#even later on it’s p ambiguous how many of the people he interacts with are actually people and this uncertainty gets exploited a lot

[divorcemotif]

"oh hey a real person followed me, I should look at their blog"

soon

"...perhaps I should listen to Eskew."

oh boy you caught my blog after an exciting weekend lmao

I absolutely recommend eskew! I don't have a lot of coherent thoughts, since I got into it over a very physically and mentally draining summer job and have yet to relisten, but it left an impression for sure. I will say what there is of an overarching narrative felt a bit jolty to me in places, for lack of a better term— I think you get the vibe of a show that’s figuring itself out somewhat as it goes, however the ideas are very interesting and I could make a long list of moments that really really affected me. my recent posts probably give a good sense of what I liked most abt it; david ward is just. endlessly interesting as a character imo. the writing’s good— there's a kind of.. ironically humorous edge to a lot of my favourite episodes, something I’d have to relisten to properly articulate. there's a tic of referring to one-off characters by a title instead of a name— the correspondence editor, the architect, the witness— that scratches something in my brain. in contrast with the slimy fleshiness of much of the horror, the sound design is just nice, actually— the rain never stops in eskew and the tone of the narration stays pretty level no matter what’s being described. there are only two narrators and I found both of their voices pleasant enough to close my eyes to on the subway after a long day. very solid show

#ask #eskew #I don’t usually post this much abt eskew but that jonathan sims vs david ward most sopping wet podcast man poll awakened smth in me . #got me itching to write like 1000 words abt how it’s ultimately an unfair comparison #but I havent listened to either podcast in A While so I don’t trust myself to be like. right. abt anything #I’ll just say. #eskew has its narrator in the middle of the horror right off the bat. it’s more immediately immersive and far less grounded— #early episodes you have rlly no guarantee that anything david is perceiving is real or what ‘real’ even means within the rules of his world. #even later on it’s p ambiguous how many of the people he interacts with are actually people and this uncertainty gets exploited a lot #basically. in tma the world looks broadly like our own and is being affected by outside forces where in eskew the setting IS the horror #if I were writing an essay abt this I might make it abt the ways each show plays w humour and absurdity— #the caricature of jon’s initial presentation is a grounding force at the start #where eskew consistently uses absurdity to unground you and keep you uncertain #ofc the initial security to this divide between jon and the statements gradually dissolves #but tma just has a lot more structure the whole time w both the epistolary kind of format and the world.eskew gets. abstract . #what I’m saying is david is infinitely wetter and more miserable bc his story both requires and allows for it. tonally. #and because the rain literally and metaphorically never stops. #david never gets a fucking break even when he gets a fucking break bc he can never KNOW if he’s really getting a fucking break #or if the city that loves him soso much is about to turn on him #(also hes far more chaotic morally I think on account of just being. further out of touch). #at least tma has enough supporting characters who are definitively real people by the rules of its universe #for you to have found family expectations it can repeatedly subvert. #david is a half drowned rat. #. however jonathan sims has more fans and could never lose 😔

[maggot-monger]

i’m just validating myself here so i can go back to enjoying something i like that i’ve kind of dug myself into a hole with lately :p regrettably earnest discussion of spn lucifer and fandom below

i can say whatever about why late seasons lucifer doesn’t sit right with me, but the fact of the matter is that that is how lucifer canonically is in later seasons, and like, fine. however, it is also true that 1) supernatural’s lore, writing, and characterization is not consistent in almost any way, and so attempts to try to make them consistent are admirable but ultimately foolhardy (i say, as someone with a long and ongoing record of jumping through hoops to make spn lore/characterization make sense), 2) even if everything made perfect sense in spn all the time, it is still fair to have gotten attached to an earlier version of a character and to be sad and in denial about the direction they ended up going (to character jump for an example, it does make sense that sam got more passive after everything he went through, but plenty of people are sad about that, and prefer to imagine that it went differently for him — or even choose to ignore later seasons entirely in order to focus on the characterization they prefer from the earlier seasons). 

s5 lucifer reads differently if you want to include late seasons’ characterization in your interpretation than if you prefer not to. some people weren’t surprised by the direction the character went, and welcomed what they got. some people found it to be inconsistent with the character from earlier seasons. both responses are fair, but people with different views are just going to react differently to attempts to analyze the same material because they are differently motivated.

personally, i stopped watching the show in large part because i didn’t like the direction it was going with angel lore and angel characterization. personally, i liked the angels best when they were very inhuman, and dealt with morality differently from how the human characters did, and were in many ways deeply unpredictable to the audience/the winchesters as a result, regardless of their levels of internal predictability. this was a problem for me with the angels across the board, but it’s most jarring to me with the character of lucifer, who, to me, was a deeply interesting character due to his intense moral complexity, his wild swings between human relatability and extreme alienness, and his perspectives/motivations that just don’t track easily from a creature-of-earth viewpoint. to me, later seasons messed around with that in a way that made the character, and the character’s interactions with others, a lot less interesting. i understand that others do not share this opinion, and that some people feel that the later seasons’ additions made the character more interesting, and like, cool, good for them, i’m glad they can enjoy something i don’t. 

i am not personally disturbed by the idea of lucifer being a character that hurts others, deliberately or through being so very Other. that’s something he canonically does in every season he’s in, and i enjoy it that the character is very dangerous and can be cruel. however, i do have a preferred characterization that i built from intensive scrutiny of season 5 that is internally consistent with that material, and there are certain types of dangerousness and cruelty that fit with that characterization and other types that don’t. it is not the only internally consistent interpretation of the character with that material; it is not necessarily the most interesting to anybody other than me, but it is mine, and i find it interesting, and it does make sense (and again, yes, it is clown behavior to get pissy about anything in supernatural making sense). to me, what is disturbing is that late seasons lucifer imo reads as less celestial and more animal, his relationships with others less ambiguous and more categorizable. and i don’t like it! and it’s fine that i don’t like it. it’s fine that others do, but it’s fine that i don’t, and it doesn’t mean i’m wubbifying the character or whatever that i feel let down in the particular ways i feel let down (and, of course, it’s fine to wubbify characters if that’s what you want to do). 

#tagging as #fandom salt #even though it's not really fandom i'm being salt about here #my intention is for this to be the last time i make a post betraying the extent to which i have not been good at ignoring petty fandom stuff #i think this is probably more sane than my past posts on the topic at least which bodes well :p #spn thots #lucifer

[dreamsatdusk]

Character for the ask game: baghra :p

For this ask game. Thank you! (Sorry for the slowness too! Had some Things come up and wasn't feeling up to writing much.)

How I feel about this character

Baghra is the ambiguous Baba Yaga type character of the tale and I've always found those elements about her the most interesting, while simultaneously wishing there were a bit more of an undercarriage provided for it in the books. She is unkind, but also functions to set the heroine on her path so to speak, more than once. That said, I do wish Alina had not been so passive in the S&B post-fete situation. I think there was insufficient reason shown for her to so deeply believe what Baghra told her then - later on she even starts coming up with more assumptions about the Darkling's intent based on nothing at all save what Baghra said and it's rather weird when looked at closely, particularly when you look at how horrid she was to Alina.

I think it would have been very cool to see some more folktale-inspired notes to Baghra's actions, to go along with the surface details.

All the people I ship romantically with this character

Such thoughts have never crossed my mind*L* I can't think of anyone in the books working for this. Baghra seems so unbelieving in the very idea of romance because she's convinced people are just pretty terrible and also, they'll die sooner than her and so aren't worth it. Frankly I think she has some (understandable) baggage from her parents' relationship. Overall, the situation could be interesting to explore in fic.

My non-romantic OTP for this character

I don't have an OTP here, but it's good to have scenes between her and someone that results in high amounts of amusing snark. Nikolai can be good for that. I've seen some amusing fic with she and Ivan interacting too.

My unpopular opinion about this character

I don't know that it's unpopular, but for whatever reason, I see very few people mention that Baghra is outright abusive as a teacher. I see talk of her being 'mean' to Alina, but then too often it's excused as all being part of the plan. (Not everyone does so by any means, but.) But in addition to both more than once whacking Alina with her cane and being emotionally belittling and nasty pretty much constantly, we later find out how she treated other young Grisha. She resented Harshaw for having an accident when learning about his power, refused to teach him further, and hit him so hard in the leg that he still had a lump from it who knows how many years later. Nadia and the bees (wasps?) (and boy I hope the Healers were able to calm her system down as that sort of situation can lead to future life-threatening allergic reactions), refusing to teach David at all because, supposedly, he reminded her of his father (not David's fault! and presumably he was just a child during this?), telling Zoya she had 'porridge for brains', etc. Extrapolate that out to everyone else she would have taught and...wow. That is all cruelty. It's also kind of glossed over in the narrative itself.

I've actually wondered if the Darkling even knew about some of what went on. I could see it both ways. If he didn't witness it directly, would anyone have dared say anything to him?

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon.

I would have really liked to somehow see some clues to what turned Baghra from the woman see in Demon in the Wood, to the one in the S&B trilogy. I'm writing a bit more about that in reply to another ask. But something else I'm curious about is her being at the Little Palace at all during the events of the book, living under her own name.

Obviously this needed to be the case for narrative reasons, but I'd have liked to see the in-universe explanation at least hinted at. We're given to understand she is considered old enough to have been the 'current Darkling's' teacher, but what about before that? The Little Palace has been there for centuries. It strikes me as dubious that the Darkling would go through shenanigans over and over to convince people there have been lots of different Darklings, but that Baghra could have been teaching, under her own name, all that time with no misdirection used. So perhaps she was elsewhere for long periods of time, occasionally returning to the Little Palace.

But why use her own name, when she had been so very adamant about hiding identities before? Why was she there at this point in time versus not? A possible in-universe explanation for the latter is that at one point in mentioned this particular Darkling had taken even more strides to draw in Grisha from places outside Ravka. We also know he was concerned about what increasing technology levels would mean for Grisha 'relevance'. Perhaps he called his mother back to assist in teaching because it was more important than ever?

#Grishaverse #Grishaverse Meta #The Grisha Trilogy #Baghra #Shadow and Bone #Baghra Morozova #tirkdi

[argentdandelion]

The Multiverse is Terrifying: The Sans Suffering Rule

Sans doesn't have that problem, and that's a very bad thing.

The Undertale fandom has many, many works and concepts that alter the premise of the game itself. These are, loosely speaking, “AUs”, and they are so numerous in the fandom they’re practically synonymous with “Undertale fan work”. Sans is very popular across every part of the fandom, to the point many of AUs feature or even focus on Sans. He also has countless variations, outnumbering that of other characters. Indeed, it seems he’s the only character that exists in some “AUs”, and all the works the author can recall, only one doesn’t feature Sans, or an imitation or variant thereof.

Within the scope of Sans-centric work, it’s popular to have canon Sans (“Classic”) interacting with versions of himself from other timelines or universes, such as through Sans having a special machine or power that lets him travel to timelines or other universes.

If Sans were to become very familiar with the number, breadth, and details of AU Sanses and their worlds, he would conclude he’s very special and important, in a cosmic sense. And if that happened....the implications would be very, very bad.

Section 2: His suffering is disproportionate to his own lifespan.

Firstly, it is very common to make him suffer, and his suffering (averaged across popular fanworks/AUs) is disproportionate to his own lifespan, assuming he’s much younger the Asgore, Toriel, and Gerson. The ancient war veterans have lived for so long that there are many more opportunities to change the timeline within their own lives, necessarily splitting off into unique or severe suffering scenarios. Importantly, Toriel can die in many timelines, and Asgore dies in every timeline but one. (Gerson, strangely, cannot die in any canon timeline.)

Still, although people could show Asgore discovering the human killed Toriel or vice versa, and Gerson finding out the human killed Toriel or Undyne, the former is rare and the latter is unheard of. Indeed, as Asgore seems oblivious to the human’s murder spree in canon, he doesn’t face much suffering until the point he is killed in one hit.

Section 3: Sans often suffers in especially severe ways by his works’ standards.

Not only is he very popular, but it is very common to make him suffer, and frequently in ways that are unique or especially severe by the standards of the work.

Famously, his brother is often killed by a human. Although the overall number of murders in a Genocide Route is at least 101, and the human probably kills a bunch of people with close connections to later victims, the fanworks themselves don’t linger on this. Though fanworks could kill off the love interests of the RG01/RG02 and the Dogi pair, do so in horrific, prolonged ways, and make the survivor suffer, they rarely do.

In an Underfell variant (Papyrus vs. The Forces of LOVE), he’s abused by his own brother, he’s starving (PredatorTale/HorrorTale), is starving and also gets his eye ripped out and has a grotesque head injury (HorrorTale), he gets stuck in a state between life and death (AfterTale), he becomes an amalgamate with Papyrus (Sixbones)....

And he gets killed, over and over, even within ambiguous-canonical or more-or-less post-canonical works. (Canon Genocide timeline, Genocide timeline-based variants including AfterTale, and GlitchTale) Adding onto the special severity of suffering, Sans ends up having to kill a murderous or mass-murderous human in so many variants and repetitions.

Section 4. Sans Often Suffers in Unique Ways

Adding onto this, fanworks pile on extra-canonical (exaggerated mental health problems, Gaster Blaster transformation suffering) or ambiguous-canonical (e.g., Flowey Runs) types of suffering to Sans much more than anyone. After all, how many works show Flowey-Sans showdowns? How many works show him and only him (or W.D. Gaster and/or Papyrus with him) getting worn away by the resets and Flowey fights?

Additionally, across several works, he uniquely witnesses Papyrus dying first-hand (something ambiguous in canon), and picks up his scarf from the snow and cries. Only Monster Kid parallels this when witnessing Undyne get hit with a lethal blow, but they don’t actually see her turn to dust, and Monster Kid always survives afterwards. Through these things, Sans is further supported as cosmically special in his suffering.

Section 5. The Timeline Will Always Make a Sans (Eventually)

For Sans to exist, a timeline would need to allow for the decisions or phenomena that led to the point Sans could exist. Therefore, it seems that every universe will eventually conspire to create Sans, often using different methods to do so. It doesn’t matter whether he was made by resurrecting a human corpse, or by W.D. Gaster being his standard-issue father with a wife, or the same man creating him in a lab, or the same man (now a god) creating him from a black hole...he will practically always exist, in timelines that overlap with his probable creation time or not.

To be clear, a handful of works are exceptions to the trend. For example, InvertedFate actually has Sans doing slightly better than Canon Sans, nothing bad happens in LittleTale, and Sans doesn’t exist in Caretaker of the Ruins (probably because he wasn’t born yet).

Section 6: Implications

Were Sans to ever figure out the sheer breadth, commonness, severity, and uniqueness of his suffering across canon-associated and non-canon-associated timelines and universes, it would cause a lot of shock and existential terror. Any work where he doesn’t suffer a lot is an anomaly in an overall trend, or he doesn’t suffer there because he doesn’t exist there yet.

Importantly, though Flowey torments him in Flowey Runs, in some works Flowey (or his parallels) do not exist, don’t interact with Sans, or aren’t tormentors (Underfell). Therefore, since Flowey isn’t to blame in every variation, it would seem he is a favored plaything or a cruel god or gods.

Worse still, if Sans does not conclude he and all variations thereof are the playthings of deities...it is simply a natural rule of the universe, like water carving through rock, that Sans will eventually be created and suffer immensely and disproportionately. He cannot fight that, cannot argue against it, cannot befriend it.

It would have better for him to never visit other AUs at all.

If you liked this post, check out the post author's Patreon or Ko-Fi.

Reference

For reference, these are the AUs/fanworks the author considered, consciously or unconsciously, for this analysis. Some may be missing. Note that some don’t feature Sans, don’t feature canon-unusual levels of suffering, or don’t feature Sans yet.

Caretaker of the Ruins, LittleTale, PredatorTale, HorrorTale, Swap Out (Underswap), Kaitogirl’s Underfell (Underfell), Soulfell (Underfell), Papyrus vs. The Forces of LOVE (one chapter, fanfiction, Underfell), Handplates and Sixbones, Underlie, The Choice, Pulling a Tooth, Storyshift, InvertedFate, GlitchTale, TimeTale, ScrambleSaga, Entity Neo, Soul Dichromatism, We Need to Talk (Gasterblaster AU, though not for Sans specifically and not that focused on Sans), Spectrum (Gasterblaster AU), Trust/The Best Revenge (Gasterblaster AU), Fallen Flowers, The Anomaly (Post-Canon), They Say He Shattered (Post-Canon, Mixed Timelines), Time-Scar, Over the Void, Cost of Living, Heart and Soul, Chocoblook, Zombietale, Charatale, Mysterytale (Crossover), Unexpected Guests, Appreciate Your Bro Sans (actually happy Sans), Hard Mode, Ghost Switch, Growth Spurt AU, Deeperdown. Name the Fallen (Papyrus shouldn’t exist here; everything thinks he’s a human), Flowey is Not a Good Life Coach.

#Undertale #Analysis #Meta #Undertale AU #Undertale AUs #Undertale AU Comics #Sans Undertale #Sans the Skeleton #AU Sans #AU Sanses #Existential Terror

[electro-elemena]

Random thoughts I just had about death note

this is very stream of consciousness and was written in google notes, so sorry for the format and grammar but I just need this to be out there. Also if some parts sound like they're spoken out loud it's because they were lmao

- media needs to be interesting (check)

- if you disagree with me go look at Ryuk and then come back

- love the concept of death note. Very *chef's kiss*

- tickles the part of my brain that likes unlikely and outlandish theories and scenarios

- however enjoyable media also has to be:

- not insufferable... Sufferable you could say

- OR insufferable enough to make it funny

- death note accomplishes the condition of the second

- never finished it, realized i was running out of fucks to give and looked for a reason to give more fucks or stop giving fucks

- spoiled the ending for myself, if you've seen the ending you know why

- spoiler alert for an old ass piece of media... Y'all have your reasons and if this bit doesn't fervently convince you to watch it then it will do whatever the opposite of that is

- misa dies too. Which is unfair

- she's a boss ass bitch and a whole model??? Like

- okay tangent

- light is not a good protagonist

- I'll take a potato chip... And eat it

- he's supposed to be one of those gradual unreliable narrators

- but past the first episode you immediately realize that he is in fact a horrible person

- you could argue that the capacity to kill people without consequence given to a teenage boy was destined to corrupt him

- and that's a cynical and bleh boring take

- (but likely)

- but tbh it takes a dormant god complex in the first place for him to turn out the way he did. He obviously already thought he was better than others

- loners are only loners if everyone thinks they're worse than everyone else or they think they're better than everyone else

- chicken or the egg first sometimes y'know

- so like if you have the death note to a kind person they'd like write down Jeff bezos or something and then hand it back

- or! They could be like "i don't trust you with this" to ryuk and just keep it (but secretly be like saving it for later in case they want to kill someone else with no consequences)

- or maybe they're just in love with ryuk. Which like. I'll squint at you, and judge you silently for, but won't say anything, because I'm a nice person and not because you possess the ability to kill me without consequences whenever

- anyways so he's a bad protagonist and objectively evil

- i say this even though I usually like the villains. I love the hero but I like the villains too

- i won't condone their actions but I'll think they're hot or cool or something

- cuz i always side with the protagonist, when they're not insufferable (wonder who that could be)

- but mass genocide is one of those rare things that's not "oh this is good but it could be gray if done for the wrong reasons" or "oh this is bad but it could be gray if done for the wrong reasons" it's very "no. This is not ambiguous. Throw the whole person away"

- far less forgivable than mass genocide, however, is how he's not down bad for misa

- like??? The only reasons I can think of for him to have been written like this are

- 1) he's gay or ace and they wrote him like that as queer coding and secret representation

- cuz i know that there are many characters like that and you will never KNOW if he is or isn't

- unless like the mangaka... What's his name... Comes out on Twitter and says so

Mini tangent

- i can not for the life of me remember asian names

- i was practically raised by anime and i still can not remember them

- does not matter how much I love the character or person. I will forget it at least once or twice

- every time someone mentions a mangaka i have to check the database

- i think it's mainly because I haven't learned any asian languages, and that's the only reason I'm referring to them as asian and not specifying, because asian languages have a lot of common denominators that they don't share with western ones

- anyways I can't pronounce them so I can't remember them

- or i think I can pronounce them and then the real pronunciation is just waiting to pounce on me and make me feel like an idiot

- had that ever happened to you? I mispronounced the word cicada until I was... 17

- i was walking with my best friend outside

- which never happened because we were hermits and we never left the cave

- and I'm like "oh you can hear the ciSAHdas"

- and he was like "..."

- "you can hear the what?"

- and it's funny that out of the two of us, the AP student was the one that didn't know how to pronounce ciSAHdas

- did i just say that right? Fuck

- ciKEIdas

- anyways Carson did not do well in school, because he's the type of person that, if he does not give a fuck, he simply will not do whatever you ask

- no matter what reason you have

- so the old ass institution that "educated--

- mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell!

- "educated" millions of people crumbled at his feet, like the true being of chaos that he is

- although you could argue that it didn't do me any favors either, since, well, here i am

- and at least he knew how to pronounce cicadas! Damn!

Death note (ctd)

- anyways back to death note because we weren't FINISHED

- so he's gay or ace. My vote is for gay because of his relationship with L

- and L was another character that was treated poorly, he's way better than the early death that he got because he decided to be kind and less suspicious and i HATE that they did him like that

- for a show called death note they really did get death wrong

- funny how everyone around light ends up dying horribly

- you could argue that's because of the death not but I like to think it's because he's just that shitty of a person

- so back to light and how he's super fruity, there's actually a scene where misa is throwing herself on him as usual

- and i don't remember what she's saying, like i can't remember most of her lines

- and i don't know if that means I like her more or less than i would have

- anyways she's saying something suggestive to him looking hot as usual and he starts thinking about L

- like LMAO

- bestie, the closet is made of GLASS

- it is transparent. We can all tell

- 2) reason he could be written to treat misa like that is because it's a ha ha funny that he can't be bothered to give her the time of day, when she's a model

- he's murder sexual. He wants world domination, not pussy

- this is also a reason he could be considered ace but I just think an enemies to lovers with L is more interesting so that's my personal favorite

- anyways there's another scene where she's once again chasing after this toxic ass man

- which. Her main flaw is her absolute dog water taste in men

- so she's trying to get him to like her

- and he thinks

- LMAO

- he thinks "never before have I been provoked to HIT a woman"

- and he says it exactly like that

- which is hilarious for many reasons

- first of all

- i don't BELIEVE you

- you mean to tell me?? That with HIS PERSONALITY?? no woman had ever pissed him off as much as one being in love with him

- which, by the way, gay

- i would like to think this is possible not because of the previously mentioned "maybe he was a good person before given this power" bleh bullshit

- but because all the women had understood he was a fuckwad before interacting with him

- like they sent it to the group chat. The group chat? Yeah the group chat

- they were like bro. This dude? Bad news

- walk parallel to him at all times. Do NOT intersect

- cross the street if you see him walking towards you

- this is also why i like to think incels exist

- like they were already going to be bad and women just knew that and avoided them

- an alternative theory to the group chat phenomenon is that women instinctively knew. Like an edm... That's not the right word

- i know the word and that's not the right word

- e d... e p...

- like the thing you throw out as like a pokeball and it just makes all the electronics stop working

- like they take a break

- electromagnetic... Pulse... EMP!

- so that was sent to every woman's brain instinctively and they just avoided him

#death note #death note misa #death note light #this is objective garbage but i need someone to be forced to read this

[kashuan]

Helen's whole story is very ambiguous... I always believed she did not want to be with Paris but instead returned to Melanus. But some say she did love him??? What's your opinion??

Agreed, there’s a lot of ambiguity in what canon we have to work with, but my take has always been that there’s a few major points that need to be made to agree

1) Helen was allowed to choose who she wanted to marry in one popular variation of the myth, and she chose Menelaus

2) Given how the Trojans, namely Hector and Priam, are essentially written as noble characters, it seems unlikely they would support Paris kidnapping a woman against her will who actively wanted to return home

3) Paris’ characterization to me always came off as dumb but well meaning. I can’t picture him as the type to cruelly hold a woman against her will especially given how high a price his family and people pay (that honor is later given to Deiphobus, btw)

4) Yet Helen also scolds Paris after his fight with Menelaus in the Iliad while praising her former husband. Earlier, she also expresses how much she misses her home and daughter. So we know that at least by year 9 she is Done with being married to Paris, but who knows about year 1-8.

5) In the Odyssey, there isn’t a sense Helen or Menelaus’ marriage is unhappy. Certainly we can tell Menelaus himself is unhappy due to some very obvious PTSD, but it doesn’t seem directed at their marriage or Helen herself. At the same time, Helen never speaks of the Trojans like they were her heartless captors, in fact Menelaus even recalls the story of Helen trying to aid the Trojans and lure the Greeks out of the horse. Which to me doesn’t really paint her as not wanting to leave so much as not wanting the people who sheltered her for the past ten years to die horribly in a surprise attack? Menelaus must get that since there’s no tone in his story that he resents Helen for it. Nor is there any hint from Helen as it’s told that she secretly wishes the Greeks had been the ones to die and saved her from the misery of being Trapped in Sparta (modern adaptions really want to convince us this is true though).

Thus, to make these fairly consistent details agree, to me the only explanation is that it couldn’t have been as black and white as either Sad Captive Helen or Romeo and Juliet Helen/Paris. I’ve talked about this a little before, but I personally headcanon that it’s a demi-god thing (bc it’s most certainly a god thing) that loving multiple people is in their nature. Because all of their feelings are Bigger feelings than their mortal counterparts— rage, love, etc. That’s how I see Achilles w/ Pat, Iphigenia, Deidamia, Penthesilea, how some of those relationships could exist concurrently… so it makes equal sense to me that Helen could have had strong feelings for both Menelaus and Paris (and maybe someday soon I’ll go into my own Theseus hcs :^))

That said, I also hc that she never loved Paris the way she did Menelaus, after all she only knew him for a short time before they left for Troy. That’s where I imagine Aphrodite came in. Like, we know that since she promised Helen to Paris, one way or another there had to be some manipulation on Aphrodite’s end. If Helen was always just gonna fall in love with him naturally then what’s the point of the whole apple story. So I imagine Aphrodite basically played up those already existing feelings of infatuation and that caused Helen to agree to leave with him etc. I imagine she didn’t know Aphrodite’s role for awhile which explains why she blames herself so heavily, though by the Iliad time period she and Aphrodite have that interaction, and Helen’s anger with her is obviously proof the whole star crossed lovers H/P vs Menelaus the evil tyrant husband doesn’t work. Btw I wonder why so many modern adaptions fail to include Aphrodite’s role….hm……

So yea, that’s my take. The alternative is that Helen was either trapped in a miserable marriage most of her life, had a bittersweet ten years of happiness then went back to her miserable marriage, or she spent ten years cruelly imprisoned, and it actually would be nearly twenty years before she returned home. I mean you could pick one of those versions but as I see it, if you like her character, why would you… It takes some of the tragedy away from the story if you take out the complexity of her feelings imo and just turns into something outright bleak/depressing.

#the iliad #Anonymous

[arcticdementor]

It’s been mind-boggling to watch White Fragility celebrated in recent weeks. When it surged past a Hunger Games book on bestseller lists, USA Today cheered, “American readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary escapism.” When DiAngelo appeared on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon gushed, “I know… everyone wants to talk to you right now!” White Fragility has been pitched as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time when after the murder of George Floyd Americans are suddenly (and appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except this isn’t a straightforward book about examining one’s own prejudices. Have the people hyping this impressively crazy book actually read it?

DiAngelo isn’t the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category.

If your category is “white,” bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy (“Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities… Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness”), which naturally means “a positive white identity is an impossible goal.”

DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except “strive to be less white.” To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo’s lecturing – what she describes as “leaving the stress-inducing situation” – is to affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the “ordeal by water” (if you float, you’re a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.

DiAngelo’s writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles as Orwell’s Newspeak: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform, center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices. Ironically, Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like “AMAZING!” and “SAD!” that are simultaneously more childish and livelier.

…

It takes a special kind of ignorant for an author to choose an example that illustrates the mathematical opposite of one’s intended point, but this isn’t uncommon in White Fragility, which may be the dumbest book ever written. It makes The Art of the Deal read like Anna Karenina.

Yet these ideas are taking America by storm. The movement that calls itself “antiracism” – I think it deserves that name a lot less than “pro-lifers” deserve theirs and am amazed journalists parrot it without question – is complete in its pessimism about race relations. It sees the human being as locked into one of three categories: members of oppressed groups, allies, and white oppressors.

…

This dingbat racialist cult, which has no art, music, literature, and certainly no comedy, is the vision of “progress” institutional America has chosen to endorse in the Trump era. Why? Maybe because it fits. It won’t hurt the business model of the news media, which for decades now has been monetizing division and has known how to profit from moral panics and witch hunts since before Fleet street discovered the Mod/Rocker wars.

Democratic Party leaders, pioneers of the costless gesture, have already embraced this performative race politics as a useful tool for disciplining apostates like Bernie Sanders. Bernie took off in presidential politics as a hard-charging crusader against a Wall Street-fattened political establishment, and exited four years later a self-flagellating, defeated old white man who seemed to regret not apologizing more for his third house. Clad in kente cloth scarves, the Democrats who crushed him will burn up CSPAN with homilies on privilege even as they reassure donors they’ll stay away from Medicare for All or the carried interest tax break.

…

Corporate America doubtless views the current protest movement as something that can be addressed as an H.R. matter, among other things by hiring thousands of DiAngelos to institute codes for the proper mode of Black-white workplace interaction.

If you’re wondering what that might look like, here’s DiAngelo explaining how she handled the fallout from making a bad joke while she was “facilitating antiracism training” at the office of one of her clients.

When one employee responds negatively to the training, DiAngelo quips the person must have been put off by one of her Black female team members: “The white people,” she says, “were scared by Deborah’s hair.” (White priests of antiracism like DiAngelo seem universally to be more awkward and clueless around minorities than your average Trump-supporting construction worker).

…

The downside, which we’re already seeing, is that organizations everywhere will embrace powerful new tools for solving professional disputes, through a never-ending purge. One of the central tenets of DiAngelo’s book (and others like it) is that racism cannot be eradicated and can only be managed through constant, “lifelong” vigilance, much like the battle with addiction. A useful theory, if your business is selling teams of high-priced toxicity-hunters to corporations as next-generation versions of efficiency experts — in the fight against this disease, companies will need the help forever and ever.

Cancelations already are happening too fast to track. In a phenomenon that will be familiar to students of Russian history, accusers are beginning to appear alongside the accused. Three years ago a popular Canadian writer named Hal Niedzviecki was denounced for expressing the opinion that “anyone, anywhere, should be encouraged to imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities." He reportedly was forced out of the Writer’s Union of Canada for the crime of “cultural appropriation,” and denounced as a racist by many, including a poet named Gwen Benaway. The latter said Niedzviecki “doesn’t see the humanity of indigenous peoples.” Last week, Benaway herself was denounced on Twitter for failing to provide proof that she was Indigenous.

…

People everywhere today are being encouraged to snitch out schoolmates, parents, and colleagues for thoughtcrime. The New York Times wrote a salutary piece about high schoolers scanning social media accounts of peers for evidence of “anti-black racism” to make public, because what can go wrong with encouraging teenagers to start submarining each other’s careers before they’ve even finished growing?  

“People who go to college end up becoming racist lawyers and doctors. I don’t want people like that to keep getting jobs,” one 16 year-old said. “Someone rly started a Google doc of racists and their info for us to ruin their lives… I love twitter,” wrote a different person, adding cheery emojis.

A bizarre echo of North Korea’s “three generations of punishment” doctrine could be seen in the boycotts of Holy Land grocery, a well-known hummus maker in Minneapolis. In recent weeks it’s been abandoned by clients and seen its lease pulled because of racist tweets made by the CEO’s 14 year-old daughter eight years ago.

#matt taibbi #read the whole thing

[larstenobar]

Okay so I mentioned it in the tags but I kinda wanna talk about my experiences with So/uth Pa/rk. I say this as a cis, gay, non-Jewish man. I also say this as someone who used to actually engage with the forums on the main site. I also say this as someone who played. both the two major video game RPGs. So I am speaking not from reaction to other people’s reactions but from my own personal knowledge. This post is incredibly long so it’s under a read more. In it I provide what I believe are the actual effects of South Park on its viewership but I need to stress that I think it’s the wrong energy to blame parents for letting their children watch the show.

Don’t blame the parents, blame the show.

That show is genuinely horrible. I’ve seen a lot of people questioning how anyone could let children watch it - and to that I say you’re not adding anything to the conversation by shaming parents for letting their children watch that show. 

My own parents weren’t even out of their twenties when I watched the show, and many other parents grew up with the show as a non-issue. Young parents make mistakes.

At the time it came out and its early years only extremely vigilant parents realized how problematic the show was and the news was hard to spread without social media. At best you could inform your parent friends and hope they listened.

The show’s main characters are children, many parents found/find it hard to believe that a show with children as the main characters could be bad for those children. If the show were exactly the same but the children were college-aged then it would be another raunchy show they could easily see is not meant for their kids.

There’s a good portion of children who watched the show that weren’t actually allowed to watch it because their parents weren’t as tech savvy as them and therefore didn’t know about pirating/streaming until it was mainstream. We who grew up with YouTube knew you could put in [show] episode 1 part 1 and start watching. (this is gonna be another point later btw)

I know that it’s hard for you guys to even know all the reasons it’s problematic because you all barely scratch the surface of it’s problems. But before we even get into the meat of its problems (Science Denial, Homophobia, Transphobia, Ableism, Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, etc.) we have to look at the very premise of the show.

The main characters begin in fourth grade. Fourth Grade. There’s a phenomena in our culture where we believe that children saying stupid stuff is harmless, and we forget that when children hear children speak - even animated children - they are hearing their peers. And peers learn from each other. This is why the show is so insidious, because it makes it easier for children to digest the messages.

Another thing that’s very important to note is that - while it’s labelled satire, every single joke is played straight, and the straight man character (usually either S or Ky) are ridiculed by the culture they’re surrounded in. Don’t believe me? Think I’m over-exaggerating? Think about the election episode, where they had to pick between a literal piece of shit or a douche. Our Straightmen were constantly saying how ridiculous the situation was, but everyone around them was telling them they were the ones who were stupid for not particpating in the election until they eventually break and submit to the absurdity. This is a light example, but it’s the typical formula. If they aren’t actively participating in the absurdity around them, they’re ridiculed until they break. What this tells the audience isn’t that the people who were particpating were stupid, but that they were right.

Now that we’ve looked at the show premise, let’s get into the details. A note: This is just what I remember from approximately age 5-18, the latter years I’d been turned off from it slowly so I wasn’t as engaged but it was not any better then. Since this is just what I can remember without looking through episodes or looking up articles, this is going to be a small sampling of things that stuck with me. Be assured, there was much, much, much more.

Science Denial and its effects on the viewers.

This is the lightest thing I can recall, and probably going to be the smallest section as it’s mostly centered around their stand-in for global warming, a cryptid figure called M/an/Be/ar/P/ig. Al G/ore was painted as a desperate, raving lunatic for believing in the phenomena, and was even implied to be making it up by having him dress up as the cryptid. I don’t have to explain why this is wrong, but we need to look at the effect this had.

On the one hand it made fans think that Global Warming (as it’s something A.G. believed in) was a hoax. Furthermore, it made them believe that anyone who believed in it was telling lies, which was overwhelmingly the most progressive people. A direct effect of these jokes (which they apologized for but never stopped propagating btw, MBP was still a joke when I stopped watching) was that progressives were seen as over-dramatic and stupid.

Now, I am not saying people watched these shows and immediately thought “oh wow, how fucking stupid of A.G. I don’t believe in climate change anymore.” It’s more like this: “Oh haha, S thinks A.G. is annoying, I like S so I agree, A.G. is annoying. You know, A.G. is kinda annoying with all that global warming, maybe there’s something to him being over-dramatic? Gosh why can’t these progressives see that it’s not that big of a deal. If they trust A.G. then they MUST be blowing other things out of proportion.” That’s the thought processes it trains its viewers to have.

LGBT+ Characters

Okay so there’s actually a lot of things that go into the Homophobia of S/P. And it goes back to the very beginning of the show, and is both explicit and implicit. There is a huge problem with these, but the main problem isn’t so much that they exist, but the show’s attitude towards their own ‘jokes’ and the ways in which fans suck up that thought process.

Before I get into this, there were some things that I need to say in favor of the show - not because I think the show deserve praise, but because there were some things that I latched onto and showed a surprising nuance. There’s like one thing, really but it is, of course, attached to something that’s a much larger issue within the show, so while it is a small glimmer, it’s in no way outshining any of the problems in the show.

For a while, the teacher underwent gender reassignment when he (the teacher currently identifies as male from my last interaction with the show) got breast implants and presumably bottom surgery (I vaguely remember a surgery but honestly that could be an invention) he was in a gay relationship. His then boyfriend had a very heartfelt and difficult conversation about how he still cared about him and how he’ll never hate him for being the woman that he wanted to be, but there was no way that he could pursue a relationship with him. I thought that this was a very mature depiction of a very difficult situation that is never really talked about. However, as I implied earlier, this is attached to a larger issue. Before any of you start having second thoughts about your ideas about S/P’s portrayal of gay and trans people, immediately after getting broken up with the teacher became violently homophobic as a backlash, I vaguely recall a group being formed.

Our main examples of LGBT individuals in the show are these big four (five?):

The afforementioned teacher

The teacher’s boyfriend, who wears leather gear at school and can’t stop talking kink even in front of the child characters

A character called B/ig G/ay A/l who is just as stereotypical as his name implies.

T/weak and C/raig, who are classmates of the focal characters. There’s a lot of reasons this is problematic, none of them being the age of those involved in the relationship - but the portrayal of them is hugely problematic.

Since I’ve already touched on the teacher, we’ll get into them first. When he was introduced, he was a sort of ambiguously gay character who was very bitchy and spoke with a slight lisp that eventually became a canon gay character with his relationship with the Kink Character. He was violently hateful towards his class, verbally abusing them all the time and often particpating in bullying children. Furthermore he’s seen as incompetent. This is problematic not because he’s a gay man doing this (though it’s not great either) but because this taught children that teachers don’t care about them and that they shouldn’t listen to them because they don’t know what they’re talking about anyways. This goes into their anti-intellectual stance mentioned earlier. It enforces the idea that education systems are useless, not because of the institutional problems they have with racism, but because of the incompetence of the system.

Going back to the point of this, still with the same character, let’s further explore the problems they had when the teacher had an arc as a trans woman. Honestly, I didn’t pay much attention to it, but the show made a point to let you know that the other characters were uncomfortable when Mr. G became Ms. G. The most damning thing about this, however, is the fact that Mr. G detransitioned bc he realized he wasn’t a straight woman, just a gay man. I think this is problematic because it frames transitioning as a sexual strategy. I don’t think I have to go into detail on why that’s problematic. And while this isn’t actually a tie into how horrible their handling of this character is, it should be noted that he’s the character that went on to be their T/rump stand-in.

The next character is the Kink Man.

God, the character’s personality isn’t actually all that bad. He’s loving and caring and empathetic and actually usually on the right side of topics, but. He doesn’t separate his kink from his personal life. He’s always strutting around in leather-daddy gear and has a lisp. His name is literally Mr. S/lave. There was an episode where he shoved a hamster in his ass. To viewers, he represents the dirty gays that keep shoving their sex-life down their throats - and this view is never, ever, ever subverted, so since the show never makes fun of people for having that view it reinforces that idea in their minds.

Honestly the least problematic character of the LGBT characters that I mentioned was BGA. He’s still a stereotype, yeah, he has a gay dog and is super flamboyant and constantly talks about how proud he is but honestly that’s not really all that bad. I can’t directly recall anything bad about him except that he’s incredibly flamboyant, speaks with a lisp, and loves to call things he owns “BGA’s Big Gay [noun].” Relatable. That doesn’t mean there was nothing problematic, it just doesn’t immediately come to me.

Now, for the next most problematic “representation” in the show. First, T&C showed no signs of actually being gay before. I do recall them both being my favorite characters before they became a couple, however. T is a coffee addict which has some suspect aspects we’ll get into later, and C used to flip everyone off. This was why they were my favorites. They became gay literally when fangirls started shipping them in the show. I’m sure there was an actual fandom movement, but their getting together was incredibly forced - that was part of the joke btw, that gay shipping is always forced. What’s horrible about this is that this was in an episode about ya/oi.

Now, let’s try to dissect this issue. First off, what this tells viewers is that being gay was not a natural part of who they were, but was an active choice (if you’re being kind) or something society forced on them (if you’re not.) The two were actively fighting with the narrative that they were gay and in a relationship. I think their actual agreement for being boyfriends was more of a mutual public display than an actual relationship, but it’s a fuzzy memory because that whole episode felt like a fever dream.

What’s worse about this, is that the show actually displayed ya/oi depictions of these children within the show. Nothing NSFW, but clearly sexually charged situations were definitely shown. At the time, they were 5th graders. 9/10 year olds for those not in the states. This emboldened actual CT shippers “If the show could do it, then so can I” was the general mentality on the forums I was on. So we can talk on pedophilia to reasons why this show is awful.

And those are just the named recurring characters. Another commonly recurring character is a prostitute with a deep voice who is very sloppy looking that, from my recollection, is implied to be a transwoman. This might have just been a conclusion I drew when I was young however - but even that is reason to be critical of the character, that such a conclusion could even be drawn means it might have played a factor in the character’s inception.

They also “Solved Overpopulation” with a gay orgy. I don’t have the language to define why this sat so wrong with me, but I remember being very deeply hurt by it. I think it has something to do with the idea that homosexuality is a choice and that it should only be accepted because of the potential benefits it has for population control.

Islamophobia and Racism

Okay so I’m just gonna come out the gate by saying that they fought hard to depict the prophet Mohammad. Like, hard. And they did it twice - one time went almost unnoticed but the second had a huge backlash from the Islamic people. For those who aren’t aware, it’s sacrilege to depict Mohammad. It’s like desecrating a church, maybe worse - I really have no frame of reference for how bad it’s viewed, but however bad it is, it still boils down to being a strict taboo that S/P broke not once, but twice.

Now, as I keep reminding, my memory gets hazy for many things, especially things I wasn’t aware of being insensitive early on. I have vague memories of terrorists being depicted in traditional Sikh garb, and similar instances of directly relating Islam with terrorism. I don’t recall the show ever making fun of anyone for relating Muslims with terrorism, for all those fans out there saying they make fun of everyone.

There was an episode where the characters wore blackface. There’s a black character literally named t/oken b/lack. Sure, that could be satire and maybe even be defended if they subverted the trope, however it should be noted he’s not the only black character in the show! There was an episode where there was a child adopted from Africa whose name escapes me - he was emaciated and devoured food at an alarming rate and generally was a nuisance if I remember correctly.

There was an instance where one of the main character’s father was on Wheel of Fortune. The category was people who annoy you. the letters on the board were ‘N_ggers.’ You know where this is going, the father said the N-word. The word was really naggers, but the rest of the episode was a sympathetic journey with him dealing with being ostracized. He became known as an ‘n-word guy’ which was treated as a worse term within the universe. I say this because a law was passed where the phrase was outlawed and they said you had to have a space of at least 5 words between ‘n-word’ and ‘guy’. Also, the n-word was said multiple times by a number of white characters. Now, I know the argument people make about this episode. They say that we were supposed to find the scanario ridiculous, but the issue I take with it is more that we’re led to feel sympathetic to racists who’ve had their lives ruined for being racist. That’s the issue with South Park’s brand of ‘satire’. It satirizes one issue, but doesn’t touch on the problematic things used to support that satire.

Almost every single Mexican character is a stereotype of some sort. Either a laborer who can barely speak English, a gangbanger, or some other stereotype. There was an episode where they had C’s hand become a famous Latina popstar by singing about Mexican Food themed songs, like the actual songs ‘T/aco F/lavored K/isses’ and ‘T/aco B/urrito’. The hand’s name was Jennifer Lopez, I don’t know of these songs are direct parodies bc I’ve only heard Jenny From the Block.

And while S/P tends to stay away from very direct anti-black jokes, they don’t shy away from other races. There’s an asian character whose business is called ‘c/ity wok’, but he always pronounces it ‘shitty’ because the joke here is ‘oh haha asians have funny accents’ and literally nothing else. I honestly believe that asians receive the WORST treatment on S/P when it comes to facing racism, but I’m not qualified to make that claim. Other examples of anti-asian racism: There was an pokemon episode where they said that Japan was using anime to indoctrinate youth, they literally had the kids operate fighter jets to make an attack on the U.S. What’s worse about this, is that whenever the Japanese execs were questioned about this, every time, they dropped their pants to show how small their penises were and how they should be pitied for it. Another instance, I very strongly remember a depiction of asian characters as being lemon yellow with eyes like this: \ /. There was an episode where they had Asians violently murder whales with glee. They lean into anti-asian racism so much harder than any other form of racism - the only thing they’re worse about is their antisemitism, which will get its own section later.

Antisemitism

God there’s so much. Jew Gold, nazi imagery, the entirety of c/a/r/t/m/a/n as a character and there are so many posts on this website by people much more qualified than me to delve into what exactly is wrong with this and the depictions of it, so I’m mostly just going to catalog what comes to mind and then speak about the actual factual instances of S/P inspired antisemitism I’ve witnessed and been party to.

There was an episode devoted to Jewish people having a secret bit of gold around their necks. This was proven true in the universe when Ky gave up his ‘J*w Gold’ to C.

Ky’s mom is such an overbearing harpy who bulldozes over everyone, this was later explained as her having Jersey-Blood (yes this was a Jersey Shore joke) but before that it was completely because she was a proud Jewish woman.

Ky’s father is depicted as weak-willed and piddling. He always wears a yarmulke no matter the situation.

Ky is often depicted as being whiny and non-commital

OF ALL THE CHARACTERS, KY IS THE ONE WHO IS DEPICTED AS A HYPOCRITE THE MOST

Ky’s cousin with the same name is depicted as in poor health, complains about everything, whines about things not being fair bc they don’t go his way, and has caricatured Jewish features

As mentioned above, there are hosts of Nazi imagery associated with C

C has said every Jewish slur I have ever heard. In fact he introduced me to the concept of antisemitism

Ky, in a Christmas episode, is depicted as wishing he could celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah is depicted as a sort of consolation prize that’s Not As Good.

Ky’s father was an internet troll, and the trolls were. literal trolls. with certain features that are not great.

The following image is the Prophet Moses:

And there’s more and more and more. I will not accept anyone saying that this is just jokes because I know firsthand how insidious their treatment of Jewish people is because this show literally made me think it was okay to engage in Antisemitism. I made greedy jokes, like saying a got J**ed when i was screwed over, or that someone who was being greedy was being a J*w. I am not proud of this, and I think I grew out of it relatively quickly as I dropped that language in middle school.

But not everyone did. Even some of my closest friends were still saying they got J**ed when we were graduating high school. There were no Jewish people at my school, so there was no humanizing face for the Jewish people for us. Thank god for the Nanny or who knows what kind of person I’d be now. There were people even worse than me, I should mention. There was one person in my school who literally used J*w as a stand-in for loser because of this show. This show was the only interaction with the Jewish faith that most of my classmates ever had, and the same is true of many rural towns in America who have only Protestant populations.

Fatphobia

All the most unlikeable characters are fat. C. Ky’s mom. The gun-toting republican. And there are other specific episodes where they equate fatness to not being healthy. In their episode partnered with WoW (don’t forget that happened, y’all) the main antagonist was depicted as a no-life having loser and he was, surprise, fat. This show draws a very direct line between being fat and being unlikeable.

Sexism

God, the portrayal of women is so horrible, literally my only entry here is going to be one single link:

Note all the other isms depicted in this btw.

Substance Abuse

The prostitute mentioned in the LGBT section would wander into scenes screaming about how she wanted crack. There was an episode where they created a league of basketball players who were comprised entirely of ‘crack babies.’ I’m being generous by not putting that in the racism section because most of the babies were BIPOC which says something about the kind of people that M/att and T/rey think are addicts.

The character T/owelie is supposed to show an addict, but his addiction is literally just weed which means they’re claiming weed is addictive.

I can’t even begin to describe the show’s relationship to alcohol. As a child of an alcoholic, I can say that it’s not fucking cute that they made S’s dad a violent drunk. It’s genuinely scary to see your parent fly into a rage because of their alcoholism and them reducing it to a joke was, I think, one of the points where the ‘it’s just a joke’ mentality started to break for me personally. 

While we’re on the subject of parents, C’s mom was literally a crack addict who was also a full service sex worker. The correlation is not sympathetic in the slightest. And even worse was Ke’s parents. They were depicted as abusive, neglectful, drug-addicted rednecks. This was sometimes played to make you sympathize with Ke, and it worked because even now I can hardly think of how Ke himself was problematic rather than the situations he was in. (He’s the one who gets gruesomely murdered every episode) I don’t know if this is because of selective memory, if he was genuinely just the least problematic in the show, or if I’m waxing nostalgic for the show. Regardless, as I said, his situation was mostly played for sympathy. However, it was also played for jokes almost as often.

Pedophilia

The children are put in sexual situations a nonzero amount of times, they make priest molestation jokes, and they made jokes about MJ.

Slurs

Yeah they said them a lot. There was the aforementioned N-Word Guy episode, but there was also an episode that thinly mirrored immigrants coming to America for work and the people (time-travelers) were called ‘Goobacks’. I think the word ch*nk was used a nonzero amount of times, C used every slur for Jewish people in the book. None of these were censored by the show, any censoring was done by networks.

Why make this post?

Because I know people know this show is garbage, but I think it’s important that people know why it’s garbage with specific and nonspecific instances of why the show was problematic.

[noddytheornithopod]

SU or P&F for the media hyperfixation ask! Choose your favorite questions. I can’t decide which to pick.

Okay, will answer whatever I feel like (or rather, what’s easy enough, if anyone wants to challenge me then be more direct :P).

Steven Universe:

📌 how did you find your hyperfixation? Like many, I found out about SU because of tumblr and everyone getting excited over Jailbreak when that aired. I didn’t bother watching the show for a while, but the fact I kept hearing so many good things about it ended up with me having to consider it eventually. I finally gave it a shot about six months or so later, and I instantly fell in love with it.

✨ what draws you towards your hyperfixation? what is interesting about it? For me, I think really the core of what draws me to SU is that I don’t think I’ve come across any story this emotionally intelligent? Like, people will always talk about complex characters and moral ambiguity, but SU is probably the story I’ve seen do it best. The writers have outright said they don’t categorise characters into good or evil and just focus on who they are. This ends up with a cast where pretty much even the most minor characters can have nuances and feel fleshed out, and the characters all end up with so many interesting relationships. I’d also say the fact that even with this complexity, the fact that the show always aims for a positive outcome is especially commendable. I like angsty and dark stuff myself, but when you make sure it stays hopeful and try to send positive messages through it, it ends up making something really touching.

🏳‍🌈 do you have any headcanons (lgbt, race, neuro, etc) that are important to you? Nothing too strong, but I do find myself as an Autistic person with strong connections and relatability to characters like Peridot, Pearl and Onion. I also think Steven is neurodivergent in some way, though I’m not specific on what. I’m also of the opinion that gems are technically asexual because their species has no reason to have sexual attraction. They clearly have romantic relationships as seen… all the time, but in terms of sexual orientation there’s no reason for it to be in their species because that’s now how they produce. They can still have sex and enjoy it (as implied with characters like Rose), but they don’t feel attracted to others in that way because there’s no need to. I list it here mainly because I think it’s important to remember that Gems are still aliens and probably don’t fit into human behaviours as neatly as some may assume? I mean, it’s pretty much canon that they’re technically agender nonbinary women, because despite gems not having a concept of gender as a species, they’re fine with being perceived as women even if they don’t fit human gender binaries (Rebecca Sugar even said it’s to reflect on her experience as a nonbinary woman, someone who’s okay with being perceived as a woman but doesn’t actually fit the gender binary).

🍀 do you have any kins or comfort characters from your hyperfixation? I’m not a kinner by any means, but I definitely have comfort characters. Peridot and Connie are probably my main ones, I just strongly empathise and connect with those kinds of characters (young passionate nerds :v). I think for Peridot it’s also the anxiety and just attitude and quirkiness, and for Connie it’s her background (something that really helped me) and how relationships work for her.

Phineas and Ferb (forgive me if I’m rusty here, PnF hasn’t been in the central special interest spot for a while so I’ll have to work with what I can):

📌 how did you find your hyperfixation? I believe I first spotted Phineas and Ferb on an advertisement in a kids magazine they sell in Australia called DMAG when I was 11. It stood out to me, but not enough for me to independently investigate (I mean I didn’t have Disney Channel so I couldn’t just watch it whenever I wanted). It then showed up on free to air TV eventually, and even then I found it much more interesting than all the other shows on TV.

✨ what draws you towards your hyperfixation? what is interesting about it? I guess if I had to summarise it, it would boil down to what the show kind of promotes: creativity. Phineas and Ferb is a really creative show, and that was part of its original appeal to me, I had never seen anything so intelligent or complex from a kids show at that time. Going even deeper, I just really like the characters. I think they’re really interesting is that at first they might seem one dimensional or like stereotypes, but there’s often more going on, with the show often outright deconstructing the roles the characters have boxed themselves into. Couple that with the fact that even in a comedy focused show nobody is mean each other for the sake of it, and you have a really loveable cast.

🏳‍🌈 do you have any headcanons (lgbt, race, neuro, etc) that are important to you? Many headcanons. For important stuff, you’ll most likely see me on the ship of the Autistic Phineas as well as OCD Candace headcanons, but I also think Autistic headcanons can work for all the Flynn-Fletcher kids, Baljeet and maybe even Doofenshmirtz (who I also think fits ADHD, and honestly given how similar ADHD and Autism are comorbid I see how that neurotype can apply to characters like Phineas too). I also have thoughts on all the characters’ sexualities, but one I find myself gravitating towards a lot is asexual or demisexual demiromantic Phineas, given that falling for people doesn’t seem very easy to him? I also think Isabella is some flavour of demi because it’s clearly hard for her to have feelings for someone not Phineas. Also, count me in on the trans Doofenshmirtz train.

🍀 do you have any kins or comfort characters from your hyperfixation? Phineas is actually one comfort character, believe it or not. I’m not really like him, but he’s sort of the kind of person I aspired to be? And I think it’s also the fact that despite his optimism and genius that he still has human flaws and struggles interacting with certain people (aka fodder for Autistic headcanon lol). I find myself relating to that flawed side even if most people either don’t focus on it or just treat it for lolz. I also find Isabella is one too? I guess as I grew up I ended up realising I was more emotional and sentimental than I thought I was, so I kind of really empathised with her and her struggles with her crush on Phineas. Depending on my mood, Baljeet, Candace and even Stacy can also be comfort characters with their unique issues they face (especially Baljeet, who is probably who I’m most like lol).

#ask #meme #steven universe #phineas and ferb

[septembercfawkes]

How to Write Your Story's Theme

Whenever someone says you "can't" do something in writing, I often hear instead *I* don't know how to do that in writing. For a long, long time, many writers, even professional, seasoned writers have said you can't and shouldn't write to a theme. That if you do, you'll always come off as preachy.

What they are really saying is *they* don't know how to intentionally write theme.

Theme is one of those elusive words that people often use but don't fully understand in storytelling. Worse yet, there are actually a lot of misunderstandings in the writing industry and community about it.

Here's the deal: Whatever we write communicates or teaches something to the audience, whether or not we intend it to.

During His ministry, Jesus Christ used parables (aka, stories) to teach people lessons, morals, new ideas, and change culture and ideology. Whether or not you are Christian, you've likely heard of the parable of the Good Samaritan. What is the point of that story? What is it teaching? It's teaching that we should love, be kind to, and serve everyone--regardless of nationality, religious background, culture, or whatever. Everyone is our "neighbor."

A thematic statement is essentially the teaching of a story. So for the Good Samaritan, the thematic statement is, "We should love, be kind to, and serve everyone."

Let's look at some other famous stories and their thematic statements (teachings).

The Little Red Hen: If you don't contribute or work, you don't get the rewards of those efforts.

The Ant and the Grasshopper: If all we do is have fun and entertain ourselves, we won't be prepared for difficult times.

The Tortoise and the Hare: It's better to move forward at a steady pace than go so fast we burn ourselves out.

These are old, famous fables with seemingly obvious thematic statements. Often in children stories, the theme is stated more directly. For adult fiction, it may be much more subtle.

Here are some more modern examples.

The Greatest Showman: You don't need to be accepted and loved by the world, only by a few people who become your family

Spider-verse: If you get up every time you get knocked down, you'll accomplish more than you thought possible

Harry Potter: Love is the most powerful force in the world

Zootopia: To change biases in society, you first must evaluate and work on your own biases.

Les Miserables: Mercy is more powerful than justice

Legally Blonde: Someone who is beautiful, blond, and ultra-feminine can be smart and taken seriously.

Hamilton: We have no control over our legacy.

(By the way, I realize a reuse a lot of the same examples on my blog, but it's just faster and easier than grabbing something new. What matters is that you understand the concept, regardless of example.)

Okay, so when we take English, language arts, and literature classes, we are usually just taught about thematic statements.

Which makes it difficult when you are trying to create stories, because if that's the only thing we understand about theme, and we try to write with that in mind, we often come off as sounding "preachy." As a result, many seasoned writers have actually told themselves and others not to write with any theme in mind (which has its own potential problems that I'll talk about later).

A good portion of this next section is information that comes from Amanda Rawson Hill and K. M. Weiland, because they are the two people who got me to have a clearer, conscious understanding of theme.

Okay, so we have the thematic statement, but on a broader scope, we have a theme topic. The subject or topic about which something is taught. It's the concept, without the teaching attached. It's what the theme or story is "about," in an abstract sense.

Here are the theme topics of those stories:

The Little Red Hen: Contribution and work

The Ant and the Grasshopper: Preparation

The Tortoise and the Hare: Pacing

The Greatest Showman: Acceptance

Spider-verse: Perseverance

Harry Potter: Love

Zootopia: Bias

Les Miserables: Mercy (and justice)

Legally Blonde: Being respected/taken seriously

Hamilton: Legacy

The theme topic is broader than the statement. The thematic statement is the specific teaching about that topic.

Note: People often use the word "theme" to mean either "thematic statement" OR "theme topic," which is why it can be confusing. I've done this multiple times myself, but am trying to stop. (Plus the fact my ideas on storytelling are regularly evolving, probably doesn't always help with ambiguity on my blog either)

In a strong story, the theme topic will be explored during the narrative, through plot or character or both. The story will ask (directly or indirectly) questions about the theme topic. This can happen through main characters and main plots, or side characters and subplots, or all of the above.

Let's look at some examples to illustrate what I mean.

In The Little Red Hen the theme topics of contribution and work are explored by having the red hen ask multiple characters for help (or, in other words, for contribution and work) and by having the red hen work alone. She herself is asking questions related to the topic.

In The Tortoise and the Hare, the theme topic of pacing is explored and questioned by comparing a slow character to a fast character, and as the plot unfolds, we see the choices each one makes.

In Zootopia, the theme topic of bias is explored, as a prey animal cop (the rabbit) has to interact and team up with a predator criminal (the fox), and each have biases against the other. But the theme topic is also explored in the society as a whole. Officer Hopps is told by society that she can never be a cop. Nick is told by society that because he's a fox, he must be untrustworthy. In one scenario, Hopps is trying to overcome her society's bias. In the other, Nick has given into society's bias--he will only ever be seen as a fox. Side characters and subplots explore the topic of bias as well, whether it's pitting crime on predators or dealing with nudist communities. Everywhere, the theme topic of bias is being touched on. By exploring the topic from all these different sources and perspectives, the audience is naturally confronted with questions (whether or not they are consciously aware of this). Can you succeed in a biased society, or will a biased society keep you from ever becoming what you want? In our efforts to create an unbiased society, do we criticize others' biases while remaining blind to our own? How can we create a safe, unbiased community? Are we prejudice ourselves?

Pretty deep stuff to be asking in a kid show, right? Disney is a pro at handling theme in their animated movies, so they are definitely one I'd recommend for people who want to study well done examples.

In The Greatest Showman, the theme topic of acceptance via love is explored in a similar way. As a child, P. T. Barnum is never accepted or loved by his society. His goal in life is to give the girl he loves an extravagant lifestyle, to prove to her parents, nay, to the whole world that he's worth something. Through the course of the story, he tries to do this in multiple ways: at his job, he approaches his boss with a new idea; he tries to start a museum; he starts a circus; he wants to present an opera singer to the world so that he can gain notoriety. Everywhere, the protagonist is asking for love and acceptance, and it's never enough.

But side characters and subplots explore this topic as well. Charles doesn't want to be laughed at for being small, Lettie doesn't want to be a freak for having a beard, Anne doesn't like being treated differently for being black, Phillip wants to leave high society but will be shunned, Jenny Lind never feels good enough because she comes from a low class. As we see these characters collide with other characters, and society, we are confronted with questions. Can these people ever find love and acceptance? Will they ever feel fulfilled? How can they overcome society's hate and prejudices? Are they willing to sacrifice family, income, security, personal weaknesses to get there? And furthermore, it seems that as you are finally accepted by one group of people, your are only rejected by another--can you be accepted by all circles? And does it matter if you aren't?

Often when writers fail at theme it is because they are only focused on the thematic statement. And they are therefore not fairly exploring and questioning the theme topic.

But the theme statement is the answer to the exploration and questioning, and should not be fully realized until the end.

Let's take this a step further. We have the thematic statement. We have the theme topic. But in most stories, the beginning will have or illustrate a false thematic statement. (Alternatively, K. M. Weiland calls this "The Lie Your Character Believes.") This is almost always manifested through the protagonist in some way.

The false thematic statement is typically opposite of the thematic statement.

The Ant and the Grasshopper: The grasshopper believes that all he needs to do is have fun and entertain himself, and he doesn't need to work or prepare--that's a waste of time. OR "Having fun is more important than preparing."

The Tortoise and the Hare: The hare believes if he runs as fast as he can, he will easily win the tortoise.  OR "If I go as fast as I can, I'll be most successful."

The Greatest Showman: P. T. Barnum believes if he shows the world how amazing and successful he can be, he'll be loved and accepted by all society. OR "Once you prove you are amazing, all of society will love and accept you."

Spider-verse: Miles Morales believes that by quitting everything, he won't have to deal with any expectations. OR "If I don't persevere, I don't have to worry about expectations."

Harry Potter: Because his parents are dead, Harry Potter begins as an unloved and powerless person living in a closet. OR "Death and oppression are the most powerful forces in the world."

Zootopia: Judy Hopps believes she will fight society's biases by proving to everyone else that a bunny can be a cop. OR "To change biases in society, you must start by criticizing everyone else's."

Les Miserables: Jean Valjean was thrown in prison for nineteen years for stealing a loaf of bread and when released continues to deal with extreme justice, which leads him to stealing from the church. OR "Justice is more powerful than mercy."

Hamilton: Hamilton believes he will create and build and control his legacy by never throwing away his shot. OR "If I seize every opportunity to be great, then I will leave a powerful legacy after I'm gone."

You'll notice I left out the Little Red Hen. Her story is different. From the beginning, the little red hen believes in the thematic statement--that's why she is working so hard, but the theme topic is still explored and questioned (and tested) through her interactions with the other characters. This can be done in modern stories too, but it's rarer and harder to pull off. Remember, I said writers often fail at theme when they only focus on the thematic statement, without fairly exploring or questioning the topic. In The Little Red Hen, it's all the other characters that embody the false thematic statement. They think they can enjoy the rewards without having done any work. Take note that the red hen herself isn't preachy or snooty. She adheres to her beliefs, even though it requires more of her (because no one will help, she has to do more work).

In order for stories like this to be successful, we need to see the protagonist have to struggle through more adversity to adhere to the true thematic statement. Remember how the maxim goes, "No good deed goes unpunished." These stories are more difficult to write, so I probably wouldn't recommend them to beginners, but I'm not going to say no definitively. If your protagonist starts with the true thematic statement, she still needs to struggle, if not struggle more.

Legally Blonde is similar. Elle Woods fully believes she can get into law school and get her boyfriend Warner back, despite everyone around her saying Harvard won't take someone like her seriously. Throughout the movie, Elle is constantly told she just isn't "serious" enough. However, her story varies from the red hen's, because as the theme gets questioned and explored she eventually reaches a point (at Plot Point 2), where she succumbs to the idea that no one will truly respect her, when she says something along the lines of, "All people will ever see of me is a blonde with big boobs. No one will ever take me seriously. Not even my parents." But once she receives her "final piece to the puzzle," she returns to and proves the thematic statement that someone can be beautiful, ultra-feminine and smart, respected, and taken seriously.

So the Little Red Hen and Legally Blonde are rarer variations, but keep in mind that they still legitimately question, explore, and test the theme topic (this is key).

In most stories, the protagonist starts with the false theme statement and ends with the (true) theme statement, a process that typically comes about through the main character arc. (You can read more about this specifically here).

So here is how the theme may fit in, in story structure.

Beginning:

Protagonist believes or illustrates the false thematic statement.

Middle:

The theme topic is explored through plot and characters having different experiences and providing different outlooks.

This will lead to questioning: It leads to the audience questioning. In most stories, it leads to the protagonist questioning. After all, he believes in the false thematic statement, and maybe after these encounters, he's unsure how true it is.

(Also worth noting, the middle may test and disprove wrong thematic statements other characters have.)

The middle is the "struggle" part of the theme, and on Freytag's Pyramid, the rising action. We are struggling to come to a better understanding of the theme topic.

At the second plot point, the protagonist may have an epiphany (the true thematic statement) or at least a turning point, where they now take on, embody, or demonstrate the true thematic statement.

Note: In some rare stories, the protagonist may not embody the true thematic statement, which will result in a tragic end for them. If the thematic statement is true, then they can't "survive" (literally or figuratively) if they don't learn to adhere to it. (If they "survive," that means that what you thought the true thematic statement was, was probably just another false thematic statement, and you got them mixed up somewhere.)

Note: Also, the true thematic statement may be stated prior to the ending, but the protagonist will not fully realize or embody it until the end.

Ending:

The climax of the story is the ultimate test of the final, true thematic statement--does it hold up to the test? Is it proven to be true? If it's the true thematic statement, it must.

In the denouement, the true thematic statement is further validated. We proved it true in the climax, now we must validate and show its effects. This can be very brief--one example--or it can be validated again and again through multiple examples.

It's worth mentioning, too, that in a lot of highly successful stories, the antagonist embodies THE false theme statement or A false theme statement (which is one of the reasons why they fail). So Voldemort can never understand that love is more powerful than death and oppression (notice that Voldemort and Harry have similar beginnings in life). In Les Mis, Javert ultimately can't live with the fact that mercy is proven to be more powerful than justice (which is why he takes his own life). However, this tactic is not a necessity by any means, just something worth considering.

Now does everyone who writes successful stories consciously know and adhere to all the things I've talked about so far in this article?

Heck. No.

Remember the first of this, where I said even seasoned writers may believe you should write with no theme in mind?

Lots of people write successful stories without even thinking about a theme.

But.

If you are aware of how theme functions, you can use that to an advantage and write even more powerful stories (and it will help you stand out from those that don't).

There are lots of stories that are good that don't follow through on this element of story structure--but I sometimes wonder: How much better and stronger could they have been if they did?

Theme is what makes a story "timeless." This is exactly why Christ's parables and Aesop's fables have withstood the test of time. Why audiences trust Disney movies for a worthwhile emotional and intellectual experience every new movie. Why classics like Les Mis or Shakespeare are still taught and studied today. Because they aren't just stories. They are perspectives on the human experience and teachings that influence lifestyle and culture. They can touch hearts and minds and shift ideology.

And even if you write a story without caring two cents about theme, it will still have a thematic statement. Because every story is teaching something--if only through action and character. But there are dangers and problems that can happen (especially in today's world), if you don't pay attention to theme at all. Take the famous children's story, The Rainbow Fish. I loved that book as a kid (and if you aren't familiar with the story, you can listen to it here), but it has problematic, unintentional teachings. It teaches that in order to have friends, you must give away personal boundaries; that you can "buy" friends; that if you want to be liked by others, you need to give them things they ask you for. Sure, it conveys that sharing makes you happier, but it has those problematic parts as well.

Did the writer intend to teach those negative things? Probably not. But in the story, they are "proven" as true thematic statements simply because of the outcome of the plot and characters.

This could get all into some really deep stuff, like minority representation, biases, culture control, and censorship, but for today, let's leave that for the university classrooms. (Not to mention, for someone learning the craft of writing, it can sometimes feel super paralyzing.)

I will say that even in stories where the writer doesn't completely care for or understand theme, even if the thematic statement is good, I sometimes find myself wondering if the theme is "underdeveloped." But that doesn't mean I still can't enjoy and support the story.

For most writers, theme isn't going to make or break your ability to get published. It's not something I would tell beginning writers to stress out about straight out of the gate. But it is something that can move you from great to phenomenal.

You don't need to know your theme topic or thematic statement to start writing. I would wager, that the majority of writers don't. Often what happens is that a theme topic or thematic statement will start to naturally emerge. Then in the revision process, you can use this article to check, develop, and strengthen the theme.

You can have more than one theme. As you are writing, you may realize that there is more than one theme topic and thematic statement. Lots of stories have more than one. Like I talked about in my story structure series, Spider-verse also has themes about choice and expectations. Harry Potter is chock-full of themes. Legally Blonde includes thematic statements about having faith in people. In some cases, one theme will relate and play into another or help refine it. With all that said, there is usually one theme that emerge as the main theme.

And that's pretty much what's worth knowing about writing your story's theme.  

#Writing tips #writing tips and tricks #writing help #writing reference #writeblr #nanowrimo #fanfic #fanfiction #writing advice #fiction writing #creative writing #theme #writing to theme #zootopia #spiderverse #hamilton #Harry Potter #legally blonde #les mis #fables #tortoise and the hare

[nerdsideofthemedia]

Bumblebee was always the plan part 2

It’s time to continue with my controversial posts. When I began writing this, it was intended to be mostly a response to arguments I see around and EF’s. Then my pretty confrontational post that had led to say to a friend “Thankfully no one reads my blog” became much bigger than I ever expected. There’s a good chance I would have gone for a different tone had I known it would get 500x the usual view of… 1, which is usually mine. This been said, it would have been a mistake. Still, I feel like I have to address some points that seem to have confused a few people and this is definitely to do that.

But first, soothing music to prevent knee-jerk reactions.

Let’s start with a claim that was kind of controversial: the suggestion that Blake could still turn out to be a lesbian instead of bi or pan as some claimed this was in itself bi erasure. I understand where this complaint comes from as bisexuality was basically considered to not exist in media, for example, Sex and the City has an episode where all the main characters but Samantha treat it as something alienating and a way to still be in the closet. Yeah, some episodes have not aged well. And I’ve lost count of the number of people that still don’t consider it a thing, even among progressive fandom like Janelle Monae’s and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend’s (I just gave you 2 bi anthems1). Just so we’re clear, even though I do think Blake is bothsexual (let’s see if someone recognizes that reference), I have to put on table of her being a lesbian as some gay people have dated members of the opposite sex for a very long time, and there’s high probability some of them were abused in said relationships. I can’t ignore those experiences (I suppose I can, but I shouldn’t and hopefully never will).

Black Sun: the ship that didn’t sail

Again, there were a few that didn’t like that I compared BB and BS, which they interpreted as a dick contest. That really wasn’t my goal. I did that because those were the ships involving Blake that had a chance to happen (Catmeleon and Enabling-abuse2 were not on the table) and I was arguing for Bumblebee having been the plan all along (which, to me, implies that Black Sun was meant to be a red herring, though I didn’t flat out say it – sorry, I didn’t think I needed to). The point was to illustrate how there had been hints for Bumblebee.

I argued for that way before volume 6 by pointing out several clues like the dance arc, the songs and the injury. At the time, someone asked me how I could know BB wasn’t the red herring. There are 2 reasons why:

While it’s not lacking in hints and foreshadowing, they are (mostly3) on the subtle side when compared to the very obvious Sun’s crush on Blake;

They’re a LGBTQ+ pairing. There are huge double standards when it comes to LGBTQ+ in comparison to hetero ones – many people will deny the first one until it’s impossible to do so. The point of the bait and switch is to have a little twist and you can’t have that if a significant part of your audience notices the switch, but doesn’t see the bait.

And if you have doubts about the last point, remember: in 6x11, Adam attacked Yang out of jealousy, then Blake held her hand while making a speech that put them as equal in contrast to Blake-Adam, a relationship where one of them constantly tried to make the other feel small (the point of the infamous speech). There were many denying BB. Then, he tried to make Yang feel insecure about Blake by telling her she had made the same promise to him and asked the super platonic question: “What does she even see in you?” and people still tried to deny it. In the last episode, Blake and Yang spent the time holding each other’s hands and yet, there were still people denying it. Not that I’m complaining, since it only increased my celebration time. It was like: episode 6x11, “yeah! Bees” for 3 days, the internet crashed my party for one, then 6x12, “yeah! Bees! This time is for sure” for another 3 days, again I had my enthusiasm dashed and finally, “yeah! Bees”. That time it stuck. So thanks guys! It would have been bad if by 6x13 I had already used all my fireworks.

If you thought BS was going to happen – that’s normal, because it was the bait. If I am aware that people tend to think of others as straight until proven otherwise, why do you think the writers aren’t? I may not live in the same country as them, but I still consume a lot of USA’s media and I know that if guy stalks girl, he usually gets her. Not to mention, the number of times media announces a LGBTQ+ character as tactic to gain some support yet deliver nothing, like saying Dumbledore is gay even though there’s nothing in the films or books indicating it (let’s leave the conversation about the “word of God” for some other time). There were more than a few LGBTQ+ people who were afraid Bumblebee would turn out to be just that: queerbaiting.

Miles and Kerry knew all of that and, more importantly, they were aware that you knew it too, so they played on your assumptions to make their bait-and-switch. However, there were plenty of hints that Sun was just the red herring and that Bumblebee was going to happen. Last time, I focused on the latter, this time let’s concentrate on the first. Let’s take a look at Sun and Blake’s relationship, shall we?

Sun was introduced in the last episodes of V1 and Blake trusted him immediately, because… he’s a Faunus. Though she told him about herself and the White Fang, he showed immediately he’s not on the same page as her as Faunus rights mean a lot to her and little to nothing to him. In 2x01, Sun talks to Neptune about Blake and concluded “and the best part is she’s a Faunus”, which goes completely against Blake’s words in the next episode “I want people to see me for who I am, not what I am”. She began going on a downward spiral to which he reacts with “Is she being all Blake-y?”, while Yang’s the one who gets through to her by exposing her own vulnerability.

Sun not fully understanding Blake is something the show hammers in our heads quite a few times even in more recent volumes. Like when he assumed she’s on her way to fight the White Fang when she was actually going to Menagerie to rest. Or suggested destroying the WF while Blake wanted to take it back.

In volume 3, they had literally no interactions besides him winking at her in the Vytal Festival – yes, she blushed, which can be explained by the fact that he did it in front of an entire stadium or that she had a crush on him. Personally, I’m inclined to the latter, but it really doesn’t mean much: not all crushes lead to something. A lot of them are a result of idealization and I think that was the case for Blake. By the way, I have to speak of Blake’s crush as likely, not certain precisely because it was never actually confirmed.

When Yang asked Weiss where Blake and Ruby were, Sun was there, yet it was Yang alone who went after Blake. The next time we saw him, it’s after their injuries and he is noticing an injured Blake grabbing Yang’s hand.

No, this shot doesn’t exist to show Sun seeing Blake injured, because he already knew that. He had just told Ruby that Yang was going to be OK, and the one who brought her there was Blake. Not to mention that if the point was to make him notice Blake’s injuries, it makes no sense for their hands to appear. Yang would have been kept out of the frame, instead of taking up more space than Blake. To me, this is the moment where Sun realizes Blake’s feelings for Yang. If the intention was for him to notice Blake’s injured, it would have made much more sense to see his face, then cut to her. Yes, they could have done the same with their hands, but this way they left it more ambiguous which was probably the intention. It would have made no sense for them to choose that if it was meant for Black Sun, because the audience was more than aware he was interested in Blake. We had been since V1 as there was never anything subtle about their relationship.

In volume 4, he flirts, Blake is usually either apathetic or downright annoyed. The exception is after the injury, and like I said, he’s the one who brings up Yang, revealing he realizes the bond between them. He is also hurt by the chick whose feelings weren’t reciprocated (I talked about that at length in part 1). In volume 5, their relationship is platonic.

Really, in spite of spending the volumes 4 and 5 together, it’s not about developing Black Sun in a romantic way.

Oh, a kiss on the cheek isn't romantic. It can be, but in the context, it was merely a "thank you".

Black Sun hasn’t sunk yet

While RWBY isn’t over, the possibility for Black Sun isn’t completely gone, though I don’t think I’m lying when I say it’s unlikely. You can like it more than Bumblebee, but it’s all right to admit it’s improbable. We (almost) all have been there. For crying out loud, in MHA, I sort of ship Kacchako4 (loses 2/3 of her readers – and that’s why this piece of trivia was originally intended to appear much later).

After everything he’s done for her (that she didn’t ask for)

This is usually phrased in a disgusting way.

There is a lot to unpack here.

First, it’s ridiculous to think you can be owed love/getting into someone’s panties. You can’t. People either love you/want to do you, or they don’t. If you want to do something for someone else, great, but do it because you want to and like (not necessarily in a romantic way) said person or because you’re altruistic – don’t expect a reward. This is what you sound like to us:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWFfrQtHag0

You wanted the guy to get the girl, fine. You know you can watch that in almost everything else, right?

Second, it’s idiotic to associate getting the girl with masculinity or not getting her with being “cucked”. If your notion of being a man is tied to getting someone else, that’s on you. If you need someone else to feel good about yourself, maybe you have some underlying issues to address (another reference to Crazy Ex-Girlfriend – watch the show, especially if you’re making comments like the one I showed: you need it. I feel like the narrator in “S.O.B.s”).

Third, even by the logic of “after everything I’ve done for you”, Sun doesn’t win, because Yang paid a much bigger price: she lost an arm and had PTSD while he had a minor injury from which he had basically recovered by the next episode. This isn’t a “Yang deserves her” either – that argument is nonsensical no matter the pairing being defended, I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t even favor BS.

By the way, I noticed that a few people completely missed the point of why I compared Yang’s injury to Sun’s and think I did it to indicate Yang deserves it more or to win (?). It’s a bit confusing because I flat out say why I made the comparison, but here it goes again: it’s not to say Yang deserves Blake, but to indicate that, in fiction, we usually associate romance with higher stakes. I literally wrote:

“I think Yang’s and Sun’s injuries are everything I should need to prove the likelihood of BB as they contrast the two main Blake ships: Bumblebee and Black Sun. While heroes tend to save many people who are indeed just friends or sometimes not even that, there’s a reason why Superman and Spiderman usually include Lois Lane and MJ (or whoever the love interest is in said film) in the climax – it makes it more personal, raising the stakes. From this perspective, it’s easy to understand the importance given to either by comparing: what the injury was, who caused it, why and Blake’s reaction, thus allowing to conclude which couple was given more weight.”

“[…] point Bumblebee as the first one is more associated with romance.”

That was me explaining what the points were as well as why I was comparing the 2.

And yes, paying attention to dramatic weight is completely valid, we are talking about fiction after all. It’s not like we accidentally walked in on a guy threatening a gal and saying “I’ll destroy everything you love… starting with her” as another woman appeared in real life. Things happened the way they did because writers (editors, directors, etc.) wanted them to. 

Don’t pretend you didn’t know that it’s relevant that the one who caused Yang’s injury was Adam, Blake’s ex-boyfriend, while Sun’s was caused by Ilia, the friend whose feelings weren’t reciprocated, and that it doesn’t say anything about the links Adam-Yang and Sun-Ilia. I lost count of the number of BSers who wanted Sun to fight Adam and wanted him to be the one taking Adam down (even though it got in the way of Yang’s closure), which shows many of you were perfectly aware of the importance of said connection.

As for the dyke representation… (the fact that they phrased it that way is very telling) if it was just that, then any lesbian couple would do. RWBY is about 4 female characters. Seriously, how come people never ask themselves why this one is so popular, even though Yang and Blake aren't the most popular characters? From what I've seen, Weiss and Yang are.

The claims of “pandering” and “SJW” have been raining for a while and I expect them to continue until they realize CRWBY can’t be bullied into erasing BB. Count on that to happen whenever a show reveals a main character is LGBTQ+ mid-series (unless it’s a particularly progressive show). If your reaction to seeing LGBTQ+ characters is to call it “pandering”, it says a lot about you, none of it good.

I know that we perceive straight white male as default. This is so entrenched in our culture that the first Transformers didn’t have any female transformers because the writers thought it would require an explanation. Yup, apparently you need an explanation to include half of the world’s population.

I suppose screaming “pandering” is better than to pull an EF and say “Bumblebee was and is the safest LGBTQ ship they could have done. Lesbian couples are the safest representation a show can make […] It’s more comfortable to see woman on woman action just because of how fantasized they are”, which:

doesn’t justify why BB is the safest LGBTQ+ couple as there are a ton of lesbian couples possible (White Rose, Checkmate/Monochrome, Freezerburn, etc.);

fails to consider the high number of LGBTQ+ women in RWBY when compared to LGBTQ+ men probably has something to do with the fact it has more female characters;

when did we see woman on woman action in RWBY? How did I miss that episode?

if lesbians are so appealing to straight men, how come they’re the ones whining the most about BB?

The whole straight-men-like-lesbians while being the ones complaining about them is particularly odd to me. It doesn’t sound like they like they are spending their time wrapped up in sexual fantasies. Maybe they are and can't stop. And that's why they don't like Bumblebee anymore... Poor things... But really, it just sounds like they need some kind of… safe space.

You can tell them not to worry. They still have most shows/books/films. And for the next 2-4 decades, they'll be able to count on Disney (taking shots at it since my very first post).

As usual, the original.

More RWBY posts:

Filmmaking and Bumbleby

Bumblebee was Always the Plan

Bumblebee was Always the Plan part 2

Faunus and the White Fang: The Portrayal of Racism

BB & Renora

Weird Post on Weiss’s Clothes

Foils: Adam and Yang (this one is in wordpress; it was my first one and I didn’t have Tumblr then)

Let’s talk about Adam Taurus (I didn’t post this one on Tumblr because the title and tags could lead Adam fans thinking this was about “his wasted potential” when really it defends the decision of killing him off and explains why it happened)

1 “Make me Feel” can also be taken as a pan anthem as Janelle as identifies as such (and I think she’s OK with being called bi too).

2 Enabling Abuse is what I call AdamxBlake.

3 I still consider “Burning the Candle”, V3 finale and the ship named “Pride” to be pretty obvious.

4 Not only are the odds against Kacchako (BakugoxUraraka), the shippers are considered villains who worship chaos, which is fine by me. I can’t say some part of me doesn’t enjoy being The Dark Knight’s Joker and that part is saying: “Tell me Batman, how does it feel to be the hero of a film that everyone watches for its villains?”

#Bumblebee was always the plan #bumbleby #let me 🐝 your bmblb #rwby bmblb #bisexual erasure #heteronormativity #rwby6 #bmblb #rwby spoilers #blake belladonna #yang xiao long #rwby writing #yang x blake #blake x yang #rwby lgbtq #rwby lgbtq+ #rwby bumblebee

[beccaland]

What are your opinions on the RTD era's companions' relationship with the Doctor? 'Cos personally, they bother me a little sometimes, and I was curious what your opinion was.

Yeah, they bother me a little too. I’m actually going to share some thoughts about the characters themselves, as well as their respective relationships to the Doctor. Partly, I want to do that because not to do so would be an injustice to the characters. So, here goes.

Rose (and Mickey a bit, because you can’t really separate an analysis of their characters and he’s a companion too):

Rose is a charismatic character, and I think just right for relaunching the series. She’s young and displays many of the flaws of young people, yet in other ways is more mature than other adults, including her own mum–indeed Rose is often seen taking on a role of parenting her parent. While Jackie seems content to live off the dole, Rose has a job. It’s not a particularly good job, but she seems to be given a fair bit of trust and responsibility, probably above what her official position warrants, which suggests that she’s earned the admiration and reliance of her boss–and given her home life, that’s not surprising. Rose is clearly used to having to be more responsible than her peers. She’s vibrant, curious, compassionate, and brave.

She also takes advantage of Mickey’s affection for her, perhaps without realizing it (at least at first). She’s pretty judgy generally, and she’s not above using the Doctor as well. This suggests that despite (perhaps in part because of) being brought up by an emotionally immature parent and having to take on a lot of responsibility before she was really old enough to bear it, Rose is quite selfish.

Now, as to her relationship to the Doctor, meeting him does two things for her: it gives her an apparently easy escape from a life she feels trapped in, and it gives her the opportunity to develop a relationship with someone unlike anyone she’s ever known, who seems to see potential in her far beyond what any other person in her life has ever shown (especially Jackie and Mickey), and who is both willing and able to protect her and to care about what she feels and wants. Am I saying the Doctor started out as more of a parent-substitute than a boyfriend? Yes I am. Is that kind of creepy? I think so. But not necessarily more creepy than him being her boyfriend, given the age gap.

OK, so Rose gives Mickey a kiss and obliquely tells him “thanks for nothing” before swanning off with the Doctor. By the time she comes back, a year has passed for everyone she knows but just one day for her. This causes ENORMOUS problems for Jackie and Mickey in particular, and she does seem genuinely sorry (well, sorry to Jackie–she seems mostly annoyed with Mickey’s anger AT BEING SUSPECTED OF MURDERING HER. BECAUSE SHE RAN OFF WITH AN ALIEN). This gets swiftly brushed aside by alien shenanigans, and Rose swans off again–leaving Mickey apparently in some doubt as to their relationship status. The nature of her relationship to the Doctor is also left ambiguous at this point, but she’s clearly not thinking of him as “substitute for parental acknowledgement and affection” anymore. She flirts like crazy with Jack who flirts like crazy with both her and the Doctor and both she and the Doctor seem vaguely jealous of the other’s attention to Jack. Back to Mickey meeting them in Wales, who apparently STILL DOESN’T KNOW that Rose has basically dumped him, and does she make that clear? No, but the Doctor is acting more and more like a jealous boyfriend (and really doesn’t stop treating Mickey like garbage until the poor guy saves them and stays behind in Pete’s World, thus earning his respect, I guess, and also removing the threat), and none of this is Mickey’s fault. He’s astute enough to see, at least, that the Doctor and Rose’s relationship is destructive to others.

After the Doctor regenerates, they’re 100% in couple mode, with Rose referring to the events of S1E2 as their “first date” and the Doctor happily assenting to this characterization (has Rose actually broken up with Mickey yet? Honestly can’t remember, but I don’t think Mickey knew it if she had). The Doctor and Rose have a deeply codependent relationship. We might attribute this to her dysfunctional relationship with Jackie and the Doctor’s recent PTSD. They latch onto each other like needy puppies, and this isn’t a criticism, because there are really people who fit these profiles, and they are not bad people, and it does make for interesting characters and good storytelling, but it’s by no means a healthy depiction of a relationship.

Consider, for instance, that the Doctor tries to send her away (no doubt he felt he was making a noble sacrifice, but he did this against her clear and repeatedly expressed wishes, and with the complicity of Pete). Rose ignores the Doctor’s clearly expressed wishes and comes back, which, fair enough I guess, but it all ends in tragedy anyway. So what does he do? HE BURNS UP AN ENTIRE SUN just so he can say goodbye. I mean, I’m sure he verified it was not an inhabited solar system, but seriously. In that goodbye chat, he specifically tells her that they cannot get across the barrier between universes because “the whole thing would fracture. Two universes would collapse.”

Does Rose accept the judgment of the person who is unquestionably the foremost person in either universe able to evaluate the risk of such an attempt? No she doesn’t. We learn in series 4 that even before the stars started going out, she was having Torchwood build a DIMENSION CANNON to P U N C H. A. H O L E. IN THE UNIVERSES!!! like presumably as many as it took for her to find the right one. Just so she could get back to him. AFTER HE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WANTED. BECAUSE IT WOULD DESTROY THEM. This is portrayed as romantic rather than horrific. Seriously. And then he dumps his problematic clone on her and goes back to his own universe. SO ROMANTIC. Sorry, I try not to be rude about Rose’s relationship with the Doctor. I think it’s actually an interesting dynamic that makes sense in context, but it really bugs me that so many people view it unproblematically, and it bugs me even more that people don’t imagine both Rose and the Doctor growing out of it. Like, I can’t lie: I think that’s wacked and super unhealthy, in much the same way (though to a lesser degree) as the Twilight series and its fans are, except Doctor Who is still better-written and far more interesting.

That said, I’d be willing to read a well-written fix-it fic that depicts them growing out of their unhealthy codependent dynamic while staying together romantically. TBH I’d be more interested if it were Rose and Tentoo because then it would be canon-compliant, but I’m not too picky on that point. I AM picky about it not even remotely disrespecting the relationship the Doctor had with any other companion though. And it would have to have a whole “you were so obsessed with me that you were willing to destroy an unspecified number of universes, INCLUDING THE ONE YOUR FAMILY AND BEST FRIEND WERE IN, just to see me again for a brief period of time before this universe also collapsed WITH US IN IT and honey, that’s actually CREEPY AND GROSS even though I thought it was super sweet at the time, but in my defense the universe was already ending at that point anyway and you don’t have that excuse because in your case it was PREMEDITATED” conversation because otherwise I won’t believe they’ve actually grown as people. Also it’d be nice if it were funny more than angsty (but lbr you can’t write what I’m talking about without a fair amount of angst). So, y'know, if anyone has actually written that fic lmk.

Meanwhile, there’s MARTHA.

OK so I’m on record about how awesome Martha is. This is already getting long so I won’t belabor Martha’s total awesomeness as a character, but even though I got a bit tired of dysfunctional family relationships in New Who, it was novel to see them have any ongoing family relationships at all, and Martha’s was particularly rich, partly there were so many of them for her to interact with, thus revealing lots of different facets of her character. And despite her fractious relationship with them, she remained fiercely loyal, which was an interesting source of tension between her and the Doctor, and one that diverted attention away from the dental-drill painfulness of the unrequited love subplot.

It’s super gross that the writers made her hung up on the Doctor all the way through series 3. Not because it’s ridiculous for an intelligent, perceptive, professional young woman to be hung up on an emotionally unavailable man. No, that really happens to actual human beings (and again, possibly related to serious parental issues, so it’s not even without narrative justification). Handled with any sensitivity at all, it could have made for a lovely level of complexity. What really bugs me, and I’ve also written about this before, is how the Doctor treats her like GARBAGE, and this is barely addressed as a problem that he is responsible for. In the end Martha realises her mistake in sticking around for so long, but her attempts to call out his bad behavior in the past fell on deaf ears. Martha is the rebound girl but he acts like he doesn’t even know he’s doing it. Which, IDK, maybe he really doesn’t know? Like for all his 900+ years the Doctor has little previous actual relationship experience and also he’s super blindingly hung up on his high school-esque sweetheart Rose. And it’s not just in regards to Martha’s romantic feelings that he treats her poorly. He also dismisses her VERY VALID CONCERNS about her own safety and well-being when traveling in the past for the sake of his own whims. And he brushes off legitimate questions about how stuff works. Anyway. This is well-trodden ground. As is the fact that RTD later inexplicably fobs Martha off on MICKEY, the only other black companion in the series up to that point, despite having already paired Martha off with a cute, sweet doctor who seemed like a MUCH better fit, and there literally being no narrative reason for them to be a couple in that scene.

Donna! Well, as we all know, Donna is among the best-developed companions ever.

She didn’t start out that way though. She started off as a Deeply Problematic (read: disgustingly misogynistic) Stereotype who was never meant to be more than a one-off, but CT and DT got along so well that they brought the character back full-time, and so we got a lot of deconstruction, exploration, and development of that first impression. And I’ll forever be happy we did. But even in The Runaway Bride, she had moments of surprising depth and pathos. Deep down, Donna was always better than she seemed. The fact that she was the last person (other than her mother) to realize that fact is part of what makes her so compelling.

Her relationship to the Doctor is also the least problematic, because they’re both on the same page about being platonic bffs. To be fair, part of the reason he does make sure this is clear from the outset is because he has finally realized how he hurt Martha (NOT THAT HE EVER APOLOGIZED TO MARTHA FOR THAT–for a guy for whom “I’m sorry, I’m so sorry” was basically a second catch phrase, Ten actually sucks at apologising to the people close to him). Unlike Martha, the Doctor doesn’t overlook Donna or brush off her concerns. Unlike Rose, he is not codependent with her. Donna calls him on his BS, and he listens. She helps him to face his emotional vulnerability rather than running from/shutting out potentially scary personal relationships (like with River and Jenny). The Doctor helps Donna to see that she really is brilliant and important, and she grows to believe him.

That’s not to say that Donna’s character was handled perfectly. No, indeed. Even after her first story, we’re repeatedly subjected to jokes about her desperate need for and inability to get a man. Even the Doctor, who is otherwise kind to her, takes these jokes for granted and sometimes participates in them. At the end of series 4, we’re shown that the one person in the universe that Mr. Pansexuality Personified, JACK HARKNESS has no interest in flirting with is Donna Noble, the man-hungry middle-aged slightly overweight loud temp from Chiswick. And then, of course, the Doctor denies her agency and takes away her access to the memories of everything she saw, everything she did, everything she discovered about herself while traveling with him. Just so he wouldn’t have to see her die. It was selfish of him. She made her choice and he ignored it to spare HIMSELF pain. But, y'know, at least the Doctor cheated the lottery to make her rich as a wedding present to a very attractive, kind-looking, and clearly adoring man–right before he regenerated. So she did get a happy ending.

[timeclonemike]

I watched a scene of X-Files and it fucked me up. Can we believe the conspiracies surrounding the government?

The X-Files is not the best example, either for government conspiracies or for that matter about fictional representations of government conspiracies. If you’re familiar with the ending of the Lost TV series, you know about the backlash and disappointment that so many things on the show never got resolved. The X-Files did the same thing with the overarching alien meta-plot; the rabbit hole kept going deeper and deeper and deeper until the original show ended, and a couple of characters like the guy who was smoking cigarettes all the time more or less poked fun at the show’s target demographic for expecting any sort of resolution.

The thing is, when people start following media, they do so with expectations about what they are getting into. If it’s a romantic movie, they expect romance. If it’s an action movie, they expect shoot outs, brawls, car chases, explosions, or all of the above. If it’s a horror movie, they expect jump scares, gore, and villains teleporting in front of the protagonists as they flee. And if it’s a mystery, they expect to find out whodunnit at the end. A conspiracy’s essential narrative backdrop is the same as a mystery; both the characters in the media and the viewers / readers / players don’t know something, and they keep digging until they find out. The thing is, once you solve the mystery it stops being a mystery. You have to move on to the next mystery if that’s your mediums focus. Now, this can create a problem when something becomes formulaic, if the minor villains are always defeated at the end of the episode, and the major villain is stopped just in time for next season. First, it becomes predictable. Two, writers have to come up with new and better villains all the time, with new schemes and new context for what they’re doing and a rationale for why they haven’t shown up before. This is difficult and time consuming so it does make sense for writers to want to keep things ambiguous both to protect the “sense” of mystery around a series and to leave themselves wiggle room for later seasons or books or movies.

The downside to this approach is that if you don’t resolve the mystery in a timely fashion, you run into something I call “mystery fatigue.” People have gotten invested in the early part of the story with the expectation that eventually there will be a pay off: All will be revealed, everything will make sense except perhaps one little thing that will serve as a foundation for the next season or the sequel. If writers don’t follow through on that implied promise, fans get tired of waiting and move on, ratings and sales drop, and the series might be cancelled. Mystery fatigue can happen when a writer writes themselves into a corner and tries to stall for time, when a distributor thinks that the narrative tension is the whole point of the show’s appeal and orders the creators to keep it up (this is what happened with the Spider-Man Clone Saga clusterfuck), or when the visionary behind the project is trying to subvert the whole idea of getting answers (which was apparently the rationale behind the movie Prometheus) but all three run into problems when the customers are expecting resolution. I beleive that this was the ultimate reason for the end of the original series, and it’s too soon to tell if the revived series will avoid the same mistakes.

As for actual conspiracies... I got to talking about this with a friend some time ago, and he made an interesting point. In any organization, those that are in positions of power and leadership are watched constantly, whether for economic or legal or political reasons, or even just in case a scandal breaks. If they tried to abuse their power, overtly or covertly, somebody would notice sooner or later. Meanwhile, the people on the bottom rung of the ladder don’t have a lot of authority or autonomy, so the most they can do if they want to abuse what little power they have is to game the system or steal office supplies. The group in between those two extremes are not in the public’s eye either as leading figures or as the people that the public interacts with every day as part of customer service, so that gives them opportunity to act, and their increased power in the organization gives them limited means to do so. All they really need is a goal, a motive. So most real conspiracies, no matter what their ultimate aim or specific methods, are made of people in middle management. This limits what they can do, and how much of it they can accomplish without being noticed.

And conspiracies get caught all the time. Corruption, embezzlement, sexual misconduct, racial profiling, religious persecution, and so on and so on. Every time an Internal Affairs case gets opened, or respectable newspapers end up using headlines that sound like they belong on tabloids, another conspiracy has been exposed.

And an angel gets its wings, but that’s neither her nor there. :P

[sarahcomm3p18]

Audience Studies (3P18) Blog Post #2

Week #6

This week we learned about the uses and gratifications approach to audience studies, by examining how and why individuals use the media. Elihu Katz brought up this more functional approach in 1959, by asking why people chose to consume certain media rather than what they do with it (Sullivan, p. 109). Many theories on the media-audience relationship recognize the effect that media has on an audience. The uses and gratifications approach reverses this to see how audiences actively choose media channels based on their own needs. There are five criteria for this approach which are as follows. The audience is active and the media is directed at the individual’s goals. They take the lead on choosing media that fits their needs and desires. Mass media compete with other sources of need satisfaction. Audience members are aware of their needs and motivations and can report these to media researchers. Lastly, scholars using this approach do not make judgements, rather they try to understand the audience’s choices (Katz, Blumer, & Gurevitch, 1974, p. 21). This approach made me think of watching television with my family and the needs this fulfilled for me as an audience member. 

While I was never a huge fan of hockey myself, this became a Saturday night tradition and fulfilled the social need of strengthening contact with my family. These needs are a core concept of the uses and gratifications theory and relate back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Belongingness and love is one of our needs and can be a motive when choosing which media to consume. Different media fulfill different needs which is why this theory is important to understand. If I was an audience member to a television show on my own I may choose a form of media that I personally enjoy and gain gratification simply through the pleasure of watching that show. I may also fulfill cognitive needs by consuming media that allows me to gain knowledge. These different gratifications can all come from the same kind of media. This shows how it’s important to not only study what kind of media people choose to consume, but why they choose to do so. Watching hockey with my family brings me companionship and tension release by allowing me to take my mind off of everything else and be surrounded by family. It is also an example of what Alan M. Rubin (1983) called ritualized audiences. I was using this form of media habitually to be diverted from other activities, not necessarily caring what was on TV (Sullivan, p. 117). 

In today’s society, people don’t tend to sit down all together to watch television together anymore because people can watch Netflix or other streaming sites whenever they want. This relates to this week’s journal article where it was discussed that recent advances in technology may call for changes in the uses and gratifications approach. The authors suggested four new categories of gratifications: modality, agency, interactivity, and navigability (Sundar and Limperos, 2013, p. 513). They believed these needed to be added because gratifications such as the social, cognitive, and affective needs mentioned above are not enough anymore. I was an audience member by physically sitting with my family watching a hockey game. Today, you could watch this anywhere with people who aren’t even with you. You could be part of an audience connected through technology and social media. The article states, “More advanced modalities like virtual reality can cue the "being-there heuristic” (Sundar and Limperos, 2013, p. 512). This shows how you can fulfil those same social needs and be an audience member to something without being there in person. 

Later, it was noted that the “uses and gratifications theory treats individual audience members’ encounters with media as isolated from other social processes” (Elliot, 1974, p. 252). Scholars began to research where our needs come from and how they relate to our social environment. They found that these needs are not static and change as our relationships with others change. Thinking about my audience experience with my family, I would say this is absolutely true. As I grow older and live away from family, I no longer sit with my family to watch hockey or any other television for that matter. My needs have changed and media that used to give me a sense of gratification no longer does. Media is situational and contextual, changing depending on the social and situational context (Sullivan, p. 123). James Lull (1976) did a study on families watching television in their homes, observing their behaviours. He noticed things such a gender roles and how father’s tend to have control over the television. This was the case for me as it was mainly my father who wanted to watch hockey. It was his choice of media and he got gratification from watching something he enjoys. I chose to be an audience member to this as well, just gaining a difference sense of gratification. 

Overall, learning about the uses and gratifications approach was a good way to see audience studies in a different way. Up until now we have been learning about the different ways audiences interact with media but had not taken a deeper look as to why. It made me consider why I choose certain media and what needs it fulfills for me as an audience member.

Week #7

This week’s topic was interpreting and decoding mass media texts. To do so, we study semiotics which examines the signs represented by texts. We also learned about Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model and the various types of meaning that can be portrayed through media. Semiotics has been referred to as “the study of everything that can be used for communication: words, images, traffic signs, flowers, music, medical symptoms, and much more” (Seiter, 1992, p. 23). This makes this week’s lesson a very important one. The text applies these methods to many popular television shows but what came to mind for me is the show Grey’s Anatomy. I have been an audience member to this show many times and rewatched the seasons over the years. Many of the things we learned this week made me think about decoding the messages behind the show. 

The basis of semiotics and the encoding/decoding model is finding the meaning of a text beyond just a word or image. Saussure came up with the idea that signs were made up of the signifier and the signified. The signifier being the form of the sign and the signified being the concept it represents (De Saussure, 2000). Hall had a similar idea that he described as the denotative and connotative levels of meaning. Denotative being the literal meaning and connotative being the contextualized understanding. In the show Grey’s Anatomy, the character’s experiences tend to have a more literal meaning or a sign that leads the audience to think about the connotative meaning or what the signifier is. Each episode involves new patients coming to the hospital to be treating by the doctors, who are the main characters. As an audience member, we have followed along with what is going on in the doctor’s personal lives. This allows us in the audience to take our contextualized understanding and find the meaning of the text beyond what is being shown. Each patient is a sign that signifies a life lesson for the doctors. As explained by Stuart Hall, there can be an “asymmetry” in the message the producer wanted to portray and the message the audience receives (Sullivan, p. 141). This show tends to make it fairly clear what message they are trying to get across by having the patients problems relate to the doctor assigned to them. However, texts are polysemic and can always be interpreted different ways by the audience (Sullivan, p. 142). Some audience members may watch the show and see the patient for at it’s denotative meaning without thinking any deeper. What I understand from the show, may not be what someone else in the audience understands, they may take an oppositional position. 

This week’s reading by Steven Granelli and Jason Zenor took a look at how different audience members may decode texts differently. It examines the show Dexter, where the main character is an antihero who kills people who are considered evil. This allows for different interpretations from the audience based on morality (Granelli & Zenor, 2016, p. 5061). When watching Grey’s Anatomy, my morals as an audience member often come into play when the doctors are forced to make tough decisions. A specific example of this is an episode where a serial killer who was on death row was brought into the hospital with serious brain injuries. At the same time, a child needed an organ transplant. If the serial killer died, the child got the organs. One doctor wanted to let him die to save the child while the other doctor thought this was immoral as their job is to save the patient no matter what. Personally, I agreed that since the serial killer was clearly a bad person who was going to die anyways, they should save the child. However, another audience member may see that as immoral just as some people view what Dexter does as immoral and wrong. As stated in the article, “For viewers to accept a morally ambiguous character, they have to rationalize his or her actions” (Granelli & Zenor, 2016, p. 5073). This is important to understand because texts are always going to have different meanings and when it comes to an antihero or morally questionable situation, the dominant position is not so clear. The audience may need to rationalize to be able to understand different positions and extract deeper meanings. 

Grey’s Anatomy is considered a soap opera, which has been a popular genre of television for many years. In the early 1980s, scholars studied soap operas to examine the formal structures of popular media texts and audience’s interpretations (Sullivan, p. 148). David Morley noticed how different groups of people had different interpretations of texts (Sullivan, p. 145). Soap operas tend to be very popular among women audiences. Scholars viewing this from a domestic context believe women squeeze soap opera viewing into their daily schedule of feeding children, making tea, and “half-watching” the show. It is also possible is resonates with their own lives (Sullivan, p. 148-149). This is also an example of intertextuality because the audience is relating the show to their own experiences. Most people watching Grey’s Anatomy, myself included, are not doctors and do not know much about the practice of medicine. However, we take their personal experiences and relate them to our own.

To conclude, this week’s topic was of interest to me because it allowed me to take a deeper look into the meanings of texts. We come in contact with signs everyday without thinking about what is being signified. Shows we watch everyday have a deeper meaning when we take a minute to think about it. We often interpret these signs and connotative meanings without realizing we are doing it so it was interesting to think about how this happens.

Week #8

The topic this week was media reception and rituals. We experience media in different contexts and understanding these contexts plays an important role in how we understand the media content. Audiences can view the same content in different physical spaces, social environments, and at different times. This creates completely different viewing experiences. This week’s lesson reminded me of an audience experience I brought up in my last blog post. When I watched the final Raptors game at home with a group of friends I experienced certain situational contexts. Millions of people were audience members to this game meaning that many people were viewing it in different contexts. 

We experience media content in a particular moment and space. This plays a role in how we receive and interpret the texts. The physical space that I experienced the Raptors game in was my friend’s living room. This space ties into the social context of being surrounded by my friends in a familiar location. In the 1950s, televisions were being introduced more and more into people’s homes. They were advertised as “the new family hearth through which love and affection might be rekindled” (Spigel, 1992, p. 38). For me, sitting in that room with those friends brings feelings of familiarity and happiness. These feelings all come from the social and situational context not the media itself. Audience members at the game in person or watching it in the huge crowd in Toronto would not be experiencing these same feelings of closeness. They would probably feel a lot more excitement because even though we are watching the same game, I was watching from a much smaller setting. 

Time is also an important context for media reception. I was watching the game live to keep most up to date with the score and to know who the winner would be as soon as the game was finished. This was when most people were watching it so it was shown all across the media. Now that it’s over, people are less likely to watch that game because everyone knows the final result. Unlike other shows that people may squeeze into free parts of their day. This was an event that people took time out of their day for. Everyone sat and watched it for those hours at that time for the most exciting experience. 

Our homes, friends homes and people in those homes all shape our domestic environment and our sense of self. James Lull built on this by studying how social relationships were bound to television sets in the home (Sullivan, p. 167). Personally, I am not a basketball fan and before the Raptors were in the finals I had never watched one of their games. Since my friends wanted to watch it and they invited me to their home, I watched it for the social experience. The television brought us together for conversation with friends rather than focusing completely on watching the game. This meant our media reception in this domestic space was far different from the people at the game. Sonia Livingstone studied how children are spending less time outdoors and more time inside watching TV. Also, it is now common for households to have multiple TVs including TVs in bedrooms not just the living room (Livingstone, 2007, p. 304). This means watching television has become more individualized and not as social as James Lull found in earlier years. This is definitely true but it is unfortunate because people are missing out on certain experiences. I would not have watched the Raptors game on my own as it would hold no interest. However, being surrounded by friends made me enjoy the game itself and maybe even watch future games in a social setting. This shows just how much our reception changes based on where we are and who we are with. 

The article we read this week by Kihan Kim, Yunjae Cheong, and Hyuksoo Kim examined this concept also in terms of viewing sports. They looked at how the audience’s viewing experience changes based on whether they viewed the 2014 FIFA World Cup in their home or in a theatre. They found that the noteworthy differences between these two spaces were “image size, image quality, dimensionality of image, sound quality, lighting condition, and cheering atmosphere” (Kim et al., 2016, p. 391). Since all of these factors better in a theatre setting, their study found that to be the more favourable setting. Participants in the study found the theatre setting to have “increased levels of presence, suspense, and enjoyment” (Kim et al., 2016, p. 403). The results of their study did not surprise me. It makes sense that being in a larger group of people with a better quality set up would be more enjoyable. People who went to any of the ‘Jurassic Park’ viewing spots for the Raptors probably enjoyed the game more than my friends and I sitting at home. However, they miss out on some of the social aspect of a smaller group. They stated that their study did not examine social drivers of television viewing.

At the end of the day, different people will enjoy different situational contexts for the media consumption. The people and places that surround us have a huge impact on our media reception. It is interesting to see how the same media can be received so differently based on situational factors. 

Week #9

This week we learned about media fandoms and audience subcultures. I was looking forward to this topic and chose it for my seminar facilitation at the beginning of the semester. I think it’s a very relatable topic because everyone is a fan of something and it’s interesting to learn about the different fandoms and subcultures. Some people in these groups go to extreme lengths when they are a huge fan. The audience experience I thought about this week is slightly different from the rest but it was what came to mind the most. When I was younger I used to have a Tumblr account dedicated to the various shows and celebrities I was a fan of. While this is somewhat of a producer experience, I was an audience to everyone else’s posts and fan fiction stories. I did not post much original content meaning I was more of an audience member reading other fan’s blogs. 

The word fan started out with very negative connotations and fans were often seen as social misfits or as unable to separate the fantasy of media texts from reality (Sullivan, p. 193). According to John Fiske fans started to establish a sense of ownership over their favourite media texts and engaged in interpretive play with them to move past the negative connotations (Sullivan, p. 193). Today, the term fan has expanded to mean many things and can apply to even smaller, niche media products. At the time that I had a Tumblr fan account, this was a pretty common thing to have and wasn’t met with much negativity. There are different types of fan stereotypes and I was a fairly stereotypical ‘fangirl’ at the time. I read blog posts and ‘reblogged’ photos from shows that were popular for girls my age at that time. Shows such as Pretty Little Liars and The Vampire Diaries are examples of what I was a fan of. That ‘fangirl’ stereotype could be seen as having negative connotations. However, it allowed me to be a part of a fandom and interact with other fans.

This leads into examining the social aspect of media fandom. Fans don’t just consume media like a regular audience member. They will read texts closely, reread them, and share this passion with others in various ways. I would rewatch the shows I was a fan of over and over again. I would then turn to fan created videos and stories which is why I started my fan Tumblr. Being an audience to these things never got boring since I was a fan, whereas a regular audience member likely would have been very bored. By doing all of this, you end up finding fans with similar interests who share their passions in similar ways. This creates subcultures, a notion brought up by Dick Hebdige in 1979. He argued that certain groups who dedicated themselves to a specific musical genre were “distinctive cultural entities unto themselves” (Sullivan, p. 196). This idea of subcultures is still relevant today as there are many communities of fans that create their own culture based on their fandom. When I was using Tumblr as part of a fandom it was a very common place for fans to share their passions. As an audience member, I could clearly see the different subcultures created through this. 

While I personally enjoyed being part of a fandom and being an audience to the unique stories that came out of it, it can cause problems. Some fans start to take too much ownership and forget they are not the actual producers of the content. A fan quoted in the text states, “I will never forgive Graham Williams [the executive producer] for the regeneration scene” (Sullivan, p. 199). At the end of the day, the actual producers have control and should not be attacked by fans. However, if they want to keep their fans happy they sometimes have to give the fans some power and control. This connects to this weeks reading by Annemarie Navar-Gill. The article was about a Kickstarter campaign started to raise money for a Veronica Mars movie to follow up the TV show. The campaign was created by the writer, Rob Thomas, and the lead actress, Kristen Bell. It was noteworthy because the campaign reached the two million dollar goal within 12 hours. They ended up raising $5.7 million and making the movie. This shows the kind of power that fans can have when a large fandom comes together. However, the worry here was that with over 90,000 fans donating their money, they might all have different visions on what the movie should be. They didn’t want it to feel like fan service but they still want the fans happy (Navar-Gill, 2018, p. 216). This was often the case with the shows I was a fan of. I would often watch the shows live and then check up on fans blogs to see their opinions compared to mine. For example, with the show The Vampire Diaries, they would sometimes kill off a character and then bring them back to life after facing backlash from the fans. As an audience member, I saw fans react in different ways. Some fans simply wrote fan fiction in the form of recontextualization or expanding the series timeline. Others would voice their disappointment to the show writers and producers hoping for change. 

This was a very interesting topic to me because there are so many ways to look at fans and so many different fandoms to examine. The definition and connotations of the term ‘fan’ has changed over the years and so has the way fandoms express their passions. A few years ago Tumblr was huge for fandoms and I enjoyed being a part of that. It was a lot of fun to be an audience member to people who share similar interests to me. It allowed me to see other fan’s media content and see both the good and bad side of fandoms.

Week #10

Our lesson this week was about the ways that online, interactive media has complicated our understanding of media audiences. Everyday our society seems to become more and more online-based through digitalization. The process of convergence has allowed us to place media content on many different devices. What used to define the term audience many years ago doesn’t work as well now that we can be audience members to online media. The rise of social media has created all new audience experiences. For example, a few years ago I was very into watching certain Youtubers. They were people just like me who sat down and started making videos which made it feel more realistic and personal than television. They also tend to interact with their audience. This week’s chapter explained this shift in the audience dynamic.

Digitalization of media has caused what Napoli (2011) calls audience fragmentation and audience autonomy. Audiences are being fragmented into smaller groups with the increasing amount of digital media platforms. I started watching Youtube videos a lot because my parents got rid of our cable TV. None of us really used it anymore because of all the online options available for streaming. Audiences are also gaining autonomy or control over their media consumption. This allows for the creation of user-generated content such as Youtube videos. These changes in technology are allowing for more collaboration and creativity among media audiences (Sullivan, p. 219). Henry Jenkins (2006) stated that fans participating in the creation and circulation of new content has created a “participatory culture”. This is a big part of why I enjoyed watching Youtube videos over TV shows. Most Youtubers that I watched ended their videos by asking for future video suggestions from their viewers. This gave us in the audience a chance to see the media content we want to see. I found that the more often a Youtuber interacted with their viewers and listened to their suggestions, the more popular they would become. The Youtubers with millions of subscribers were the ones constantly interacting with their audience all across social media. As an audience member, it feels good to be seen and have your ideas heard by someone who’s content you enjoy. 

According to Gannes (2006), Youtube’s social features that allowed for the easy sharing of videos is what set them apart from their competition. When I was watching a lot of Youtube videos, my friends were as well. We watched similar types of videos and often used these features to share videos with each other. This allows Youtuber’s content to spread quickly without them even doing anything. Since Youtube became so popular, many people I knew started making Youtube channels of their own. It became possible to create and upload content that could easily go viral and make someone famous right from their own home. I watched some people’s videos that seemed completely different from their personality in real life. I realized that people could use this to be whoever they wanted and share that with the world. 

This idea of audiences interacting more with media applies to many things as well as Youtube. We also learned about how online gaming has become extremely popular as it allows for an interactive experience. The most popular online role-playing game, World of Warcraft has just under 12 million users worldwide (Blizzard Entertainment, 2011). While I don’t personally play these kind of games, I understand the appeal. Just as I preferred the interactive feel of watching Youtube videos, people prefer a more interactive game to make their own choices. Another example is the idea of ‘crowdsourcing’ used on websites such as Wikipedia. The site allows anyone to press ‘edit’ and change the information displayed (Lih, 2009, p. 44). While this has been seen as both good and bad it allows for anyone to display knowledge they have. Also, mistakes can be just as easily corrected as they were made. Blogs and other websites have also become increasingly popular because the process of creating them is now quite easy. Even if someone has no computer programming knowledge they can create and run a website (Sullivan, p. 227). 

While there are obvious benefits to audiences becoming more involved in media content, there are also disadvantages. The more we use these kinds of websites, the more information we allow advertisers and marketers to collect about us. Our online data can be stored by them for target marketing to us with greater and greater accuracy (Gandy, 1993: Turow, 1997, 2006). This week’s reading by Adrian Athique examined how this kind of big data affects audience research. He explained how many of these social websites collect data and turn it into virtual currency for their own gain (Athique, 2018, p. 64). How the value of these websites is placed on the amount of data they collect from users. Personally, I never had a huge problem with this as it essentially makes my online experience easier. The more Youtube videos I watched, the more similar videos I had suggested to me. 

Overall I believe the increase in interactive online media is a good thing. While it does change the dynamics of media audiences, I don’t think that is a bad thing. It allows for more creativity and more options for audiences to choose. As for the data and privacy we are losing, I see it as a price to pay for the benefits of these online services.

Week #11

This final week concludes our study of media audiences by examining audience agency in new contexts. We went over the major themes from the course and shifts in the audience definition. There is not one single definition or theory of what an audience is but this concludes with the various ways it can be understood and how it’s changing in the 21st century. Now that I have a better understanding of what can be classified as an audience, I thought about all the different media I use and how often I am an audience member.

The shifts in the ways information and entertainment is distributed changes audience expectations. There has been a trend towards coordinating the use of multiple media platforms to create a narrative. Henry Jenkins calls this transmedia production (2002, 2011). Rubel (2010) stated that “transmedia storytelling is the future of marketing”. Audiences are also consuming more paratexts, the textual material surrounding media narratives and informing us about them (Gray, 2010). Between using multiple media platforms and consuming more information surrounding media narratives, audiences are much more aware of the media they consume. I use multiple media platforms on a daily basis and often consume paratexts. I agree that these are important for the future of marketing because as an audience we are drawn to media we have seen advertisements or information on. The more media platforms that advertise something to us the more likely it will stay in our heads. I often notice advertisements on social media based on websites I have recently visited or products I have searched for already. I am aware that my data is being used to target these things to me but I find it helpful most of the time. 

With the increase in mobile devices being used it’s understandable that the audience dynamic has shifted. Audiences do have access to more media than ever before and can access it from anywhere even on the go. The text asks the question of whether or not this shift in the power dynamic has shifted irreversibly in the direction of the audience (Sullivan, p. 243). It states that evidence shows this not to be true and I agree with that. Technology will keep advancing meaning the way audiences receive media content will always be changing. Content providers and advertisers need to advance as well to keep up with these demands. That is the way we advance as a society, we aren’t meant to stay where we are. 

Some scholars are concerned with how audience fragmentation could negatively affect the economy. Chris Anderson (2004) described what he called the pattern of the long tail. He believed that most audiences focus on popular media products, the audiences focused on smaller niche products was spread out like a tail. He found that audience fragmentation was causing the tail to be longer and thought more focus should be put on the niche products for increased revenue (Anderson, 2006). Other scholars worried about how it could cause audience polarization where audiences would simply avoid media they find distasteful or offensive (Sunstein, 2007: Turow, 1997). The worry here is that people would start to lose tolerance for diversity, cooperation, and mutual respect. I feel like this could be true to an extent. However, with social media content growing it becomes harder to avoid certain topics. Audiences do have more control over the media they consume now. At the same time, certain offensive topics will come up at some point and I don’t think audiences will become completely oblivious to certain topics just because they could if they wanted to. 

This week’s article by Sonia Livingstone relates to this as well. She examined the fears of ignorance and gullibility in audiences with the growing popularity of social media. She explained how we can learn a lot about the relationship between media power and audience agency by examining the history of this topic. This debate has been going on for years, as media and audiences are always changing. An important quote from the article is, “Audiences were found to be diverse in ways unanticipated by producers and marketers because of their diverse culture, history, community, and politics” (Livingstone, 2019, p. 174). This relates to what I mentioned before on how audiences can’t truly ignore diversity. Diversity and culture will always make their way into media content no matter how much choice audiences have. I use social media platforms daily and almost every day I see things that I didn’t want or need to see. Horrible things happen worldwide every day and are shown across social media. In this day and age, we are well aware of issues related to diversity and culture and how important it is that we talk about these things. As brought up in the article, you cannot simply compare the changes in audience agency and media power without considering social factors of the audience.

This concludes this blog and the audience studies course. I wasn’t sure what to expect from this but I learned a lot about what an audience really is and different ways to perceive media content. We come in contact with media everyday and as an audience member it is important to be aware of the media we consume, what it really means and why we chose that media. 

[nonamememoir]

Literature as an Invaluable Philosophical Tool by Tori Bloom

What makes literature different from traditional philosophy is the introduction of fictional worlds to explain real concepts. Philosophy is formulaic, with the use of premises and conclusions that are supported by logic and facts (Nanay, 2013). Literature does not follow this formula, and it also exists outside of our world’s logic. However, because of the fantastic nature of literature, readers are exposed to experiences they may not have had elsewhere. In this way, literature can introduce readers to new concepts and ways of thinking. Catherine Elgin (2014) likens literature to a thought experiment. Thought experiments, she explains, are experiments that are often impossible to perform in real world, but still hold truth because they can help to clarify the facts of a situation. In fact, one might argue that literature and thought experiments in general can hold insights that philosophy on its own might not. The worlds and characters that exist in literature do not exist outside of the confines of those books, but they can share characteristics of the real world as well as truths. The intention of the writer is also important, as some pieces of literature are written as a response to a philosophical piece, with dialogue, characterization, themes, and more that work to defend or attack an idea. This is not to say that there are no limitations, however. One limitation is that there is a disconnect between literature and philosophy, as philosophy is a subject of pure logic, while literature relies on things that are made up. Another flaw is that literature depends on the reader, and Vladimir Nabokov argues in Good Readers and Good Writers that it is the mark of a bad reader to project onto the characters. This is because in projecting one’s own values, personality, and morals onto a novel readers may not be open to the new concepts that that work has to offer. Literature is open to interpretation, which means that it the truth about the world that one reader draws from the work might not be the truth that another draws. While there are both flaws and benefits to applying literature in the way that one would apply philosophy, the benefits outweigh the flaws, and in fact literature is an invaluable tool because it exposes people to new lines of thinking that pure logic and empirical studies can’t.

Even empirical studies are often prefaced by thought experiments, as performing an experiment requires an imagined hypothesis.  For example, without knowing Newton’s laws of gravity and aerodynamics, one can hypothesize that a ten pound rock would fall faster than ten pounds of loose feathers. We can picture a rock falling, and feathers floating down at a slower pace. This imaginary experiment brings about more questions. If those feathers were stuck together to form a solid block of feathers, would they then fall at the same speed as the rock? We can imagine that they would, and wonder why this is. This can lead us to the idea that perhaps the shape, density, or interaction with air influences the rate of fall. With this in mind, Elgin says that even in empirical science, thought experiments help to illuminate facts and eliminate the need for unnecessary experiments. In fact, she argues that thought experiments are necessary because they help to avoid real-world variables that may affect an empirical study. In the feather analogy, for instance, a thought experiment does not involve forces such as the wind. It should be noted that thought experiments do not eliminate the need for empirical studies, but that they help researchers know what questions to ask, and thus what experiments to conduct.

Philosophers use thought experiments as well, as many theories about how the world works simply cannot be tested outside of imagination (Elgin, 2014). The concept of utilitarianism as a form of justice, for example, relies on the idea that in a perfect world, pleasure and displeasure could be quantified and used as a basis for morality. Perhaps we could test this empirically, but there is no way to test whether overall pleasure versus displeasure measures morality. The use of thought experiments is debated because concepts like utilitarianism, which is founded on the idea of a situation free of third variables, do not occur in real life, and thus cannot be empirically proven (Elgin, 2014). However, an inability to conduct an experiment does not disprove it. In the feather and rock thought experiments for example, one could come to the conclusion that surface area and air affect rate of fall. If this could not be tested, that would not make it any less true. If it were impossible to test, the idea could still be supported by things that occur without outside influence. For example, a leaf falling from a tree drifts slowly to the ground, while a twig simply fall. Thought experiments are the same, stemming from the logic of the real world. One could, for example, argue against utilitarianism by using an example in which a greater number of lives saved does not necessarily equate to a good moral decision. The Holocaust brought about millions of deaths and suffering, but also medical advancements and German prosperity. While one could argue that the medical advancements and economic prosperity brought about more overall conservation of human life, is it just to say that because more lives were saved that it was morally good? Is it only the lives lost that contribute to the quantified suffering? Should torture be a higher amount of suffering than death? These questions bring more ambiguity to the validity of turning human emotions into numbers and casts doubt on the utilitarian perspective on justice, as it is simply too subjective. However, pure logic does not lend itself  even to branches of philosophy that involve empirical science (Nanay, 2013). Bence Nanay argues that philosophy of all forms does not only tell us how the world functions objectively and logically, but how we perceive these functions. In David Foster Wallace’s The Broom of the System there is a part where Mr. Beadsman reminisces about his mother and how she had once asked him what the fundamental part of the broom was. He responded that the bristles were most fundamental, but she pointed out that the only reason he answered the bristles was because he wanted to broom to sweep. If, on the other hand, he had wanted the broom to break a window, it would be the handle that was the fundamental part of the broom (Wallace, 2010, p. 150). Philosophy seeks to examine function, but like the broom analogy, function is always dependent on what we wish to get out of something.

Literature is like a thought experiment because both follow a narrative, both illuminate facts about the world, and both require interpretation and suspension of disbelief (Elgin, 2014). Literature involves a set of circumstances that exist outside of the real world, unaffected by third variables, and yet one can find patterns in literature that also exist in the world. With The Awakening by Kate Chopin readers can gain insight into what it might have been like to be woman in the 1800s and may recognize patterns and symbols in Edna’s life that demonstrate the struggle between freedom and ignorance. Specifically, the imagery of a bird is used in this novel. The first mention of a bird is a parrot in the cage at the very beginning of the novel, and later on Mademoiselle Reisz says to Edna, as she becomes more and more independent, that "The bird that would soar above the level of plain tradition and prejudice must have strong wings. It is a sad spectacle to see the weaklings bruised, exhausted, fluttering back to earth.” (Chopin, 1994, p. 79). In fact it is suggested that what brings Edna crashing back down to the Earth is her inability to connect to others, as they remain caged, unable to see the bars that hold them in (Clark, 2008). Zoila Clark (2008) argues for a Foucauldian reading of The Awakening, suggesting that the oppression that the women in the novel face is a function of the society that they take part in. That is, people take part in their own oppression unwittingly. This, Clark says, is exemplified by the character Adele Ratignolle, who finds identity in the motherly nature that society deems acceptable for her. However, even Edna was subject to this internalized oppression, from her choice of a loveless marriage based on convenience to the fact that she had repressed her passion for painting in favor of being a mother. While Edna’s experiences are not real, they provide a snapshot of a life that could have existed in reality and might still today. The lives of fictional characters are important, as Elgin points out, because if we were to base philosophy on only real people, any look into human experience would be overwhelmed by detail. Unlike Edna Pontellier, a real woman is in a continuous narrative of outside forces that does not have the goal of making a commentary on social patterns. So, like a thought experiment, literature provides a world free of third variables that illuminates problems in the world and possible solutions.

Fiction can even outperform philosophy in some ways, as it can give insight into how  social and cultural relationships develop and function when the reader cannot experience the relationship for himself . Go Tell it On the Mountain by James Baldwin (2013) is a fictional story, but the author himself is a gay, African American, male and relies on feelings from his own life to tell the story of John Grimes. Unlike a biography, ethnography, or other non-fiction account, fiction allows the reader to get inside the mind of the main character and go through the story as if those experiences were their own. Perspectives one might not have otherwise had become a possibility. One might not have even considered, before reading Go Tell it On the Mountain, the struggle of living in a community that deals with religion, as well as racism and sexism from both within and outside of the community. The novel does not set forth any premises, nor does it give some sort of conclusion that the reader is meant to come to. However, through the eyes of a preacher who excuses his own sins and hatred and a woman who hates her own skin color, James Baldwin critiques religion on the basis of his own upbringing. We are not specifically told that John’s father is meant to be an archetype of the corrupt preacher, or that his Aunt’s skin-whitening is a product of racism, but the readers are meant to draw these conclusions through experience. However, even if one were to grow up in a similar environment to John’s, that does not mean nothing could be gained from the story. Deleuze (1997) says that literature is the art of becoming some non-specific thing. It is not identity or a state that matters, but the process that one goes through. If a reader were to go into a novel with the thought in mind that they understood the characters because of how they identify with them, any new insights that the character would offer might be disregarded because the personal connection would overshadow how the character’s struggles are applicable to a group as whole. For example, in the case of John Grimes, a reader might identify with issues regarding his repressed sexuality and fail to let themselves experience how intimately connected his repression is to his religion and his culture. Furthermore, the reader must realize that this connection is the experience of a gay, black, teen and not just John Grimes.

Literature is also beneficial because, not only does it allow readers to learn new perspectives through experiences, it can present responses to philosophical pieces that already exist and provide new insight. For example, Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice can be seen as response to Plato’s theories on beauty and the pursuit of Good (White, 1990). Plato’s theory posits that erotic love generates passion, which can bring forth motivation and the pursuit of knowledge (White, 1990). White discusses Plato’s Charmides, and how Socrates was taken by the boy, Charmides, beauty. According to White, Plato’s writings suggest that it was Charmides’ beauty that brought forth Socrates’ discussion of temperance and that, although no conclusion on the meaning of temperance was made, Socrates’ reaches temperance by maintaining self-control. Death in Venice, White says, contradicts the idea of erotic love as a catalyst for pursuing knowledge. This novel is reminiscent of the socratic, from the romantic setting of Venice, to the relationship between Aschenbach and Tadzio, which resembles pederasty in ancient Greece (White, 1990). However, as Aschenbach finds himself entangled in this unspoken relationship with Tadzio, he does not seek knowledge. In fact, where he was once a writer who would often work himself into sickness, Aschenbach abandons his trade in favor of his obsession with Tadzio. White points out that Plato’s ideas on erotic love and the pursuit of good that Aschenbach uses as an excuse to keep his obsession going. Yet we are meant to see that Aschenbach’s relationship with Tadzio is not good, as he abandons his passion, puts his own life in danger, and risks Tadzio’s life because he fantasizes about the boy dying young and forever beautiful. More evidence of this lies in the imagery of the novel, and in particular the use of myth. Throughout the work, Aschenbach runs into multiple red-haired men. The first man leaves him feeling a desire to travel, the second man transports him in a Gondola, and the third who plays a guitar and stinks of bactericide. It could be that the red hair is representative of the devil, as with each red-haired man, Aschenbach is further lured toward his impending death. The first man draws him to Venice, the second brings him to Venice by gondola, and the third who hints at the outbreak. The gondolier is particularly interesting, as he may symbolize the ferryman of the underworld, taking Aschenbach across the river Styx. Then, by the time the third man comes and Aschenbach begins to learn about the outbreak, he has been completely seduced by Tadzio. He knows that his life is in danger, but he chooses to stay. Aschenbach is drawn toward his death, but it is ultimately his own choices that bring him there. His relationship with Tadzio leaves him disillusioned by his life, as he notes that it would not be possible for him to leave Venice and return to his life before this ordeal. In the end, erotic love did not lead Aschenbach toward a pursuit of knowledge. In opposition to Nietzsche's ideas, Aschenbach begins as a representation of the hard-working and rule-abiding Apollonian artist, and he ends his story after being seduced by the Dionysian to the point of excess (White, 1990). There is no middle point between the two, and Aschenbach’s journey certainly did not provide evidence for Plato’s idea of erotic love as fuel for the pursuit of higher knowledge.

Fiction can have flaws that philosophical pieces might not. Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (2012), for example, is a novel that illustrates the benefits and the pitfalls of literature working in the same way that philosophy does. While the novel provides insight into feminist theory, it is an example of how literature is subjective and how certain patterns may be disregarded when a reader does not allow himself to go through the process of becoming. Nabokov says that impersonal imagination should be used when reading literature, so that readers do not allow their own preconceptions to affect the message. In the case of Frankenstein, it is often read as a story about the dangers of playing God, and in assuming this is what Mary Shelley meant to say, one might fail to see the feminist undertones of the story. The birth of the monster in Frankenstein, and his tortured life after, could be seen as a criticism of the sciences, but there are other readings. Nancy Yousef (2002), for instance, holds that Frankenstein is a response to several philosophers, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his theory on man as a solitary animal. Yousef says that Shelley is critiquing this idea, which proposes that men come about on their own and might be solitary creatures if all of their needs were provided for. The monster is born alone, without the presence of a woman or any other human for that matter, and the result is not a man with human characteristics, but a monster (Yousef, 2002). It is not, however, solely a critique, as John Locke’s theory of man also comes into play, and he says that a solitary man will not evolve. Frankenstein seems to support this idea, and takes it perhaps a step further by noting that men who believe themselves to be solitary, for example Walton, who claims to have no friend and yet sends letters to his sister, are not in the same set of circumstances as the monster (Yousef, 2002). The monster has never had intimacy, in any form, and though he reads about human behavior and observes the Delacey family, he does not begin to assimilate into society. Instead, the monster begins to realize how different he is from human beings, and he seeks to gain intimacy when he has a conversation with the blind man. Still, the creature is rejected and Yousef says that it is not necessarily his appearance that makes him alone, but that he is different because he began his life as a fully formed man, without childhood or motherly affection. This perspective on Frankenstein, as Shelley’s commentary on the absence of the feminine and of man as being a solitary animal, can be forgotten in favor of the idea of Frankenstein as a novel about the dangers of playing God. This reveals how, despite the benefits of literature, there is a certain unavoidable flaw in how subjective the interpretations can be.

Literature is tool that can illuminate what to look for to explain how the world functions. It can be a response to an already existing philosophical theory, or it can be a commentary on some social pattern that the writer himself has seen or experienced. It performs the functions of philosophy by existing as an extended thought experiment, and revealing truths about the world. In fact, in some ways it can outperform philosophy, in that it allows readers to imagine a world free of third variables and it can allow people to have experiences that would be impossible in the real world. It also allows all people, even those who have experienced being a part of a certain minority group for example, to go through the process of becoming. It is the general experiences that matter, and what it means to be a woman, an animal, and so forth, rather than some specific thing. In becoming some general thing, one might begin to understand what it means to be that thing, and how different social patterns result in how that thing functions. Literature can also provide a new perspective on philosophical theories that exist, either providing evidence for the theory or against it. Pieces of fiction like Death in Venice show how Plato’s theories on erotic love and the pursuit of higher understanding do not always hold. Some criticisms of literature performing the functions of philosophy include its subjectivity and lack of empiricism, but philosophy itself is not without these flaws. After all, any commentary on how something functions is dependent on our perception of the thing and what we want it to do. Still, fiction is subject to the reader, and in order to gain any insight from a piece, the reader must go into the work without preconceptions and without projecting onto the piece. Yet philosophy itself has unavoidable flaws, such as the inability to test certain theories in the real world. Literature is not pure logic, but the world is not either. It can illuminate facts about the world that can’t be tested. This is why literature is not only useful as a philosophical tool, but invaluable. Just as scientists use thought experiments to know what hypotheses to form and test, philosophy must use literature to inform theories about how the world works.

References

Baldwin, J. (2013). Go tell it on the mountain. New York: Vintage International.

Chopin, K. (n.d.). The awakening. NY, NY: Avon Books, a division of the Hearst Corporation.

Clark, Z. (2008). The Bird that Came out of the Cage: A Foucauldian Feminist Approach to Kate Chopin's The Awakening. Journal for Cultural Research, 12(4), 335-347. doi:10.1080/14797580802553999

Deleuze, G., Smith, D., & Greco, M. (1997). Literature and Life. Critical Inquiry, 23(2), 225-230. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343982

Elgin, C. Z. (2014). Fiction as Thought Experiment. Perspectives on Science, 22(2), 221-241. doi:10.1162/posc_a_00128

Mann, T. (1994). Death in Venice: A new translation, backgrounds and context critisism. New York: W.W. Northon & Company.

Nabokov, V. (n.d.). Good Readers and Good Writers. Lecture.

Nanay, B. (2013). Philosophy versus Literature? Against the Discontinuity Thesis. Journal Of Aesthetics And Art Criticism, 71(4), 349-360.

Shelley, M. W., & Hunter, J. P. (2012). Frankenstein: The 1818 text, contexts, criticism. New York: W.W. Norton &.

Wallace, D. F. (2010). The broom of the system. New York: Penguin Books.

White, R. (1990). Love, Beauty, and Death in Venice. Philosophy and Literature, 14(1), 53-64. doi:10.1353/phl.1990.0106

Yousef, N. (2002). The Monster in a Dark Room: Frankenstein, Feminism, and Philosophy. Modern Language Quarterly, 63(2), 197-226. doi:10.1215/00267929-63-2-197

#philosophy #essay #literature #writing

[elizabethrobertajones]

(1/2) I can literally understand all of your bi-dean meta except for the male siren thing. The siren literally was trying to be the perfect little brother for Dean. I mean the siren literally says "I should be your little brother. Sam. You can't trust him. Not like you can trust me. In fact, I really feel like you should get him outta the way, so we can be brothers. Forever." as well as "No. I gave him what he needed. And it wasn't some bitch in a G-string. It was you. A little brother."

(2/2) I mean I’m NOT against bi-dean, everyone has the right to their own opinions. And A LOT of your analysis is interesting and valid, but if your suggesting that bi-dean is proven through “Sex and Violence.”, I’m lost, cause that seems to have incestuous subtext rather than bi-dean subtext (not that there’s anything wrong with shipping Wincest). I mean Dean could get any girl (and probably guy) if he wanted. The siren revealed what he needed/wanted most was family(specifically Sam)…

(3/2) Cause at this point, tensions were high between the brothers due to Sam’s powers/secrets and Dean needed someone he felt he could trust by his side, a little brother who was devoted to him, some one who understood him (which is why Nick shared the same tastes and interest). I mean I have a little sister and every time she likes something I enjoy, I’m fucking ecstatic. I mean I’ve watched this episode so many times and I fail to see how this is anything but an episode meant to solidify…

(4/2) and push the point that the brothers were not on the same page, and it foreshadowed the future fight and subsequent rift b/t them in “When the Levee Breaks.” I mean y'all say that Nick was a sexual being meant to seduce Dean, but it’s still weird cause he’s trying to being the perfect brother in canon. Sorry this got so long, I’m just curious at why so many people think the male siren has anything to do with bisexuality (of the non-incestuous variety, cuz I can see tht meta 4 wincest ship) 

Heya! 

I think this is really to do with something I was talking about last night about suggestive subtext, when trying (incoherently) to explain why I didn’t think Dean getting his memories back was textual - I think it can be taken as a strong reading and I wouldn’t disagree because I literally make the same reading, but I think it’s implied canon. Ditto the bi subtext around Larry this latest episode. We all know it’s a mechanical bull with a gendered name, not a human male, but between Dean being told he “had the hots” and the ridiculously pornographic riding sequence, and the general phallic nature of the bar they were in, it all still is overwhelmingly suggestive of queerness. 

When it comes to the siren we actually had some more of this suggestiveness this episode which sort of repeats my point I’ll make about it: we only heard Sam say that there could be male sirens. No context, about brothers or even the context of the case for the easiest surface reading that it was just trying to get some hunters off its back by any means necessary. If you’ve forgotten the siren episode or it’s only a dim hazy memory and you sort of connect it to Dean but don’t regularly chug the entirety of canon and then yell about it with strangers online, the episode is not as memorable. So it’s really just posing the point that sirens aren’t all hot chicks, and giving us Dean’s reaction because, right then, he is the casual viewer, and all he knows is the concept that a siren could seduce you as a guy as well, and he just says, “huh.” 

Its surface text reading (and I checked this with my mum after watching because she’s admitted she has 0 queer subtext reading skills but is a very smart, character-driven writer who knows how to read a text) is platonic, not remotely sexual, and when I told her that some of the fandom takes it as proof of Wincest, she burst into hysterical laughter at the concept, and explained to me the reading that Dean is just concerned about his brother and it was an obvious exploitable emotional weakness.

(So the rest of this answer is like a more than usual implied “sorry Mum” :P) 

To me, this episode works by sorting out several layers and understanding that any reading of it you make has to have at least the surface text pasted firmly on top at all times. It WAS a platonic brother thing, and that’s the only way to wring a successful queer reading out of it, because if you start to suggest too far, you immediately cross over into wincest territory, by suggesting the surface text has the sexual element and that it was actually present in the episode as like, feelings and shit the characters were dealing with. 

If you look at it as SUGGESTIVE subtext, accept that the siren is “just” Larry the mechanical bull, then you have exactly the right angle on it for the “huh” of your own.

So, I guess you’re bringing up the meta I wrote about Bobby and 4x06/4x14 - in that case Bobby is the perfect little “huh” angle into it. No one tells him on screen about the brother thing. He definitely knows the siren was presenting as male when it attacked Dean. He killed the thing :P He was the one who sussed it out by checking Nick’s FBI alias out. He knew for half the episode that Dean was being stalked by a male siren, came in, killed it, and aside from some pointed looks from under his hat, didn’t mention it.

There’s a popular text post about the episode that goes:

remember how sam and dean both thought that the siren infected its victims through sex

and when sam walks into the motel room to find dean with nick-the-siren and dean’s totally under the siren’s control sam just

rolls with it

This is the suggestive subtext at work. Nothing here affects the actual text of the episode: it’s about both our interpretation and interpretation within the text of the episode about how this situation might be read. (Obviously this mentions Sam but it goes doubly for Bobby who didn’t see the talky part of the fight, and is never corrected on screen about what he just saw.)

It’s not about wilfully forgetting that the episode has a main text about the brothers, but to see beyond it, within that text. I think it’s probably the causes of the biggest misunderstandings about this episode when you see arguing about it because I think an all or nothing “it’s literally about bisexuality” gets usurped by “I should be your brother” but saying “it’s just about these surface text platonic feelings (because the show would never make it about surface text wincest)” also means you block yourself off from analysing it. The wincest reading of the episode exists in the exact same liminal space of the subtext as the bisexual reading, which means they stumble all over each other and makes the arguments incredibly difficult to untangle because two people can both stand there pulling on the arms of the same moment arguing it means different things in a way most episodes don’t have when it comes to direct, sexual subtextual readings. (e.g the Dean & pie/cake subtext if you don’t agree can just be discarded, rather than it being directly suggestive of the completely alternative reading.) 

Like, stuff your ears to the other subtext and sail right on past :P (When I did the rewatch I actually did essentially lash myself to the mast and demand to hear the song while obviously letting the ship sail to the proper place without getting dashed on the rocks, and I think it’s compelling but not my subtext and most importantly, since I read 0% of other episodes as having overt Wincest readings but many many episodes as having overt bi!Dean readings, I’m utterly secure in literally watching the siren episode and picking out the Wincest subtext and being like “yeah okay then”)

If you don’t assume that the show is saying anything profound about Wincest, though, and the “i should be your brother” is just a deflection away from overt sexual readings, it’s much more interesting for the bi Dean subtext. An example I’ve compared it to before is in 2x03, which follows a very similar emotional pattern to this episode with Dean and Gordon. Before Sam and Dean fight, we’ve seen Dean get VERY buddy buddy with Gordon, and there’s a wealth of suggestive subtext in their very brief interactions since they bond alarmingly fast at a bar, thirdwheeling Sam, and that’s immediately got hook up connotations. When Sam confronts Dean he has a sort of “I know what this is about” moment and there’s a real “Oh shit he’s going to tell Dean he’s crushing on Gordon and his judgement is impaired” moment, before Sam tells him it’s because Dean misses John and is filling the gap. I do not think the suggestiveness of Gordon and Dean’s interactions suggests that Dean had the hots for John, just like I carry on not thinking that when Crowley starts his official seduction in 9x11 comparing himself to John, or later in 10x01, to Sam. 

Once I’ve got a surface reading and the deflection and the way it was read in the aftermath (yeah we’re working backwards through the episode here :P) then there’s a kind of solid place of understanding my own interpretation to examine the rest of it.

There’s this article which would be kind of pointless as evidence in other cases of actor commentary on the story because PR is not showrunning, etc, and we can’t really depend on them to answer with a proper understanding of what WE are listening out for, or what the show has crafted around their understanding, but in this one when we’re looking at suggestiveness is fascinating:

http://elizabethrobertajones.tumblr.com/post/147614438213/bluestar86-findmyjaffa-mishabethyname

“yeah, at that point I thought he should be ambiguously sexual. As an FBI agent he was a guys guy, but this creature wasn’t a guy or a girl. I tried to find something in between and enjoyed having control over these boys in a sexual way”

This is not describing anything between Sam and Dean, but how the actor played it between himself and them - he saw the siren at work, as using sexuality as part of its control. This reading applies to the entire episode, with all the cases of the siren at work, but obviously those were all “hot chick” siren moments, and so exerting control over the men was a given that it had been using a strip club full of female dancers as the lure to find them, so they’d be understandably into hot women. Which means the overt reading of sexuality is oh so much easier to make and credit and honestly having him say even this much about it is pretty dramatic, though of course as a killed-off one time character, he’s got a lot more freedom to chat about the process and admit to playing up sexuality in a room with 3 male actors. 

I’m just going to grab my laughing from the rewatch I did for the next point, about the gap between Nick commenting that he was the siren and had trapped Dean, and the brother line:

That glorious, glorious moment of floating amazement where the it-was-a-actual-legit-seduction text peaks, and you’re allowed a moment from which most bi Dean peeps never recovered. (There’s a three strikes and you’re out policy here: Playthings, this, Dr Sexy. :P)

Because of course, whatever comes out Nick’s weasely mouth once I press play again, the question has been asked. The idea has been planted. It doesn’t matter what they say after this even setting aside all the logic of siren lore explained in the episode or any of the other circumstantial stuff which leads me to my text of the episode conclusion this is a bi Dean episode through and through.

They gave Dean a male siren and gave us these few seconds to let us reflect on that in its pure, this-was-a-seduction in the main text of the episode moment. There’s a level outside the text here where they set this all up, and threw this at us, and handled it in such a way as to leave it open to going on 7 years of fandom arguments about what interpretation was the correct one of the 3 on the table. This is the thing about these fandom arguments: when it comes to people trying to tell those who see Dean as bi that they’re making it up or something, or putting it into the text themselves, the response is usually, no, we’ve got it from the show. Even if you immediately go along with one of the other 2 alternatives (it was platonic all along despite the siren’s sexually charged MO: it was about a sexual proxy for Sam all along despite the fact the siren textually does not have to replace like for like objects of affection) THIS MOMENT before we know it’s officially about Sam, the show is textually letting you think about it for 3 seconds in a deadly serious context.

It’s like 2:30am I need to stop waxing on about this but seriously this fucking moment.

http://elizabethrobertajones.tumblr.com/post/125513601548/spn-hellatus-rewatch-4x14-or-honestly-this

If I ever try to explain to myself WHY this episode is bi Dean, it’s all resting first and foremost on those few seconds of screen time, because in that point, no take-back has been offered. Knowing there IS a take-back a second later doesn’t actually detract from the raw suggestiveness of this moment, which let us think, if we picked up on it immediately, that Dean had a male siren and had been seduced just like all the men and their “hot chicks”. It allows a whole moment where it seems like the show is telling us that Dean is *just* into men and the siren managed to snare him that way by catching him unawares. After all, Sam and Dean are looking for a siren-cum-stripper so getting in under their noses would be important. Dean didn’t trust Cara because she was female despite her being in a generally more socially accepted job, and she was used as a deliberate false lead by Nick (by planting the flowers) AND the show to imply that someone in their general vicinity that they’d been having a thing with that episode could be the siren. Sam’s new female character hook up was not, in fact the siren. Dean’s new male friend WAS. Admittedly it’s a lot of thinking to do in 3 seconds but if you’ve been waiting for the blow to fall that the siren has been worming its way in romantically as Cara, and going along with the surface text of the episode so far, then the instinctive “wait WHAT” is enough to do the work here before the show comes back out of slow mo and carries on like usual, establishing a nice safe cushion-y layer of no homo. 

The show DOES however offer its own reading on TOP of the no homo, within the episode, to make it absolutely unequivocally clear there’s a “no incest” reading too - the surface text is EXTREMELY fragile this episode and they do a lot of hard work and backpedalling to try and maintain the fragile surface tension, so, still working backwards through the episode, we get to this:

DEANSo whatever floats the guy’s boat, that’s what they look like?

SAMYeah. You see, sirens can read minds. They see what you want most and then they can kinda, like, cloak themselves. You know, like an illusion.

Cut to the siren seducing the next dude and cue the sweet relief of the subtext that shatters the first interpretation offered by the subtext so far. Sam n Dean have had their relationship portrayed a certain way (overtly: the lying and ongoing season 4 angst, subtextually, a little odd framing and more stray comments beyond the norm) and the episode will come down about said relationship, but this random bloke is the key to what happens next.

Siren:

Disappointed mom and Jesus judging this guy:

The siren emphasises not that she’s a sexual rival (although we don’t know if that guy has Oedipal issues) but mentions that she is a sink on his time and an anchor stopping him from running away with them to be alone together forever and ever and ever, which, with their line about him not sticking her in a care home yet, suggest that she is ill and frail enough to be a full-time job for the guy, much like Dean is stuck with Sam as part of their full-time job and ongoing “look after Sammy” mentality.

So before Nick ever shows up it’s clearly shown that “floats the boat” has a surface level disconnect to the target of murder (and it’s just that statistically the siren is going after mostly hetero dudes with wives, given where they pick the men up and how lends itself to the typical MO). This scene is obviously the “lol no incest” for the end of the episode once the siren tries to drive them apart. […] Both sexualised interpretations live on: the massive logic leap to say “yeah well what if there were Oedipal undertones to this relationship?” which is a headcanon you can float which will mean the siren can still get Dean for that reason, but at this point, the main text of the episode becomes: “the siren will use sexuality to seduce the man, but the target closest to the man that will be the victim is that of unfortunate proximity, not necessarily a sexual rival to the siren.” And therefore, until the reveal after Dean drinks from the flask, we have a long stretch of episode where Nick is main-text seducing Dean with no argument, and the only counter-argument offered is Nick’s own words.

[…]

DEANWait, he killed his mom?

SAMThe woman he was closest to.

Dean’s thoughts go there. Sam shrugs it off, having either not noticed this is weird because new info makes sense to him, or he’s already worked this one through and come to the realisation the siren’s pattern isn’t strictly sexual or that this was a thing but he’s not going to judge. :P So we have two conflicting interpretations at work here; Sam’s chill attitude which surface level suggests there was nothing odd about it, and Dean’s ‘ugh wait but with the information I had available to me I have come to an incredibly awkward realisation!’ tone of voice. (And the subtextually buried one contradicted by the main text of Sam’s dialogue where it is also possible he assumes like Dean this was incest but that it isn’t weird/gross enough for comment.) Sam is implied to be ahead and be offering a rational explanation for this to Dean, i.e. wow that was an unfortunate interpretation, Dean! Fortunately, I, a better-informed individual who has had more information to work with than you before we started this conversation, have come up with a rational alternate explanation which does not involve incest!

This one particular death has pretty much the whole episode riding on it when it comes to interpretation because it is used as the way to confirm non-incestuous relationship replacement with the siren (which along with the siren still showing sexual control over Sam and Dean when he has them under his control backs up the way it seduces the man and says they should run off together romantically - Nick also makes them fight in order to be in love with one of them ~forever~ (a.k.a until the spell wears off and the survivor comes to his senses and probably kills himself over what he did)) - of course because despite the focus on the mother, the man still sleeps with the siren and it’s still framed as a romantic/sexual seduction to get him to the point of murder. The sexual element persisting after the siren says “I should be your brother” is a point I’ll get to better in a minute when I recap the conclusion from my rewatch but does essentially give you the choice of reading that he was talking crap there :P

There’s also the implication of the empty beds/back and forth of the episode, where Sam and Dean’s time management parallels back and forth. There’s suggestive subtext here between Dean and Nick because Sam has wall-banging sex with Cara, and their part of the story is directly back and forthing with Dean and Nick - we have some serious gaps in time, and when Sam returns to the room just before the fight, Nick and Dean are waiting, on those neatly made beds that seem to see no action. I don’t think they slept together. BUT the suggestiveness is right there and people have commented on it and picked it up, so it’s a valid part of the subtextual layer.

Here’s the conclusions I came to in my rewatch:

Aw, Nick, no. We were having so much fun.

MUNROEOr it could be her saliva… You really should have wiped the lip of that thing before you drank from it, Dean. I should be your little brother. Sam. You can’t trust him. Not like you can trust me. In fact, I really feel like you should get him outtta the way, so we can be brothers. Forever.

DEANYeah. Yeah, you’re right.

So, what’s left on the table?

Completely valid if out of left field for the episode’s subtext alternate reading of Dean as somewhere on the Aro spectrum so the siren doesn’t affect him at all romantically, and goes for filling the emotional void it creates from a different angle (several season 3 moments imply Dean has a void in himself for romantic love as emphatically distinct from his need for Sam, but I’m pretty sure I clocked them all coming from Sera as an ongoing subtext about Lisa as endgame, including foreshadowing of what happened with Lisa in the long run when Gamble got to write that full arc, so you could argue A: it’s all from one source as with the many contradictory writer impressions of Dean’s sexual/romantic identity, and B: it wasn’t even as straightforward as that even when she was implying it existed, as that relationship eventually wrecked itself upon the shores of the brotherly bond too, by her pen).

The interpretation that this was just about Sam, platonically, because this is his closest relationship, and the siren, recognising he was a hunter, needed to get to him fast (the other victims took a lot of softening up and a hefty blow to their bank accounts first because this is clearly how the siren makes a living: like the shifters it doesn’t need to kill to eat, just for fun, using its powers for personal benefit and amusement) and so it took an alternate approach to get under his skin in a day using the available tools: Dean is all fucked up about Sam’s secrets and sneaking around talking to Ruby and being a monster and so on, creating an ideal weak spot to get at him: Nick creates an uncomplicated ideal other human for Dean to adopt as a brother in the shortest time possible, because he fully intends just to make the hunters kill each other/themselves on realising what they did and leg it out of town before anyone comes to finish him off and so to Nick the sexual side of it is an unnecessary complication to tidying up the situation.

As above, but the wincest reading, with the siren’s sexually charged MO included despite the only proxy-kiss because of all the subtextual implications and the apparent links between Nick and Sam.

As point 2 again, but with the siren’s sexually charged MO still counting in the background of why Nick, because Dean’s repressed bisexuality made him a double easy target. Dean would not suspect the dude, while thinking he was hunting a stripper, and yet the siren’s MO still works on him as Dean’s “float the boat” umbrella is very wide. The “brother” thing goes back to the main text platonic reasons, and Nick just needs to say something to get Dean on his side that’s still broadly in character for Dean (like, he would not have just magically got through his whole gay panic in that moment: the other victims were all aware of who they were and what they wanted throughout [see also: the first man they interviewed at the start]: part of Dean’s horror in this moment is probably realising the siren affected him AS Nick and having the same moment of wondering about himself before Nick’s reassuring words ease him along - oh, this is just about Sam). So in this case Nick finds it easier to go for the surface reasons Dean was emotionally vulnerable with the emphasis on his lack of trust in Sam, because Dean IS emotionally vulnerable in his most important relationship, and creates an ideal other person is someone who represents Sam just enough to show he fits the emotional void, but is sufficiently different enough (fun, common traits and interests to Dean, trustworthy) to count as a separate identity to Sam (because Dean does have a ton of issues which do not necessarily have to be incestuous but can be to do with the most important relationship in his life having an overbearing effect on everything he does and the way he relates to other people, as constantly shown elsewhere without demanding we pay attention to the alternative reading unless the viewer is inclined to like it and look for it).

And I am aware that after talking about how the incest subtext takes the most leaps along the way, it’s the bisexuality argument which, by being debunked by platonic bros main text, gets relegated to the back seat, now needs a strong counter-argument to its own “debunking”, while the main text is more compatible to the other subtext’s conclusions.

This is why there are fights. :P

Obviously I choose to believe the very careful mental meanderings that back up my reading that there is a suggestive element to the episode that can imply Dean’s bisexuality without having to credit that the sexual element includes a wincest reading, and as I said, this is because the episode is highly suggestive, but everything it tries to tell us in text is broadly the platonic bros reading, so it is left to choice, favoured interpretation, emotional preference, whatever, to pick out what you want. There’s a valid in-text suggestion that the siren does NOT work incestuously even when the most important relationship is a family one, and if you use these as the guidelines, the rest of the suggestiveness about the sexual elements can just be read as the fact that Dean was into Nick as a person rather than having been attracted to him because he reminded him of Sam. 

Although honestly it really just comes down to part 23346346 of infinity under the same heading as:

why I’m on the dean is bi train:

we’d never get a two minute montage of sam “riding larry.”

http://elizabethrobertajones.tumblr.com/post/157196244593/goodfemalecharacters-why-im-on-the-dean-is-bi

#Asks #4x14 #references to #12x11 #Dean is bi #long post for ts #incest for ts #suicide mention cw