Fig's line "I don't think I'm an artist, I think I'm just a good friend" has not left my head at all. Just...
You're Fig Faeth and your horns came in over the summer and you pick up the bard class as a form of adolescent rock 'n' roll rebellion, and it works! It's exactly the outlet you need! You give a guy you just met drumsticks and you start a band and it's good enough that within a year and a half you're touring. You are, in every sense, good at being a bard.
And then, finally, your junior year, you start to take it seriously. Your art goes from an outlet and a form of rebellion to a practice. A discipline. (Can rebellion exist within a discipline?) Your classmates know what they want to do with their work. They all have a thesis statement. And yeah, there's cohesion in the music you make, but you've never had to think about why you make it. You've never sat down and dissected what it is about bass that speaks to you. You've never poured over your lyrics to pick at any deeper meaning. Why should you? You don't play music for a grand design, you do it to... huh, why do you do it?
(Your art is the one form of self-expression that feels as safe as Disguise Self does, because even if you're pouring your heart onto the page and then screaming it in front of thousands of people, it's not like you're really making yourself known. You can sing I'm lonely, I'm scared, I'm furious, and your fans will sing it right back, and there will still be the distance between performer and audience to keep your heart safe.)
Now you're being asked to look inward to explain the artistic choices you're making, and you can't help but recoil at that, because you'd rather do anything than look inward. Meanwhile, your classmates have no problem with it, so you start to wonder if you're a real artist at all. Can your art be authentic if it only exists to bolster a thesis statement? Has your art been unauthentic this whole time because you've never really thought about a thesis statement before? Is that what makes it art, and not just the next track on somebody's teen angst playlist?
You can't think about yourself— acknowledging your own existence makes you want to puke. So if your music is an extension of yourself, (and it is, even if it's just because the spotlight reveals only what you want it to,) you can't think about your music. You can't. You have to. Your grade depends on it.
You're Fig Faeth, and you keep multiclassing because you'd rather be a good friend than a great artist. If introspection is what great art demands, then fuck it. You must not be a bard at all.
55 notes
·
View notes
On Daenerys, Colonisation and Race Discourse within the ASOIAF Fandom
This has been on my mind for a good long while and honestly, as much as I would like to leave discourse in the pits, it has been bugging me intermittently over the past few weeks.
Far too many of you get on here and call people who like the fictional dragon-riding family, neo-Nazis and that sentiment is so prevalent, that white people feel comfortable telling me a black woman that I am a neo-Nazi for rooting for Daenerys Targaryen. I am upholding neo-Nazi power fantasies for wanting to see a little girl live at the end of a story. I am a neo-Nazi for wanting to see the rape survivor have the family she aches for and children with the man (or men) she loves.
Then, those same people go on spiels about how the systemic erasure of those who sing the song of the earth and other old races is not colonialism. That their removal from their home is not displacement but an agreement between two equal parties. The fact that the only place where those who sing the song of the earth exist in the present timeline is north of the wall, surrounded by the bones of their dead, is not a travesty. That the expulsion of the old races from their home isn't that bad and should not be condemned.
Instead, people argue, completely seriously, that the harm that the First Men and Andals have caused is centuries in the past, so essentially the slate has been wiped clean. The logical leaps that are required to arrive at such a boneheaded conclusion are truly mind-boggling, and those who make such arguments are not good people.
I am unsure how one could read those books and come away with the impression that the old races do not mourn the loss of their home. I am unsure how one could read The Last of the Giants[1] and Ygritte’s reaction to both the song and Jon’s dismissal of the ethnic cleansing of the giants then believe that the old races and the free folk have moved past their displacement.
In Westeros, from the Wall to the broken arm of Dorne, they all speak one language despite the fact they are all different ethnicities and they all landed on the shores at different times. That is not the case in Essos, we have been introduced to at least six languages and in A Dance with Dragons, Tyrion notes that the Valyrian spoken in the Free Cities has evolved into nine distinct dialects, and they are well on their way to becoming different languages.
How would a continent as large and diverse as Westeros maintain its hegemony over the people if not for forced assimilation, discriminatory practices and violence? The brutal repression required to keep one house in power for thousands of years is nothing to sniff at. The suppression required to keep the vast majority of Westeros worshipping one (or seven) gods. The systems in place ensure that language does not grow or evolve amongst the highborns at least.
Centuries before Aegon's Landing the maesters were the definitive educational authority and even now centuries after, nothing has changed. The grey rats still decide who learns what and when they learn it. There's one in every highborn home, all correspondence passes through them, they are the healers and the councillors.
The circular logic gets even more blockheaded when you factor in the fact that Daenerys is far from the only white character in the books. She is not the only character who wishes for home. She is not the only character who draws strength from her ancestors, her bloodline and her magical creatures.
Cersei draws strength from her family’s iconography, and the Stark children (Jon included) all draw strength from their direwolves, their home and their blood. Sansa, Arya and Bran wish to return home and their home was built on the indiscriminate murder and displacement of the indigenous peoples. Their home is built on centuries of rape, murder, exclusionary practices and sexual slavery.
However, if we give the nonsensical argument that time erases crimes air; the Starks, Lannisters and Tullys are warring to settle personal grievances in the present timeline. As a consequence of that war, thousands (a modest guesstimate) of small folk, minor nobles and even some major ones have been raped, tortured, maimed and killed.
Despite all this, no one writes meta after meta about how Sansa and her siblings must surely die for justice to be had for those who sing the song of the earth, the free folk, the giants and all the old races that fled beyond the wall.
People write meta about Cersei and how she must die, but those are typically more misogynistic nature. They typically argue that she must die not for the “crime” of being Lannister, but for the “crime” of being Cersei and “ruining” Jamie.
I would not mind criticisms of Dany and her peace-focused approach to ending slavery because the approach is naïve and she gives the slavers far too much ground. However, she is learning, growing and self-critiquing. At the end of A Dance with Dragons, she has decided to embrace fire and blood, her knight is breaking the false peace which is a necessary step forward.
What I find offensive is people saying that she should have planned better before she abolished slavery. And that the death, violence, and sickness that arises from her quest to eradicate slavery is somehow worse than the death, violence, and sickness that already existed in Slaver’s Bay.
This argument often downplays the horrific conditions and suffering that exist(ed) under the slave system in Slaver's Bay. Such arguments are often in poor taste and prioritise the lives and comforts of the slavers more than the people they have enslaved.
I would not mind criticisms of Dany if people applied that same critique even-handedly. The same people who believe that Jon and Bran have done much to rectify the evil that their ancestors perpetuated believe that Dany has not done anything to right the wrongs of her ethnic kin. They praise them for the non-existent steps that they have taken, but in the same breath, they condemn Dany for not being able to immediately end the plague that is slavery.
It is perfectly alright to not like fictional characters, no law requires you to like certain fictional characters over others. However, what is not right is making broad accusations about those who do, it is beyond the pale. It is disgusting, and annoying, and trivialises real-world issues to score cheap points against fictional characters.
Equating the survival of a teenage survivor to the restoration of a fascist house or neo-Nazi power fantasy when such designations do not exist in the world of ice and fire is strange behaviour. Saying that the teenage survivor will eventually be manipulated and raped (again) before ending up dead on her manipulator's blade is also strange behaviour.
Dismissing the horrors of colonialism, especially when the text shows you that the involved parties are still affected by it, is not normal and often veers into real-world imperialism apologia. While criticism and analysis of characters and their actions are valid and even encouraged, it is essential that we do not resort to sweeping generalisations about other people and that we keep criticisms of characters grounded in the text.
[1]
Ooooooh, I am the last of the giants, my people are gone from the earth.
The last of the great mountain giants, who ruled all the world at my birth
Oh, the smallfolk have stolen my forests, they’ve stolen my rivers and hills.
And they’ve built a great wall through my valleys, and fished all the fish from my rills
In stone halls they burn their great fires, in stone halls they forge their sharp spears.
Whilst I walk alone in the mountains, with no true companion but tears.
They hunt me with dogs in the daylight, they hunt me with torches by night.
For these men who are small can never stand tall, whilst giants still walk in the light.
Oooooooh, I am the LAST of the giants, so learn well the words of my song.
For when I am gone the singing will fade, and the silence shall last long and long.
128 notes
·
View notes
General thoughts after watching Season 1 of Netflix's Avatar: The Last Airbender (spoilers may be present)
It's not bad. It's weird, but it's not bad.
No one asked for this.
No one asked, but we got it anyway. So what did we get?
It's not a 1:1 remake. I don't think, despite everything people have worried and griped about before the show's release, anyone wanted that either. It doesn't retain the same character arcs for everyone. Not just Sokka, but everyone.
At the same time, they still have arcs.
They're weird, they feel weird, because this show does what the Shyamalan movie doesn't, and makes an honest effort to capture the essence of the animated show, of the characters, of the world, and there is respect in its efforts.
There are musical motifs from the original. The set designs are out of the original. Many scenes are shot exactly like the original as homages.
And yet, storylines are merged together, elements from later seasons are introduced earlier, character interactions happen differently, character motivations are presented differently, and that feels weird.
We know the motions but when we the audience try to follow them, the show changes its direction and pulls a weird flex out of left field.
I won't say I agree with every major and minor change made, but I'm not enraged or disappointed in the same way as I was (and many of us were) after seeing the movie.
Instead, I'm more inclined to see where these new threads intend to go, and how the story we all know and love can be told in a different way.
Roku had barely a presence in this season, whereas in the original, he was more or less Aang's spiritual teacher. Instead, we've felt more from Kyoshi and Kuruk and Yangchen, and Aang has felt lost in his spiritual journey as well as his physical one.
Ozai, who was just a shadowy one-dimensional nightmare for most of the original first book, is now a more fleshed out figure, but one of confusing motivations. It's not the tonal whiplash of the movie, of the Ozai who legitimately worried and cared about Zuko's well being while also having still scarred and banished him, but one who is playing a 4-D chess game with his kids as the pieces and doesn't care who wins so long as one does.
I don't think it was the right call to have Zuko fight back in the Agni Kai before getting burned, but it gives a different dynamic to Zuko and Ozai's relationship that he's not the towering, shadowy Mark Hamill terror Zuko cowers before.
This Zuko seems legitimately convinced Ozai cares about him and all it takes is the Avatar to win his full love back, whereas there's still bitterness in the OG Zuko of book one. He knows Ozai favors Azula over him, he knows he's had to struggle well before being banished.
I also think not casting Dee Bradley Baker was a mistake. But they have time to correct that mistake.
All the kid actors, being green, of course do not stand up to expressive and gorgeous animation with brilliant voice acting. But they are all giving it their best, and I think they have what it takes to grow into the Book 3 Team Avatar if they get the chance.
The music got to me a number of times, particularly the instrumental renditions of "Leaves From the Vine."
Do we need this show? No absolutely not.
We have the original ATLA, and we always will. It's a timeless classic of our generation. Nothing could ever compete with it or ruin it.
However, I do feel like this adaptation is worth giving a chance to stand on its own. It may be far from perfect, but after watching it through, I legitimately want to see where it goes from here. I want to see this cast grow and change in their own ways. I want to see Toph in live action. I want to see Ba Sing Se. I want to see the new directions this story chooses to take to end up in the same place at Sozin's Comet.
But that might not happen if Netflix decides to cancel it, and I think that would be a shame.
I really do think it's worth seeing this show through, for better or worse.
Overall, as a show, I would give it a modest 7/10. (With individual elements skewing higher or lower throughout)
I don't like that it's only 8 episodes, but that's been a trend of other streaming shows also, across platforms, so I cannot fault NATLA alone for that.
You don't NEED to have seen the original to understand what's happening or get key details (unlike SOME adaptations have been doing recently). You can get a complete picture with just this. Is it as pretty or vibrant as the original? No. But it is still a whole picture (or, could be, with all three seasons).
It has great effects, sets, props, choreography, good music. It has SUKI. And JET. and JUNE. And THE Cabbage Man!
AND OMA/SHU ARE LESBIANS! I mean, I see that as an absolute win.
42 notes
·
View notes