanter.” “Does that matter?”’.[97] The setting of Victorian era with its stricter gender binaries is effective for demonstrating the ‘the arbitrariness of the Western gender system’ through Loki’s critiques of it. [98] By framing these critiques as being ‘small-minded’ and associating them with conservative Victorians, Lee helps to validate queerness and genderfluidity, reflecting the diversity of her young adult audience. [99]

The visual medium of the comic means appearance becomes key for demonstrating Loki’s genderfluidity in Agent of Asgard and consequently meaning his genderfluidity is always present through the art of the comic. Like in his very first issue in Journey into Mystery, Loki’s male appearance is feminised. Black nail varnish, a fur lined coat and V-necked tunic all hint at his feminine nature while scaled armour and greaves are typically more masculine. (Fig. 4) The fact that both male and female aspects exist in one costume demonstrates how Loki is consistently both genders, especially because the costume does not change when Loki’ changes from male to female, or even a fox. (Fig. 5) Terrence R. Wandtke notes how a superhero’s costume is ‘a marker of self’, thus Loki’s androgynous costume represents his genderfluid self. [100] This also reflects Loki’s queerness in terms of his sexual attraction to both genders which is not particularly explored in depth in the comic. Aaron Blashill and Kimberly Powlishta refer to ‘cross-gendered characteristics’ in homosexual people which Loki’s costume captures, demonstrating not only is genderfluidity but his homosexual orientation as well. [101] It is also notable that Loki’s physical female appearance is very similar to his male. In the example of ‘Trixie’ in #2, the only difference between the male and female Loki is make-up and hair length. This accurately reflects how potential genderfluid readers use cosmetics to reflect their own transitions between genders thus proving how Loki becomes a representative for genderfluidity in literature.

Where Mischief Lies also relies on appearance to demonstrate Loki’s lack of gender boundaries. This is because, unlike Agent of Asgard Lee’s Loki never becomes completely female meaning clothing is often used to symbolise his innate femininity. Loki’s femininity is introduced when the novel opens with Loki worrying about his appearance. These concerns focus on aspects typically associated with feminine appearance, such as his love of ‘a bit of sparkle’[102] and his boots which ‘made him feel like doing a strut down the middle of the hall …(and had) heels as long and thin as the knives he kept up his sleeves’.[103] This evokes a feminine image of Loki with ‘strut’ in particular conjuring the queer image of a drag queen. The simile of knives as heels is particularly demonstrative of Loki’s gender fluidity, combining the feminine heel and weapons with their connection to masculinity within the hypermasculine Asgardian gender system. The use of clothes further validates the performative aspect of gender. Although Loki is biologically male, his choice of clothes demonstrates the feminine image he wishes to portray to the world. Lisa Walker expresses how the whole concept of performative gender relies on an individual performing the gender they think they are; Loki’s performance suggests he views himself as both male and female. [104]

A further way to examine Loki’s queer nature is to explore how it exists in contrast to the gender system in which it is found. Although the performative system in Agent of Asgard is in theory accepting of genderfluidity, there are still queerphobic elements that demonstrate that strict binary views of gender still exist. Loki is referred to as a ‘precious little girl-child’[105] and a ‘preening half-a-man’.[106] These both use Loki’s feminine gender as an insult, suggesting either the idea of femininity being a weakness, or that queerness is ‘viewed negatively due to a presumption … (of) cross-gendered characteristics’.[107] However, these are the only two queerphobic instances in a comic that is overall thoroughly embracing of Loki’s genderfluid identity. While some commentators on comics, such as Norma Pecora[108] and Carol Stabile[109], criticise the innate sexism in the comics of the 1990s, Marvel has made a substantial effort to improve female and queer representation in recent years, including recently featuring a pride parade consisting entirely of their LGBTQ+ characters, including Loki.[110] McAllister notes the power the comic book has ‘to both legitimate dominant social values and provide an avenue for cultural criticism’, therefore highlighting the importance of representation in comics and providing an accepting society to legitimise their presence both on and off the page. [111]A comic being void of any criticism of queer people would not accurately represent the prejudices LGBTQ+ people face, justifying the use of limited queerphobic remarks. Therefore, even in a fictional society that recognises the performativity of gender and provides a system Loki should exist easily within, the lingering prejudices of gender binaries means Loki is still seen as transgressive and, like the Edda, his queerness is used to insult him.

Despite Where Mischief Lies featuring two distinct binary systems, one sentiment combines how Loki transgresses both: ‘Be the witch’.[112] This sentence, which is not only repeated throughout the novel, but concludes it, brings together the idea of transgressing the gender binary of Victorian London as well as the sorcerer/warrior binary of Asgard. By being transgressive, Loki is a threat to both systems and the social hierarchies they uphold. In term of gender binaries, Hirschmann suggests that ‘those boundaries may be established by cultural practices as a way to protect social hierarchies’.[113] Victorian London has this system to defend the patriarchy from threats of female power. This can be seen from the character of Mrs Sharp whose masculine trousers brings her into conflict with the male authority, ‘“Why do you try so hard to look like a man, Mrs Sharp?”’,[114] and the use of ‘witch’[115] to insult Loki due to its association with powerful women. Loki’s presence as someone who openly embraces multiple genders threatens the rigid binary that protects the patriarchal system, resulting in his femininity being ridiculed due to the anxiety created from its threat to male power.

Within terms of the hierarchy system of Lee’s Asgard, in which magic is seen as inferior to warrior prowess, Loki transgresses through his magical ability rather than his genderfluidity. While Thor’s expression of physical power is praised, Loki’s magical power is punished or regarded with fear: ‘His father was afraid of him. Afraid of his power’.[116] Magic users who remain subservient, ‘Karnilla… Odin’s royal sorceress, stood like a soldier’[117] and Frigga, Odin’s wife ‘who supported him’,[118] are accepted in Asgardian society, while those who transgress, like Amora who is ‘too powerful to control’, are banished. [119] There is an obvious gendered narrative reflecting a woman’s place in society; her power must be subservient to the masculine ruler or she will be rejected. The concept of the witch, being a feminine magic wielder who exists outside of society, accurately reflects how Loki does not fit within either binary of the two systems found in Lee’s novel. For much of the novel, Loki struggles to be the subservient sorcerer Asgardian society desires him to be, but ultimately decides to embrace his transgressive nature and ‘be the witch’.[120]

Existing as Queer

In both texts, Loki exists as an outsider to the societies he seeks acceptance within. Although his queer identity and orientation are never directly cited as the reasons for this ostracization, they are emblematic of why he is never accepted. In Agent of Asgard, Loki’s genderfluidity translates into to a wider desire to resist being categorized as either a villain or hero, while shame over his magical abilities in Where Mischief Lies reflects a struggle to accept homosexual attraction. Loki’s othering as a queer character will be explored by examining how it is reflected through other aspects of his characterisation.

Categorization is expressed in Agent of Asgard through the repeated metaphor of boxes and cages. They symbolise a conformity with conflicts with Loki’s fluid and transgressive nature. Loki connects this idea of identity and boxes, ‘I am my own and will not sit long in any box built for me’, demonstrating how being his own means being innately transgressive. [121] Throughout the narrative Loki is trying to prove he is no longer the archetypal villain he had been for most of Marvel’s history. He will no longer fit neatly into that category nor the one of hero, instead existing between the two as an antihero. Like with gender, Loki does not fit in either binary meaning the threat of literal imprisonment is used to symbolise conformity as either a villain or as a single gender. At the climax of the novel when Asgard goes to war with Hel, Loki does not choose either of the binaries presented to him, stating ‘I don’t do sides’ in a panel that heavily shades half his face. [122] (Fig. 6) The combination of both dark and light colouring creates the impression that Loki is neither entirely good nor evil, instead he is both and neither; he has found a way to exist outside the binary of good and evil, reflective of his ability to exist outside a gender binary. Binary gender as being restive and box-like is something explored by Jennifer Nye: ‘the range of human possibilities extends far beyond that recognized by the gender box.’[123] Loki’s resistance to imprisonments represents a desire to break free of restrictive gender categories.

The concept of the gender box goes beyond just gender identity to include sexual orientation. Nye definition of the masculine gender box relies on the assumption that ‘if your sex is male, your gender is masculine, and you are sexually attracted to women’.[124] Of course this excludes anyone who is not a cisgender heterosexual, but it does demonstrate the traditional expectations of gender and sexual orientation, therefore making anyone who exists outside the gender box automatically an outsider. In Where Mischief Lies Loki and Theo’s homosexual feelings for each other mark them as outsiders in Victorian London where Theo has been previously imprisoned for being ‘a boy who likes boys’.[125] This is something Loki instantly relates to as ‘he knew what it was to be cast out and unwanted and taunted for the fabric you were stitched from.[126] While Asgard, according to Loki, is accepting of homosexuality, it is possible to map the clichés of closeted homosexuality onto Loki’s struggle to hide his magical abilities: ‘wriggling with a shame he didn’t understand, before his mother finally came and explained that it would be best if he did not use the magic’.[127] Unintentionally paralleling the Edda, magic becomes an othering force like seiðr in Norse literature. Like Theo, there is also a threat of punishment for this othering, which Amora experiences in her banishment. This connection between Theo and Loki being forced to hide who they really are leads to the shared sentiment: ‘I wish I could make your world want you’.[128] Existing as queer means embracing what makes you other. Something both Theo and Loki accept by the end of the novel with Theo kissing Loki[129] and Loki using his magic to save Asgard.[130]

No matter how accepting the society of Asgard is in Agent of Asgard or Where Mischief Lie’s, there is always the tendency to cast anyone who transgresses traditional views of gender and sexuality as a villain. Mark LaPointe and Meredith Li-Vollmer argue that ‘gender transgression may also cast doubt on a person’s competence, social acceptability, and morality’ in cultures that still hold on to ideas of ‘naturalized constructions of gender’. [131] Consequently, if Loki is to stay true to his own identity, he must exist outside of society, often causing conflict with it that presents him as antagonistic.

Identity

Loki’s exploration of his identity is a key theme not just in these two texts, but in the wider Marvel universe as well, with rumours an upcoming television series will also delve into this.[132] A fundamental aspect of Loki’s identity is of course his gender but this is just one aspect of many that result in Loki finding conflict between his own identity and the societies he longs to belong to. The way Loki is othered from society, how he exists as an othered being and his acceptance of his othered position will be examined in this section.

In Agent of Asgard Loki becomes increasingly othered throughout the comic. His position in this society has always been precarious; like in the Edda, Loki is racially other to the Asgardians[133] which is used to test his loyalties: ‘your race and mine are old allies’.[134] Although this is unsuccessful ‘We gave you a family’, ‘Yes, but I already have one of those’, Loki’s heritage is other enough for this to pose a threat, at least in the eyes of those within Asgardian society. [135] Loki begins the comic desperately trying to earn a place in this society by atoning for his crimes of the past, trading ‘new legends for old’,[136] but by issue #10 Loki’s secret of killing his child self, ‘the crime that will not be forgiven’,[137] is revealed leading to ostracization from Asgardian society. Loki consequently loses a key element of his identity: ‘I’m no longer an Asgardian’.[138] This concept of losable racial identity is not unlike the concept of losable masculinity in the Edda because Loki must meet the heroic requirements of Asgard or be cast out. Adam Green also argues that ‘identity as an ongoing social process marked by multiplicity, instability, and flux’ therefore can be lost or gained. [139] Loki’s exile ultimately frees him from the constraints of a society he was constantly in conflict with. Exile came because of Loki’s inability to live up to the expectation of Asgardian identity, with ideals of heroism that did not coincide with the trickster elements of Loki’s identity. While genderfluidity does not directly violate the concept of Asgardian identity, it is an expression of Loki’s malleable character that contrasts with the traditional image of the heroes of Asgard. Now he is separated from this society, Loki is finally free to explore his identity without restraints.

In Where Mischief Lies, Loki’s othering comes from his inability to find his place in a society that only values qualities such as physical strength and a warrior prowess. Like Ewing’s Loki, Lee’s is also desperate to find acceptance in society, ‘working to be a better soldier, a better sorcerer, a better prince’, with little success. Loki is aware of his otherness. [140] He is worried that magic will ‘make (him) unnatural’, and Amora’s banishment demonstrates how dangerous otherness is in Asgardian society. [141] Alexander argues that ‘our identities are shaped and communicated through a variety of interesting social processes’, therefore this othering would have significantly impacted Loki’s identity, particularly his gender. [142] Asgard is supposedly accepting of Loki’s genderfluidity, yet he is the only genderfluid character found in Asgard and his femininity associates him with the otherness of magic as the only male user. The concept of otherness in this society consequently forces conformity on Loki in his desperation to be accepted. Paradoxically, it is when Loki enters the more oppressive society of Victorian London that he realises his identity cannot be suppressed; to be true to himself, he must exist as other in Asgardian society.

Loki’s acceptance of his place as an outsider to Asgardian society is central to the development of his identity as a transgressive character. By being ostracised from his society, Loki no longer needs to fulfil any expectations apart from his own. This allegiance to nobody but himself if something that has been part of Loki throughout his history in Marvel comics. Ewing turns the idea of Loki’s selfishness into an idea of self-preservation of an identity othered by Asgardian society. In Agent of Asgard’s introduction Ewing cites the iconic panel from Thor #353, which Odin’s battle cry is ‘For Asgard!’, Thor’s is ‘For Midgard!’, while Loki’s is ‘For Myself!’. [143] (Fig. 7) While humorous, Ewing argues that ‘when your self is a thing you have to fight the very cosmos to decide… it’s almost kind of… heroic?’, demonstrating how Loki’s perceived selfishness is evidence of him fighting to preserve his own identity. [144] To be true his identity, Loki must exist outside the society he had been trying to appease: ‘I probably shouldn’t care what they think, then, should I?’.[145] Agent of Asgard is ‘a comic about being For Yourself’, about existing without apologising. [146] Loki’s genderfluidity is just one aspect of his identity that causes him to transgress against the society he tries to exist within. Rather than sacrifice his identity to be accepted by others, Loki choses to exist as an outsider.

Loki in Where Mischief Lies also accepts his place as being an outsider. He tries to find his identity through his position in society, by trying to prove that he is a worthy contender for the throne. However, throughout the novel Loki is forced to question his own sense of identity due to the way others perceive him: ‘He did not know who he was. Everyone knew but him’.[147] It is only at the very end of the novel once Loki finds out he will never be king that he accepts that he will always exist as other to his society, choosing to ‘serve no man but himself, no heart but his own’.[148] Forming an identity othered from society, Loki gives in to fulfilling the expectations of others, becoming ‘the self-serving God of Chaos’, but is also free to be true to himself. [149] This impacts Loki’s gender identity because he no longer needs to worry about what others think of him, leaving him free to explore his gender to its full extent.

The final, and most important, aspect of identity both texts explore is self-acceptance. After revealing that the antagonist of the narrative was really himself, Loki embraces him and tells him ‘it’s all right’, meaning Loki finally accepts himself and no longer strives to conform to become something he is not. [150] Lee’s Loki also accepts himself. While on Earth he meets other people othered by their societies, such as Mrs Sharp and Theo, and it is through their friendship that Loki learns to accept his otherness. Theo and Loki are both othered in their own societies, so instead find acceptance in each other, sharing a ‘soft kiss’.[151] Through this action, Theo accepts his sexual orientation and Loki accepts that he can receive affection without having to meet the impossible standards society expects of him. Self-acceptance is key to embracing one’s own identity, especially transgressive gender identities such as genderfluidity. McAllister highlights the importance of comic books and ‘the degree of cultural argument they permit or encourage’ meaning that Loki becomes a figure representative of genderfluid identities and validates their presence not just in literature, but in the world of the reader as well. [152] Therefore, it is critical that Loki in both texts learns to accept himself and his entire self. Not just as a genderfluid individual, but all aspects of his identity that makes him a fully fleshed character and not just a symbol of deviance as Loki in the Edda is.

Conclusion

The two texts explore Loki, not as simply a figure representative of transgressive gender, but as a character with a genderfluid identity that brings both internal and external conflict. Although Loki’s genderfluidity is an essential part of his identity, these texts prove that he is more than just his gender and that gender is more than just one aspect of his identity; it is a foundation in his otherness and symbolic of the malleability of his personality. The comic book industry was once notoriously slow to adapt to changes in the treatment of gender, with stories revolving around a hypermasculine hero protecting the delicate female, is now significantly more embracing of social progress. Loki is just one of a growing number of characters from LGBTQ+ backgrounds, yet he is one of the oldest to exist in Marvel comics. This is testament to the gender ambiguous legacy that the original mythological Loki left behind. The mythological Loki’s transgressive approach to gender reverberated across centuries, until it reached this modern medium where it could be expressed fully.

(Fig.1) Stan Lee et al, Journey into Mystery (New York: Marvel Comics, 1952). #85

(Fig.3) Loki: Agent of Asgard #14

(Fig.2) Al Ewing et al, Loki: Agent of Asgard (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #2

(Fig.4) Loki: Agent of Asgard #2 Jamie McKelvie Cover Variant

(Fig.5) Loki: Agent of Asgard #5

(Fig.6) Loki: Agent of Asgard #16

(Fig.7) Walter Simonson, Thor (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966). #353

Conclusion

‘Loki makes the world more interesting but less safe.’[153]

When Neil Gaiman wrote this in Norse Mythology, he was referring to the threat Loki poses to the gods of Asgard as the bringer of their downfall. However, I think that there is another way to interpret this. A world made ‘less safe’ does not necessarily mean a world of danger, but a world less conservative, less static, where diversity makes the world more interesting. To help this world come into being, it first must be accepted. This means not only in wider society but in popular culture too, by finding its way onto our screens and pages.

While this dissertation has praised Marvel’s efforts to increase diversity in its comic books, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is far behind its comic counterpart, especially in queer representation. At the forefront of this fight for LGBTQ+ depiction is the Thor franchise, with Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie being the first, although unconfirmed, LGBTQ+ character originating in Thor Ragnarok.[154] Thor: Love and Thunder is also rumoured to introduce a transgender character and, while Loki’s place in this film is yet to be confirmed, there are again rumours he may be genderfluid in his upcoming TV series. There has always been controversy surrounding Marvel’s queer diversity, such as Brazil recently banning a Young Avengers comic due to a same-sex kiss being featured in it, which is the reason why Marvel’s mainstream movies have been so slow to increase representation in comparison to its comics. [155] However, the fact that it raises such controversy only heightens the need for greater representation.

Rick Roidan, during his acceptance speech at the 2016 Stonewall Awards, expressed the how important it is for ‘LGBTQ kids see themselves reflected and valued in the larger world of mass media’.[156] He too identified the connection between genderfluidity and Loki with his genderfluid character Alex Fierro being the child of Loki in Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard. Another example of mythology being repurposed for a modern audience, it furthers Abram’s argument that mythology will change to meet what is required of it. It also conveys the importance of representation that goes deeper than appearing in mass media, with these LGBTQ+ kids being connected to something even more engrained in culture.

The target audience of the modern texts explored in this dissertation are mainly young adults, many of whom will be beginning to explore their sexual identities and orientations. By queer reading mythology then using this as a basis for representation, queer identity is established as something validated by its presence in the past and position in popular culture.

Bibliography

Abram, Christopher, Myths of the Pagan North: the Gods of the Norsemen (London: Continuum, 2011)

Adams, Anthony, ''He Took a Stone Away’: Castration and Cruelty in the Old Norse Sturlunga Saga', in Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages, ed. by Larissa Tracy (Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2013).

Adams, Tim, Thor: Ragnarok's Valkyrie Is Bisexual, Tessa Thompson Confirms (2017) <https://www.cbr.com/thor-ragnarok-valkyrie-bisexual/> [accessed 5 May 2020]

Alexander, Jonathan, 'Transgender Rhetorics: (Re)Composing Narratives of the Gendered Body.', College Composition and Communication, 57.1, (2005), 45-82 (p. 50), in ProQuest <https://search-proquest-com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/docview/220712396/fulltextPDF/BDE4C525A8C64762PQ/1?accountid=8630> [accessed 11 March 2020]

Bem, Sandra, 'The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny ', Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42.2, (1974), 155-162, <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.525&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [accessed 11 March 2020].

Bendis, Brian Michael et al, Dark Reign (New York: Marvel Comics, 2008)

Blashill, Aaron, Powlishta, Kimberly, '“Gay Stereotypes: The Use of Sexual Orientation as a Cue for Gender-Related Attributes.” ', Sex Role, 61.1, (2009), 783-793

Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble, 4 edn (Suffolk: Routledge, 2007)

“ ” Bodies That Matter: On the discursive limits of "sex", 2nd edn (New York: Routledge, 2011)

Ciacoya, Bea, Brazilian Mayor Orders Armed Police Seize LGBTQIA+ Books, Leads to Protest (2019) <https://www.cbr.com/brazilian-mayor-orders-armed-police-seize-protest/> [accessed 5 May 2020].

Clover, Carol J., 'Regardless of Sex: Men, Women, and Power in Early Northern Europe', Representations, 1.44, (1993), 1-28

Ewing, Al et al, Loki: Agent of Asgard The Complete Edition, ed. by Mark D. Beazley (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020)

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A., and Domenico, Mary E., Gender Stories: Negotiating Identity in a Binary World (Illinois: Waveland, 2013)

Gaiman, Neil, Norse Mythology (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017)

Gillen, Kieron et al, Young Avengers Vol.2 (New York: Marvel Comics, 2014)

Gíslason, Jόnas, 'Acceptance of Christianity in Iceland in the year 1000 (999)', Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-Names, 13.1, (1990), 223-255, <https://doi.org/10.30674/scripta.67178> [accessed 6 May 2020]

Green, Adam, 'Queer Theory and Sociology: Locating the Subject and the Self in Sexuality Studies', Sociological Theory, 25.1, (2007), 26-45

Hardman, George L., The Saga of Bosi and Herraud (2007) <http://jillian.rootaction.net/~jillian/world_faiths/www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/071.html> [accessed 6 May 2020]

Hayward, Eva, Weinstein, Jami, ' Introduction: Tranimalities in the Age of Trans* Life', TSQ, 2.2, (2015), 195-208, in Duke Press < https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2867446> [accessed 30 October 2019]

Hirschmann, Nancy, '“Queer/Fear: Disability, Sexuality, and The Other.” ', Journal of Medical Humanities, 34.2, (2013), 139-147 (p. 140), in Springer Science Business Media <https://link-springer-com.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007/s10912-013-9208-x.pdf> [accessed 11 March 2020]

Hume, Kathryn, ' Loki and Odin: Old Gods Repurposed by Neil Gaiman', Studies in the Novel, 51.2, (2019), 297-310

Kellogg, Robert, 'Introduction', in The Sagas of Icelanders, ed. by Örnólfur Thorsson (New York: Penguin Group, 2001)

LaPointe, Mark E and Li-Vollmer, Meredith, '"Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film." ', Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture, 1.2, (2009), 89-109

Laqueur, Thomas, Making Sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992)

Lee, Mackenzi, Loki: Where Mischief Lies (New York: Marvel Press, 2019)

Lee, Stan et al, Journey into Mystery (New York: Marvel Comics, 1952)

McAllister, Matthew, 'Cultural Argument and Organizational Constraint in the Comic Book Industry', Journal of Communication, 40.1, (1990)

McCloud, Scott, Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art (New York: Harper Perennial, 1960).

McKinnell, John, Essays on Eddic Poetry, ed. by Donata Kick and John D. Shafer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press)

Melrose, Kevin, Loki will be bisexual, occasionally a woman in 'Agent of Asgard' (2013) <https://www.cbr.com/loki-will-be-bisexual-occasionally-a-woman-in-agent-of-asgard/> [accessed 11 March 2020]

Nye, Jennifer, '"The Gender Box."', Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 13.1, (1998), 22-256

Pecora, Norma, '“Superman/Superboys/Supermen: The Comic Book Hero as a Socializing Agent.”', in Men, Masculinity, and the Media, ed. by Steve Craig (Newbury Park: Sage, 1992)

Riodan, Rick, The Stonewall Award (2017) <https://rickriordan.com/2017/06/the-stonewall-award/> [accessed 5 May 2020]

Rooth, Anna Birgitta, Loki in Scandinavian Mythology (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961).

Ross, Margaret Clunies, Prolonged Echoes: Old Norse myths in Medieval Northern society Volume 1: The myths (Odense: Odense University Press, 1994).

Schaefer, Sandy, Loki Will Struggle With Identity & Control in Marvel Disney+ Show (2020) <https://screenrant.com/loki-marvel-disney-plus-show-plot-identity-control/> [accessed 2 May 2020]

Self, Kathleen, 'Straightening Out the Gods’ Gender', in Irreverence and the Sacred: Critical Studies in the History of Religions, ed. by Hugh Urban and Greg Johnson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)

Simonson, Walter et al, Thor (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966)

Solli, Brit, 'Queering the Cosmology of the Vikings: A Queer Analysis of the Cult of Odin and “Holy White Stones”', Journal of Homosexuality, 54.1, (2008), 192-2008 (p. 195), <https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360801952085> [accessed 4 February 2020]

Sørensen, Preben Meulengracht, The Unmanly Man: Concepts of sexual defamation in early Northern society, trans. by Joan Turville-Petre (Odense: Odense University Press, 1983)

Stabile, Carol, '“'Sweetheart, This Ain’t Gender Studies” Sexism and Superheroes.' Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6.1, (2009)

Ström, Floke, Nið, ergi and Old Norse Moral Attitudes (Edinburgh: University College London, 1974).

Sturluson, Snorri, Edda, trans. by Anthony Faulkes, 3rd edn (London: Everyman, 1995)

Trosterud, Trond, 'Gender assignment in Old Norse', Lingua, 116.9, (2006), 1441-1463, in Science Direct <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.06.015> [accessed 20 November 2019]

Vecchio, Luciano et al, Marvel Voices #1 (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020)

von Schnurbein, Stefanie, 'The Function of Loki in Snorri Sturluson's ‘Edda.’ ', History of Religions, 40.2, (2000), 109-24, in JSTOR <www.jstor.org/stable/3176617> [accessed 20 January 2020]

Walker, Lisa, Looking Like What You Are: Sexual Style, Race, and Lesbian Identity (New York: New York University Press, 2001)

Wandtke, Terrence R., The Amazing Transforming Superhero!: Essays on the Revision of Characters in Comic Books, Film, and Television, ed. by Terrence R. Wandtke (Jefferson: McFarland, 2007)

Williams, Bronwyn T., 'Action Heroes and Literate Sidekicks: Literacy and Identity in Popular Culture', Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50.8, (2007), 680-85

The Poetic Edda, trans. by Carolyne Larrington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)

[1] Christopher Abram, Myths of the Pagan North: the Gods of the Norsemen (London: Continuum, 2011), p. 231.

[2] Ibid

[3] The Poetic Edda, trans. by Carolyne Larrington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 93.

[4] Ibid, p.80

[5] See Anna Brigitta Rooth in Chapter One

[6] Jόnas Gíslason, 'Acceptance of Christianity in Iceland in the year 1000 (999)', Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-Names, 13.1, (1990), 223-255, <https://doi.org/10.30674/scripta.67178> [accessed 6 May 2020].

[7] Robert Kellogg, 'Introduction', in The Sagas of Icelanders, ed. by Örnólfur Thorsson (New York: Penguin Group, 2001), p. xxiv

[8] Anna Birgitta Rooth, Loki in Scandinavian Mythology (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1961), P.4

[9] Snorri Sturluson, Edda, trans. by Anthony Faulkes, 3rd edn (London: Everyman, 1995), p.26

[10] Rooth, p.10

[11] Snorri, p.26

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid

[14] For this dissertation, sexual deviance means a deviation from the perceived heterosexual norm.

[15] Rooth, p.149

[16] Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), p. 8.

[17] Carol J. Clover, 'Regardless of Sex: Men, Women, and Power in Early Northern Europe', Representations, 1.44, (1993), 1-28 (p. 13).

[18] Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, 4 edn (Suffolk: Routledge, 2007), p. 34.

[19] Clover, p.14

[20] Snorri, p.61

[21] Ibid

[22] Stefanie von Schnurbein, 'The Function of Loki in Snorri Sturluson's ‘Edda.’ ', History of Religions, 40.2, (2000), 109-24 (p. 119), in JSTOR <www.jstor.org/stable/3176617> [accessed 20 January 2020].

[23] Clover, p.13

[24] Other Old Norse texts featuring this include The Saga of Bosi and Herraud ‘the peasant girl was sometimes on top.’

George L. Hardman, The Saga of Bosi and Herraud (2007) <http://jillian.rootaction.net/~jillian/world_faiths/www.northvegr.org/lore/oldheathen/071.html> [accessed 6 May 2020].

[25] In the Lokasenna, p.89, Loki claims he and Skadi were intimate, meaning this may not be entirely pseudo.

[26] Clover, p.13

[27] Ibid

[28] Preben Meulengracht Sørensen, The Unmanly Man: Concepts of sexual defamation in early Northern society, trans. by Joan Turville-Petre (Odense: Odense University Press, 1983). P.21

[29] Clover, p.19

[30] Ibid, p.12

[31] In Njal's saga Njal has his manhood insulted due to his lack of beard.

[32] Margaret Clunies Ross, Prolonged Echoes: Old Norse myths in Medieval Northern society Volume 1: The myths (Odense: Odense University Press, 1994), p.123

[33] von Schnurbein, p.116

[34] Rooth, p.187

[35] Snorri, p.48-51

[36] Ibid, p.35-6

[37] Clover, p.19

[38] Ibid, p.12

[39] Floke Ström, Nið, ergi and Old Norse Moral Attitudes (Edinburgh: University College London, 1974), p. 6.

[40] Ibid, p.7

[41] Ibid, p.36

[42] Ross, p.208

[43] Kathleen Self, 'Straightening Out the Gods’ Gender', in Irreverence and the Sacred: Critical Studies in the History of Religions, ed. by Hugh Urban and Greg Johnson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 229

[44] Poetic Edda, p.85

[45] Ström, p.8

[46] von Schnurbein, p.122

[47] Ström, p.4

[48] Ibid, p.7

[49] Sørensen, p.79

[50] Ström, p.7

[51] Brit Solli, 'Queering the Cosmology of the Vikings: A Queer Analysis of the Cult of Odin and “Holy White Stones”', Journal of Homosexuality, 54.1, (2008), 192-2008 (p. 195), <https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360801952085> [accessed 4 February 2020].

[52] Clover, p.6

[53] Snorri, p.36

[54] Sørensen, p.20

[55] Snorri, p.35

[56] Anthony Adams, ''He Took a Stone Away’: Castration and Cruelty in the Old Norse Sturlunga Saga', in Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages, ed. by Larissa Tracy (Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2013), p. 206

[57] Solli, p.200

[58] Ross, p.70

[59] Ström, p.8

[60] Snorri, p.26

[61] Ross, p. 64

[62] Despite being racially different to the Æsir gods, the casting of a non-white actor to play Loke in the film Valhalla (2019) sparked online criticism.

[63] Ibid, p.263

[64] Snorri, p.27

[65] Ibid

[66] Ibid

[67] Ibid, p.42-44

[68] Ross, p.64

[69] Ibid, p.220

[70] Clover, p.13

[71] Ross, p. 165

[72] Self, p.332

[73]Ross, p.101

[74] Rooth, p.173

[75] John McKinnell, Essays on Eddic Poetry, ed. by Donata Kick and John D. Shafer (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), p. 195.

[76] Ibid

[77] Kathryn Hume, ' Loki and Odin: Old Gods Repurposed by Neil Gaiman', Studies in the Novel, 51.2, (2019), 297-310 (p. 298).

[78] Snorri, p.54

[79] Kevin Melrose, Loki will be bisexual, occasionally a woman in 'Agent of Asgard' (2013) <https://www.cbr.com/loki-will-be-bisexual-occasionally-a-woman-in-agent-of-asgard/> [accessed 11 March 2020].

[80] Kieron Gillen et al, Young Avengers Vol.2 (New York: Marvel Comics, 2014). #15

[81] Brian Michael Bendis et al, Dark Reign (New York: Marvel Comics, 2008).

[82] Stan Lee et al, Journey into Mystery (New York: Marvel Comics, 1952). #85

[83] Matthew McAllister, 'Cultural Argument and Organizational Constraint in the Comic Book Industry', Journal of Communication, 40.1, (1990), 55-71 (p. 55).

[84] Mackenzi Lee, Loki: Where Mischief Lies (New York: Marvel Press, 2019), p.218

[85] Ibid, p. 205

[86] Ibid, p.265

[87] Ibid, p.9

[88] Ibid, p.5

[89] Nancy Hirschmann, '“Queer/Fear: Disability, Sexuality, and The Other.” ', Journal of Medical Humanities, 34.2, (2013), 139-147 (p. 140), in Springer Science Business Media <https://link-springer-com.ezproxyd.bham.ac.uk/content/pdf/10.1007/s10912-013-9208-x.pdf> [accessed 11 March 2020].

[90] Rooth, p.187

[91] Al Ewing et al, Loki: Agent of Asgard The Complete Edition, ed. by Mark D. Beazley (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020), #2

[92] Sandra Bem, 'The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny ', Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42.2, (1974), 155-162, <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.525&rep=rep1&type=pdf> [accessed 11 March 2020].

[93] Lee, p.265

[94] Ibid

[95] Jonathan Alexander, 'Transgender Rhetorics: (Re)Composing Narratives of the Gendered Body.', College Composition and Communication, 57.1, (2005), 45-82 (p. 50), in ProQuest <https://search-proquest-com.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/docview/220712396/fulltextPDF/BDE4C525A8C64762PQ/1?accountid=8630> [accessed 11 March 2020].

[96] Lee, p.362

[97] Ibid, p.223

[98]Sonja K. Foss, Mary E. Domenico, and Karen A. Foss, Gender Stories: Negotiating Identity in a Binary World (Illinois: Waveland, 2013). P.40

[99] Lee, 264

[100] Terrence R. Wandtke, The Amazing Transforming Superhero!: Essays on the Revision of Characters in Comic Books, Film, and Television, ed. by Terrence R. Wandtke (Jefferson: McFarland, 2007), p. 7.

[101] Aaron Blashill, Kimberly Powlishta, '“Gay Stereotypes: The Use of Sexual Orientation as a Cue for Gender-Related Attributes.” ', Sex Role, 61.1, (2009), 783-793 (p. 784).

[102] Lee, p.4

[103] Ibid, p.5

[104] Lisa Walker, Looking Like What You Are: Sexual Style, Race, and Lesbian Identity (New York: New York University Press, 2001).

[105] Ewing, #3

[106] Ibid, #9

[107] Blashill, Powlishta, p.984

[108] Norma Pecora, '“Superman/Superboys/Supermen: The Comic Book Hero as a Socializing Agent.”', in Men, Masculinity, and the Media, ed. by Steve Craig(Newbury Park: Sage, 1992), p. 61-77

[109] Carol Stabile, '“'Sweetheart, This Ain’t Gender Studies” Sexism and Superheroes. ', Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6.1, (2009), 86-92.

[110] Luciano Vecchio et al, Marvel Voices #1 (New York: Marvel Comics, 2020).

[111] McAllister, p.55

[112] Lee, p.408

[113] Hirschmann, p.143

[114] Lee, p.205

[115] Ibid, p.230

[116] Ibid, p.70

[117] Ibid, p.5

[118] Lee, p.80-1

[119] Lee, p.81

[120] Ibid, p.408

[121] Ewing, #13

[122] Ewing, # 16

[123] Jennifer Nye, '"The Gender Box."', Berkeley Women's Law Journal, 13.1, (1998), 22-256 (p. 229).

[124] Ibid, p.228

[125] Lee, p.218

[126] Ibid

[127] Ibid, p.9

[128] Ibid, p.387

[129] Ibid

[130] Ibid, p.401

[131] Mark E LaPointe and Meredith Li-Vollmer, '"Gender Transgression and Villainy in Animated Film." ', Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture, 1.2, (2009), 89-109 (p. 90).

[132] Sandy Schaefer, Loki Will Struggle With Identity & Control in Marvel Disney+ Show (2020) <https://screenrant.com/loki-marvel-disney-plus-show-plot-identity-control/> [accessed 2 May 2020].

[133] In Marvel Loki is the child of frost giant king, Laufey, adopted by Odin.

[134] Ewing, #5.3

[135] Ibid #5.4

[136] Ibid #1

[137] Ibid #10

[138] Ibid, #8

[139] Adam Green, 'Queer Theory and Sociology: Locating the Subject and the Self in Sexuality Studies', Sociological Theory, 25.1, (2007), 26-45 (p. 32).

[140] Lee, p.95

[141] Ibid, p.44

[142] Alexander, p.52

[143] Walter Simonson et al, Thor (New York: Marvel Comics, 1966). #353

[144] Ewing, # 1

[145] Ibid, #16

[146] Ibid, #1

[147] Lee, p.359

[148] Ibid, p. 408

[149] Ibid, p.407

[150] Ewing, # 17

[151] Ibid

[152] McAllister, p.46

[153] Neil Gaiman, Norse Mythology (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017), p. 8.

[154] Tim Adams, Thor: Ragnarok's Valkyrie Is Bisexual, Tessa Thompson Confirms (2017) <https://www.cbr.com/thor-ragnarok-valkyrie-bisexual/> [accessed 5 May 2020].

[155] Bea Ciacoya, Brazilian Mayor Orders Armed Police Seize LGBTQIA+ Books, Leads to Protest (2019) <https://www.cbr.com/brazilian-mayor-orders-armed-police-seize-protest/> [accessed 5 May 2020].

[156] Rick Riodan, The Stonewall Award (2017) <https://rickriordan.com/2017/06/the-stonewall-award/> [accessed 5 May 2020].

#loki #loki show #loki series #norse mythology #norse loki #prose edda #poetic edda #essay #genderfluid #genderfluid loki #queer loki

57 notes · View notes

thescarletsith · 3 years

Text

I was thinking about TRoS... again. Another thought... another new ending:

If Rey had been written as the same character that she was written as in the previous films, I don't believe she would have been so quick to actually destroy Palpatine. Think about it - in FA, she was willing to sit and rot on Jakku waiting for her family to come back. In TLJ, she is still pining after that family, so much so that she ventures off into a place she knows is potentially dangerous per her vision of it just to see if she can find a clue to where her parents are. This lost family left a hole inside of Rey, one she's been desperate to fill. Even after finding out her parents sold her off as if she meant nothing and then died afterwards wasn't enough to make her succumb to darkness and lose all hope. Rey wants a family... period. Meeting her grandfather, no matter who he was, would have been something Rey wanted, so writing him off as her true enemy after a five minute conversation simply isn't likely.

Disney and Abrams wanted Rey to be Luke Skywalker so badly and they wanted to remake the OT more than anything else, yet they didn't even see the most obvious way to do it. Whenever Palpatine finished his speech and Rey was in a position to strike him down, she should have simply seen Ben and given him the lightsaber and then told Palpatine that she wasn't going to kill him. She'd tell him to abandon his darkness and return home with her. YES we as an audience would call BS on that and know for absolute certain that's something that'd never happen, as Palpatine has literally no redeeming quality, but Rey wouldn't know that. All she'd know is that's her grandfather, her family, and she'd want to pull him away from the darkness.

This scenario would leave the scene open to Palpatine striking Rey down with lightning just as he did to Luke, which would then lead to Ben destroying Palpatine once and for all, mimicking Vader's move in RotJ, and also bringing a definite, clear meaning to, "I will finish what you started."

This would also kill off the scene of Palpatine draining the Life Force of Ben and Rey's bond because, let's face it, what the hell does that even mean. It would scrap Ben getting thrown into the pit, it would prevent Rey from having her Iron Man moment, it would have validated the only meaningful lesson Luke taught her (some things are stronger than blood), which would allow her to see the value in herself and in the friends she's made after leaving Jakku behind, freeing her of the one thing that's always seemed to hold her back thus also allowing her to finally become what she is meant to be... AND it would have given Ben the chance to avenge the death's of... literally his entire family.

Then once Ben finishes off Palpy, he's strong enough to heal Rey and live after the fact. They have their moment, she returns to her friends and he goes his own way.

Flashes forward to Rey in the forest on the planet the Resistance base is located (the name escapes me) and Ben meets her there by using their bond to project himself to her. She asks where he is and what he's doing, tells him she's going to Takodana with the others to help rebuild Maz's castle and hopefully form a new sort of leadership within the galaxy. He tells her that he has to seek salvation his own way, atone for his sins and figure out his place in everything now and he must seek the Force for guidance to do so. And then he promises that one day, they'll meet again, and they'll never have to face another day apart when it happens.

Rey's final scene would be the oddly placed one that already exists in TRoS, of her staring hopefully into the forest as Poe approaches her and asks if she's ready to go. They all fly off in the falcon together to begin their new lives with each other outside of a war. And Ben's final scene is on Ahch-To, where he is meditating on the same rock Luke passed away on, and Anakin's lightsaber is shown on the ground beside him.

The final scene would be a slow fly-through of Mustafar, ending with a closeup of Vader and Kylo Ren's helmets nearing the lava before finally falling into it and melting away into nothing, signifying any darkness linked to the Skywalker name was destroyed in the same place it was created.

#ben solo #kylo ren #rey #reylo #star wars #rise of skywalker #ben solo deserved better #bensolo #the rise of skywalker #starwars

33 notes · View notes

Last Seen Blogs

twoset-updates

tsv updates!

twoset-updates

tsv updates!

virtosuartgalleryblog-blog

Virtosu Art Gallery

allysia

Romanticizing the World

tems

Tems