#criticial theory

[paglinawan]

Poem #2 “Force of Circumstance”

There is feminist criticism in the poem. This theory investigates the relationship between gender and power, looking at how women are portrayed and the effects these images have on society.Cultural Studies might be appropriate for literary critique. analyzing the ways in which the story is influenced and flows by societal variables, in this case, political and social issues. It makes it possible to investigate the poem's broader ramifications and societal critique.

Symbolism: "And burned the pubic hair of Maritess" is a symbolic act that symbolizes the dehumanization and loss of agency that people experience when faced with power dynamics. It can be interpreted as a horrific violation and degradation of Maritess.

#criticis #literary analysis #theory #literary theory

[sembulapeyalneerpol]

if you do anything even remotely related to environment, you know that this country will anoint you with snake oil swearing its from god.  people saying that the waterways and contamination due to the ohio train explosion is safe should be seen with a very critical eye

are we forgetting that obama drank flint water and said it was safe???

#oh dont worry about the waterways there is the diffusion effect #look you should always be criticial of any news you get whether it confirms your suspisions or not but people being wary of whatever the epa #or the government telling us is not far fetched conspiracy theory

[formulinos]

I would like to preface this by saying that this has no basis in facts, as in I haven't personally talked to anyone that could confirm the stuff I'm about to say. I'd like to name this a conspiracy hypothesis instead of a theory, since I have no proof. I'll sprinkle some links here and there as I go about, but they are just basically temporal marks so you know I didn't pull this whole thing out of my ass. I am very much aware, however, that most of the time I'll sound like this:

I also am aware that I might seem biased in this, but give me a chance to explain who the real villain of the story is. Also feel free to just ignore it, again, this is not factually true as far as we know and I did have a schizophrenic episode in 2013 that led me to 6 months of antipsychotic treatment. It could be happening again! 

Anyway, here we go. I believe that the 2022 Formula 1 Championship declared its winners before it even began, that is, Max Verstappen and Red Bull Racing. NO WAIT COME BACK HEAR ME OUT.

Consider the situation before and after the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. I think a recent quote from Stefano Domenicali actually resumes it well:

“The World Championship being decided on the last lap of the last race, last year in Abu Dhabi,” Domenicali told the Corriere della Sera when asked what his most satisfying moment was, “leaving aside the controversy.”

By the end of 2021, Formula 1 had become a culmination of what Liberty Media wanted for it: a full spectacle where racing was just the necessary background for something that gives much more money, that is, storytelling. The Lewis Hamilton v. Max Verstappen created a rivalry, which is EXCELLENT for marketing, as this article by Dr. Cody T. Havard and Dr. Vassilis Dalakas highlights:

The rivalry phenomenon in sport also infuences the way fans consume the sport. In particular, playing a rival team positively infuences fan likelihood to attend a live game (Havard, Shapiro et al., 2013) and the amount they are willing to pay for tickets (Sanford & Scott, 2016). Rivalry can infuence the way fans evaluate team branded merchandise (Kwak, Kwon, & Lim, 2015), team sponsors (Angell et al., 2016; Bee & Dalakas, 2013; Dalakas & Levin, 2005; Grohs, Reisinger, & Woisetschläger, 2015), league-wide cause-related marketing (Nichols, Cobbs, & Raska, 2016), fan behavior (Wann & Dolan, 1994; Wann & Greive, 2005; Wenger & Brown, 2014), and player performance (Wann et al., 2006). 

Rivalries means money, and at the peak of Hamilton v. Verstappen, F1 was making BANK. However, the fact that Domenecali had to say "leaving aside the controversy" means that the decisions taken on those fateful laps were impactful enough to create a significant divide on the consumers. This happened because from the moment the checkered flag was shown, it stopped being just Red Bull and Mercedes' business and it became the sports' business as a whole. Therefore, two things happened:

1) The spectacle that Liberty Media had created was crumbling down in front of them. 2) The legitimacy of FIA's actions were being put to question directly, since this was down to the actions of their highest representative in the racing aspect.

How can you move past this? In fact, many fans still haven't and might never will. But still, there are things you can do to try and mend things. The first was the Report. A half-assed mea culpa from the FIA that included a long evaluation of the events that transpired that day and the implementation of measures to keep it from happening again. Michael Masi was (rightfully, even though he was the scapegoat) shown the door and although it took them a long time to show a verdict, the release date right before the start of the 2022 season means this was the last of it for them and they were turning the page.

Still, an issue remains that still highlighted points 1 and 2, the question of Max's championship being retained. Surely, the FIA couldn't not admit any fault in the report or else the lack of self-criticism would doom them in the eyes of fans, but admitting too much fault meant that their decision to stick to Max's championship would be forever contested and so their actions from then on. For Liberty Media and the storytelling issue, it means that their conclusion of the Young Hotshot that defeated The Sport Giant never happened and instead The Sport Giant would just become Bigger. This can't do.

So far, I've discussed this from the FIA's and Liberty Media's POVS, but consider this from Red Bull's perspective. Christian Horner was on the record straight after Abu Dhabi defending Max's championship and saying that the championship as a whole was enough proof of his skills and the teamwork. But even more, he states that the Drivers' Championship is the most important out of the two given at the end of the season:

"The constructors' is where the money is," he said. "That is where the revenues that come into the sport are distributed, based on your performance in the championship. I think every employee within our team, and probably in most of the teams, is rewarded on where they are in the constructors' championship, as opposed to the drivers'. But the drivers' obviously has the popularity and it has the prestige. I don't think there's a single employee within our business that would have traded the first place in the constructors' for this drivers' championship."

If the drivers' championship has all the popularity and the prestige, then it also has the power to take those things away if its integrity is put into question. So, all that's left to do is convince people that this result would naturally take place. If many of Max's supporters said that "he would have won it anyway," then you best make sure that he does win it again, because once can happen by chance, but twice means that the level of talent and professionalism involved is too high and the results of 2021 were bound to happen. While there would still be skeptics, for a large majority of the doubtful fans, a bi-championship would be enough proof and the sport is considered legitimate again. 

This is the motivation, so, what's the plan? Well, you need Max to win the championship, but there can be no doubt about it. Leaving it for the last race means that it could get out of control and this wouldn't be enough to quench people's thirst. Max has to win by a landslide to be considered a dominant force that's inescapable, which also means that Red Bull should be considered at the top of their game. Therefore, if last year they could afford to lose the WCC, this year they have to take it as a way of reclaiming their power and their role in enabling Max to be the best he can be. 

Now, this is a sport. They can't rely just on Red Bull doing their best to make sure this goes smoothly, they also need the cooperation of others. Honestly, if they asked every single team to help them out, most of them would imo. Again, the events in Abu Dhabi didn't just impact RBR and Merc, they affected the sport as a whole and it is on everybody's interest to get past this slump. If the controversy only gets worse and fans' viewership and engagement goes down, it's over - it's not gonna happen from one day to another, surely, but it's not forgotten either. BUT, realistically, they don't need to talk to Haas or Williams or Alfa Romeo. They just need to ensure that the teams that could directly face RBR come out behind, and there are basically two that could truly do it: Mercedes and Ferrari.

With Mercedes, the approach taken was... do nothing. They didn't have to, since the "nerf the dominating team" initiative that FIA regularly does was already being implemented since 2019. The small technical regulations tweaks that were left for 2021 were already good enough to close the gap between Merc and Red Bull and allow for more competition, and the overall 2022 regulation haul did just as any reg change intends to: remove domination out of the equation. I'm not mad about this since well, it is their job to make sure there is a competition and you just need to reset things from time to time. Ferrari has been through this, McLaren has been through this, Red Bull has been through this, etc. For once, it's really just business. Sure, Mercedes shot themselves in the foot with their initial design, but they were set up for failure anyway. 

Now, Ferrari.

Ferrari had a few things going on for them. First, a solid duo of drivers, one of them being a usually very solid, reliable and stealth grid climber and the other literally nicknamed by the fans "Il Predestinato". Then, they managed to unfuck things up from 2020 to 2021 and get back to the top 3, orbiting just outside the two main forces of F1 at the moment. In this aspect, they also could afford to relax a bit on the 2021 championship and focus on the 2022 car in June, way before Mercedes and Red Bull due to their relative safe place in the championship - back in June, P3 seemed most likely, but even if it was a P4, the money prize made no difference to FERRARI and the extra wind tunnel time would even be a plus. 

This is all to say that they would inevitably come out with a banger car, there was no other way this could go. In the hybrid era, only two cars were major flops: the F14 T that managed to get one fucking podium in an entire season, but still landed 4th, so a good birth in relation to the field nevertheless and the SF1000 that was the consequence of its own actions. Other than that, Ferrari was regularly in the vice-leadership or Top 3, and you can bet they were coming to snatch wigs again.

Well, pre-season testing comes and Ferrari takes Barcelona in relation to Red Bull. Red Bull posts the fastest lap but they present reliability issues, while Ferrari does fine and dandy in experimentation. This is rectified by Bahrain, that shows in theory a better Red Bull car, with its hiccups fixed. However, it's noted that Ferrari are still behind, and less farther than one would think. 

So, we get three initial rounds with Ferrari working flawlessly and striking two double podiums and two wins. Charles emerges as the championship leader while Red Bull show they have the pace, but their reliability issues can't be ignored. But by round 4 RBR are back on their feet and Ferrari suffer from home race luck, making weird strategy calls. It's okay, you can understand it once.

One thing to note is the difference in tone adopted in regards to this year's early rivalry, During the first semester, a few headlines we've seen were:

"There’s not been a lot of politics and bullsh*t" - Red Bull and Ferrari moving ahead in 2022 F1 season with 'genuine respect,' says Christian Horner

Max Verstappen says he 'prefers' F1 rivalry with Charles Leclerc to battle with Lewis Hamilton

Marko: Ferrari rivalry ‘won’t escalate like Mercedes’

All of the time, it's highlighted that there is a rivalry in place, which is good for the sport, but that it won't get as toxic and bad as last year with Mercedes. The idea is to be less aggressive, in order to show that such behaviour is in the past and that F1 can be entertaining on and off track without needing to resort to fighting.

But, as I said before, we do need Max to win, and by a landslide. Yet, by Miami, Charles was still very much in the run recovering from his 6th in Imola with a second place and Carlos getting back on the podium after two retirements. The tides started shifting harshly in Spain, when Charles retired and Carlos struggled to 4th. In the same race, Charles loses the championship lead to Max. From then on, as Sky Sports point out, from Spain to Hungary Charles loses on 108 points due to team-related issues in comparison to 32 points from individual errors. In Belgium, more scenes as strategy demands Charles to try to go for the fastest lap and pit. He fails to get the lap and gets a penalty that pushes him one place down (6th). From the Dutch Grand Prix to Singapore, Charles has managed to recover his form and feature in the podium all three races, but it's now Max's championship to lose. To sum up, Ferrari who seemed majorly solid until the fifth round started flopping left and right out of the blue, seemingly making a point of losing the championship by sheer incompetence.

When faced with criticism, Mattia Binotto has repeatedly stated that there was no need for changes at his Ferrari staff. In fact, some of his most outlandish claims include that the Hungary Grand Prix win wasn't possible for them anyway, regardless of Charles' display that day. Curiously, his tone only changed after the Italian Grand Prix (RIP Ana Formulinos' dream of going to Monza, 2000-2022) when he finally admitted something needed to be done. A bit too late, considering that from the next race onwards, the title was Max's to win on a mathematical basis. 

So, here comes a question: what's in it for Ferrari, exactly? Honestly... I've no fucking clue. They were punished over an engine that fell in the "not legal but not illegal" limbo in 2020 by the same FIA which, in this scenario I'm hypothesising, would have cut some sort of deal with advantages for them in the upcoming seasons. This is for us to see in the future, as nothing is bound to happen for us in 2022. However, I think a factor that is important is that while Ferrari is the crown jewel of F1's teams, the records and titles mean nothing if the sport is dead and/or perceived as illegitimate. Therefore, the same way it is the other teams' interest to keep the show going, Ferrari might be the one to need it the most. They need each other. So, I could see Ferrari, Liberty Media and the FIA all in the same side for once anyway.

Now, an important addendum. In all of this, am I saying that everyone in Red Bull and in Ferrari are involved in this? Is Max Verstappen devilishly laughing as he wins and wins and is Charles binning it on purpose? Are the mechanics at Ferrari armed with hammers to destroy the chassis while no one's watching? NO OF COURSE NOT. You can tell that these drivers are real people that get frustrated with their losses and happy with their wins. You could tell how Max was starting to feel relieved after the reliability issues were gone, and how the light in Charles' eyes dimmed race after race. Same thing with the mechanics whenever there was a failure. In fact, I don't think that for this hypothesis to work everybody needs to be in on it, just the right people. One single strategist is enough for Ferrari to lose a whole race, while Red Bull just needs to make sure the car is running since Max is more than apt to win a race, no denying that.

Cool. Now, here is an interesting point: the budget cap controversy. While things were peaceful between Ferrari and Red Bull until then, things quickly went astray after the first reports of Red Bull possibly breaching the cost cap, with Binotto and Toto meeting up to gossip about it during the Singapore GP. The stance taken by Ferrari is that they mad. They really mad. I suppose that, in this scenario I'd be too, if I had been made to look like a fool bottling every race, even having to take it on the chin after a technical directive so these fools could win and still they're able to splurge on cash to save their season? That would have been bad enough, but the fact that if these extra expenses went undetected, this means they'd be free to do as they please for the 2023 championship... I have a feeling that this is not part of the deal.

Christian Horner went extra defensive, claiming indirectly that there was a snitch in the FIA responsible for the leak and, most importantly:

“One can only assume it’s not coincidental this is at a point where Max has his first strike at a World Championship,” he said.

Speaking later to Sky F1, Horner added: “Do you think that’s a coincidence? Or do you think there might be a little bit of a campaign to discredit what the team has done?

“It’s a little bit suspicious.”

Concerns about a discredited championship, AGAIN. As this report says, it's highly unlikely that the FIA consider harsh penalties as they will probably decree it as a minor breach. Can't go unpunished as again the FIA's decision skills will be put into questioning, but can't be declared a major breach since a harsher penalty might put Ferrari back in the running and we need that landslide, lads.

It's yet to be seen if Max takes it at Japan, which would be kinda curious since the 2021 Japanese Grand Prix was supposed to be about Honda's swan song from F1 and now a celebration of its strengthened ties to Red Bull. Either way, it won't be long now, and the championship will be long done by the last round.  

As an interesting afterthought, I think it's curious how little reporting there has been on the rift between the FIA and FOM/Liberty Media. The creative differences between the two has been significant as Liberty Media presents more changes in the racing format and increases the calendar, something that our current president isn't a fan of. Latest developments have been about the FIA publishing the calendar before FOM, something that's unheard of. In fact, the rift has been said to have gotten worse after... Abu Dhabi, since the FIA perceived it as an indirect result of Liberty Media's push for spectacles :) How lovely is the state of things in F1 right now. 

In conclusion, the result of nearly a year of observation of this championship led me to hypothesise that the result is being constructed to re-legitimise the sport and its organising bodies after the 2021 Abu Dhabi scandal. In this aspect, it's not Max Verstappen, Red Bull and even Scuderia Ferrari per se the direct villains of the story, but the FIA and Liberty Media who in their push to save themselves only get deeper and deeper in the chaos. While I can't prove for sure this is real (and false tbh), there are still further developments in 2022 and 2023 that can change things, so don't take it to heart. Cheers everybody, I'll go back to my cave!

#long post

[cina-full-moon-xanadium]

I think I’ve said something to this effect before but when it comes to (good) family toku I generally gravitate towards the older members of the family more. So like sure I do love Asahi Grigio and Kai Magired and Urara Magiblue but just personally I really really find the responsibility aspect of characters like Makito Magigreen, Isamu Wolzard, Ikki Revi etc a lot more compelling; how they navigate that and how they balance it with their own personal goals and dreams, and how it’s shaped them as a person. Or in how some of them might not have that responsibility on the surface and almost entirely reject it and support their younger siblings in other ways like Houka Magipink. And all of that, criticially, orbiting their love for their family and how all of what I just said comes from that. So basically that tends to be the source of my love for (again, good) family-themed tokusatsu series; there’s something just VERY compelling to me about the older members of the family and their place in it, so that while I do indeed like the younger members of the family (and in theory probably should relate to them more as a youngest sibling myself), they always end up a secondary appeal of the series.

All this to say that like, with that context that should probably say a lot about how fucking much I love Sakura Jeanne and every single thing about her story and character relationships that she is easily my favourite character in Revice, and one of my favourite Kamen Riders of all time

[paolamonzini]

Sabato 16 dicembre 2023 alle ore 15 presso la Libreria GRIOT di Roma si terrà la premiazione delle due tesi vincitrici della II edizione del Premio in ricordo di Paola Monzini, rivolto alla valorizzazione di tesi magistrali e di dottorato sul fenomeno della tratta degli esseri umani, il sex work e altre forme di sfruttamento dei migranti, le forme di violenza e di negazione dei diritti nei confronti delle donne migranti e rifugiate, le migrazioni forzate e i viaggi attraverso il Mediterraneo.

Il premio è dedicato al ricordo del contributo scientifico e umano offerto da Paola Monzini, ricercatrice indipendente scomparsa nel 2017, tra le pioniere in Italia e a livello internazionale in questo ambito di studi.

Quest'anno i premi andranno a: Camilla Vianini per la migliore tesi magistrale dal titolo "Gender in Securitization Theory: A feminist analysis of smuggling and trafficking governance in the EU" e a Silvia Di Meo per la migliore tesi di dottorato dal titolo "Donne alla frontiera. Memorie e resistenze femminili contro il sistema dei confini nel Mediterraneo. Una ricerca etnografica lungo la rotta dalla Tunisia alla Sicilia".

Il Premio, sostenuto dalla campagna di crowdfunding promossa dall’Archivio delle Memorie Migranti-AMM, è realizzato con il patrocinio di: Centro di Documentazione “L’Altro Diritto” (UNIFI), CROSS-Osservatorio sulla Criminalità Organizzata (UNIMI), Escapes. Laboratorio di studi critici sulle migrazioni forzate (UNIMI), Forum Internazionale ed Europe di Ricerche sull’Immigrazione-FIERI, Fondazione Empatia Milano-FEM, LARCO-Laboratorio di Analisi e Ricerca sulla Criminalità Organizzata (UNITO).

[carmenvicinanza]

Griselda Pollock

https://www.unadonnalgiorno.it/griselda-pollock/

Griselda Pollock è una storica dell’arte e sociologa di studi femministi postcoloniali internazionali nelle arti e nella cultura visiva.

Il suo lavoro è concentrato sulle opere e sulle vite delle artiste, spesso dimenticate o poco riconosciute dalla storia dell’arte tradizionale. Ha esaminato l’interazione fra le categorie sociali di genere, classe e razza, ricercando dettagliatamente il rapporto fra esse, la psicoanalisi e l’arte, attingendosi al lavoro di teorici culturali francesi come Michel Foucault.

Nel 2020 è stata insignita del Premio Holberg “per i suoi contributi rivoluzionari alla storia dell’arte femminista e agli studi culturali“.

Nata l’11 marzo 1949, come Griselda Frances Sinclair Pollock a Bloemfontein, in Sud Africa, è cresciuta in Canada. Si è poi trasferita in Gran Bretagna dove ha studiato Storia moderna a Oxford e Storia dell’arte europea al Courtauld Institute of Art di Londra. Nel 1980 ha conseguito un dottorato di ricerca con uno studio su Vincent van Gogh e l’arte Olandese:  una lettura delle sue nozioni di “moderno”.

Ha insegnato in diverse istituzioni, tra cui il College of Art di Leeds e il Courtauld Institute of Art, dove ha conseguito la cattedra di storia dell’arte.

Sin dal 1977 è considerata una delle più influenti studiose di arte moderna e d’avanguardia, arte postmoderna e arte contemporanea.

Nel 2001 è diventata direttrice del Center for Cultural Analysis, Theory and History presso l’Università di Leeds. Nel 2019 ha ricevuto un dottorato onorario dal Courtauld Institute e uno dall’Accademia d’Arte Estone.

Griselda Pollock ha contribuito a riscrivere la storia dell’arte, analizzando le opere da una prospettiva femminista che ha messo in luce i pregiudizi di genere. Ha esplorato il concetto di visione maschile nell’interpretazione e nella rappresentazione delle opere d’arte.

Tra le sue opere più note c’è il libro Old Mistresses: Women, Art, and Ideology, in cui ha indagato la rappresentazione delle donne nell’arte e come questa rappresentazione sia stata plasmata dai contesti sociali e culturali. Ha scritto ampiamente su artiste del passato portandone alla luce storie e contributi artistici.

Oltre al lavoro accademico, è stata una figura chiave nell’istituzione di programmi di studi di genere nell’arte e nella teoria femminista ed è tra le fondatrici della rivista Feminist Review.

Ha sviluppato una serie di concetti con cui teorizzare e praticare interventi femministi critici nelle storie dell’arte: vecchie amanti, visione e differenza, mosse d’avanguardia, generazioni e geografie, differenziazione del canone e, recentemente, il museo femminista virtuale.

Ha fondato e dirige il Center for Cultural Analysis, Theory and History presso l’Università di Leeds, progetto intra disciplinare che collega belle arti, storia dell’arte e studi culturali attraverso temi condivisi fra classe, genere, sessualità, critica post coloniale e teoria queer.

#unadonnalgiorno #griselda pollock #arte #feminism

[drugsinceu]

#cannabis #legalisatie #studenten #teelt #wetgeving #wiet #Zuid-Afrika

[deepartnature]

Analysis of Joseph Conrad’s The Duel

“As with many of his shorter pieces, Joseph Conrad interrupted work on a novel—in this case Chance—to write the Napoleonic novella The Duel. It was originally published serially in Britain as ‘The Duel—A Military Tale’ in Pall Mall Magazine in January through May of 1908. That same year, in July through October, it was published in the United States, in Forum, as ‘The Point of Honor.’ Following the serial publication in Britain, A Set of Six was released in August 1908, in which The Duel was collected with five shorter works. ...”

Literary Theory and Criticis

2011 November: Heart of Darkness, 2014 May: Nostromo (1904), 2015 December: Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad – a trip into inner space, 2016 July: Lord Jim (1899-1900) , 2019 October: Victory (1915)

[radzinha]

I NEED NEW RADFEM BLOGS TO FOLLOW

If you're gender critical like/reblog this post and I'll follow you!

#terfs #radfem #gender criticial #queer #terfs please interact #radical feminist community #radical feminist theory #radical feminism #radical feminist

[gothhabiba]

[...] [Q]ueer geneologies bring the extinct and the excluded together in order to reactivate their supposedly “terminated” or “quenched” signifiance. Queer subjects are those that have never existed in the first place: their exclusion in a sense pre-dates and ensures extinction. The terms of extinction are those of exclusion. In particular, the historyless lesbian is over--extinct--before she is even begun.

Over before she is begin, but also proleptic, waiting to happen. For a key insight of the history of sexuality and queer theory concerns the invisibility of the lesbian, the exclusion of the lesbian from representation. Consequently, queer readings attach a particular significance to gaps in representation, absences, tropes that make the unspeakable or invisible nevertheless legible, and spaces where proleptic or vestigial forms of gay or lesbian or queer subjectivity can be seen to haunt the narrative. [33] In this scene, queer reading functions both as a form of close reading, understood as reading for disruption in and disjunctions of representation, and of “loose reading”. [34] In its challenge to conventional narratives of linearity, filiation, influence and transmission that are modelled upon the prerogatives of hetero-reproduction, anachronism can be an enabling category and practice for queer literary history in its questioning of the hold that such hetero-normative conceptions have upon the production of literary-cultural history, narrative plotting, the writing of desire and affect, and the collaborative affective phantasmatic construction of authorial subjectivity.

--Tuite, Clara. “Period Rush: Queer Austen, Anachronism, and Critical Practice.” In Re-drawing Austen: Picturesque Travels in Austenland, eds. Beatrice Battaglia & Diego Saglia, Napoli: Liguori, 2004, pp. 294-311.

33. On the “ghost effect” of the lesbian, see Terry Castle, The Apparitional Lesbian: Female Homosexuality and Modern Culture, New York, Columbia University Press 1999, esp. p. 2.

34. See Vincent Quinn’s excellent “Loose Reading: Sedgwick, Austen, and Criticial Practice”, Textual Practice 14 (2000), pp. 305-26.

#clara tuite #queer theory #quote #jane austen

[hoochy-coo]

if dwd does bad, do you or Ws think that hollywood (important directors and those kind of people) will have less respect for H and O because of their affair, cause if it does well no one will care

Was just about to sleep but I'll answer this. Olivia will be the losing end of the deal. I won't excuse her own faults and neither does it deserve any sort of excuses, but let's be honest the vitriol will be less if it were a male doing any of this. It is generally harder for a woman to get any of their movies a greenlit or backup, more so if you have a brand of criticial/commercial failure or history of unprofessionalism. Cause there are studios focusing less on box office and more on awards, but if she proves to be a success on neither then that would surely affect the number of studios or producers wanting to back her. I do believe she has a few movies signed anyway so unless they drop her, she still has some chances with the films that she's already signed for.

As for Harry, I think the biggest dent on him will be big name directors have no cause to consider him despite having agents and studios trying to float his name. Unless of course he impresses them on his own with auditions. And I think studios will be less inclined to submit his name if their theory on his bankability proves to be wrong. But that's it, he's an attractive white male so he'll get away with things and his fans will attack anyone who dares to think he can do any wrong.

Also, people overestimate how much the gp is invested in celeb gossip and anybody looking into this will only see stans overreacting to their fave dating which ends up contributing to their positive feelings towards the people involved.

I agree with this anon in general except for positive feelings. The gp isn't generally invested in celeb gossip true, but from friends who have access to mediums that consolidate public reactions towards trends/products/celebs/films etc. the gp isn't really loving this couple. But they are talked about and do drive conversation and even awareness on DWD or to the celeb themselves, which is a focal point in any pr. Because I have no doubt this movie will not have this much discussion if it weren't for holivia. It's not about being loved or hated, Bennifer isn't exactly getting positive comments right now by the gp but people thirst over any content anyway (including me mind you). Paris Hilton and later Kim Kardashian mastered this tactic a long time ago.

- Worcestershire Sauce Anon

!!!

[taylortruther]

sorry to like...use your ask to dump my fandom meta thoughts somewhere but your last two anons/your blog today really have me thinking about a theory i’ve lowkey had for a while now about swiftie behavior and why this fandom is so toxic sometimes, which largely comes down to two observations: 1) “being a cupcake” is seen as such a huge crime and people are labeled cupcakes so easily during arguments that fans, just like first anon described, will go out of their way to criticize taylor in every situation even when they don’t truly feel it’s warranted bc they “don’t want to be an annoying stan” or, if they can’t bring themselves to actually care about the latest drama or get mad at taylor over it, will feel bad and annoying for not doing so bc they think that makes them a cupcake and everyone loudly hates cupcakes. and 2) there’s a segment of fandom, gaylordom in particular for whatever reason, that genuinely act like the polar opposite of cupcakes - bran muffins, maybe? - i.e. always assuming the worst of taylor and her intentions in every situation and criticizing seemingly everything she does no matter what it is. imo this is a rather small section of the fandom BUT they’re also rather loud and active and often the same people who talk with that ‘this is simply how it is and anyone who doesn’t think so or sees it a different way is a blind cupcake idiot’ tone that seems to be what your anons are stressed out over, and for people who spend most of their time within or around that part of fandom it’s easy to feel like that’s the overwhelming opinion and they must be stupid or blind for not seeing it, even if it’s actually a minority opinion in reality.

(especially when people like......very literally say things like ‘everyone disagreeing with me needs to admit deep down they know i’m right and they’re just mad i criticized taylor’ or ‘literally the only people who think this is okay are stans, if you’re not angry you’re a blind stan who can’t take taylor being criticized’ every time someone doesn’t share their outrage at whatever taylor may have done this time. like it’s...very easy to personally internalize language like that especially for younger fans, or to feel, like your anons were saying, manipulated or potentially gaslighted by it or even by more general absolute statements - people talking as if their opinion or subjective view of a situation is simply fact - even if that was not the intention. people speaking in very concrete absolutes about something you strongly see as nuanced or simply don’t see the same way they do can make your brain feel like you’re going crazy or somehow not understanding the topic properly, and in the context of personal disagreements that often feels intentional regardless of the other person’s actual intentions.)

so my thesis is that despite having a reputation online as the most defensive fandom who will blindly defend anything their fav does with no criticism, a huge chunk of swifties are actually weirdly hyper-critical, not only of taylor but also of each other and themselves as fans. (adding to my theory is the term ‘critical swifties’ which seems to be brandished as a badge of honor by some fans and, afaik, is not a classification that exists in any other fandom where being Critical and Objective is not such a high collective priority.) which is how we’ve ended up with a bizarre, seemingly unique fandom culture where everyone is constantly trying to police both themselves and each other into reacting to whatever the latest drama is in the Acceptable way, including modifying their own opinion on a situation based on what the popular opinion in their corner of the fandom is and, if they feel unable to do that or don’t understand how other people came to their opinions about something, becoming genuinely stressed out or upset about their perceived failure to be the Right type of fan because, in the critical circles of the fandom, a lot of people have internalized the idea that not criticizing taylor when everyone else is - even when you truly don’t feel she deserves criticism or don’t even understand the criticism - means you’re being an annoying cupcake, and being an annoying cupcake means you’re stupid and everyone hates you.

(i would imagine that in much less critical circles of the fandom, like wherever the actual genuine cupcakes hang out, this probably happens in the opposite direction i.e. fans who disagree with anything taylor does feeling stressed out for being negative haters or whatever, but i don’t spend time there so idk. this is all just based on my own observations of fandom interactions/fan self-policing, and everywhere i hang out in fandom tends to get very critical, overly so at times imo, of both taylor and fellow fans.)

anyway i just truly think this fandom has an extremely unique internal culture where having the Correct (often at least somewhat critical and thus Objective) opinion on everything is given great importance and being viewed as a cupcake or defensive stan is The Worst Thing Ever and something many fans will overcompensate (or, more accurately, over-criticize) just to avoid. and while i have theories about why the fandom might be this way to begin with - like fans collectively internalizing, re-weaponizing and still desperately trying to escape the very strong ‘swifties are the worst fandom ever, you just can’t stand your precious queen being criticized bc you live up her ass and are too blind to see she’s objectively evil’ branding other fandoms gave them for defending taylor, often against genuinely false claims, when she was stan twitter public enemy number one - i mostly just find it a fascinating (albeit also toxic and often annoying) phenomenon to observe and theorize about, and i think it’s an interesting lens to look at fandom drama through so maybe other people will find it an interesting theory on fandom behavior too.

(also i’m sorry for this fucking essay, can you tell i’m studying to be an anthropologist and genuinely love shit like this lol)

yes, i did indeed save this very thoughtful ask for a time when things weren’t so heated... but i am posting it now because i love it, and this is the nuanced anthropological critique i personally love to see about taylor or the fandom at large.

i personally agree with basically everything you said - i think you hit a lot of points that i try to make when drama explodes here. like, individual blogs are stating things “as fact” because as bloggers we assume that the readers know we are not actual experts and we don’t have an obligation to post every thought with a disclaimer. and as readers, it’s our responsibility to remember that, and also remember that bloggers can’t word everything perfectly. for exxample, if you criticize taylor very harshly for this grammy thing, people draw this conclusion that you only said it because of x, y, or z... but in reality, people draw the conclusion simply because they disagree. and on the flipside, you could choose not to criticize taylor for this and get called a cupcake because, well, your readers disagree, basically.

it’s a very very goofy self-perpetuating culture here, yep.

my only disagreement is that this is specific or worse in the gaylor fandom. because i used to have a non-gaylor taylor blog, i saw this same mentality with all ships or subsets of the fandom. the same shit happened with tayvins whenever drama popped off during the 1989 era (which is to say: constantly), and that meant there were tons of little warring subsets-within-subsets of the fandom because fans felt they had to take a ‘side’ during every one of taylor’s scandals or problematic choices at the time. which is silly.

that’s why i try to assure everyone that it’s okay to be neutral or reserve judgment on any taylor scandal. and just because a certain opinion is popular doesn’t mean it’s factual or the ‘right’ opinion, and having a certain opinion doesn’t make you a cupcake. 

[darkcatrises]

throw criticism at the het-cis white male allday tho

throw criticism at the white boi but dont just call him stupid. not casting a diverse and equal representation, is the culture of hollywood. (His brother did a decent job with the wifey on westworld)

def bros doing bros. um elliot page wanna say something or nah? i get u wanna see sex and sexual tension on his film, even the ace community doesn't like him, i've only read one post but that's it. can someone please help me why? TOO MUCH SEX NOT ENOUGH SEX?!

also most likely the one call the shots are the women (nolan brothers wifas). Ya think its the director u work for nah its producer. (emma thompson) but does that just involve talking about internal sexism and misogyny?

Also i just learned the physics is one the most sexist and misogynoir fields in STEM. um i wonder if any of the people who love big bang hate chrissy or love chrissy. Leonard and sheldon believe in string theory while the only femme disagrees and is put down fo that shit. Ya'll are expecting to much from the white dudes, are u white how about treat ppl of color with respect irl. maybe then i'll take ur critici's seriously

#guys i always have look up how to spell misogyny im not that literate i #i regret not asking him for coffee maybe i coulda said something to his white physicist ass that would change the course of time #kippy im here if ya ever wanna chat; i'm the girl u met outside of interstellar screening and asked to take pics w me and my broskies

[amarguerite]

First of all, I wanted to say that I'm in awe of how you weave context into your fics so seamlessly and capture the attitudes of the period. Do you have any tips on how to handle research/fleshing out ideas as an aspiring historical fiction writer? I have a habit of getting lots of shiny new ideas I fall in love with for a few days before becoming overwhelmed by the volume of effort that would be required to bring them into realisation, and I'd really like to overcome that

Ohhh gosh. That is... also a tough question! A lot of is is honestly me just being a history nerd and like writing since I was a teenager, so I could see what worked and what didn’t. 

So I think there a couple of general principles to keep in mind:

1) Feminism is going to look different in any era. I think that’s the thing that jars me the most in historical fiction written in the modern day. Because the struggles women in the past faced were different and in certain fortunate ways struggles we as 21rst century women have never/ will never experience it’s tempting to go, “well I’m going to zero in on the most obvious thing I would hate in that era, and/or focus on an obvious and still on-going symbol of the feminist struggle (i.e. bra burning). My heroine hates her corset and that’s how I’ll show she’s Spunky!”  

But the struggles of say, a Regency gentlewoman wouldn’t be corset based (especially with stays in that era! They were like, honestly comfortable, and if you were a working woman, they’d be helpful with back support). They would struggle much more with the duties expected of them based on class, lack of legal rights, or, as I think was the dominant issue of the time, lack of women’s education. Wollstonecraft’s most popular work in the period was about women’s education. And even then part of her argument was that badly educated women lead to badly educated sons, which would unravel the fabric of society. 

2) The weirder theories of how the world works-- bad smells bring disease, for example-- absolutely make sense in their historical context. If a theory doesn’t make sense to you, look at the scientific theories or tools available at the time. When you didn’t know germs existed, but could smell the like... unfun biproducts of cholera and noticed that if you were close to them and breathing it in, you got sick to, well then, there’s a solid connection there. You got sick because you breathed in the bad air. (You also breathed in germs but if you don’t know they exist, you can’t blame them.)

3) If you like a certain era, just read up a bunch on it-- fiction of the time period and non-fiction especially. Memoirs are incredibly helpful, not just in terms of understanding historic events, but understanding how people of the time thought about them. The more background knowledge you have, the easier it will be to weave it into your ideas, or to shape ideas according to the strictures and structures you know of. 

4) Look criticially at pieces of historical fiction you think are good. Why do you think they’re good? How does the time period affect the characters, who they are, and how they feel about themselves? Borrow it for your own work. 

5) Ideas about progress look really different in past eras. The first time I saw this done really strikingly was in Emma Donoghue’s Life-Mask, where the Whiggish Earl of Derby opens a factory and exclaims to a friend of his, “Now everyone who is out of work and needs a job can have them in my factories-- even the children!”

Today we’d go, “... no. Please do not put children to work in your factories. We have many Victorian novels about what that does and none of it is good.” But again, at the time, where most working class children were engaged in agricultural work of some form or other as soon as they could, the upper classes saw this as a great new idea that responsible landlords could do to help the poor. 

Though that is a big generalization! Lots of people hated factories. They were designed to be exploitative, there were Luddites who smashed them up, etc. But we know that Certain Things Are Bad because of how they shook out. When they were first invented, not a lot of people guessed at how they would play out. 

[onderzoeksharan]

Wat zou jij uitroepen tot kunstwerk?

Ik was benieuwd hoe je de machtspositie van een museum zou kunnen versoepelen waardoor de drempel om er geen te gaan misschien wat lager en minder intimiderend wordt. Het museum als instituut is onderdeel van ‘de kunstwereld’, bestaande uit musea, kunstenaars, critici, docenten, curatoren en andere kunstliefhebbers, zij houden het idee en de invulling van kunst in stand doormiddel van een onzichtbare afspraak dat wat het publiek ziet kunst is en dat wat de kunstenaar maakt kunst is. Deze wereld heeft een bepaalde macht en regels wanneer het gaat om kunst, is dat (nog) nodig? De institutionele theorie van Arthur Danto omschrijft dat kunst vroeger ooit op zichzelf waardevol genoeg was voor de maatschappij om publiek te trekken, het had betekenis. Met de wc-bril van Duchamp en de Brillo-dozen van Andy Warhol wordt de inherente waarde en betekenis van een kunstwerk bevraagd: wat is het kunstwerk nog? wat maakt een kunstwerk een kunstwerk? is het het feit dat het in een museum staat en door een kunstenaar gemaakt is? Danto neemt als voorbeeld de Brillo-dozen van Warhol, die niet meer van de ‘echte’ Brillo-dozen uit de supermarkt te onderscheiden waren en waar het museum bij de douane ruzie kreeg omdat er ‘gewoon’ belasting over betaald moest worden omdat het om een commercieel i.p.v. artistiek product ging. Door deze verwarring die de conceptuele kunst veroorzaakt beweert Danto dat de theorie de enige manier is die we nog hebben om kunst te onderscheiden van producten. Kunstfilosofen en historici en de kunstwereld als instituut hebben daarom de taak dingen als kunst uit te roepen en tentoon te stellen, anders bestaat kunst niet meer.

Als we een museum willen wat meer in dienst gaat staan van alle mensen uit haar stad moeten we ons misschien buiten deze kunstwereld bewegen om zo het begrip kunst uit te breiden en te verrijken.

Laten we deze vraag stellen aan iedereen, toen ik aan mijn volgers vroeg wat zij zouden uitroepen tot kunst kreeg ik prachtige antwoorden:

inzichten

de mens

natuur en historie

schilderijen verborgen in de huizen van mensen (zoals mn oma)

de grote markt op zaterdag

unieke acties die niet bedoeld zijn als kunst

de visie van de kunstenaars zelf

dans, tot eten, verpakkingen tot film

straatlantaarns als het mistig is!

Deze antwoorden zetten me aan tot dromen: wat nou als het museum een plaats was voor iedereen, en waar wij kunnen bepalen wat kunst is en kunnen maken, cureren, kijken, proberen, gesprekken voeren, slapen, dansen, eten. Misschien is het tijd voor iets anders. Of moet het museum zo blijven en kunnen we al deze andere dingen op andere plekken beoefenen? Dat vraag ik me af, we hebben kunstcentra, bibliotheken, poppodia, restaurants, maar het museumpersoneel en de collectie maken het grootste verschil. Nergens anders is er zo veel kennis en kunde in huis om kunst te conserveren, restaureren, communiceren, bereiken, organiseren, educatie te verzorgen, verzamelen en toegankelijk te maken. Het bestaan van het museum is van belang voor ons als collectief alleen er mag aan gesleuteld blijven worden zodat het dat collectief kan (blijven) dienen. Ik ga zelf geen nieuwe regels stellen aan wat kunst is, maar via stadsinwoners en workshops zou je dit begrip als instituut (museum of academie) kunnen (her)definiëren en mag iedereen participeren.

Nu worden er voorzichtige pogingen gedaan door het Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam die haar staf favoriete kunstwerken laat uitlichten, Het van Abbe die stafleden het gesprek aan laat gaan met bezoekers en via de werksalon het museum inclusiever probeert te maken door input van verschillende groepen. Maar misschien moet het kunsthistorische begrip van kunst op de schop genomen worden en vanuit daar de instituten opnieuw worden vormgegeven, een nieuwe artistieke wind. Richt je pijlen ook op de kunst, en de rest vormt zich daar omheen.

En om nog op Steven ten Thije van het van Abbe terug te komen die zei: je kunt nog zulke mooie, relevante en prikkelende kunst tonen, als de bezoekers geen aansluiting vinden slaat het dood. Blijft de vraag, hoe relevant en prikkelend die kunst die je toont is, aan de orde.

#enquete

[padawanlost]

Yeah,I agree with you it's very hypocrticial. People should really watch the documentary movie''The Prequels Strikes Back'' it makes you if not appreciate than understand what GL was trying to achieve I remember one of the people that was being interviewed saying that the OT received the same criticism the PT received(bad script,wooden acting,etc) yet in my opinion the biggest reason why the PT has been bashed so much is because GL dared to make Darth Vader human(cont in part two)

And it’s something I’ll never understand really if Anakin was born bad the whole saga wouldn’t have been such a tragedy in  the first place by seeing him grow from this sweet boy to the menacing Vader we realize that contrary to what we’ve been led to believe Vader was a very tragic figure who lost everything he ever loved and it’s what makes Luke’s love and belief in him so poignant(cont in part 3)            

Also the fact that Anakin’s character has been so harshly criticized for  being emotional just shows how there are these certain expectations to how male characters should behave Luke in the OT was overly emotional and somewhat arrogant in the OT too yet he’s a beloved character while Anakin is hated for it             

I wasn’tTHAT into Star Wars before the AOTC premiered but I was always a “movie buff”so I paid a lot of attention to movies, criticis and movie theories. That beingsaid, before the prequels, everything I read/heard told me the Star Wars movieswere praised for how they revolutionized the film industry (with their especialaffects and genre defining storytelling). They were enjoyable movies but theonly people who took them too seriously were the fans, and the fans were noteven all that respected by the media or critics (until the media started validatingtheir stereotypes, prejudices and entitlement after the prequels). As we arewitnessing right now, trashing George Lucas was more fun and way less scary/careerdamaging than trashing Disney.

Don’t tryto rationalized. It will drive you crazy. Because in the end it comes down tothe entitlement of a group of overgrown boys who were mad their fandom (remembertheir motto: “Star Wars is for boys!”)was no longer catering only to them.

If you wantunderstand why the prequels’ story was hated: watch the TFA. The movie waswritten by one of the those fanboys™ with the help of the ultimate sw “entitledwhite boy” fan. They wrote the movie the wanted George Lucas to make instead ofTPM. They wrote A New Hope 2.0. They created the first Death Star 2.0, Tatooine2.0, R2-D2 2.0, etc. That’s why the fandom (back then) wanted. They wanted moreof the same. They wanted the OT… again.

But GeorgeLucas not only didn’t give them what they wanted, he went further and gave themheroes they couldn’t relate to. Character they couldn’t picture themselves being.They couldn’t fantasize being as powerful as Vader or Luke, as cool as Han orhaving sex with slave-girl Leia.

George gavethem a little boy with no agency and a ton of trauma. A bunch of fourteen yearsold girls who didn’t show any skin. And for a villain, he gave them an alienapprentice and his master, an elderly politician. Worst of all, George actuallymade them think. He made them think about politics, mental illness, disfranchisement,slavery, abuse, etc. All things that make people uncomfortable (especiallyentitled men).

The “Anakinshould’ve been bad from the start” is their response to that. If Anakin hadbeen bad from the start, he’d have been more “interesting” because they would’vebeen able to fantasize about being him more easily. Villains usually have moreagency, they are motivated by their own interests instead of being manipulatedby someone else. Vader being evil because he chose to be evil is easier toaccept than a man being manipulated, tortured and enslaved into doing terribledeeds. You can’t fantasy about being a slave, because powerful man can’t be enslaved:/

Anakinbeing born evil is easier to accept. It’s givens them an easier way out. Anakinwas evil and powerful so Vader was evil and power. This way their fantasyremains unchallenged. And they don’t have too think too deeply about thingsthat make them uncomfortable or threaten their fragile masculinity. Because despiteof Luke and Anakin similarities, Luke has something Anakin lacks. Luke hassomething that makes him more desirable and acceptable by the fandom thanAnakin. Luke has a real agency.

There’s areason why the prequels resonated with children, women, teenagers, the mentallyill and the disfranchised in general more than it did to the stereotypical OT purist.And it has nothing to do with the quality of the movies or the characters.

#ask #mrsariayoureakiller #sw prequels #sw meta #anakin skywalker #darth vader #padawanlost #meta: anakin #txt