#full disclosure everything i say is subject to change cause i have an issue called Can Never Make A Decision | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

blackjack-15 · 3 years

Text

(Pachin)Koping Mechanisms, KuroSAWa, and Putting The Ring On It — Thoughts on: Shadow at the Water’s Edge (SAW)

Previous Metas: SCK/SCK2, STFD, MHM, TRT, FIN, SSH, DOG, CAR, DDI, SHA, CUR, CLK, TRN, DAN, CRE, ICE, CRY, VEN, HAU, RAN, WAC, TOT

Hello and welcome to a Nancy Drew meta series! 30 metas, 30 Nancy Drew Games that I’m comfortable with doing meta about. Hot takes, cold takes, and just Takes will abound, but one thing’s for sure: they’ll all be longer than I mean them to be.

Each meta will have different distinct sections: an Introduction, an exploration of the Title, an explanation of the Mystery, a run-through of the Suspects. Then, I’ll tackle some of my favorite and least favorite things about the game, and finish it off with ideas on how to improve it. For this meta and the next (CAP), I’ll have a section entitled “The Faerietale” where I break down the issue of genre within the game and how it adds to the experience.

If any game requires an extra section or two, they’ll be listed in the paragraph above, along with links to previous metas.

These metas are not spoiler free, though I’ll list any games/media that they might spoil here: SHA, SAW, MAJOR SPOILERS FOR SPY, GTH, Rashomon.

The Intro:

Full Disclosure: draft titles of this meta include “Yurei-sing the Tension” and “Using Your Girlfriend’s Mom’s Horrific Death For Fun and Profit”. They ultimately don’t fit the tone of the game (or the meta), but I thought they were fun…so you’re being subjected to them anyway.

Freshly out of the games of growing pains, Shadow at the Water’s Edge is the first of our two Faerietale Games, where we delve fully into Theme and Allegory and other such literary devices — which happen to support some pretty fine mysteries as well. As such, in case you didn’t see it above, both SAW and CAP will have a section diving into the Faerietale-ness of it all (partially because it’s That Interesting and partially to keep the intro section from being like 2k on its own).

SAW is interesting for a number of reasons (which I’ll go into throughout the meta) but one of the things that stuck out to me on a replay was how much it leans on Rashomon for its story about the past. For those unfamiliar, Rashomon is a Japanese film by Kurosawa Akira from the 50s that deals with the rape of a woman and the killing of her husband, a samurai, as told through four different points of view.

Nowadays called “a Rashomon episode” or “false flashback”, the idea of different, opposite points of view being shot and filmed to present to the audience is almost a cliché, but Kurosawa was the first to really bring it to film and to popular consciousness internationally.

Like in Rashomon, we’re presented with different views of the situation at the ryokan (including but not limited to Kasumi’s death) from our characters’ perspectives — and, like in Rashomon, no point of view nor opinion on what happened is ever confirmed to be the Honest Truth.

Was Kasumi’s death accidental, and on whose part was it accidental? Does the world stay the same inside the ryokan, or is it just as prone to change as the rest of the world? Is the ryokan a resort or a prison? Should you respect what your loved one wants for themselves, or is it your job to want something better for them? Takae, Rentaro, Miwako, Yumi, and even Kasumi all have different opinions on these questions, and we’re never told who’s correct, nor to what extent.

Finally, like Rashomon, the game is content with leaving a few answers undiscovered. While shooting the movie, Kurosawa was approached many times by the actors, who wanted to know what “really” happened in the movie — and each time he refused to say, wanting the story to be truly Alive in a way that it wouldn’t be if he answered their questions.

Nancy’s job is to expose the malevolent force in the game for what it is, not to heal the family, nor to make decisions for them.

And speaking of their decisions, let’s talk about what motivates our characters in this game. I know, this intro is already kind of long, and I normally keep this kind of talk for the Characters section, but given how much they intersect in this game, we’re gonna go into it here. All of our suspects here in the game are driven and informed by one thing: their coping mechanisms.

C’mon, no surprise here. It’s in the title of the meta for more than just the pun.

Because our suspects are living in the “Once Upon a Time” section of the faerietale — aka the past — it’s their coping mechanisms that drive them. Takae is driven by guilt over her daughter’s death and fear of a changing world; Miwako is driven by anger towards her family and personally-assumed responsibility over Everything That Happens; Rentaro is driven by selfish pride and concern over his loved one; Yumi is driven by avoidance and individualistic willpower.

These are all common when dealing with loss, and each of these tell us exactly how our characters are going to act throughout the tale. In a very real way, SAW is a game about how we, as humans, deal with the stories that we tell ourselves (another thing that it has in common with CAP), and how that changes the way that we perceive the world.

It’s the breakdown of Rentaro’s coping mechanism — his pride in always being correct — that causes him to Do Evil while claiming that it’s The Right Thing. Everyone else’s mechanisms are what allows for him to be as influential as he is; Kasumi is already haunting Takae, and Miwako is already feeling the world crash down around her. Even though the yurei is just wires and metal and Upsettingly Damp-Looking Hair, its presence in the ryokan isn’t physical – it’s psychological.

Remember, “a ghost doesn’t need to be real to haunt you”.

The Title:

Let’s be real here, we’re getting into the segment of Nancy Drew games where the (most of) titles just kick butt and aren’t afraid to do so. Like, Shadow at the Water’s Edge? Gives you creepy vibes right off the bat even without the yurei on the front giving you The Ring flashbacks. Properly atmospheric without being too specific, and “shadow” gives us the idea that we’re dealing with a monster that’s more ghostly, rather than flesh and blood.

I don’t even have anything negative to say about this title, that’s how good it is — plus, I mean, the acronym is literally “saw”. Awesome.

Let’s move on then to the faerietale behind the title.

The Faerietale

SAW and CAP both function, genre-wise, as a faerietale — a story with few characters, big pasts, legends and magic, and a moral at the end to tie things off. In both cases, interestingly enough, it’s our villain who gives us our “moral” — the Truth that ties the plot, history, and characters together, able to be said in a single sentence. In SAW, it’s this (rather chilling) statement from Rentaro that does it:

“A ghost doesn’t need to be real to haunt you.”

But let’s start at the beginning.

Like in a lot of faerietales, we have two sisters who are as different as can be, an inheritance (a ryokan rather than a crown or a prince), absent/dead parental figures, a wizened mentor related to our main characters (Takae), and a Monstrous Force opposing them and their ‘kingdom’. In this story, Nancy is the Dashing Outsider (not unlike the Prince from The Twelve Dancing Princesses) who vows to learn the secrets, defeat the monster, and save the kingdom, restoring balance to the ‘royal’ family and allowing them to prosper.

(And no, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in this game Nancy’s the Knight in Shining Armor when CAP and Renate’s talk about them is right around the corner, but we’ll save that for next time.)

Having established that the game is a faerietale, let’s talk about why that actually matters (beyond the fact that it’s kinda cool in itself) when we’re looking at the game.

It basically matters for a handful of reasons: it allows us to figure out the suspect Fairly easily, it allows the writers to Allude to subject matters that are a little Dark for the E/E10 rating that Nancy Drew games normally get, and provides a bridge between the (overall) concrete games of the past and the more thematic, character-development-focused games that we’re coming up on. So let’s break that down.

Assigning our characters faerietale roles lets us see immediately that Rentaro is Missing an easy assignation. He doesn’t fit the prince, doesn’t fit a sibling — he doesn’t fit anywhere, in short, which is our first clue that he’s the villain.

Even ignoring the fact that the yurei is obviously mechanical, that Rentaro has free access to the entire ryokan in a way that no other character does, and that he’s responsible for upkeeping the ryokan (which is why it’s suspicious that he’s not the one Dedicated to figuring out the mystery) — which are all excellent things that point towards Rentaro, his absence in the faerietale points to a hidden role.

Since the only role worth hiding is either an 11th hour ally or a villain, and Rentaro is present from the beginning of the game, it’s pretty clear which one he is.

Situating the game as a faerietale also lets HER play with a few more themes than they normally can, given their target audience. Starting with a rather blatant implication of suicide, the game spins on to abusive relationships, overpowering guilt, and Nancy being, well, downright mean with her questions about a family member’s death.

While Nancy’s always been a bit insensitive, the mystery surrounding Kasumi’s death sends her into the realm of bullheadedly rude (to the point where you can get a game over for it). We see why this writing choice was made in SPY (which we’ll cover in that meta), but it’s one of my favorite things about this game; it takes a slight character trait of Nancy’s and gives it a character-driven purpose.

The last function of SAW (and CAP) as a faerietale is to provide a bridge between the older and the newer games. The older games tended to be self-involved entities: they began with Nancy’s room and ended with the letter to Carson/Hannah/Ned. As the game technology improved and the player base got older, however, that started to not be good enough; Nancy and her mysteries needed to become A World rather than simply a string of cases held together with a handful of familiar names and archetypes.

The first step towards this was the inclusion of the Hardy Boys back in our Expanded games, but it’s really SAW and CAP that show an Active Transition. Faerietales are often thought of, literarily speaking, as the bridge between children’s fiction and adult fiction; they involve simplistic plots and archetypes that children can easily grasp, but teach hard lessons about the world that adults will understand and resonate with.

The earlier Nancy Drew games, on the whole (there are of course a few exceptions), are largely concrete, like the children’s fiction they’re based on. The good and bad guys are simply and easily divided, Nancy and co. are always the heroes and always do right, and the bad guys always go to jail.

The past few games leading up to SAW start to shift slightly; while generally our heroes and villains are still sharply divided, nothing is quite as simple as it seems (look at TOT, where at least a few bad guys get away and actually profit from their bad actions).

It’s here in SAW, however, where we see that take a sharp shift. Those who should be good guys (Rentaro is a Love Interest, he enjoys puzzles, he’s a ‘fixer’ by trade) aren’t good at all; those who should be the bad guys (Takae and Miwako behave a lot like early Nancy Drew villains with their cageyness, dislike of Nancy, and ability to get Nancy to Second Chance) really aren’t.

In case this point is a bit obtuse, Logan is the perfect example of what I mean.

In SHA, Charleena Purcell has a receptionist (well-voiced by JVS) that at first prevents you from talking to her, but isn’t much of an obstacle. It’s a cut and dried ‘solve this one puzzle’ and then Nancy can talk to the author as much as she chooses — it’s barely an impediment, honestly.

In SAW, we’re dealing with another famous author, who also has a receptionist — Logan Mitchell. Unlike the receptionist in SHA, who’s just Doing His Job and exists long enough for a puzzle, Logan is a rather spiteful character who enjoys hanging up on people, and does it to Nancy with Great Joy.

As a character, Logan matters; he has his own viewpoints, loyalties (that are explored in SPY as well), and his own idiosyncrasies that make dealing with him — repeatedly — a bit like dealing with people in real life. The receptionist in SHA isn’t a character, no matter how much I personally like JVS’ voice work with him. Logan is. And that’s a huge difference in the approach of the games and the shift from the concrete, insert-puzzle-and-go nature of the older games and the more abstract, thematic nature of the newer games.

Whether or not that’s a good thing is up to you, the player, and your personal preferences. But it can’t be denied that there is a shift, and it’s the genius of SAW (and CAP)’s genre-shift to a faerietale that does it.

The Mystery:

Our mystery picks up where TOT left off, with Krolmeister sending Nancy to one of his favorite ryokans in Japan as a thank you for her help in the previous case.

This is how we find out that Krolmeister is apparently Spooky AF, as the ryokan is haunted.

Nancy decides to pick up a job while she’s there (the ‘how’ of her obtaining employment and an E-2 visa so promptly is ignored) as an English teacher to some of the cutest (and one of the most disturbing) children in Japan, which is how she spends her days — and how the game gets away with it taking place Solely at night.

The more time Nancy spends at the ryokan, however — and the more people connected to it that she meets — the more that she suspects that the ryokan might actually be harboring a malevolent entity bent on wreaking havoc and shutting down the place once and for all…

As a mystery, the game is solid; you spent most of your time “on-site” at the ryokan, soaking in the very well-done atmosphere, with only a few moments in-game spent at other locations (such as the pachinko parlor, Yumi’s apartment, etc.), and the amount of work that went into every detail of the ryokan is staggering (especially the garden).

Normally, I wouldn’t hang so much on the atmosphere when talking about the plot, but it’s actually relevant here, since the atmosphere is part of the plot — i.e., is it the ‘atmosphere’ of the ryokan that makes the hauntings happen, and did the ryokan kill Kasumi.

Speaking of Kasumi, she’s one of the biggest open-ended mysteries in this game. Did Shimizu Kasumi kill herself, or was her death an accident, or was it caused by a Paranormal Entity, leading to her becoming a ghost herself?

The game tells us how Kasumi died — cleaning a bath that she had never cleaned before, leading to her drowning — but the circumstances outside of her death like her will and her premonitions about her death speak less to an accident alone and more towards Something causing her death.

In my own point of view, Kasumi — remember, this is the Nancy Drew Universe, where ghosts are actually real — had a bit of Prescient Awareness to her, and knew that her death was coming, though not by what. While there’s evidence towards her knowing about her death that could, if looked at in that light, lead one to suspect Kasumi of suicide, it’s unexpectedly hard to kill yourself via drowning in a shallow body of water. Add to that her future plans, and I think it’s pretty safe to assume that Kasumi knew she would die, but she didn’t plan and execute a suicide.

Of course, there’s good arguments to be made on the other side. Whichever way you look at it, I’m just happy with the presence of loose ends, as that’s not the mystery that Nancy’s there to solve — and, indeed, without the presence of an actual suicide note from that period, is a mystery that simply cannot be solved.

The Suspects:

We’ll start with (and yes, the names will all be in Japanese rather than Western order) Shimizu Miwako, the Younger Daughter in our faerietale and the current force behind the ryokan.

As the one (via a faerietale’s rules) destined to succeed, Miwako sure does get the short end of the stick when it comes to her relationships. Her causing/contributing/worsening the rift between herself and Yumi aside, her boyfriend is actively sabotaging her and her grandmother doesn’t think she should be the one running the ryokan, no matter how good a job she does.

As a culprit, however, Miwako would have been a bit confused, given how much she likes the ryokan and the good job she does with it. For a Miwako ending to make sense, she would have had to been influenced by an actual ghost, sabotaging the ryokan without wanting to and having your usual blackouts that come with Psychic Interference. It would have been interesting, but out of the faerietale genre (and out of the Nancy Drew game genre as a whole) and thus not a very good story.

Next up is the Elder Daughter, Shimizu Yumi, who left the ryokan as soon as she could and instead sells bento boxes in Kyoto. Framed as a sort of free spirit, Yumi doesn’t see any need for her to run the ryokan and instead does something that she likes and is obviously very successful at.

As a culprit, Yumi would have, to be frank, been a major disappointment. Already taking fire from her little sister and her grandmother for the Abject Sin of not taking on the family business, Yumi would have been way to easy, both character-wise and tonally for the game as a whole. The Elder Daughter in a faerietale is usually the one who fails (the Youngest Daughter almost always succeeds), and so it’s refreshing to have everyone but herself consider Yumi a failure.

Their grandmother and quasi-mentor, Nagai Takae, is the other person who helps run the ryokan — much to her displeasure, as tradition dictates that Yumi, not Miwako, help run the family business.

Because someone who resents being there will definitely be a much better worker in the hospitality market than someone who loves the ryokan.

Takae has absolutely no head for anything but her own ideas and clings onto tradition not for its sake, but because change is scary, hard, and (in the case of her daughter’s death) heartbreaking.

As a culprit, Takae would have been interesting, but absolutely impossible — unless she was working with someone else. And as interesting as a Takae/Rentaro team-up would have been, Takae simply has no motive for scaring everyone else out. She needs the ryokan to survive, to do well, if she’s going to be able to cling on to the things that she wants.

Rounding out our main faerietale cast is our Malevolent Force, Aihara Rentaro, the ryokan’s handyman and tech expert, who secretly builds robots resembling his girlfriend’s dead mother and uses them to scare people out of the ryokan.

He’s a peach.

Not only is Rentaro our only option for a faerietale ending, but he’s also just the best option for the culprit in general. Handy enough to build a “ghost”, expected in any place in the ryokan without suspicion, and with a strong (if dickish) motive). Like all Evil Wizards/Malevolent Forces in faerietales, he wants to ruin the kingdom and steal away the Daughter — though, unlike a lot of faerietales, he’s convinced himself it’s For Her Own Good.

Which yeah is super gross, but hey, he’s our Villain. Villains should be a bit gross.

Lastly, we’re going to look at two characters who are inseparable from one another for the purposes of discussion: Savannah Woodham and her assistant Logan Mitchell.

Savannah (as we meet her in SAW) is a former ghost hunter who now writes about technology (hence her presence in Kyoto) who mentioned the ryokan in a book about the paranormal. Not being fond of interruptions, she pays Logan to be her assistant so that he can deal with the calls that she gets.

She also brings in a nice little easter egg talking about CAP, where Castle Finster is implied to be the castle she mentions in SAW.

As a character in the Nancy Drew world (as it becomes a world), Savannah is an odd presence, in that she’s a sage without being an academic. Most of the ‘authorities’ that Nancy calls for information are professors, researchers, etc., but Savannah doesn’t quite fall into that designation.

Sure, she’s written a book, but ghost hunting isn’t exactly a…respected profession or topic — and yet, Savannah is clearly the smartest person in the game (and one of the smartest people that Nancy encounters as phone friends). This is great — Nancy herself is no academic, and I do get tired of the prioritizing of Academia over actual knowledge.

Savannah also gets the best lines, and her VA absolutely smashes it out of the park. I’ll talk more about her as the Nancy Games (beginning in ASH), as a lot of her dialogue is foreshadowing for our next games, but suffice it to say that, other than the Hardy Boys and the Drews, Savannah probably fights only Alexei for the most significant NPC in the ND universe.

Her assistant is no slouch in the Significance department, though.

MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR SPY AHEAD, IF YOU DON’T WANT THEM SKIP UNTIL THE NEXT ALL-CAPS PARAGRAPH.

Logan (according to him) started working for Savannah to make some money during spring break and found the job too weird to quit once break was done (according to him). He loves hanging up on people, resulting in Savannah referring to him as her “lil’ Georgia bulldog”, and would like to go out on a date with Bess (according to him).

Yeah, pretty much everything about Logan should be taken with a grain of salt, as he’s the one who tells it to us, and…well, Logan is a spy. A spy who’s assigned to Nancy at least as far back as SAW, who gets close to her friend(s) and reports back to Cathedral that Nancy’s obsessed with her mother’s death and thus will probably be used by those who want to know Kate Drew’s secrets.

He ‘fires’ Savannah from being his boss prior to GTH because his work is done; he’s completed the mission he’s been assigned and is now working on other things. Logan isn’t a ghost hunter, nor a receptionist, nor a guy who wants to take Bess out on a date — until he needs to be. Like any good spy, Logan is all things to all people, and it’s his tiny bit of backstory in SPY (easily missed if you’re not paying attention — remember, in Nik games especially there’s no such thing as “optional reading” — that makes him so significant in SAW.

SPOILERS END HERE, YOU’RE ALL GOOD TO CONTINUE.

The Favorite:

There’s a lot to love about SAW, so let’s dive right in.

The first thing I’ll mention, because I just mentioned it, is Logan, who is one of my favorite parts of the Nancy Drew universe, let alone this specific game. His VA is great, his dialogue is great, his character is great — he ticks all the boxes, and I love it.

Savannah is, of course, also a favorite; any game with Savannah in it automatically moves it up a few clicks in my estimation. Savannah (and sage-type characters like her) is where Nik’s writing really shines, and her dialogue is always a joy to read and hear.

My favorite moment is actually a tiny moment, despite it being the titular incident: the shadow at the water’s edge. It’s easy to miss, but when Nancy looks in the bath and sees Kasumi’s shadow for that split second…it’s the haunting that games like HAU and CUR really wanted to have — subtle, upsetting, and fully within the bounds of the Laws of Haunting that the ND universe has set up.

My favorite puzzle is hands-down the bento boxes. Longtime readers of this meta series (which will be two years old this summer!) will know that there’s nothing that I like better than a good logic puzzle, and the bento boxes are a great logic puzzle. It’s fun, cute, and I love that you can do it as much as you want.

I do love, lastly, that this game is a faerietale. Having read and analyzed faerietales for a good portion of my life, it’s nice to see that niche interest represented within another niche interest.

The Un-Favorite:

There are a few things in SAW that I really don’t like, as much as I think this game is great.

The most important is my least favorite puzzle: the frame puzzle. This puzzle is one of the few puzzles that actually make me white-out in Rage and refuse to play further, which is a problem given that SAW is actually a great game and I enjoy playing it. It honestly stops me from replaying the game as often as I really should, given its significance to the ND universe, and for how just good it is. I usually make my sister or my best friend play it for me, but I do actually have to leave the room while they do it because it infuriates me that much.

My least favorite moment in the game is a little different, given how good the game actually is; it’s the very end where, depending on the choice that Nancy makes, Rentaro’s apology is accepted by Miwako. Sure, Nancy says it’s unlikely that they’ll date again, but this is a case where the choice to tell on him or have him tell himself should result in the same result: him having to leave. Handymen aren’t thin on the ground, and the ryokan needs help, rather than the same toxic influence that helped bring it down in the first place.

While I appreciate the choice for Nancy impacting the end — I really do — it should say more about Nancy as a character than it should about Miwako and Rentaro. That it doesn’t is a failure in storytelling at the 11th hour, which is a shame in a game this good.

The Fix:

So how would I fix Shadow at the Water’s Edge?

First things first, I would obviously change the frame puzzle a bit. I don’t think it needs removed per se, but I would definitely shift it. Give an option to skip it, perhaps, or make it easier the more time you spend on that screen, or make it easier if you go in and out of it a few times. Heck, even having it reset when you back out (or having a reset button) would be better, since getting stuck in the puzzle results in Hours of Frustration.

Other than that, I would only change the ending choice. Like I said above, the choice is great, but it should be changed to show us exactly who Nancy is (not unlike the choice in GTH). Is Nancy the kind of person who would not trust Rentaro to tell himself and thus does it, or is Nancy the kind to give him just enough rope to hang himself?

Either way, we’re given a view of Nancy that we’ll see more and more — that she is not always kind, nor infallible, nor impartial. She lets her feelings interfere with her cases, and while sometimes that’s good (again, GTH is a prime example), sometimes the only impact her choices need to have on her is to show us her character.

All in all, Shadow at the Water’s Edge is a good, mature look at the Nancy Drew universe, and continues the thread of connecting case-to-case. While it’s ultimately imperfect, I believe it’s not only one of the most fun games to play through, but also to consider in the larger realm of Nancy Drew games and in adaptation of genre altogether.

#nancy drew #nancy drew games #clue crew #shadow at the water's edge #nancy drew meta #SAW #my meta #video games #long post #i didn't really go into the whole Japanese Culture influences in this meta b/c frankly it's not what the meta is about #but shoot off a message to @tinkchick555 if you wanna hear about it; she's the Expert

17 notes · View notes

summoner-kentauris · 3 years

Note

What does your interpretation of Zacharias think about Líf and Thrasir? (You can either just answer or write a lil story if you feel like it)

OOOO now i have thought in my free time a fair amount about what líf thinks of zasha but, and i cannot believe this, i have not thought about what zacharias thinks about líf and thrasir. full disclosure, book III happened to be going on when i formally stopped playing feh. i kept up with the story after that but, theres my obligatory knowledge base disclaimer.

also minor cws through this whole thing because i talk here and there about zacharias and his... mm, canonical relationship to death/selfharm

so, i spent a lot of time thinking about this one, and i keep coming back to my gut reaction, which is that i don't think zacharias would like them very much. i dont know why i think that, though.

PART ONE

i think a lot of it would depend on how they approach him, which is maybe why i've spent more time thinking about the reverse of this ask, come to think of it. see, i think zacharias could go any which way in terms of what he thinks of them. i think he could hate them, as two people who killed versions of everyone he ever loved, including metaphorically killing off the two people closest to him.

i think he could love him, having seen the hell (ha ha literally) that they went through. understanding what that feels like. given the way he talks about his suicide attempts, and honestly that he spent most of book I trying to get people to kill him, really his whole relationship to death. i mean the man talks a lot about death and killing. he might not be the feh OC who best understands how manipulative and... whats a good word. alluring? what im trying to say is that besides eir, he might be the one most likely to understand why Hel and hel's offer appealed to líf and thrasir. i feel like this bit has a place here: "With his dying breath...he begged for his life. He called out your names! "I'll do anything you ask! Just let me live!" excepting of course that i still am not sure if i think he said/thought that or not. ive never been sure who really is in control of speaking right then and there. Anyway. Probably he could come to understand Líf and Thrasir's stance, enough that he could care about them the same ways he cares about his versions of Alfonse ann Veronica

on the other hand, i can see him being fully horrified by the choices those two made in response. this bit: Not anyone... This dark god...seeks death. And it cries for the destruction of Askr. Like. Líf and Thrasir are intentionally enacting the same thing as the dark god's desires, in order to correct a mistake they made that, uh, also enacted the same thing as dark god's desires. talk about awkward. and i think Zasha, who has lived with this nightmare in his head for so long, might recoil from people who are so directly aligned with it. who wants to be around someone who has become, who has chosen to become, everything you ever feared you'd be? especially when you're nearly drowning from the effort of fighting to stop yourself.

i could also see him meeting them and it being incredibly, incredibly bad for him. i feel like, he puts a whole lot of... mm. what am i trying to say.here:

Yet it is you that says this, dear friend, and so I must consider it. I see the faith reflected in your eyes. Perhaps it is possible...

SPEAKING OF BUNNY ZACHARIAS I ALSO THINK YOU COULD TAKE THE FOLLOWING:

You never change. All you see is a lofty goal, even if you lack the means to achieve it... The idea that gods would fall by the hand of man is a fantasy... and a preposterous one. This is a goal that even our ancestors Líf and Thrasir could not achieve.

setting aside the obligatory wtf zash i know you know your lore (fuck, maybe there is no killing the gods, maybe all Fire Emblem victories are temporary at best and Zenith is the only one who knows it. but i think, probably not), i think you could spin a very believable scenario where zacharias takes one look at these two ambitious, arrogant posers and absolutely refuses to speak to them any further.

so, part one, i think that zacharias could think any number of things about líf and thrasir. which i suppose means that i think he's fairly neutral on the subject of líf and thrasir. makes sense to me, i suppose. i feel like zacharias | bruno has practice (regardless of whether he's any good at it or not, or whether its any good for him) at holding and maintaining separate personas, so I don't think the fact that líf and thrasir were alfonse and veronica would necessarily be all that important to him.

which brings me to part ii

what happened to dead zenith zacharias

if zacharias is neutral on the subject, I think a lot of their relationship is going to pushed in one direction or another by líf and thrasir themselves.

and, complicating matters (when do I make things simple?), i think their approach to zacharias would of course depend on what happened to their zacharias. correct me if im wrong, but i dont think we have even a hint what happened to him.

there are three ish options I'm seeing. one: as dead world zenith is further along in its timeline and as zacharias claims he's almost out of time with his curse, other zacharias died due to that before the war with hel. i feel like scenario one is the most likely to lead to a good relationship between main zacharias and líf and thrasir.

two: mr. professional "knows plot relevant things out of knowhere" was the one who found out about angrboða's heart in the first place. especially given "As destruction took hold, we joined with Embla to seek the forbidden heart...", which to me sounds a lot like, "hel was kicking our ass then zacharias showed up and said we should go get this mystical plot object from embla". thrasir even says she and líf weren't allies before the world went to shit. anyway. hear me out here:

Yes. The heart is sealed within an Emblian blood temple. If that seal is broken, someone will die each time the heart beats... Those who perform the rite are the first to die.

Now. Líf claims he was the one who broke it open, but he also was present for the war that followed and only after was he killed and inducted into hel's army. so. both of those things can't be true. i propose that the magic mcguffin located in a sealed emblian blood temple was unlocked by our dear zacharias and thats what killed him in other zenith. i think its possible that other veronica was the one who did it, but you know. its all imagination at this point. also, and i forgot this, but thrasir does go off about how she can't lose until she saves her brother, so. something especially tragic happened at least. and oh boy is scenario two a nice fresh tasty tragedy. so that's scenario two. other zacharias directly died as a result of attempts to fight hel

number three thing that could have happened to zach is boring. he's always off doing things, he could have just died off screen. i mean. everyone did, eventually.

frankly he could still be alive for all i know. the heart appears to take the lives of people in the world, not of the world, or else the summoner would have been fine. so, if zacharias was on one of his off world jaunts, he could conceivably be a-okay. well. as okay as someone who's whole world died. i don't think that's what happened, because thrasir is pretty clear about feeling that she failed him, but yknow.

líf and thrasir's reactions to the above

thrasir is i think the most straightforward. i can't really see her approaching main zacharias with anything but positive intent. even if she's only a little bit open, i think thrasir and zacharias will probably have a decently tolerable relationship. if zacharias can come back to a country that exiled him as a kid and let his mother die in a dungeon and then go on to not just befriend but protect and care for a half sister he didnt know before then, then i think he'll find a way to care about thrasir. you know, intsys could have had fun making another perpetual older brother character. as i understand it, xander gets brother'd a lot, he and zach could have talked. could have been fun. a whole, zacharias, a historically traumatized child: *arrives in a world* every currently traumatized kid in a five mile radius: oh shit this one's ours now. you know what im saying? found family except zacharias would very much like it to stop finding him. he's got important brooding to do. but anway, they didn't go that route and its a tragedy.

líf is... more complicated. i think scenario one creates the most positive outlook. i can see him still having guilt over zacharias' loss, but i think any of it would be overshadowed by everything else that happened. in this scenario, líf finally gets back a piece of the world he'd lost. yeah, it's not his zacharias, but still. it is a zacharias, who is living and breathing and frowning and asking why you are staring at me, knight. i think the two of them could get along rather well, although i see them having significant issues with pessimism. inch-restingly enough... the dark curse bades its hosts to kill askrans. and líf is, well. dead. so... perhaps... perhaps líf wouldn't trigger the curse like alfonse does. in that case, not only does líf get someone back he thought he'd never see again, but so does zacharias.

scenario two is just a nightmare. frankly, i initially thought this scenario would lead to líf just ignoring zacharias (out of guilt, pain, etc), but i was rereading the scripts looking for the spelling of angrboða and this came up:

Tell Hel. She'll erase those memories. She'll erase them all...

so, honestly? i think that in scenario two líf just straight up gets hel to remove his memories of zacharias (as an aside maybe this is also why he never ever ever talks about other anna >:{ )

in that case, líf wouldn't really have any reason to talk to this man, who causes this empty deeply sad feeling to well up in him for now discernible reason. and zacharias has no reason (or time) to talk to this standoffish general of the dead. so. that's a real ships in the night moment.

number three i think líf would still hold the same guilt as in number two, but i don't think it would be as horrifically tragic, so i think it's more likely he'd be willing to approach zacharias. he does appear to have even worse of a thing than alfonse about not opening oneself up to people, but i think that even if he's líf, he once was an alfonse, and being that this is me answering this, i don't think any alfonse can really keep away from a zacharias for very long. its a version of the person who once knew him as well as any other person in the world. like líf can't really seem to stop himself from associating with main sharena, i don't think he could stop himself from reaching out in his own way to main zacharias. and god does that man need some more friends. i think zacharias would probably be a little frightened of líf, and of what an alfonse could become. but i think probably... i feel like a lot of book i issues stem from the fact that, justified or not, zacharias thinks alfonse would risk anything, any harm to save him. i don't know that confronting an alfonse who literally risked everything and did all harm to save his world would be a comfort, but i do think zacharias would get a lot out of having someone who's already done the worst they can do. been there, done that, got the tshirt. i think zacharias would be a little afraid of what an alfonse could become, but i think he would no longer have to be afraid of... no, anxious about it. i think there's a kind of calm in having something confirmed that zacharias could appreciate. healthy? unhealthy? fuck if i know. i also think that in líf, zacharias has a friend who he can't physically hurt anymore. lífs already dead. been there done there got the.... glowing gel torso. i think, curse nonewithstanding, zacharias will always have some degree of tension and fear about hurting people he's in a relationship with, be that because of his issues with abandonment, of abandoning, of harm, etc. but you know. líf's kind of a rock. and he's already hit his rock bottom, now that i'm thinking about rocks. i think that kind of steady, placid deathness could really help zacharias. and i think he would find it soothing, whether or not he knew why.

plus he will be able to know that if the curse gets him, if he dies... he'll still have a friend in the realm of the dead. he doesnt have to be so afraid of leaving and getting left

so there we go! lots of musings. i have been thinkin about why my headcanons are less that and more elaborate branching theories, and i think it is because i would change my opinion depending on which story i wanted to tell or hear or see.so yeah. dunno which one of these answers belongs to the question, what does your interpretation of Zacharias think about Líf and Thrasir?, but hopefully at least one of them is interesting to read about!

OH also. i think he would be petty-ly annoyed about them cribing líf and thrasir's name. like full on scholar petty. probably showed up to the order in a nerdy huff excited to meet the actual factual líf and thrasir and turns out its just those two, sitting around glowing and reciting death metal lyrics like they're spoken word ballads. dont think he'd get over that ever.

#as an aside during the course of writing this #i have become convinced that ''I was powerless to stop it... There was nothing I could do...'' eir #could probably have interesting things to talk aboutwith ''he was all alone... there was nothing he could do to save himself...'' zacharias #anonymous #whew thats a lot of words #ill spell check in the morning #yeah right no ill spell check tomorrow evening #thats more likely #that was fun to think about #i hope this makes sense because i am NOT going to reread it #im going to go get dinner #sat here and DID NOT MOVE for ages #my neck is killing me #thanks zacharias

4 notes · View notes

momestuck · 5 years

Text

Epilogues: Meat ch 18-27 [Epilogue 4]

So that happened.

In this chapter: a struggle over narration itself.

Dirk Strider has assumed control of the narration. Not unprecedented - Homestuck loves to put its narration in-voice for various characters - but in this case he’s making out that it was him all along, which has like, consequences I guess?

chapter 18

Dirk is narrating, and John actually notices sometimes - when Dirk uses words like ‘functional necessity’. But because Dirk has control over his internal monologue, the plot presses on.

It seems that just about the entire Furthest Ring has gone into the black hole, except for John maybe? Dirk narrates that John starts to blame himself for all this, and thereby decides not to go back to Earth C. He then directs John to find his dad’s wallet, floating in the void.

Despite what Dirk has said, he certainly has a different narrative voice to the preceding narration.

It’s notable that John seems to have some independence from Dirk’s narration. He can directly respond in dialogue to Dirk’s declarations, including to challenge them. Dirk’s power as narrator seems to be limited, not equivalent to the full powers of the ‘author’.

chapter 19

Dirk continues to narrate Jade giving an economic presentation to Roxy and Callie, on the subject of how Jane wants to basically recreate capitalist hierarchy, but on the new world, and that’s a pretty dreadful idea. She actually says the words “capitalist hierarchy”, and declares “none of that stuff works”... Homestuck’s politics seem to have changed, at least somewhat. (Perhaps due to Cephied’s influence..?)

Roxy is reluctant to get involved in politics, and concerned for Jane... and Dirk says something which I think will be important.

In the spirit of full disclosure, Roxy’s the only one left I haven’t been able to crack. Her mind remains a total enigma to me, just like it always has. If I had to guess, it’s her Void powers that make her invisible, even to increasingly omniscient parties such as myself. For all intents and purposes, it’s like her thoughts don’t exist. She’s the same person, as far as I can tell. She still wears her heart on her sleeve. But the bottom line remains: Roxy Lalonde is still utterly fucking inscrutable.

Anyway, then something else significant happens... Callie says they’re nonbinary.

CALLIOPE: yoU are absolUtely not an asshole!

CALLIOPE: i didn’t mind being called a girl. i still don’t really mind, it’s jUst not exactly... accUrate.

CALLIOPE: bUt i did take comfort in “being a girl” for a very long time. this is something i’ve only recently decided.

Roxy likewise says they’re enby too... this causes Dirk to have a bit of a meltdown.

I never would have guessed. Not that I’ve spent much time contemplating issues related to gender. I’m pretty secure in my expression of masculinity, and...

You know what? Fuck this. I don’t owe anyone an explanation of any sort on this topic. I’m confident with who I am, what I am, my gender, as well as my understanding of the concept. You want my honest opinion? It’s fucking fantastic. Good for them. Both of them, I mean, but also, both of them in a singular fashion, since each one can now individually be referred to by the conventionally plural word “them.” I’m ecstatic for this personal development they’ve embraced, for the people they are, the lack of gender they identify with, and the pronouns they prefer. I’ve got no problem with it whatsoever, and frankly, it’s fucking insulting anyone would ever imagine otherwise.

So yeah, I’m gonna allow it.

‘secure in his expression of masculinity’ was not the impression I had of Dirk personally, but I guess we’re going with this characterisation here.

For the rest of this chapter, Dirk keeps misgendering Roxy and Callie in narration - seemingly not deliberately, he swears and corrects himself shortly after.

There’s another interesting conversation where Calliope talks about how ideas of gender were, ‘circuitously’, transmitted to Calliope/Caliborn from watching Earth, and how these shaped Alternia (ok this one’s a little confusing because they didn’t make Alternia? though of course Doc Scratch did affect Alternia). So the system of gendered social relations is literally a “copy without an original” - Baudrillard was more right than he knew!

Anyway Dirk interrupts this discussion to narrate that Jade has a sudden vision of the black hole, and passes out...

chapter 20

Jade ‘wakes up’ in the furthest ring - was there a Dream Jade out here? i thought all the dream selves died but I don’t really remember anymore. Over here, she’s injured - she’s got a big piece of ‘the absence of a future’ skewering her.

Dirk narrates how she’s drawn towards the black hole - ‘the dead cherub is making her move’. At one point, his orange narration is interrupted by red text - the word ‘come’.

Of course, we now know that this dead Jade will fall into the Candy universe, where it will be inhabited by alt-Calliope. I am rather confused about how this came about though. Who’s this almost-dead Jade floating in the Furthest Ring? Why did Jade’s consciousness get shunted into her body?

chapter 21

Dave and Karkat are witnessing the first brood from the Mother Grub. Dave figures it’s kind of gross... and Karkat agrees after ribbing Dave a bit for being insensitive.

Anyway they’re here to try and win over Rose and Kanaya to the election campaign, only, they’re being predictably very Dave and Karkat about it, which is fun. Dirk’s narration is almost taking a backseat here... though occasionally stepping in to point to a trait of characterisation as why he’s going to win.

It’s nice to have Kanaya give some proper dialogue! She talks a bit about troll reproduction, the latent potential for fascism in both Jane and... Feferi. Which, fair.

Anyway Kanaya is rightly pissed about Jane’s plans for troll eugenics.

Dirk occasionally editorialises. Morality, he declares, is a cultural construct (complicatedly true so far as it goes) - it’s “pure ego” for them to think their morality will guide them to the “most effective” laws (that’s also a cultural construct you fucking idiot!)

Dave, continuing in his capacity to make everything as maximally awkward as possible, starts speculating about ectobiological ‘Rosemary babies’ (Kanaya has apparently not considered the term ‘Rosemary’ before, and declares that she hates it).

Kanaya gets concerned and calls Rose - and Dirk reminds us that she’s unconscious on his floor, and answers for her, but explains nothing. Because “John’s doing something important to the plot again” - and Dirk has to be there to narrate, I guess.

chapter 22

Keen to complete his full assumption of the role of ‘anime villain’, Dirk’s narration starts talking about breaking down the boundaries between people to become gods - to become ‘one god’.

Anyway, in this chapter, John bumps into Meenah’s ghost. She steals the Ring of Life that he previously took from Aranea while performing his current spate of retcons, and jumps into a ‘server’. (What did the servers do again? I don’t remember... ok apparently they’re just there in the Furthest Ring, as places people can store such things as wizard fiction and ~ATH programs on them...)

anyway it seems that Meenah can go through the door in the server somehow. presumably ending up in the Candy universe? idk. The wiki didn’t say a lot about what these servers do.

chapter 23

Not much narration, just dialogue. Kanaya arguing with Dirk, specifically. She’s not impressed by Dirk’s excuses (Dirk briefly interrupts to declare that she doesn’t really ‘understand’ Rose, even though she loves her) and sets out to retrieve Rose. Dirk keeps this a secret from Rose...

chapter 24

Minimum editorialising from Dirk this time. John floats around endlessly, and runs into... Terezi! Sure am glad to have her back :D

chapter 25

Dirk and Rose have an argument about... intimacy, identity, and other such philosophical things. Kirkegaard is name-dropped, and it comes out that Dirk (like me lol) gets most of his knowledge from Wikipedia, because obviously he grew up in a post-apocalyptic world...

ROSE: Who exactly were the academic cognoscenti of your era to determine which sources were deemed respectable?

DIRK: That would be me, obviously.

ROSE: Ok.

DIRK: I suppose you’re going to tell me you haven’t read enough Wikipedia articles on loads of scholarly shit to fancy yourself an elite academic by 25th century standards as well?

ROSE: No, I guess I have.

ROSE: I’d be one of the top intellectuals by that measure.

ROSE: A measure set by, I guess, literally one solitary self-absorbed teen boy for the express purpose of making himself feel clever.

DIRK: Absolutely correct.

They agree to have an ‘amateur philosophical debate’, which comes around to whether ‘free will’ exists. Oh boy. Dirk gets Rose to try to stand up, but then doesn’t ‘narratively allow’ it.

Dirk lectures her on the origin of her condition: the disappearance of boundaries in the ‘ultimate self’ amounts to an ‘unbundling’ of experiences (subjectivity, I guess) and the physical processes connecting to it. Dirk, supposedly, is strong enough to withstand this - so he offers to support Rose as she opens her ‘other eyes’, seeing what Dirk sees - presumably the ‘entire story’ that they’re in?

In this state, Rose is also able to see across into the Candy story. She describes both branches as a kind of ‘gross conceptual clumping’, comparing it to congealed sugar in a drink.

Dirk invites her to ascend - that she won’t be ‘her’ anymore, but ‘better’. This is described as an intimate process of perfect knowledge of the other person... and leads Dirk to start speaking possessively of Rose, his daughter in every respect, including ‘soul’.

Oh no Rose... this isn’t ideal :/

it’s funny, I have written before about such a ‘coming together’ of people, of ‘ascension’ in a similar sense, in my story ‘hacker’. but that wasn’t about assuming an ‘ultimate’, godlike form - the gestalt was a different person with different concerns, but not a ‘perfect’ person. here it’s a much more negative thing - a way for Dirk to take control over the ‘ultimate’ Rose.

chapter 26

Dirk’s narration seems to be perceptible, at least in some sense of inner monologue, to Jade. He’s trying to persuade her not to descend into the Black Hole (which, we now know to mean, the Candy universe) through his ‘metatexual’ messaging.

But he’s not succeeding. Alt-Calliope once again interrupts the narration at one point - and Dirk previously did not seem to recognise that it’s her doing it, but now he does.

In Dirk’s eyes, what he’s trying to prevent is a suicide. We know that going into the black hole is not suicide, but going to the Candy universe.

Notably when Dirk has the narration outright declare that something happens, that does not mean it takes effect in the way he describes. He is literally an unreliable narrator.

chapter 27

At this point, alt-Calliope and Dirk are outright fighting to contradict each other in the narration. (i’m gonna keep using ‘she’ pronouns for alt-Calliope, since to my understanding she’s a different person than Calliope)

alt-Calliope’s descriptions are adorably alien - referring to the ‘layers of flesh over her skull’ that maker her ‘expressive’, for example.

Apparently it’s not Jade occupying Jade’s body back on Earth C - the Meat!Earth C that is - but alt-Calliope. Alt-Calliope starts lecturing Dirk in the narration of the corrosive effect of his ‘megalomaniacal’ intentions. Somehow, she pretty much entirely shunts Dirk out of the narrator role. Dirk’s text - complaining rather than narrating - shrinks, and ultimately disappears.

There’s a fucking amazing moment when alt-Calliope gets Dirk going on a whole rant about katanas and how she’s supposedly metaphorically using them wrong.

But ultimately, what she’s going to do is just... ignore him. Or rather, talk about him like he isn’t in the room; use his metaphors, but do not allow him the dignity of response.

experiences such as the sensation of presiding over a vast, empty ocean. his ocean, which terminates with his horizon. it is a barrier, not real, but psychological, symbolic. no matter how much power he achieves as a man, he knows there are horizons he perceived as a boy which he may never cross. and yet i have crossed mine, with the express purpose of perpetually and eternally reminding him of his limits, and of enforcing them. limits, which like his vast, empty ocean, serve to remind him that he is phenomenologically, if not literally, alone. that he has experienced loneliness intimately and absolutely, just like i have. but unlike me, he is terrified by it. and i, unlike him, understand all too well that the children left alone are those who most despair at being ignored.

Epilogue 4, in summary

Damn. I can see why they call this the ‘meat’ route.

So.

Dirk has found some way to assert control of the narrative voice. In this capacity, he’s run roughshod over the various events trying to mechanically arrange them to achieve... some kind of end. But his carelessness in attending to the specific characterisations, instead of relating everything back to himself, somehow left him vulnerable to be excluded from the narration by alt-Calliope.

Whatever Dirk’s plan is, it seems to require... Jane and him to assume rulership of Earth C, and... what else? Well he wanted Jade to go into the Furthest Ring, but not to enter the black hole (because ultimately that allowed alt-Calliope to enter the narrative). He wanted John to do various ‘plot relevant’ things, like... presumably hand over the ring to Meenah, acquire the wallet, and meet Terezi.

Where’s all this going? Fuck knows lol!

We can try and talk about all the issues of identity, ‘free will’ and so forth towards the end, and the interesting attempt to connect that to gendered subjectivity, once we’ve taken in the story as a whole.

#momestuck

2 notes · View notes

bed-of-cunts · 6 years

Text

Kamoka and others v Security Services and others [2017] EWCA Civ 1665

I've never done a post about a legal case like this, but this case was so annoying that I felt the need to rant and this is my ranting spot.

Full disclosure - I am a legal academic, working on my PhD in law. My thesis focuses on deprivation of citizenship and the Immigration Act 2014. My opinion is 100% worthless, and you should not take any of this as legal advice whatsoever.

This case was about some Libyan men who had been members or associates of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. In 2005, that group was proscribed by the UK government as a terrorist organisation. The five claimants were arrested, tried and imprisoned and later the Home Office attempted to deport them back to Libya. The courts held that the men were a danger to national security and should be deported, but that this wasn't possible because it would not be safe for them to return to Libya.

In 2011, the Qadhafi regime was overthrown. In the process, documents from the archives of the Libyan intelligence services were discovered that showed that the UK Security Services had knowledge of and complicity in the unlawful conduct (including torture and extraordinary rendition) of the Libyan authorities.

The claimants sued the government. The basis of their claim was that the Government had attempted to deport them, and subjected them to immigration detention and Control Orders, knowing full well that the deportation attempt would fail because of these considerations. The claimants argued that the Home Secretary did not have regard to these relevant considerations.

A quick word on something called closed material proceedings. Some courts in the UK, particularly the Special Immigration Appeals Commission which was the court involved here, are permitted by statute to go into closed sessions. In fact, many are legally obliged to do so whenever the Government wishes to present evidence the public disclosure of which would be a danger to national security. In a closed session, the individual and their lawyer and public are excluded. The individual is instead represented by a Special Advocate, a government appointed and vetted lawyer who is security cleared and therefore permitted to view the closed evidence. The Special Advocate is there to represent the interests of the individual, but they are not responsible to them like a normal lawyer is. They are allowed to talk to the individual before they have seen the closed evidence but not after - the Special Advocate can't, for example, go back to the individual to see if they have an alibi for a particular date or any counter evidence if the closed evidence makes a particular claim. Special Advocates are meant to be able to present their own evidence in closed sessions, but this would require them to call expert witnesses of their own, who would need to be security cleared, and the Government has never (I can confirm this) ever allowed this. Special Advocates have a very very difficult job and they do the best they can (they are all QCs and very capable and genuinely trying to represent their "clients") but they are only successful in the rarest of cases. Once the judge has decided, there is an open judgment, available to you, me, the individual involved and everyone else, and a closed judgment available only to the Government and the Special Advocates Support Office.

Now, back to Kamoka. It turns out that issues relating to rendition and cooperation between the UK and Libya were discussed to some extent in the closed sessions of the original cases, and there was "wide disclosure of top secret documents bearing on the Claimants' concerns as well as important oral evidence. (I quote the judge at first instance, Irwin J, who had access to the closed judgment from the deportation case. This is all the publicly available information about what exactly the closed evidence was.) In response to being sued, the Government argued that the Claimants were committing abuse of process by suing the Government because they should have raised this legal point during the case rather than later. Suing the government was a collateral attack on losing the national security case in the deportation proceedings. (Think of a man who is convicted for crime despite claiming that the police officer had beaten a confession out of him, and that man later suing the police officer for assault - the courts say that you lost fair and square on that point before, unless there is very compelling fresh evidence you can't just litigate the same thing forever). The judge agreed, stating that there had been no suppression of evidence in the closed session (though of course, we have to take his word for it) and that whilst the claimants didn't have a full opportunity to challenge the decision in the original case, they had "as full an opportunity as could be devised, given the constraints imposed by the requirements of national security, as expressed in the relevant statutory provisions." (I include this quote because it makes me sick to my stomach).

Some of you may have already spotted the problem here. The claimants in this case had no idea what happened in the closed sessions. Neither did their lawyers. Neither do I, as I don't have access to the closed judgment. How can the actions of the Special Advocate in closed session by attributed in any sense to the claimant, who does not instruct the Special Advocate and remains completely unaware of what they do, save with the (never given) express permission of the Court and the Government? How can an individual be expected to pursue a particular cause of action if they are completely unaware, by the very design of the system, of its availability?

Fortunately for my sanity, the Court of Appeal agreed. Not only was there no evidence that the Special Advocates had run the points currently being advanced by the claimants, but they couldn't be said to be privies or agents of the claimants anyway. Further, as the claimants had no knowledge whatsoever of the contents of the closed session, the pursuit of the second set of proceedings couldn't possibly amount to abuse of process. When the claimants discovered the new materiel, they made their claim. In the words of Irwin J:

"Given the very unusual facts in this case, the Claimants and their legal advisers had some basis for considering that they might have acquired materiel capable of altogether changing the nature of the case. Perforce they could not be sure of it. I therefore cannot regard it to have been abuse of process to have commenced the proceedings in these exceptional circumstances, or to have prosecuted the proceedings thus far."

However, Irwin J went on to hold that now it had become clear that the Special Advocates had addressed the issues and to continue would be abuse of process. The Court of Appeal, thankfully, disagreed.

The idea that the claimants could in any way be held accountable for the actions of their Special Advocates in closed session is frankly ridiculous. Special Advocates are on their own once they've seen the secret evidence, completely cut off from the individual. The individual has no direction, no control, no input. The Special Advocate has to represent the individual as best as they can, but they are not accountable to them like a normal lawyer is. To say that a claimant has already argued a particular legal point, when that argument was made by a person the individual was in no control of and could not even communicate with, in relation to evidence that the individual has not seen, and not to mention the fact that the individual is being asked to take everything on trust and to rely on a Government-appointed lawyer they aren't allowed to talk to and who is basically useless anyway given their lack of statutory power and practical support.

The closed material procedure is a disgrace. Its a mockery of justice and is hopelessly unfair. Special Advocates have spoken out about the difficulties of their, particularly to parliamentary committees. They are always so clearly passionate about being as helpful as they can for their client, but they are so limited by the law. For example, if the government claims that an individual was in Afghanistan on a certain date, a normal lawyer could ask their client about it and the client might be able to provide an alibi - for example, proof they were in Leicester at the time. A Special Advocate can't do that. If the government produces a photo that it claims is of the individual doing terrorist training or whatever, a normal lawyer would be able to go to their client who might be able to produce a picture taken at the same time where he looks completely different - i.e. without a beard etc. A Special Advocate can't do that. They are entirely limited to cross-examining government witnesses and trying to point out inconsistencies or irregularities in the governments evidence, usually to little effect, without being able (in practice) to present any evidence of their own or build a coherent counter narrative. Compared to ordinary barristers working in ordinary courts, its a travesty. But the worst thing about CMPs, in my opinion, is the fact that there are now dozens of closed judgments, from the SIAC, various other tribunals, the Court of Appeal and even the Supreme Court, that aren't available to the public. The only people allowed to read them are government lawyers, Special Advocates and judges. No ordinary member of the public, let alone a legal academic, is permitted to see these judgments. How am I, or anyone else, supposed to identify and construct a coherent and complete picture of the law as it stands when so many cases come with a closed judgment attached that we can never see? My job as an academic lawyer is to try and answer that tricky question of "what is the law?" and that becomes literally infinitely harder if we don't have access to the judgments of actual legal cases. It is genuinely the most frustrating aspect of the law that I have come across in my short career so far - you get to the end of an interesting judgment and expect a discussion and instead what you get is "we explain our reasons in detail in the closed judgment". And my response is, motherfucker i wanna know what your reasons are for taking this guys British citizenship away and i am not happy just taking your word for it. Tell me your fucking reasons so I can tell whether or not you're chatting bullshit.

So, that's Kamoka. It'll be interesting to see how that case turns out on the merits. As for CMPs, they're not going anywhere anytime soon. The Supreme Court, the highest court of appeal in the UK, has even gone into closed session, despite stating afterwards that it was of no help at all. (Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 38)

I think I'm going to continue this series on recent appeal court cases that interest me - its a nice way to fill time now that I've submitted my thesis and have to wait weeks and weeks for my viva exam. Next time, Kiara and Byndloss, and the difficulties of appealing from abroad. Spoiler - its really hard and rarely succeeds, and thats why the government likes making people do it.

#uk law #court of appeal #siac #kamoka #closed materiel #terrorism #law #lawblr

1 note · View note

eksbdan-blog · 5 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://passingbynehushtan.com/2019/10/23/how-sacrifice-sins-of-the-world/

How Can a Person Atone in a Sacrifice for the Sins of the World? Only One Way. Part 1.

Hint about the title. If you are thinking the answer that is God is the person, so he is. But not “God,” only God. It’s really not confusing at all. Ideas like “God” are not our problem. It’s their meaning when it’s not something that we want to hear. Then the idea becomes a problem. Here is the real meaning for “God,” and is perfectly and conservatively Christian, but still not something that you may want to hear.

Sacrifice for the Sins of the World? Why can’t religion be simple?

Well, actually it’s very, very simple. It’s just that kind of simple we don’t want.

When I was growing up and attending church, I increasingly realized the central theological message of Christianity as the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of the world. How does belief in this act affect the redemption of the individual? As time went on and I could reflect on a proposition deeper, this seemed harder to accept than presented.

Now the forgiveness of sin comes from more than the belief in Christ’s work on the Cross for your sin. That is a belief about your work, too, namely, that your sin keeps you from God, and if there is not a solution to this, you will die in your sins.

In penal substitutionary atonement, why you repent is that you realize that you can’t save yourself, that God has to do it for you, by offering Himself as your substitute, taking your sin on himself. John McArthur puts it this way:1

“The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him. The Lord God Himself chose the sacrificial Lamb, the Servant, Messiah, the sacrificial Lamb. The Servant Messiah was voluntarily willing to submit Himself to become the vicarious substitute. God caused Him then to pick up all the guilt that belonged to us and take the full fury of divine wrath. Five different ways in Isaiah 53:4-6, five different ways it speaks of the vicarious, substitutionary provision of Jesus Christ, dying in our place. This is the heart of the gospel.”

Now, for those that affirm it, everyone seems very possessive and insistent on a certain formulation of atonement. Still, no one seems eager to explain how faith comes into this, thought essential for salvation no matter to what version you subscribe.

Are your sins the issue? Why, and what is to compel you to think Jesus’s solution is better than anyone else’s version of the operation of transcendence?

Well, obviously it’s about a better miraculous event proving his is a real operation. But not a real one, as I had come to believe, only because of inference from a stand-alone miracle that only God could perform such as the empty tomb. Not better because of the kind of miracle assumed to be manifest because this kind of sacrifice is unique. Real because something else happened that makes it true, but not that it makes more sense and appeals to reason on its own. My thought became that it was better, and perfect, and real, primarily because of a miracle in our mind, triggered by one that God performed in the world, of its description of something in the mind of God.

A miracle is God’s calling card. A miracle is an overt display of God’s existence, nature, and mind, which is so overpowering to the senses that it is accepted as such without meditation. But I think that if this miracle can happen in the outer world, it can also occur inferentially in the subjective world. This miraculous occasion has just as much power coming through spiritual senses and the physical senses. If that is true, then it is also a miracle that Christ hung on a cross for the forgiveness of sin. Although not a miracle in the objective sense, I expect it to be itself the wonder of a divine concept expected to change us once seen for what it is.

Why is this an important consideration? Because no one thinks the Parable of the Sower is a miracle meant for our spiritual awakening and then our salvation, only that of things such as Jesus’s healing ministry and the resurrection. Then, few are as impressed with Isaiah 53 as a miracle to write sermons upon as they are with Jesus’ ethics in the calling the little children for a blessing, or his washing of the disciple’s feet. And then, we look at Jesus on the Cross and think that this represents only what he had to go through to secure our forgiveness, while never so much as having heard of Daniel 9:26. There is a working assumption in our theology and the human heart that what we have of evidence of transcendence that is clear is fake, because it’s too good to be true, and only fit for the naive religionist. What is not so clear, and looks more mundane, but while still being also a product of the agent of transcendence which produced that clear view, is also not worthy of the remarkable either, but only of an uncommon morality. Viola, religion!

What is left, on the one hand, is an evidential sideshow of curious and eyebrow-raising unsolved mysteries of Christian religious literature called apologetics. On the other side, a revival tent of swooning and sweating enthusiasts in which everything that we need to or happen to feel at a given moment is granted the most serious respect as sincere moments of truth-seeking. Still on the other side of the Christain compound is the dimly lit hall of writing and reading desks, over which hover the innumerable bald heads of the scholars, deep in the patristic fathers for the discovery of the 2nd-century kerygma. But with all that brainpower never divinely fired, they never do know how to use that knowledge to bring up a revelation about what really changed from the 1st century. Our Christian experience and expression of faith is a mosh-pit of brains and bodies thrown against each other and never against any other, which is not a body and not in a mosh-pit. We have the truth, but what we really love about it that it allows us to use it and feel good about having it while not having it at all.

What this comes down to in this mediation of Jesus and the Cross is if we are practicing His Christianity or some chimera of our own making. Then, by that, whether we are saved or damned. I think it a pretty important topic.

I think that the teaching of Jesus is supposed to be a transfer of knowledge from the otherwise impossible source of God’s mind. There is not supposed to be in Christ’s action of the raising of Lazarus a disconnection to any other truth that God communicated. Isn’t the acceptance of a greater truth and a greater miracle manifest to our spiritual senses not supposed to be its point? Is not the teaching of Jesus in his words and actions the inducement of such a miracle, to open us up to the understanding of spiritual, otherworldly truth? Arent we saved through the hearing of the Gospel, presumably, as we think of commonly it, not an overt miracle?

Ok then, we know that the function of these external displays of God’s glory is for stopping our selfish mouths and brains from thinking our thoughts and replacing them with God’s. I believe that the real miracle that we have to witness is a miracle of the content of God’s thoughts in ours: an exclusively miraculous content.

If the image of Christ on the Cross will not be one of these, is it no wonder why we think it’s possible, and normal, for a saved person never to have seen or understood it as anything more than and OT act of religion replaced by a universal one? That it does not have any other symbolic theological significance past “propitiatory atonement by sacrifice”? Not a wonder that Christ on the Cross becomes to the unbelieving world a mere creative religious notion intrinsically no more ingenious than those of any other religion? That the suspicion that it has a unique divine intrinsic power, far beyond its ability to inspire a common emotional response to any such scene, like pity and love for someone suffering in our place, is lost? Is it no wonder then if we were to denigrate and dismiss any inference from it that would suggest that its signification denotes a disclosure about a kind of crucial sin to which we are addicted? That we would sell our souls and re-crucify Christ again if its transformative power were to be thought possible of exposure and judgment of us?

Please go to the next page…

May I make a prediction? Before this article ends, you will for the first time in your life of faith become something of the mind of God new to you, if I can successfully convince you that the Cross means is nothing less than your death or your life in a way that is miraculous. You have not heard of this before, because it’s unconsciously a closely guarded secret of the Christian consciousness. In normal consciousness, and even in normal evangelism, its a truth not entertained and uttered openly as an article of faith. You are not supposed to be fed the answer to a question that God wants you to discover on your own, but only by the motivation of your love of truth. Nevertheless, how you handle this truth, whether aware or unaware, whether by agreement in words or practice, will determine your end. How you respond will decide whether or not you are playing around in mundane world religion or a simple manifestation of divine Truth, because this is the very function of the theological significance of the scene of Christ dying on a Cross.

Its the one truth of the faith that you could say is universally hated and actively shunned, but also the one truth about he faith, and about the Bible, that is the least deniable.

I do this because there will come a day, which I believe will come shortly when we will have nothing left to inform our faith than the recollection of this real miracle of theological formation of which I speak. After the withering assaults from more carnally seductive alternatives, we will want to go back to the real fundamentals of our faith, and it’s not what we think they are.

Restating the Obvious

Let me reiterate the preceding in a variety of ways.

Now, I’m jumping into my early twenties in my quest to solve something about Christianity and its message confusing to me. I was not capable of this kind of question early on. Why is it that the act of dying on the Cross is a less powerful revelatory element to faith than the empty tomb when they are both supposed to be supremely revelatory? This question bears not on the initial place and route of the miraculous into the spirit, but the final one. Some of the considerations toward an answer to which I deal will seem pedantic, and I apologize for that. But go with it. It’s necessary because when this subject opens up, it touches upon so much of what and how we think by cultural Christianity that, as powerful as this truth is, that firewall is constructed as its sufficient counter at every turn.

Where do miracles occur? I mean miracles that are demonstrably and rationally exposable and examinable to all. Not only personal subjective experiences. Is there today a change in emphasis from the time of the 1st century? If Christ as a sacrifice for world sin is important, and supremely so, and is the most important miracle, this question we have to confront this hard and early.

Must our most essential and objective demonstration of God for which our spirits are responsible only be in an overt miracle, whether seen or reported? Is a miracle not also an alien knowledge? Do wonders that show an impossible exception to the laws of nature has a more important counterpart in those that only occur in the spirit as a response to divine knowledge? Can’t this abstract miracle, just as examinable and open to scrutiny as to its validity, which occurs in the spirit and processes in the spirit to the spirit, not carry the same epistemic weight as an objective miracle which occurs within the physical world, processed within the spirit and to the spirit? Can you then call it a Christian belief which asks one to believe in a sacrifice for sins which is no more remarkable than any other religious concept? A belief thought not having a miraculous and intrinsically transformative signification for which any sincere seeker would be responsible? Finally, it is not a symbol, which appears not as a miracle but a common act or word, which is hidden by God as to its intended meaning, that which becomes a miraculous instance of God’s power and nature in the spirit after it we know the knowledge it carries? This symbol essentially becoming within that space every bit a theophany of God to the spirit as if God appeared to the eye, which secures a substantive relationship with God that we can profess but can never have otherwise?

Is this subjectivism?

It may seem like I’m saying that experience of faith within your heart and mind is just as valid a proof of God as a miracle within space/time, but this is far from what I’m saying. You will think this because we are trained to think, as I said, of faith as not necessarily grounded in facts and the “spirit” as emotion.

I ask again, must the Christian message not be that there must be an appearance of God to the mind and heart with as much epistemic weight as that which occurs to the five senses? A presentation, in the form of knowledge, which has just as much power to influence the people around you to God’s reality after being reported by you? It would seem that what happens in space/time, brought into the spirit for processing, which is a demonstration of the presence and power of God, will be powerless and puerile until this miracle of its meaning occurs.

I say that Jesus on the Cross is one of them and the greatest of them all. Not that it is a miracle in the material world. An exception to the laws of nature. But a miracle in the spiritual world, through thought, that is every bit as palpable there.

I think we have to keep in mind that if you repent of your sin, your sin first needs representation and a solution by the sacrifice of Jesus before forgiveness. Or else you are repenting for your sin for the same reason a person repents who knows nothing about or does not believe in Messiah’s work on the Cross. And your sin is found, and its cure rendered, not by a creative religious idea for which you believe and repent, or by no spiritual knowledge at all. By a miracle within which is fundamentally a revelation of his Person. An indispensable miraculous predicate. One which all religious ideas are to sign and represent in an inferior but essential capacity, but in an unbreakable relationship. What you believe and the reason you believe it has to be the equal of God’s revelation, and that revelation of Messiah on the Cross should be every bit as much of one as your kind of understanding and belief in it.

Please go to the next page….

Faith and Practice: Words Mean Things

There seems to be a disconnection between Christian faith and practice, but in a way in which those words as defined culturally have lost their meaning in Christian theology. Is “faith” only faith, and is “practice” only practice, to be used thus in the same flattened way that other religions use them? I don’t believe Christian faith should not be “faith” in the world’s estimation, and “practice” should not either.

If Christianity is the religion of miracle and demonstration, and not merely of wish-casting, “faith” needs to be faith in and because of a divine phenomenon that occurs in the spirit and the epistemic equal to any divine phenomena that trigger it that occurs in the mundane. It needs to be a miraculous knowledge and radical. To the natural noetic senses crazy radical, and demonstrably so, to show all those not accepting it are crazy. Following as an effect, “practice” can then essentially only be a personal spiritual demonstration of that faith in reaction to the divine phenomena in which it shares space, which is equal to an outward movement of the body in which are the content of speech and the motivations for actions. If not, it is easy why you can think you can believe Christ atoned for your sins but need not think you must know, understand, or become inspired by a provable miraculous act in the Crucifixion, death, and resurrection. You believe in miraculous Christian conclusions, like talismans, not miraculous Christian predicates.

The one verse that always came back to haunt me, beside and above all these other concerns was

John 8:24: “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”

Here is contained the essential religious faith and practice, but to natural sight, it sure does not look that way.

Again, How does Faith Work in Redemption?

Well, it’s a little too early for that. But I will tell you this.

This question was becoming a key, because the identity of Jesus, required for us to confess, is the identification of him as Messiah Savior through his apparent, miraculous acts that stand alone as products of the exclusive power of a God of transcendence. But also those which he performed that are not so plain to see casually, but plain only through honestly, mentally, connecting the act to a prediction that only God could make. If the case, the Atonement must have a far deeper meaning regarding the operation of our salvation than it presents on the surface.

Whether we are speaking of how the atonement works with faith or how faith works with the Gospel, we have the same question: How does Christian faith work in redemption? We will get around to the Gospel. But since, in my view, the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is such an integral and powerful symbol of what God did to secure our release from the penalty of sin, I could not get it out of my mind when thinking about this.

Now, when I was busy being bewildered over so many questions and with no answers forthcoming, my first thought was that there must be something wrong with me. Maybe I have a spiritual block about spiritual things. Perhaps the whole proposition was a sham, this atonement of a Man-God by sacrifice for the world’s sin. Maybe this Jesus and his followers just invented a novel way of explaining how God’s plan of redemption fulfilled the Law and ended by their chosen religious leader, through which all need to join through them. When the possibility that the Church might not be teaching this correctly came up, I interpreted the word “correctly” here according to one of the choices given by the church and not by the Bible. “Correct” or in “error” according to Protestantism, catholicism, secularism, philosophy. Perhaps its only my Church that is not correct, joining something like, by Catholic perspective, the Protestant heresy of “justification in a moment,” where the real answer lay in adding works to faith in a progressive redemption. Maybe I need to shut my mind up and accept the “Christian” version of the truth, placing my “heart” needs over my “head,” and the church defines them.

In retrospect, although all these alternatives were confronting me in my lack of understanding of the theological formula, and should have weakened my resolve to push through it, I became more determined. Unlike any other religion I knew, Christianity seemed in some strange way to invite this examination, this struggle, deep introspection, just because it did not appear in a hurry to proclaim any more truth than it asked the hearer to admit of himself. It seemed to ask a lot of questions instead of only telling the answer to spiritual matters. This seemed strangely honest. Maybe this Christianity was perhaps more than it appeared above both the pedestrian and scholarly elucidations, and perhaps we are fundamentally ignorant about it.

Sacrifice for the Sins of the World. Christ on the Cross.

Again, asked am I to believe the imputation of Christ’s righteousness defeats that sin that keeps me from God. This result is by the belief of Christ’s sacrifice in my place. How does this operation work?

Knowing Christ’s heavy symbolic strategy of communicating what seemed for the pedestrian senses hard things but also axiomatic truths to those looking for them, was not this symbol of the crucifixion intended to mean something more than “sacrifice” or “death?” Should not the symbol of the crucifixion, knowing Christ’s methods, designed by him as a mirror image of the theology of salvation that he taught? And should not each one, the image and the theology, be as something as unique and surprising as we would expect to have come from transcendence? But here’s the kicker. Should not the kind of faith that he asks us to have then rendered as foreign and unwanted to the Street as his intended meaning of the Cross is known and becomes paramount in his religion?

That suggested that maybe, just maybe, the Street is not them, but it might be us, the professing Church. I had all these images running through my head of the Pope and his priests. A Billy Graham Crusade. My childhood Methodist church, and the vast ocean out there, the over one billion, taken for granted as “Christian” yet are almost to the man saying that God’s makes exceptions for them because of their handling of a faith symbol which need have nothing remarkable and unexpected as a transcendent signification, and which feeds, counterintuitively, what must only be called feelings of false humility and self-importance.

If you don’t like that statement, I think we can agree that if what is being communicated and received by man and not designed to be touchy-feely, especially that which is inherently foreign and only designed to illuminate the spirit’s desire for truth at any cost, is not going to be touchy-feely. If it is touchy-feely, but also miraculous for the benefit of Truth alone, there is something wrong with the way it is explained.

I wanted to give the Bible every opportunity to speak for itself. I knew that it was a very symbolic, parabolic kind of revelation that Christ presented. Was the atonement idea represented there in any other sense than someone dying in our place who must be God? It just did not sit well with me that Christianity, on the one hand, claimed an exclusive and complete revelation of God of things kept secret from the foundation of the world and now known, while this revelation as explained to me seemed to be nothing more than what could come from the mind of a creative and ambitious spiritual man on his own.

Please go to the next page…

Not an inconsequential line of investigation, I hope you agree. Here is not some minor concern that only requires the tweaking of an error in an understanding that came from a Greek word or two.

What I found was that, yes, although I found the Atonement in the Bible, the way it was there I found different from the one they offered me in Church, and, as I said, for a long time, this brought complete terror to me before it became a challenge and a blessing. It changed my life, but not before it daily ground me to the pavement and whispered how miserably hopeless and weak I was, that this was not something that I could have thought up myself. I knew now for sure that my “sin” was not really about doing or not doing something, or about how genuinely I accepted and believed a religious idea, or how deeply I believed in God and willing to give up my life for him. These are, again, asking no more of us than the kinds of things any other religion would ask. The problem was that I knew that what stood between God and me was something supernatural, something alien to the world but a part of it. It represented the only spiritual thing that was most manifest, but also the one thing that we are least willing to accept and integrate into our lives.

Symbolic Preliminaries.

We have someone on a Cross in the process of being executed. There are two essential elements to this picture: the person and the method of torture and execution. In the method, there is this means of nailing, tying, and fixing to that which also raises that person from the ground. What does this mean?

In natural sight, this is a man, and in natural sight, this is a piece of wood and some nails. The man is slowly bled to death and asphyxiated. In that natural sight, that is all it has for you. You can see that this is not a public miracle of the supernatural, although miracles accompanied it. It was a very common sight in a 1st Century Roman province. And, also a natural thought, how easy it would have been for God to have sent an army of his angels from the sky, take him off and fly him to heaven in the sight of all the people. Boy, this would bring many people to examine the doctrine of Jesus, would it?

But, if the fundamental problem of humanity is not that he does not believe what he sees, but that he does not believe what he can spiritually see but does not, then such as act as this expectation of God to casual thought would not be respectful of our personhood, our free will, as a person like God. It would be a deletion of free will since such a supernatural act would remove the choice of whether this is the act itself is from God.

However, the supernatural is what man has a problem with and is what God wants for him to accept to be a spiritually righteous person, not just a physical one, which the fulfillment of Personhood and not only its imitation. If this is not an overt supernatural display, how could it be supernatural in a way that is not the same as the prosaic image of a man dying on a cross to which his natural senses lead him? If this supernatural display supposed to be something like “this was a universal sacrifice for the sins of the world in fulfillment of the tribal one carried out in the Law of Moses,” isn’t that just as well a mere religious and creative mere idea?

A mere religious idea is not tracking with the fact that this Jesus is a man and God, natural and supernatural, and together is something so unique and transcendent it/He should stand as the most unusual and earth-shattering event in human history. Not just a universal symbol, either Jesus or the Atonement, to replace/correct a Jewish Messiah or its old symbol. That would not be only God placing one thing for another, that would be the historical fulfillment of a Jewish symbol, a symbol designed by God to become miraculously fulfilled. A supernatural meaning in fulfillment of a supernatural symbol of a yet unfulfilled part of Jewish law. Yet as the realization of an Old Testament symbol in its meaning, the physical act and a unique theological message can’t be the meaning because this would say that symbols comprehensively carry and are determinative of meaning. That is precisely the opposite of divine revelation, where divine phenomena and appearances are first and our inferior but morally sufficient ideas about it second.

What kind of meaning are we talking about that aligns with the essential definition of meaning, one which is of knowledge impossible without special revelation by God?

Let us remember that a symbol or an idea is a representational device for the carrying of identification and operation of a thing in itself. It is not meaning itself, only a tool for it to appear in the world. Remember that this sacrificial act by someone who claims to be the Son of God is someone that uses miracles not to bind someone up in a decision but to help them. To point them to the gravity and importance of another one which, like the miracle, is not imminent, but spiritual and self-attesting. Jesus is then not just supposed to be the fulfillment of Elijah or Moses. No matter how he satisfies them his mission, his mission is not only to bring their ultimate personal instances into the world. Its to deliver their final transcendent message into the world, which represents the end of a chain of symbolic assignation to render ultimate meaning, not another round of it.

Lets also not forget that a proposition is not Truth, its a symbol of truth. You can and must worship, give ultimate value to Truth, but you cant give it to a mere symbol (“mere” making it the pagan equivalent is the idol). To believe “Jesus saves” is a saving proposition, or that saying and believing the propositions “Jesus saves” or “God is sovereign,” will not save you ay more than bowing down to a carved image of Molech. These are conceptual symbols of a faith container, a placeholder for a Truth, not the God who is Truth. And so emotion does not save you, and reason does not save you, doctrinal propositions do not save you, no matter how important they are in the disgesting and understanding of revelation. Those are also only possible images of a Truth received, understood, and believed, not that truth itself or your moral acts themselves. Christ saves you, but not “Christ,” insofar as this is only a designated name and an idea for something of his which is his abstract equivalent and which is nowhere near a cultural formulation. Christ is an objective Person, and he is a revelation of knowledge. You get to use the symbol of faith “Christ” through his informational entity of miraculous knowledge. You don’t get to use the symbol effectively as if independently imbued with that divine power, which rubs off on you like an idol that you merely hold without your demonstrated spiritual connection to the declared truth it represents.

Continued here: How Can a Man Atone for the Sins of the World By His Own Sacrifice? Only one way. Part 2. The Messianic Secret

Schuurman W. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is the Heart of the Gospel: Who Agrees? | Trinity Bible Chapel. Trinity Bible Chapel. https://trinitybiblechapel.ca/penal-substitutionary-atonement-is-the-heart-of-the-gospel-who-agrees/. Published July 19, 2018. Accessed October 26, 2019. ↩

0 notes

equivvitch · 7 years

Text

Fassathon: A Summary (Part I)

So, this summer, in the year of Our Lord 2017, I decided to do something stupid and unnecessary, as I do, by watching every single theatrically-released movie Michael Fassbender has been in thus far. Every single one. I dubbed it the Fassathon and didn’t rest until I was finished. (I know a lot of his early career was in television and in television movies (trust me I know the only thing I have to type in my search bar is “im” and his IMDb page pops up automatically) and given more time I’ll probably watch some of those but for the sake of not having to watch like seven more movies I granted myself that leniency.)

All in all, I’d say it took about two months. In total I believe I watched 24 movies, having already watched five beforehand (the new X-Men trilogy, Shame, and Jane Eyre) for a grand total of 29 damn movies (full disclosure, one was a bonus which you’ll see eventually but whatever). Some of them were actually ones I needed/wanted to watch but a lot were….not.

In any case, for the sake of posterity and making myself feel better about being a dumbass, I decided to write up some kind of summary piece about it, so that’s what this is. It got fuckign long so it’s gonna be divided into three parts: two just reviewing the movies and one with some summary thoughts.

This is part one, but first, it wouldn’t be a post by me without eighty disclaimers so let’s get that out of the way first:

This is all subjective obviously. Keep in mind I had to watch all of these so a lot of times I tended to compare them more to themselves than films as a whole. I tried to see the big picture after the fact but when you have 28 films to watch you tend to get hyper-focused on the task at hand. Also I’m not a film critic. I’m just an asshole and a dumbass, a dumb asshole if you will. I am interested in film theory but that means about jack since I have no formal education in it.

It should also be noted that a) Fassbender’s performances in these movies were almost uniformly excellent. The man can carry a movie on his goddamn back and often does if required to do so. This was noted consistently to the point of it being funny in the reviews of each movie. b) A lot of these are British movies. They’re not Hollywood. Just…..pointing it out. And c) I’m 1000% attached to some of these films/franchises outside of this “challenge.” X-Men in particular and also Jane Eyre I’m invested in deeply so that might affect my ideas.

That out of the way, without further ado, some reviews, thoughts, and recommendations:

X-Men: First Class (Erik Lehnsherr)

Rating: 8/10

Quick Summary: At the height of the Cold War, Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr meet under unlikely circumstances and form an even more unlikely bond. They end up with a common goal in defeating a ghost of Erik’s past, Sebastian Shaw, who is determined to cause nuclear war between the U.S. and Soviet Union in hopes of destroying all humans and making way for mutant rule. The two set out and put together a team of mutants to help combat him, but push their relationship in the process to an unfortunate breaking point.

Some Thoughts: I have watched First Class so many times you have no idea. Understand, I once did a full rewatch of this movie for the sole purpose of fact-checking a post that was talking about how many times Charles says “Erik” throughout the movie. I sat there and tallied them by rewatching the entire thing. I love this movie to pieces, so I really have no ability to objective over it. Because of that I do know its flaws pretty well, trust me. It has issues (coughs about the ridiculous awful romantic subplots), but I really do think it’s a strong film and an interesting start to this quasi-reboot. Ultimately it’s a movie about the relationship between Erik and Charles, so that is its strongest point. There are some big shoes to fill, considering Sirs Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan had the roles first, but McAvoy and Fassbender do a great job with it. It was stated in interviews that McAvoy was cast first and then they made the guys going out for the role of Erik read with him to cast a chemistry instead of a person and it shows. It really is shot like a love story, especially when the B-plot is an explicit romance between Hank and Raven. In my opinion it’s a fun ride, watching everyone meet and use their powers, train together and learn together. The ending is not that happy and I always shake hands with movies that dare to do that, especially big films like this (see GotG 2). It can be silly and frustrating at times, but after Last Stand I feel like we could only go up. I know some people really don’t like this movie which? I guess I’d like to hear from someone who doesn’t to understand why. That being said, Armando deserved better. Fuck his nonsensical death.

Warnings: Montages? Also some violence. Not a ton but what’s there sticks in your head.

Recommend?: Yeah! If you like superhero movies this is a pretty solid one.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (Erik, but this time in the 70s, and with less turtlenecks and more scarves)

Rating: 9/10

Quick Summary: (This plot is so convoluted I’m going to have to be vague otherwise this could take years.) In an apocalyptic future these robots called Sentinels are murdering everyone, particularly mutants because at one point a guy named Dr. Trask got ahold of Mystique’s DNA and used it to make them indestructible. The always wonderful and patient Logan gets sent back to the past to try and stop this from happening. There he finds Charles in a terrible, drug-induced spiral having lost everything and has to attempt to get him out of it so he can help find Raven who’s gone rogue and wants to kill Trask for his experimentation on mutants. In the process they join up with Erik, courtesy of Peter/Quicksilver, which doesn’t go well, which no one could have ever seen coming. The whole thing comes to a head when Raven has to decide whether to become a murderer and risk an even darker future or let Trask walk free and go against what she believes in.

Some Thoughts: I remember so clearly sitting the theatre and seeing the first preview for this, turning to my family and joking about the really stupid title. Like “Days of Future Past? What kind of title is that?” It’s up there with Back to the Future in terms of dumb titles, but is somehow pretty much acknowledged as the best of the current three, alternate timeline movies?? In spite of its ridiculously convoluted plot, it’s a really solid film and has great character development for two of the big players, Charles and Raven. Wolverine acts as a familiar foundation and point of view for the story and grounds it as he often does. Charles has to learn to stop trying to control those around him and move on with his life despite past losses, and Raven has to make a pivotal choice for her character. The scene at the end where it’s flipping between the future and past and all the original cast and the new cast are fighting at the same time is really cool, and the character arcs are strong and satisfying. The only one who doesn’t change much is Erik, but arguably First Class was his platform for character development or, more accurately, regression. He doesn’t do anything that helpful (which is….true to form) but watching him lift an entire fucking baseball stadium, fly it through the air, and drop it on top of the White House is pretty rad. Also Quicksilver is incredible holy shit the way they do his scenes is iconic. Kind of confusing maybe, but it also retconned almost the entirety of the original timeline in a genius move to destroy Last Stand once and for all. It’s usually called the best for a reason.

Warnings: Wolverine gets stabbed by stuff and shot a lot but that’s par for the course

Recommend?: Yep! But you might want to have watched some of the other movies first. Watching it with no background would probably be….too much.

X-Men: Apocalypse (Still Erik/Polish(?) Lumberjack/Poster child for Man Pain™)

Rating: 5/10

Quick Summary: An ancient mutant named Apocalypse (or En Sabah Nur if we’re going to be technical) awakens in the midst of the 80s (because there must be a 10 year gap between each movie it’s a rule). He used to rule but now he doesn’t and he’s mad so now he wants to destroy the world or some shit and rebuild it in his image. He does this by getting together his four horsemen (get it) including Erik who is inexplicably in Poland with yet another family that gets fridged. The X-Men find this out and get together to take him down.

Some Thoughts: I can (and have) ranted about this movie for literal hours. I have some serious personal gripes with it and it annoys me to the point where I’ve blown it out of proportion so keep that in mind. That rating might be a bit low but this movie is mediocre at best. I guess the core of it is because the X-Men conflict is a lot more interesting when they’re up against some government entity or society as a whole rather than just some random villain, at least to me. This movie also does not have a strong foundation like the first two did, no solid grounding point. In XMFC it was Erik and Charles’s relationship, in DoFP it was Wolverine being the POV character, but in this we really have nothing. The stuff with the kids is probably the most interesting and I hope they do more of that in the upcoming sequel. It has a few good moments (Quicksilver’s scene and Erik dramatically throwing down giant steel beams in the shape of an “X” in front of Apocalypse as he switches sides to save Charles and co stick out in my mind) but it tends to drag otherwise. There are about twenty plots going on and it takes forever for them all to connect. The romantic subplot crap is a pain in the ass and dragging Moira back was particularly idiotic when you realize they once again gave her nothing to do in the final act except overlook Charles completely violating her personhood in the first movie by wiping her mind without consent so she can get back together with him. The shit with Erik’s Poland family is stupid even if it’s done well. Magneto of all fucking people does not need more man pain for god’s sake. Lawrence is so checked out she really might as well be a phone recording as Lindsay Ellis points out in her Loose Canon series on YouTube. The only one who really had any interesting development was Storm and I hope they keep on with her because she’s a really good character. There’s just not much there for me, or what is there isn’t of any value. I really hope the next one is better. (Probably a far-fetched hope but a girl can dream.)

Warnings: Lazy writing (and comic-book-movie-typical violence)

Recommend?: I mean you probably want to watch if you’re watching the series. It’s not the worst X-Men movie. I’m probably a little harsh on it. There are the Wolverine sequels. Still, if you’re not that invested, it’s probably not worth it.

Jane Eyre (Rochester)

Rating: 11/10 10/10

Quick Summary: Jane Eyre has lived a fairly unfortunate life, having been put under watch of her cruel aunt after her parents’ deaths and consequently sent to a boarding school that beats its pupils into submission, but remains strong in spite of this. She finds herself a new job as a governess at Thornfield Hall and soon meets its master, Edward Fairfax Rochester. The two begin to talk and form an interesting relationship in spite of their large age difference. Jane begins to fall for her employer, overlooking his rough exterior to the person underneath. Rochester reciprocates, but all is not well. Jane discovers her lover is hiding a dark secret and must decide whether to be true to her love for him or to herself.

Some Thoughts: I WOULD DIE FOR JANE EYRE TBH THE DAY NETFLIX TOOK IT OFF WAS A TRAVESTY. Really, though it’s such a good movie and very loyal to the book. It’s a period piece, but it’s very different from something like Pride and Prejudice, a lot because Jane is such an interesting character. I love her and Mia Wasikowska does a great job. Rochester is a bitch, but…..he’s a bitch with a good heart. Realistically he’s supposed to be kind of….not good looking? So casting Fassbender might have been counterproductive, but it does mean he has to compensate for his incredibly square jawline which can’t be hidden behind that shit sideburn beard with his acting, which he does very well. His charisma kind of helps to smooth over the fact that Rochester can be standoffish to viewers that aren’t prepared for him. He is no Mr. Darcy. The chemistry between the two is great and the story is really enthralling. The music is gorgeous and the ending is satisfying. Well-shot, well-paced, loyal to the original, just a great adaptation all together. It’s not a happy movie, but it has a happy ending. I really have nothing but good things to say about it. Please give it a chance if you’re even a bit interested.

Warnings: You might cry/a little blood

Recommend?: Yes!

Shame (Brandon)

Rating: 10/10

(Quick note: if you’re like “wow you sure aren’t harsh on these movies” listen this was back when I was actually choosing the ones I wanted to watch….so yeah….these are mostly good ones at first. There are definitely some bads on here….don’t you worry…)

Quick Summary: Without giving away everything: Brandon is a pretty normal man struggling with a sex addiction which he basically refuses to acknowledge at the beginning of the movie. His lifestyle is disrupted when his younger sister Sissy comes to stay at his apartment without asking him first. The rest of the film is about their complicated and mildly toxic relationship and Brandon dealing (and not dealing) with his addiction with mixed results.

Some Thoughts: This is one of those movies like Brokeback Mountain that just kind of….sticks on you. I felt that way about Silence of the Lambs too where you watch it and then you can’t really forget about it. Fassbender has worked with Steve McQueen who directed this film three times, this being the second, and they make a great pair. McQueen loves him some long takes and he does them well. His style of directing is unflinching to the point of it being uncomfortable which works well for the type of stories he likes to tell. It’s a very quiet movie, not much dialogue, but it really hits home. This really is one of Fassbender’s best of performances in my opinion. He can do a lot with just his expressions and it really shows here. The dynamic between him and Carey Mulligan who plays Sissy is really poignant. I probably could never do it justice with words alone. It’s difficult to watch, but worth it. It’s one of those movies where the protagonist doesn’t really grow, pointed out very blatantly here. True development hasn’t taken place, at least not yet. Whether or not you think it actually will after this is left up to how optimistic you are for the characters and the story.

Warnings: This is rated NC-17 for a reason. They do not shy away from anything and they do not cut you a break by easing into it. Translation: if you’re disinterested in becoming familiar with some very particular bits of Fassy’s anatomy I’d steer clear. Also strong warning for themes (and fairly graphic depictions) of self-harm.

Recommend?: I would never tell someone to watch this movie, but I would definitely advocate for it. Read the description (that a professional has written, not just mine fff), check the warnings, see if you’re up for it. This is one you need to choose to watch, not be forced to.

Macbeth (Macbeth)

Rating: 6/10

Quick Summary: Oh god, I still don’t remember the plot of this thing…. I swear I read it once but you’d be better off reading the Spark Notes or something. It’s based on the Shakespeare play (obviously) where this dude named Macbeth and his wife Lady Macbeth go around killing people to gain power because some weird ladies in the middle of a field told him he’d be king. Everyone fucking dies at the end per usual due to really ridiculous loopholes. A grand old time, as always, with Mr. ‘speare.

Some Thoughts: Listen pal I got food poisoning trying to watch this damn movie THE CURSE OF THE SCOTTISH PLAY IS REAL. But really, it’s kind of what you’d expect? All of this is coming from me, an idiot, who doesn’t remember the play super well and is shit at Shakespeare, so bear that in mind, but?? It stuck to the original pretty well. It’s played dead-ass straight, so know that right now. There is no humor in this movie ever; it’s completely serious. Also impossible to understand because it’s Shakespearean English in Scottish accents. You’d be better off with a background knowledge of the play I think. That said, the visuals in this movie are absolutely gorgeous holy shit. The ending fight scene is incredible. That alone made it worth the watch for me at least. Marion Cotillard who plays Lady Macbeth is amazing as well. What a great performance. It’s a solid film. You need to accept its no-nonsense attitude to get into it, but otherwise it’s fine.

Warnings: It gets pretty bloody, but not overly so.

Recommend?: Not really, unless you really like the play or have a good knowledge of it already. It’s beautiful, but a little too serious for the casual viewer. I assume that’s why its reviews are kind of mixed.

Prometheus (David)

Rating: 6.5/10

Quick Summary: Two scientists discover a series of ancient drawings, all of which are very similar despite appearing hundreds of years and thousands of miles apart. They believe this might be a clue as to how the human race came to be, a path to our creators. They set out on the Prometheus to investigate a planet they believe to be the origin of these so called “engineers.” Things go awry as one might expect when they find the planet is already inhabited, but not by any “engineers.” Moreover, several crewmembers have secret motivations of their own for coming along which doesn’t really turn out well for anyone.

Some Thoughts: I feel like a lot of people don’t like Prometheus because it’s a think-y movie. It’s not really an action-packed thriller like other movies in the Alien franchise. This was the first in the franchise I’d ever seen so I didn’t really go in with those kind of expectations which I think was to my benefit. If you go in looking for answers you’re probably going to not like it, but I just sort of went to have a good time and pretty much did. Noomi Rapace as Elizabeth Shaw is really great. I really enjoyed her as the main character. There are some really good actors in this movie and I think they do a good job. I loved Idris Elba’s character a lot for example. It’s a beautiful film as well. Fassbender plays David, the resident android of the ship. It was interesting to watch him play a robot because he is, to me, a very emotive actor and this had to be more restrained. I don’t remember the movie super well which probably speaks to it just being an average sort of film. It’s not great, but it’s not as bad as some people seemed to think it was. Just go along for the ride and it can be a good popcorn flick.

Warnings: There’s one really graphic surgery scene that was hard to watch, but otherwise it’s (compared to the other Alien film on this list) not too bad. It really is more introspective than bloody. Also, maybe obviously, there are aliens in this movie.

Recommend?: If you’re into sci-fi thought-pieces, sure. Just don’t go in expecting a masterpiece.

Alien: Covenant (Walter and David, yes both)

Rating: (completely subjective) 8/10

Quick Summary: A group of forgettable, idiot crewmembers who are all inexplicably married for no reason other than a desperate bid to get you to care about them in any way (you won’t. trust me. they’re so stupid you’ll probably rooting against them eventually) are piloting a ship called the Covenant with 2000-some passengers and a lot of embryos on a colonizing mission. Along the way they intercept a strange transmission coming from another habitable planet they hadn’t noticed before which is much closer and decide to investigate. Once there things take a turn for the worst. After several deaths and the completely avoidable destruction of their ship, they run into David who’s been living alone on the planet for ten years after the Prometheus crashed there. They soon learn that they would have been better off braving the planet and waiting for rescue alone.

Some Thoughts: Listen I went into this movie completely expecting it to be horrible. This really was the one that started it all, where I decided I’d watch all of them. I wasn’t going to watch it because it looked ridiculous, but then it was available to rent and I was curious. In all honesty, I really only went in to see with my own eyes how and why the actual hell Fassbender was playing two characters which at some point kiss, so that was part of it. Ultimately I ended up really liking it. Now mind you, this is not a good movie. It’s not. The cast is forgettable and stupid to the point where you just want them to die already and get it over with. The only person I even slightly cared about was Daniels, the main crewmember character you follow. People die without any pomp and the movie is riddled with clichés. That said, it is a lot more like what I expect an Alien movie usually is. There’s a lot more fighting of aliens and a lot more blood. So what’s with the rating? Really it’s completely subjective, but if you know me and watch this movie you’ll probably understand. Let’s just say I have a very specific type of character I tend to like and this movie delivers.

Fassbender carries this gotdamn movie on his back half the time and somehow pulls off the ridiculous scenario of him being the two different robots. The interactions between Walter and David really were some of the more interesting parts of the film for me, completely ridiculous as they are (“I’ll do the fingering”). If you can just suspend your disbelief and go with it I insist that it can be a good time. My favor of the movie really comes from my opinion of David and I think that’s what will make or break the movie for you. It was a ballsy choice of protagonist, and when you realize that I think the forgettable main crew is a little more justifiable. Big kudos for the ending as well, at least from me. It ended exactly the way I wanted it to, and I ended up being invested in who I needed to be invested in. It’s a stupid movie, but I do think you can have fun watching it if you’re in it for the right stuff (namely the fassbots).

(Also, people are not happy about the fuck-million more Alien movies in the works but hear me out…. I have a great pitch idea….what if with every new movie we just double the number of Fassbenders…… so there’s four and then eight and then sixteen all the way until we just have infinite Fassbenders….. listen this is a great plan Mr. Scott please hire me as script consultant from now on)

Warnings: This is a lot more of a horror movie than Prometheus. It’s bloody and violent, and yes there are more aliens. Also it is really stupid. Also warnings for that sweet, sweet ‘bot-on-‘bot action ;)

Recommend?: I mean….not really. Again my opinion is so subjective here that it’s worth a grain of salt. If you do, you need to watch Prometheus first because you need to form an opinion of David.

Hunger (Bobby Sands)

Rating: 5/10

Quick Summary: Without me sitting here for like a half hour looking up a lot of proper names and dates (which I’ve already done once when I was watching the damn thing), this a movie about a hunger strike led by a man named Bobby Sands. It takes place in a prison in Northern Ireland. A group of people called the Republicans who are fighting against being part of Britain and want one united Ireland are being arrested for political acts and are protesting in any way they can. This begins with bathing and clothing strikes, and eventually leads to a hunger strike when this accomplishes nothing.

Some Thoughts: So this is a critically-acclaimed movie and I know people really like it. I guess I can see why but compared to McQueen’s other films I didn’t think it was super impressive. It’s his first project with Fassbender and in a lot of ways it feels like an early-career film. It has a lot of pacing issues. I read reviews saying it’s two movies in one and it really is. As an American (and therefore a dumbass when it comes to conflicts in other countries because our history classes here are Shit) it was sort of a confusing movie to watch just because I didn’t really have any background knowledge about what was happening. I was doing a lot of googling throughout to catch myself up with the conflict and acronyms etc. It’d definitely strike more of a chord with someone who knew about it beforehand. It is a prison movie and it’s difficult to watch because of that. There’s a lot of mistreatment of prisoners and just kind of gross stuff in general. I was whining at one point about the hunger strike not starting until like…20 minutes before the movie ends but I see now why it didn’t because you’re basically just watching Fassbender starve to death from that point on and it’s Not Fun. There are impressive parts of it. There’s a long take of a conversation between Bobby and a priest where he explains his idea of starting a hunger strikes that is, I shit you know, seventeen fucking minutes long. It’s crazy. There are other long takes in the film but they’re not always used super effectively. This can cause the movie to drag at times. The use of sound in the movie is also really amazing. It’s very quiet usually, but picks its loud moments and picks them well. Overall I didn’t get much out of watching it, but that’s just me. I didn’t think it was worth the difficult watch.

Warnings: It’s unrated but I bet it would be R or even NC-17 if it was. Lots of disturbing shots of violence against prisoners and behaviors of the prisoners themselves tbh. There’s nudity as well, but it’s used as humiliation mostly. As usual, McQueen’s style of filmmaking is unflinching and watching someone starve to death isn’t fun.

Recommend?: Not really. McQueen has better films you could watch. Unless you’re personally interested in the conflict at hand, I’d skip it.

Frank (Frank)

Rating: 10/10

Quick Summary: An untalented aspiring musician named Jon suddenly stumbles across the opportunity of a lifetime to play in actual band when they find themselves out a keyboard player the day before a performance. Jon lends them a hand and is accepted into the group in spite of some friction with most of the members. They invite him back on what ends up being year-long trip into the woods to write a new album. While living with the band, the Soronprfbs, Jon gets to know the members better, as well as their many quirks. Notably, there is Don, the manager who seems level-headed if somewhat depressed, Clara, who doesn’t take Jon’s being there very well, and Frank, the apparent leader of the band. Jon takes a special interest in Frank who appears to be the heart and soul of the group. In spite of wearing a giant fake head at all times, he’s very friendly, encouraging, and strangely inspiring. As they work to write their album, Jon begins to record and post their progress on social media, gaining them a new following of people amused by their bizarre antics. This new popularity ends up landing them a bigger gig than they’ve ever had before, but comes at the cost of risking the band’s identity and solidarity.

Some Thoughts: Frank is an amazing movie. If someone wasn’t interested in Jane Eyre but wanted a Fassbender rec, I would 100% give this one. I love this movie to pieces and I’m so glad I watched it because I was initially on the fence with it. In fact, I liked it so much I watched it twice within my rental period, and have now purchased it. If you’re looking for something close to a comedy on this list, this is it. I kind of describe it as if Wes Anderson directed Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, threw in a strong lesson about mental illness, and bumped up the rating a bit. This movie is hilarious and wonderful and poignant. The message is a really good one and one I don’t think we hear a lot. It’s a good commentary on the relationship between art and mental illness, and it’s done respectfully for the most part. Fassbender as Frank is kind of incredible. You don’t see his face for the majority of the film, but he still gives an amazing performance. I think it shows how talented he is as an actor that he pulls this part off so well. You’re intrigued as much as Jon is by him, or at least I was. The humor is a little out there and some of the themes may be off-putting, but I really do think this is one to see. Maggie Gyllenhaal as Clara is fantastic as well. It’s a difficult part but she pulls it off so wonderfully. Domhnall Gleeson as Jon gives a decent grounding point of view character as well. It’s funny and touching and goddammit maybe someday I’ll watch one of these movies without crying but that ending hit me right in the heart.

Warnings: Themes of self-harm and mental illness are present. They’re not played as a joke, but they’re there.

Recommend?: Yes please watch this movie I beg of you it deserves all the praise

Fish Tank (Connor)

Rating: 5/10

Quick Summary: The movie is a coming-of-age story of sorts for the protagonist Mia. Mia has a difficult home life with a neglectful and often abusive mother as well as a penchant for causing trouble. Having been kicked out of school she is directionless which only furthers her spiral downward. Her only true passion is dancing, but she prefers to do this privately. One day she meets her mother’s latest fling, Connor. Unlike the others, however, Connor seems there to stay. Mia begins to interact with Connor and the two form a relationship. Connor is kind to both her and her younger sister, treating them with respect and parental affection they do not receive otherwise. Connor encourages Mia’s hobby and leads her to begin searching for a career in dancing, helping to turn her life around. Things take a turn when Mia and Connor overstep a boundary in their relationship and this leads to Mia discovering that Connor was not what she thought he was.

Some Thoughts: I’m very…ambivalent about this movie, so I don’t probably have a lot interesting to say about it. It seems to me that Fish Tank is a part of a very particular genre of movie about a specific part of the British lower class, making it difficult to relate to for someone who hasn’t experienced that way of life. I watched another movie called Beautiful Thing a long time ago that was part of this genre as well, and that’s what Fish Tank reminded me of more than anything else. It seems to be characterized by poor, crowded living conditions and abusive family dynamics more than anything else. The characters struggle to get by and are generally mean-spirited to everyone they encounter automatically. It can make for a bitter watching experience, even if it is realistic. Mia is a somewhat believable teenager. Since this is a British movie about hip-hop dancing however and the actress playing Mia has…little to no actual dancing skill, any parts of the movie that have to do with this dancing can be embarrassing to watch. You really have to accept that it’s stupid and move past it to watch the thing.

The relationship between Mia and Connor is…troubling which I’m sure it’s supposed to be but it’s never resolved. Some of the scenes in the movie are disturbing as some in Hunger. One of my biggest issues with the movie was there really seemed to be a conversation missing. The end of the film felt like it was lacking a crucial interaction between the two and it made the ending fall pretty flat, at least for me. I know people like this movie and it’s award-winning but I couldn’t relate to it in any meaningful way. It left me feeling conflicted more than anything else. I have no strong or final opinion on this movie. I do respect that it had a female director, but I feel as though I very clearly wasn’t its intended audience, so its impact on me was minor at best and non-existent at worst. There are some nice cheesecake shots in it of Fassbender I guess. I think it still wins for best ass shot afdjks;lj

Warnings: Some disturbing character behavior, especially from Mia. Abusive family dynamics and physical child abuse are also present. Also statutory r*pe. Also some really embarrassing excuses for hip-hop dancing and general cultural appropriation shit that comes from a British movie about hip-hop.

Recommend?: You can try it, but I wouldn’t advocate for it. There are better artsy films to watch unless you’re actually in the target demographic and think you might like this sort of movie.

Inglourious Basterds (Lt. Archie Hicox)

Rating: 7/10

Quick Summary: When she was young, Shosanna’s family was murdered by Nazis hunting down Jewish families who had escaped to France. Now, as a young woman, she finds herself with the opportunity to get revenge. Meanwhile, Lt. Aldo Raine has formed a group of rogue Nazi-hunters called the Basterds, infamous throughout Germany for their lack of restraint and ability to avoid capture. His team is hired by the Allies to help with a plot to hopefully take out all the big political figures in the Nazi party, including Hitler himself, in one fell swoop. It just so happens these two plans are meant to take place in the same place, on the same night.

Some Thoughts: This is the first Tarantino movie I’ve ever seen and I do think it was good for me to at least see one. I was glad to see the movie itself too, actually. It was one on here I just needed to watch outside of this thing. I enjoyed it for all it reveled (as expected) in gore occasionally. I really loved Shosanna. Mélanie Laurent did an excellent job with her and she was easily the best part of the film for me, though I did enjoy Brad Pitt’s shenanigans as Aldo. Fassbender has kind of a bit part in this one which was a little different, since he tends to steal the spotlight otherwise. It really wasn’t my favorite performance of his. It was a little unfocused, though that might be because his character is just a plot device. Kind of a shame but in true X-Men fashion all he did was show-up, fuck things up, and then make his exit. Ah well. It’s well-shot and a good time, if a little long. The blood was there, but not excessive. Maybe a good choice if you, like me, wanted to see one of these movies, but were a little nervous about the violence.

Warnings: Typical Tarantino violence, I presume. Really, it’s just a few focused shots of it, but there is scalping in this movie, as well as some mutilation and gunshot wounds. I whipped my hand up to cover the screen more the once throughout and I’m pretty decent with blood.

Recommend?: Sure. It’s a pretty solid film and last time I checked it’s free on Netflix.

Centurion (Quintus Dias)

Rating: 6.5/10

Quick Summary: In the something-or-other A.D. the Romans are up somewhere near Britain trying to expand the empire, as one does, but are having trouble with the native peoples of those lands called the Picts. The Picts keep decimating their armies, as they do with Quintus Dias’s men. The Picts take him in rather than killing him because he speaks their language, allowing him to escape and meet up with another regiment. Together, they try again to attack the Picts and again are defeated handily. This time the Picts take their general of sorts. Dias and a small group of men are the only ones to survive and attempt to rescue him, but ultimately fail. Afterwards they begin their attempt to escape to safety, all the while being hunted by the Picts.

Some Thoughts: So I fully expected to hate this movie. When I saw this was the other one on Netflix I was Not Happy, but? It kind of surprised me. I think really it did a couple small things well and that turned my favor of it. It really isn’t that great of a movie, with a lot of narration and not a ton to say, but it’s certainly not offensive. It turned into a survival movie rather than a war movie which I greatly preferred. They also weren’t super over the top with the romantic subplot which was….SHOCKING. Usually, in my experience with the Fassathon, if there can be a sex scene there Will Be A Sex Scene, but not here. They meet a cool witch lady along the way who takes to Quintus, but never is it obnoxious, nor does it waste time with it. It was a breath of fresh air tbh…. I’m probably patting this movie on the back for little things too much, but I really do think it could have been a lot worse. It’s fine. I don’t really know who the target audience was supposed to be but it might be good for a night when you’re bored and can’t think of anything else to watch. You get to watch Fassbender run valiantly and stupidly shirtless through the snow if nothing else.

Warnings: It can get bloody, but not overly so. Also mentions of past sexual assault, but nothing shown.

Recommend?: Eh…like I said. Maybe for the night you’re flipping around and there’s nothing on. Decent popcorn flick, probably not worth spending money on.

Trespass Against Us (Chad Cutler)

Rating: 3/10

Quick Summary: Nothing I could write will make this movie’s plot make any damn sense but I’ll try anyway. Basically there’s this family called the Cutlers who are….Irish tent-people and also a weird kind of mob family with a patriarch named Colby. They live in this little trailer park circle and commit crimes to get by. The plot basically revolves around Fassbender’s character Chad Cutler trying to get out from under Colby’s thumb in order to give his wife and two children a better life. Unfortunately, it seems again and again that he’s already dug his grave and there’s nothing to do but lie in it.

Some Thoughts: So this is a weird movie. The whole conceit is weird and another one that you just kind of have to go with to be able to watch it. Its problem is that it doesn’t really have an arc or a narrative that goes anywhere. If it really had wanted to do something it would have needed to allow Chad to make any progress in his attempts to get away. The dialogue is full of slang and really difficult to understand at times. The whole dynamic of the family is sort of confusing and it’s never explained, just thrust upon you immediately. There are some good interactions, notably between Colby and Chad. The parental relationship between Chad and his son is interesting too, but it really just doesn’t go anywhere with itself. I got a little caught up in the emotionality of it watching it, but looking back I can see how flawed it is. I really don’t see what the director was getting at. Also the religious overtones are strange and didn’t do a whole lot. Just kind of unimpressive if still nice to look at sometimes.

Warnings: Animal death. A lot, actually, and often purposeful. Disturbing behavior, especially one scene where a man is stripped and humiliated. It was surprising and difficult to watch.

Recommend?: Hard pass. Skip it.

300 (Stelios)

Rating: 4/10

Quick Summary: Gerard Butler leads a group of 300 dudes against a gigantic, vaguely racist depiction of the Persian army.

Some Thoughts: I have nothing original to say about this movie, I’m sure. I was……not super happy to find it on here honestly, so I did my best to just enjoy it by making fun of it. Most people know what 300 is like. It’s got some interesting visuals, but it’s definitely one that looks pretty and does as little as possible. Mostly it’s a male power fantasy interwoven with quite a bit of racism, particularly in the portrayal of the Persians. It’s saturated with slow-mo shots and rousing speeches that aren’t really that important to anything. It’s a good one to watch on a bad movie night probably if you don’t mind some of the gore. This was Fassbender’s first theatrical appearance if I’m correct and he’s fine. I guess one plus-side of this movie is that everyone’s practically naked the whole time and super buff so that can be fun to ogle if nothing else. It is what it is.

Warnings: Body horror, lots of blood, and war stuff. Tiddies? Racism? Scottish yelling?

Recommend?: It’s your life buddy. It’s probably one to see once so you can rag on it in good conscience.

Steve Jobs (Steve Jobs)

Rating: 9/10

Quick Summary: A movie shot in three parts showing a dramatized version of the events before the release of three of Jobs’s products, focusing in on his relationship with his coworkers as well as past lover and daughter.

Some Thoughts: This is an excellent movie. It’s another one I’d readily recommend to anyone. The scale of the script is unheard of, meaning it’s super dialogue-heavy but you don’t notice at all. It’s completely absorbing. The performances are top-notch all around. This is another one of Fassbender’s best performances. He sinks into the role completely and does a phenomenal job. Kate Winslet is equally wonderful and balances Fassbender’s Jobs well. I really knew nothing about Jobs before watching this movie and I don’t know how much is true and how much is dramatized but I think that shows that even someone who knows nothing can enjoy it and find it interesting. The politics of it all were particularly wild to bear witness to. It’s a great character piece and it deserved the nominations it got in my opinion. I really liked Jobs’s relationship with his daughter as well. I don’t know how they managed to make a movie full of mostly talking so exciting but they did. I also think they did a great job of not idolizing Jobs at all, nor vilifying him. They walked a fine line and wrote him so he seemed truly human rather than a historical figure. That’s hard to do but they nailed it. Once again, I have little bad to say. If you’re not interested in Jane Eyre, Shame, or Frank here’s another good option for you.

Warnings: The IMDb parental advisory page said something about there being some sex/intimacy stuff but I never saw anything which makes me Highly Suspicious

Recommend?: Yes! Give it a chance!

(cont. in pt. 2 / pt. 3)

#fassathon #shut up alice #holy shit an actual post?#that's never happened before #listen i know this is long as shit #and no one's going to actually read this #but i spent a long-ass time on this #and i wanted to actually put it up for posterity #really i'm just proud of how hard i dragged the counselor #i'm sure there are grammatical errors in here but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯#i had to wrap this thing up somehow #it's 1000% self-indulgent but....i don't Care #if i had anywhere more appropriate to post this i would but....#where tf else am supposed to put this crap

1 note · View note

avaantares · 7 years

Text

On Torchwood: Miracle Day

Why this post? Because I’m planning to be lazy in the future. :) I keep seeing this series come up in discussion, and I wanted to get my thoughts down all in one spot for easy reference. So this is simply a text dump containing my thoughts on Miracle Day, both positive and negative. (Spoiler: there are more negatives than positives.)

This will be long, so here’s a dash-saver...

(Disclaimer: It’s been a few years since I watched this series, and I only did so once, so the impressions I’m reporting below are based on what was most salient/most memorable from that viewing. If I failed to notice a detail or have forgotten something, that’s my error – though I would argue that I’m usually a pretty astute viewer, so if something critical is not clear on a first watch, that fault may lie at least in part with the show.)

Okay. Got your popcorn ready? Let’s go.

Things I disliked about Miracle Day:

Genre shift. Instead of a character-driven fantasy like Doctor Who and the first two series of Torchwood, MD is structured more like a political thriller. This is not inherently bad – Children of Earth straddled the line, and was still very effective -- but subjectively, MD didn’t feel like Torchwood at all to me. It felt really… American. (Full disclosure: I dislike a lot of American television writing in general; that’s why I watch more foreign TV than domestic, despite living in the U.S.)

The protagonists. The new characters failed to interest me as a viewer. There was nothing endearing or compelling about Rex, and I personally disliked his character and his attitude. I don’t remember anything particularly dynamic about his character arc, either (he… learns to be a team player, I guess?). Esther, who started out as a fairly generic model of Perky Blonde Sidekick, became more likable as the series progressed; she had stated goals that hinted at future growth, but the most interesting conflicts the series set up for her (i.e. the personal drama over her sister’s kids) were, to my memory, never resolved. (See also Rex’s daddy issues – we take time establishing that he has them, but nothing ever comes of it. What did that scene really add to his overall character growth? Did his father ever even get mentioned again?) Oddly enough, the most compelling character out of the entire new lineup was Bill Pullman’s creeptastic pedophile, and I kind of feel like that shouldn’t be the case with an ensemble cast of this size. (Props to Pullman on that performance, though. 10/10 would set fire to that character.)

Jack’s regression. This is admittedly a minor quibble in the grand scheme of things, but it still bothers me from a characterization standpoint. Jack started in series 1 of Torchwood as… well, a bit of a jerk, actually (which is not inappropriate for his character at that point), but he grows over time (as lead characters should). Between S1 and S2 (Utopia/tSoD/LotTL) he reaches a turning point, choosing to return to Cardiff because he wants to be with his team, and he continues that dynamic process throughout the second series. Then CoE pulls the rug out from under him, and he flees Earth in grief – but when he returns in MD, it’s without the sensitivity or empathy we’d seen him develop through the previous series. At various times he displays behavior that is whiny, bitter, clingy, and caustic. It feels like much of the growth of the previous seasons was negated while he was off-planet, only there’s no clear explanation for what caused it (or, for that matter, why he returned at all; we’d last seen him in a space bar chatting up Alonso Frame, with no apparent intention to come back to Earth). I’d attribute the change to the losses he’s suffered, but I don’t see a clear connection between grief and the petulant attitude he seems to lapse into in MD, and the show itself doesn’t make any attempt to draw a link (Ianto rates a brief mention when Jack drunk-dials Gwen from another man’s bed; I don’t remember if Steven, Owen or Tosh are even spoken of, apart from Jack borrowing Owen’s name once). And we really have no frame of reference for how long he’s been gone. It might have been decades for Jack.

Let’s Talk About Sex(uality). When watching a show, I don’t typically pay any more attention to sexuality/representation than I do to shot framing or dialogue – I’m aware of it, but it’s not something I zero in on to criticize unless they’re doing it badly -- so when I actually pause an episode to complain about the insulting stereotypes, there’s a problem. I know some people were unhappy that Jack was presented more gay than omnisexual, but eh, okay, they’re marketing to a new audience, they have a bunch of new characters to deal with, maybe they don’t want to spend time explaining Jack’s proclivities. But there’s no excuse for that cringeworthy scene with everyone mocking the flight attendant for being gay, even though he denies it – and the punchline is that he experimented with a guy once, so OBVIOUSLY he’s secretly gay, haha, they were right all along! Gay stereotypes are funny! Um. Wow. I remember staring at the screen with my jaw hanging open and saying, “I can’t believe John Barrowman, of all people, was on board with this.” After the casual, understated openness of the previous three series, the change in tone – the calling-out of anyone’s sexuality at all in a series where historically, nearly the entire main cast was (at least) bisexual -- was almost whiplash-inducing. (See above re: it just didn’t feel like Torchwood.)

Continuity? Schmontinuity! ...And this is where the series really lost me. I’ll admit, I’m a bit of a detail nerd, but mistakes like these are worse than sloppy – they’re downright confusing when you’re actually trying to figure out what’s going on in the show. The events of Miracle Day not only break the entire Doctor Who universe, but they aren’t even internally consistent with the rest of Torchwood. I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out just when the “Immortal Sins” flashbacks were supposed to have happened and whether or not a time loop was integral to the plot, because all the on-screen evidence in those episodes indicated that Jack was on his fourth tour of the 20th century: Jack explains to Angelo that he’s a fixed point in time – yet Jack himself wouldn’t learn that from the Doctor until 70 years later in his own timeline. Also, Jack is running around in the mid-1930s wearing his WWII-issue RAF greatcoat (and Webley holster, etc.) – but WWII hasn't started yet, so he can't have served in it (as an American volunteer or anything else) to acquire a coat, and he can’t possibly have one from the future as he has been living on Earth in linear time since 1869. (He didn’t have the coat when he was stranded on Satellite Five, and isn’t shown wearing it in other Torchwood flashbacks/photos until the appropriate era.) In short, the ONLY way the MD timeline works is if Jack went back to the 1930s after fleeing the planet in Children of Earth, which makes no sense at all from a story or character standpoint. Furthermore, the “explanation” for the Miracle contradicts everything we’ve been told up to this point about Jack’s immortality. Jack is supposedly a fixed point in time, being kept alive by the time vortex itself – except, apparently, when you set up a morphic field that somehow inverts the power of the time vortex around the entire planet, without affecting the flow of time, or any other fixed points, or anything else? And there’s also a nullification field that re-reverses the morphic field to let Angelo die, except for some reason it doesn’t restore Jack’s immortality when he’s inside it? Are we not even going to hand-wave an explanation for this? (Inconveniently, this also toasts our main character hook: Apparently Jack can die any time he likes by setting up a portable field to neutralize his immortality, like Angelo did. Welp, there goes our tragically-immortal protagonist. On to the next series.) …And let’s not even discuss the nonsense with the Trickster’s Brigade and FDR’s brain, which doesn’t jive with the Trickster’s repeatedly-stated objectives in The Sarah Jane Adventures. I’m all for name-dropping-in-a-non-legally-actionable-way-because-we-don’t-have-full-rights-to-Doctor-Who-properties, but that was just silly.

The $@%^&# ending. This probably belongs with the previous entry, but it made me furious enough to merit its own bullet point. Jack’s blood now makes other people immortal? …the HECK?! Is Rex a fixed point in time now? How does that even work? Does Earth somehow influence the time vortex? Can a planet clone the time stream? NONE OF THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE REST OF THE WHONIVERSE.

The villains. One thing that made Torchwood as a series interesting is that for the most part, the formula for each episode wasn’t “Our Heroes vs. The Generic Bad Guys Bent On World Domination.” Antagonists were usually more complex, and often the conflict left the team in a moral gray area. Team Torchwood faced evil humans (”Countrycide”), betrayal from within (”They Keep Killing Suzie”), unwitting enemy agents (”Sleeper”), opportunistic human capitalists (”Meat”), time itself (”Out of Time;” “To The Last Man”), and even the government (Children of Earth), among others. Sure, there were occasional Generic Bad Guy episodes (”Reset”), but it wasn’t the norm – and in my opinion, the series’ weakest moments were when they fell into that more generic formula. (”End of Days” had some interesting moments, but the giant CGI monster stomping on Cardiff wasn’t one of them.) In MD, though, we have this amazingly complex setup for an intriguing and world-altering scenario, with hints that it stretches across decades if not centuries, revolving around Jack and those he loved, and there’s so much buildup that we know there must be some deep meaning behind it all… And then it’s revealed that the villain behind the curtain is A Group Of Evil Mob Bosses Bent On World Domination™. There’s not even any personal tie to Jack, who should (for the sake of symmetry) be at the center of it all. It’s just some Generic Bad Guys messing around with some stuff they found. Even though it’s his blood, Jack as a character is really just incidental to it all. The reveal would have exactly the same emotional gravitas if one of the Bad Guys had found Jack’s discarded vortex manipulator and used it to take over the world. It was just... unsatisfying.

...There’s more, but I think that’s enough digital ink spilled for the moment. I’m sure you can get an idea of my general opinion.

But, in fairness, now that I’ve griped about everything I didn’t like, let’s look at

Things Miracle Day did well:

The premise. The concept of people suddenly not dying, the fallout of that situation, and the questions it raises about life and death, civil rights. and society as a whole, is a brilliant concept! It would have made a very solid sci-fi film/series on its own; I just wish it hadn’t been crammed into Torchwood, because it didn’t mesh well with the story already in progress. Even so, there were moments where the sociopolitical drama actually played out quite well in spite of the show’s other issues. There were legitimately creepy horror elements – people being burned alive or dissected and not dying during the process – and it was interesting to consider the practical questions of where you put bodies, how you classify them, and so on. The family drama with Gwen’s father showed the more personal dilemma, while Vera’s incineration highlighted the danger of having the decision-making power in the wrong hands.

Gwen vs. Jack. Gwen having to choose between her family and Jack was the logical progression for her character’s story, and while I can’t say I enjoyed watching the trust between them disintegrate, I do think it was a good conflict to set up, and it gave both of them some much-needed character focus amid a very event-driven plot. (And it was a relief not to have any of those unconvincing awkward-sexual-tension scenes shoehorned in… wait, now I’m griping about the earlier series. Sorry.) Gwen had several good character moments during the series, actually; I remember the bit where she talks about killing her father as being particularly powerful, and she had a few fun one-liners as well (”I’m Welsh”). She was also given some good action sequences. Speaking of which…

Helicopter vs. shoulder-fired missile. With baby under one arm. Okay, not gonna lie, that entire sequence was pure candy.

Andy Davidson. Yes. Good. We can always use more Sgt. Andy. (Let him join Torchwood already!) Aside from their roles in the story, the presence of Andy and Rhys did provide a more solid link to the previous series. It’s not Torchwood without a minimum percentage of Welsh accents, after all. :)

The Oswald Danes storyline. It was creepy and disturbing, but the story of a psychotic killer, manipulated by a media expert, who rises to celebrity status and begins influencing public action was quite compelling (and, now that I think of it, may have struck a little too close to home… did I mention I live in the U.S.? *ahem*). Another thing I didn’t enjoy, per se, but it was certainly effective, especially coupled with Pullman’s convincing performance.

So there’s my (incredibly long and verbose) take on Miracle Day. I think it could best be summarized as “Great concept, weak execution.” Congratulations if you actually read this far. :)

#torchwood #miracle day #opinion #long post #criticism

39 notes · View notes

tirorah · 7 years

Text

The Tradition of Change

Full disclosure: I live in the Netherlands. I’m a cis gay female who had the fortune of being born in an open-minded family.

I could be defined as a third generation immigrant. I say “could” because there’s a technicality in the way, but one side of my family does have foreign roots. However, because there’s a lot of Dutch blood in my veins, very few people would ever identify me as someone of partly foreign descent at all.

Honestly, I’m not sure if it even counts anymore. But all of the above does affect my opinion.

In current times, where our political climate seems increasingly turbulent and toxic, I often encounter arguments revolving around one thing: culture. More specifically, the perceived loss of this culture through our expanding, increasingly interconnected world, and of course immigration, the ultimate hot topic of the current social climate.

Note how I mentioned “perceived” loss instead of actual loss. Because lately, whenever this subject is brought up, the first question on my mind is: What is culture? And is it even possible to lose it to such a degree that it completely destroys a country’s sense of self?

Spoiler alert: my answer is no. Feel free to dive under the cut for a lengthy explanation.

So let’s take a look at the first question, what is culture? A quick Google search gave me a nice definition:

The ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society.

Sounds about right to me. With that in mind, allow me to give you a general overview of Dutch social culture.

In recent history, we’ve profiled ourselves as a country of tolerance. Tolerance towards everyone, irrespective of gender, romantic/sexual preferences, ethnicity, and religion. Tolerance towards other things too, like certain kinds of drugs, prostitution, 16 year-olds consuming alcohol (raised to 18 in 2014) and even illegal downloading (no longer allowed from 2014 onward as well.)

But when one narrows it down to day-to-day interpersonal interaction, we see an additional layer. For example, your average Dutch person is rather allergic to what we consider open, excessive displays of egoism or vanity. The reason for this is a general notion that we, and by extension our fellow citizens, have to “behave normally.”

“Behaving normally” is expressed as a set of social guidelines that we as a people enforce upon others--and ourselves, ideally. It basically means one should act with a certain amount of manners, modesty and decency. There’s nothing wrong with being yourself, standing out, and being successful, as long as you’re not a nuisance to others (rubbing our noses in it) and you keep your feet planted on terra firma.

In comes our current predicament: other cultures. I like to think most of us tend to at least tolerate them--as long as they fit in our Western definitions of basic human rights, of course--even if we think some of them are weird or don’t make sense. But for a lot of people, this is easier said than done when immigrants bring other cultures here.

And therein lies the rub. Right now there’s a growing sense of discontent among the population, caused of course by a multitude of factors. But I consider these two the most visible of them:

1) The ‘08/’09 economic crisis which we’re still recovering from, leading to increased, long-term unemployment, budget cuts and less financial security in general; 2) Political upheaval (internationally too) and a current ruling government that, for all its efforts, makes mistakes and doesn’t do enough for some people.

Which is then followed up/accompanied by: 3) The perceived flood of migrants (again, “perceived” because we actually get in fewer refugees, total amount and percentage, than the general populace thinks) bringing in foreign values which, due to incidents, start to be considered incompatible with ours.

Know anything about the human psyche, and the logical followup is people blaming 3) for making 1) and 2) worse. The longer this situation lasts, the more extreme those views may become, and the more they can spread. This makes it easier, and to my personal dissatisfaction, more acceptable to blame outside influences for one’s problems.

So why the economic and psychological tangent? Because I believe economic problems, compounded by a biological fear and rejection of the unknown, and further complicated by a minority that is actually racist, is the main catalyst for the allegation that foreigners are attempting to “destroy” our culture.

Nothing about this is strange. We humans are animals like any other, and we have what’s called a herd-mentality. We live and thrive in groups, and in nature, groups must be protected from outsiders that often wish to do harm or upset the established hierarchy. So we’re essentially hard-wired to do this, especially when we fall on hard times.

When security and stability is at risk or on the decline, we instinctively look for something to hold on to, a beacon of certainty and peace. The closer to us, or the identity of “us”, the better. This leads me into customs, or traditions. What better comfort than things we’ve cherished for a long time and are seen as a typifying part of our culture?

This is all well and good, mostly, until you add in the rest of the world. Countries in general tend to have different histories and values, sometimes wildly so, and when those conflict...well...

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2014/12/05/zwarte-piet/#.WKMt7m8rLAU

I chose this tradition to talk about because it’s the most prolific one, it’s a children’s celebration so people get extra wound up, and it’s easy to understand why many call it racist. As you can see, a long-standing tradition in one country can be seen as offensive in another. It’s a logical consequence of a world that’s always connected.

For us, especially as a people who have always endeavored to be a haven of tolerance, this is a heavy blow. The issue challenges the notion that traditions are fine because they’ve "always been this way.” It forces us to question our degree of tolerance itself, which is a pillar of our national identity. It makes us wonder if we actually practice what we preach. Or it should.

The actual, visible result is, much like the immigration debate, an argument split up into different “sides.” In this case, we have a vocal side calling for big changes or even removal of the tradition, “fighting the good fight”, while calling the other side “racist.” The other vocal side, the “racists,” yell back they’re protecting “their culture” and “their country.” Finally, there’s a quieter group in the middle who is either utterly sick of it all or doesn’t care (anymore.)

To add to this, some add that our Black Pete custom has already become less racist over the years (the removal of the accent, for example) and are of the opinion this should be enough. To do any more would be an “unnecessary attack” on our “tradition” which then constitutes an attack on our “culture” and “identity.”

This brings me to my opinion, and the point of this post.

I believe that destroying or stealing a culture is impossible, short of incredibly drastic actions like China’s Cultural Revolution. This is because of the following:

Culture is not static. It never has been and never will be.

Our values and morals have shifted massively over the course of history. It’s those values and morals that shape our behavior and ideas in the first place, and with them a fundamental part of our culture.

When I look at it like that, I could even argue this evolution is actually the oldest tradition of all, in any culture. A tradition of change, as it were. (#ShamelessTitlePlug)

We can’t lose our culture to change, because the evolution is what keeps it alive and current. Without these changes, we’d still be colonizing distant lands or calling homosexuality a disease.

In fact, what is culture but a reflection of us as a people? And we’ve changed massively over the years. It’s one of our best traits.

So instead of blaming each other all the time and allowing ourselves to be consumed by toxicity, I think it’s far healthier for us as individuals and as a society to accept this. There is no “Us vs Them” to be had here. It’s simply a matter of Us, and whether we like it or not, we have to learn to live together.

Of course, I’m not saying we should just accept anything and call it a day. Change is not inherently good. And as someone who personally doesn’t deal well with sudden upheavals, I can understand that the way our world seems to be changing more and more rapidly is scary.

That’s why we need to question that change. We need to question everything. Other people’s actions and beliefs, but also our own, thoroughly if we can spend the time to do so.

But it’s equally important to question the status quo we’re always trying so hard to cling on to.

What we shouldn’t do is question the validity of change itself, whether it comes from within or without, and whether it’s gradual or sudden.

Critical thinking is a massive part of what makes humanity the dominant force it is, warts and all. If we stop doing that, it’s my opinion we could very well regress into a time where war, not peace, is the norm.

Respect the past and move on to the future.

Do you have any questions, thoughts or nuances to share? Do you disagree with me and want to make a case for your view on these matters? Should I lay off the quotation marks? Please feel free to share your opinion.

#politics #(I guess)#racism #I tried to be rather objective about our holiday btw #but you're free to ask me for my opinion on it #it's just not something I wanted to address in this post because it's not the point. it's just an example #culture

10 notes · View notes

asiastemcells-blog · 5 years

Text

Diabetic Stem Cell Research, Will It Cure Us?

Diabetic immature microorganism treatment that inverts type 1 diabetes and afterward helps type 2 diabetics also may appear to be a fantasy. Be that as it may, almost consistently there is some energizing new thing specialists are announcing about this new sort of cell. That is on the grounds that everywhere throughout the world researchers are contemplating them. Be that as it may, the contention over the wellspring of undeveloped cells has dominated the subject. I didn't generally comprehend it enough to have a supposition, so I chose to discover. What These Cells Are Diabetic foundational microorganism treatment for all of us might be far away, however it's a smart thought to comprehend those cells themselves. As you most likely are aware, each individual cell in your body has a specific activity. Muscle cells siphon blood in your heart and make you ready to walk. Nerve cells convey data. A muscle cell can't do a nerve cell's activity. So your cells can't do something besides what they are doled out to do. Be that as it may, this was not generally so. You started as a solitary cell that partitioned into many. At around five days old you were a fetus, and you were comprised of some extraordinary cells. Throughout the following nine months those unspecialized cells would progress toward becoming tissues, organs, skin, hair, everything that makes up your body now. Since embryonic cells are not yet specific, they can progress toward becoming anything. At the point when researchers found these cells, they started to examine them, first in quite a while and after that in bigger creatures. Specialists needed to make sense of how to advise the cells what to turn into. On the off chance that they could do that, embryonic cells could be initiated to make tissues to supplant organs and fix harmed nerves. Be that as it may, that sort of research included the utilization of human fetuses, heaps of them. That is the place the moral issue emerged. Human developing lives "left finished" from prepared eggs when ladies are endeavoring to get pregnant are frequently given for immature microorganism look into. Those incipient organisms are some of the time called unnaturally conceived children, and they have brought up moral issues from the earliest starting point. Laws were set up to shield human developing lives from being purchased and sold in the U.S. Fortunately, human developing lives are by all account not the only hotspot for diabetic foundational microorganism look into. Those uncommon cells have been discovered everywhere throughout the grown-up human body: in your muscles, your bone marrow, digestion tracts and even your mind. In any case, they are not totally unspecialized like embryonic cells. They can just wind up comparative cells to the tissue they were found in. For instance, bone marrow foundational microorganisms can end up one of numerous sorts of platelets including lymphocytes and red platelets, yet they can't progress toward becoming nerve or muscle cells. At any rate not at the present time. Today there is a third sort of grown-up foundational microorganism. It is known as a "reconstructed" cell. That is on the grounds that it has been changed by utilization of an infection and some embryonic qualities to wind up like an embryonic undeveloped cell. This has been done in mice, and at times it functions admirably, yet the infection now and again makes those cells become tumors. Malignant growth causing undifferentiated organisms have hindered progress on research, yet researchers are planning to locate some other method to change these cells without causing tumors. A few people are attempting this treatment too early, and it has caused mind tumors in at any rate one youngster as of now. Inquiries Concerning Diabetic Stem Cell Treatment There are still such a large number of things we don't comprehend about these uncommon cells in grown-ups. What number of spots would they say they are covering up inside us? Where did they originate from? What is shielding them from getting to be normal specific cells? Furthermore, what makes them wake up and supplant cells that have been harmed? How might we cause them to progress toward becoming something different without causing more damage than anything else? That is as yet an issue being sought after by researchers all over. Some have even misrepresented their examination to cause it to appear they have discovered a way. That backs things off. Furthermore, it makes individuals suspicious about the treatment turning into a reality for sort 1 and type 2 diabetics, or any other person. Be that as it may, there was an example of overcoming adversity in the news on Valentine's Day in 2012. Respiratory failure unfortunate casualties were infused with their very own heart foundational microorganisms in a clinical preliminary, and scar tissue was diminished significantly after some time. That has never been done, and it exhibits the guarantee behind diabetic undifferentiated organism inquire about. At the present time there are just a couple of affirmed treatments, for the most part including bone marrow transplants of immature microorganisms for blood infections and insusceptible framework issues, however diabetes scientists are pushing forward too. Furthermore, you can discover organizations right now that are selling those treatments. It's a purchaser be careful circumstance, as there is nothing illicit about utilizing your own undifferentiated organisms to support you. The inquiry is "does it work?" And there are different things you should know before you spend any cash. To start with, grown-up foundational microorganisms are not ready to transform into each sort of cell in your body, so one kind of undifferentiated cell treatment won't work for a state of another kind. In the event that somebody guarantees a solitary undifferentiated cell treatment will fix "everything," that should raise a banner for you. Research and clinical preliminaries push ahead at a maddeningly moderate pace on the grounds that new drug isn't just about whether things work however whether they are sheltered. The youngster who has tumors in his cerebrum since undeveloped cells were infused there is a model. Something else - these cells must be instructed what to do. They need guidelines on what they will move toward becoming, and we don't have the foggiest idea how that functions yet. Tributes are not a decent method to pass judgment on the well being of treatment. What's more, in light of the fact that the cells originated from your body does not mean the technique is protected. The facts demonstrate that your own undeveloped cells ought not be dismissed by your body, however evacuating and infusing cells has dangers. There is the plausibility of contamination with a microorganisms or infection, of harm to tissues around the destinations, and of causing tumors. Exploratory treatment is only that - test. Also, the expenses can be high. In the event that you are picked to join a clinical preliminary, more often than not all things are free: the medications, specialist's visits, supplies, every last bit of it. So be sure about what you are getting into with any sort of research and treatment. On the off chance that somebody approaches you for cash, it is anything but a clinical preliminary. Diabetic Stem Cell Treatment Is Coming Research regarding this matter has a quick expectation to absorb information. Little disclosures and leaps forward are being accounted for practically every day. For instance, in one treatment preliminary lymphocytes were isolated from a kind 1 diabetic's blood and presented to giver rope blood from an outsider. At that point the patient's lymphocytes were come back to his body. His requirement for insulin dropped and his hemoglobin A1C fell a full rate point. This happened to a few patients, and the little preliminary was named "foundational microorganism instruction treatment." That is on the grounds that the diabetic lymphocytes quit devastating beta cells. They appeared to have learned not to assault their very own insulin-production cells just by contact with the giver line blood. You see? In the event that we can be understanding, we may see some mind blowing things emerge from diabetic research. In the interim, we should continue progressing in the direction of our own diabetes fix of activity and changing our dietary patterns. It's been demonstrated to work again and again, and the symptoms are largely great. To your well being! Martha Zimmer welcomes you to visit her site and get familiar with sort 2 diabetes, its entanglements and how you can manage them, just as incredible tips for eating well that will make living with diabetes less difficult.Asia Stem Cell

#stem cell treatment #stem cell therapy #stem cell clinics #stem cell medicine #stem cell institute

0 notes

hellofastestnewsfan · 5 years

Link

Editor’s Note: Every Monday, Lori Gottlieb answers questions from readers about their problems, big and small. Have a question? Email her at [email protected].

Dear Therapist,

Last year, I started working at a company that has an employee-assistance program. I've taken advantage of it and have finally started seeing a counselor to address my anxiety and depression, which have worsened since moving halfway across the country for this job. Together we've come up with strategies to fix some of the aspects of my work environment that make me most anxious, and now I'm much calmer and happier at work.

However, I've been unable to talk with her about my relationship with my spouse, which caused my anxiety and depression to spike even before the move and new job. Every time I try to bring this up, I start crying and am literally unable to say words until I switch to a different topic.

I think part of this reluctance is the result of growing up in a divorced household and feeling like any marital strife is an unforgivable personal failing. I’m especially frustrated because I believe she could help me work through these issues, as everything she's suggested so far has made a noticeable improvement in my life.

I feel like I'm failing at therapy by not talking about my "real" problems with my counselor. How can I get over this mental block? Should I break things off and try again in a few months so I don't waste her time?

Allie Denver, Colo.

Dear Allie,

What you’re experiencing is very common, and I hope you can take comfort in knowing that most people hide things from their therapist at one point or another. To get past this, though, you’ll want to understand more about why sharing your marital challenges with your therapist is so hard for you.

People have many reasons for hiding the things they most need to talk about. Sometimes they worry that the information will make the therapist view them in a negative light (say, admitting that they’re having an affair or that they scream at their kids). Or they might find the issue embarrassing (say, anything to do with sex). Other times they’re in denial (Yeah, I drink more than I should, but it’s not affecting my life in a significant way). Sometimes people hide things because they worry that they won’t be believed (they may not have been in the past). And sometimes people hide things to avoid not just the therapist, but themselves—to avoid confronting their shame or pain, or the truth they know they need to tell.

Therapists are also familiar with something called a “doorknob disclosure,” in which a patient says something she should have said during the session on the way to—or while standing at—the door. “By the way,” a patient might begin casually, although whatever comes next will be anything but an offhand aside. It’s not uncommon for patients to go through an entire session talking about this or that, only to spill something important in the last 10 seconds (“Oh, and just for what it’s worth, my biological mother found me on Facebook”). In these cases, people don’t want you to have a chance to comment, or they want to leave you feeling as unsettled as they do. (Special delivery! Here’s all my turmoil; sit with it all week, will you?)

But perhaps the most common reason for hiding information is this: Once you bring something up, you might have to deal with it—not just the situation itself, but the uncomfortable feelings that accompany it. In your case, if you start crying whenever you consider talking about your marital strife, you probably have some deep feelings about it. There may be sadness, or anxiety, or shame, but I imagine there’s also fear: fear that your marriage will end as your parents’ marriage ended, fear of the changes that you and/or your spouse might need to make to improve the relationship, fear of the unknown. How much easier it sometimes feels to cling to the familiar, to let sleeping dogs lie.

But while sharing difficult truths might come with a cost—the need to face them—it also comes with a reward: freedom. The truth releases us from our internal prisons and gives us the possibility of moving forward. The longer you wait, however, the more entrenched the problem becomes. Which is why instead of worrying about whether you’re wasting your therapist’s time, you’d be better off focusing on how you’d be wasting more of your own time if you were to leave and wait for something to shift—time you could be using right now to improve your marriage.

That doesn’t mean you have to just come right out and say, “I’m having problems in my marriage.” You can start by telling your therapist about your current dilemma. Let her know that you haven’t been talking about something that you feel you should be, and that you’re having trouble doing so. You can share that your instinct is to leave and come back when you’re more able to open up, but that she’s been so helpful with the work issues and you have a feeling she’d be helpful with this issue, too. Let her know that every time you contemplate bringing it up—and you still don’t need to say what “it” is—you start to cry and change the subject.

Talking about what happens to you in those moments is just as important as talking about the marital problems themselves. In fact, the two are probably related, in that you may have trouble bringing things up with your spouse, as well. The therapy room is a safe space in which to understand and work through your patterns, so learning to be open with your therapist will help you learn how to be more open with your partner, too.

Eventually, you’ll be able to talk with your therapist about your marriage, and also your parents’ marriage, and how it informs some beliefs and behaviors that aren’t serving you well now. But what a great opportunity you have, starting as soon as your next session, to share the truth of your experience in the moment: “I’m having trouble being open in here, and even though it scares me, I’m wondering if we can begin to talk about my fear.”

Dear Therapist is for informational purposes only, does not constitute medical advice, and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician, mental-health professional, or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. By submitting a letter, you are agreeing to let The Atlantic use it—in part or in full—and we may edit it for length and/or clarity.

from The Atlantic http://bit.ly/2WUHCe4

#Blogger

0 notes

mikebrackett · 5 years

Text

3 Things I Wish I Knew Before Accepting My First Job

I received my very first “real” job offer on a Friday afternoon, from a payphone in a midtown Manhattan subway station, where I was in town for some job interviews (Yep, a payphone! It was the mid-90s, before cell phones were ubiquitous).

HR: “We’d like to offer you the position of Marketing Assistant.”

Me: “Great!”

HR: “The salary will be… [insert insultingly low number, which was still more than I’d ever made as a teen or college student].”

Me: “Great!”

HR: “We’d like you to start on Monday.”

Me: “Um… great?”

I’d just landed my dream job in book publishing at one of the world’s top publishing houses in New York City. It felt like a dream. The problem? I was a 22-year-old recent college grad living with my parents in Massachusetts. And I was about to start a job in Manhattan in just over two days. I had Saturday to pack up my belongings and figure out a temporary place to stay in NYC, where I did not know a single person. That meant Sunday was moving day. It was thrilling, but incredibly stressful. It didn’t have to be.

I didn’t realize it at the time, but I made several mistakes on that 2-minute phone call. Here’s what I wish I had known ahead of time:

1. Never accept an offer on the spot.

I was so excited to get the offer that I was irrationally afraid of it slipping through my hands. As if taking a few days — or even hours — to think about it would cause them to change their minds and revoke the offer. In reality, they most certainly would have paid me the courtesy of a little time to think it over, had I simply asked.

I could have expressed my excitement and then asked for the weekend to review the offer. This may have been an issue, since they wanted me to start right away, but probably not (I’ll get to that in #2). Though it wasn’t an option for me back then, anyone receiving a phone offer now should also ask to receive all the details of the offer via email. There’s typically more to negotiate than just salary and start date.

Even if it’s your dream job, even if you’re just beginning in an entry level role and feel you have no leverage, take a moment. Your potential employer is going to ask for the conditions that are best for your potential employer. It’s your job to consider these and counter with what is reasonable and best for you. There’s almost always wiggle room. An offer is just the beginning of the conversation, and you’ll rarely find yourself in a more powerful position than you are immediately after the offer has been made.

2. You don’t have to start immediately.

There are very, very few cases in which an employer will need you to start your new role on the next business day, and that would likely only be in a case in which you’d explicitly said you could do so. If you say you are available “immediately,” they may actually want you to start immediately, so don’t say it. Even if “immediately” is true, pick a reasonable date that would work for you and that won’t require you to scramble.

Remember to have that date in the back of your mind during your interviews. You don’t want to tell them you’re available immediately, and then surprise them by asking for an extra month when they offer you the job.

In my case, accepting the position meant moving two states away and finding housing in NYC. So even though the HR person likely wanted to fill the spot and move on to the next item on her list, she almost certainly would have recognized the difficulty of my starting on the next business day had I addressed it!

3. Don’t accept the first salary offer, unless you’ve specifically named your price and they’ve met it.

I knew that book publishing wasn’t known at the time for being a high-paying industry, and I had a vague sense that entry-level publishing salaries were pretty low. But I didn’t know what “low” meant, because I had no basis for comparison. Now, thanks to the internet, social media discussions and sites like Fairygodboss, it’s much easier to discover what’s a reasonable starting salary in your industry.

As it turned out, not only was my entry-level salary almost unlivable on a New York City budget, but it had bigger implications for my earning power over the course of my career. I was promoted regularly, but my raises were always based on what I was making at the time. Because I’d started out by accepting such a low salary, it took years to climb out of the low-pay ditch I’d unwittingly dropped myself into.

Again, coming from a place of fear that I’d lose the offer, I immediately accepted what was almost certainly their bottom-rung offer. Of course they wouldn’t come right out of the gate with their highest number. It was my job to push back and find the most they were willing to pay for the role. But instead, I let them off the hook and then paid for it throughout my 20s.

Looking back, I don’t regret accepting the job. There were many times in those early years that I found myself having so much fun, I couldn’t believe it was actually work. It was everything I’d hoped it would be and then some, and I ended up staying for eight years. I also don’t beat myself up over my non-existent negotiation skills as a 22-year-old. It was adventure, and I learned all the good lessons — particularly the importance of self-advocacy.

This article originally appeared on Fairygodboss and was written by Rebecca Horan.

Interested in refinancing student loans? Here are the top 6 lenders of 2019!

LenderVariable APREligible Degrees Check out the testimonials and our in-depth reviews! 1 Important Disclosures for SoFi. SoFi Disclosures Student loan Refinance:

Fixed rates from 3.899% APR to 8.074% APR (with AutoPay). Variable rates from 2.540% APR to 7.115% APR (with AutoPay). Interest rates on variable rate loans are capped at either 8.95% or 9.95% depending on term of loan. See APR examples and terms. Lowest variable rate of 2.540% APR assumes current 1 month LIBOR rate of 2.49% plus 0.04% margin minus 0.25% ACH discount. Not all borrowers receive the lowest rate. If approved for a loan, the fixed or variable interest rate offered will depend on your creditworthiness, and the term of the loan and other factors, and will be within the ranges of rates listed above. For the SoFi variable rate loan, the 1-month LIBOR index will adjust monthly and the loan payment will be re-amortized and may change monthly. APRs for variable rate loans may increase after origination if the LIBOR index increases. See eligibility details. The SoFi 0.25% AutoPay interest rate reduction requires you to agree to make monthly principal and interest payments by an automatic monthly deduction from a savings or checking account. The benefit will discontinue and be lost for periods in which you do not pay by automatic deduction from a savings or checking account. *To check the rates and terms you qualify for, SoFi conducts a soft credit inquiry. Unlike hard credit inquiries, soft credit inquiries (or soft credit pulls) do not impact your credit score. Soft credit inquiries allow SoFi to show you what rates and terms SoFi can offer you up front. After seeing your rates, if you choose a product and continue your application, we will request your full credit report from one or more consumer reporting agencies, which is considered a hard credit inquiry. Hard credit inquiries (or hard credit pulls) are required for SoFi to be able to issue you a loan. In addition to requiring your explicit permission, these credit pulls may impact your credit score. SoFi rate ranges are current as of March 11, 2019 and are subject to change without notice.

Terms and Conditions Apply. SOFI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO MODIFY OR DISCONTINUE PRODUCTS AND BENEFITS AT ANY TIME WITHOUT NOTICE. To qualify, a borrower must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident in an eligible state and meet SoFi’s underwriting requirements. Not all borrowers receive the lowest rate. To qualify for the lowest rate, you must have a responsible financial history and meet other conditions. If approved, your actual rate will be within the range of rates listed above and will depend on a variety of factors, including term of loan, a responsible financial history, years of experience, income and other factors. Rates and Terms are subject to change at anytime without notice and are subject to state restrictions. SoFi refinance loans are private loans and do not have the same repayment options that the federal loan program offers such as Income Based Repayment or Income Contingent Repayment or PAYE. Licensed by the Department of Business Oversight under the California Financing Law License No. 6054612. SoFi loans are originated by SoFi Lending Corp., NMLS # 1121636. (www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org) 2 Important Disclosures for Earnest. Earnest Disclosures

To qualify, you must be a U.S. citizen or possess a 10-year (non-conditional) Permanent Resident Card, reside in a state Earnest lends in, and satisfy our minimum eligibility criteria. You may find more information on loan eligibility here: https://www.earnest.com/eligibility. Not all applicants will be approved for a loan, and not all applicants will qualify for the lowest rate. Approval and interest rate depend on the review of a complete application.

Earnest fixed rate loan rates range from 3.89% APR (with Auto Pay) to 7.89% APR (with Auto Pay). Variable rate loan rates range from 2.54% APR (with Auto Pay) to 7.27% APR (with Auto Pay). For variable rate loans, although the interest rate will vary after you are approved, the interest rate will never exceed 8.95% for loan terms 10 years or less. For loan terms of 10 years to 15 years, the interest rate will never exceed 9.95%. For loan terms over 15 years, the interest rate will never exceed 11.95% (the maximum rates for these loans). Earnest variable interest rate loans are based on a publicly available index, the one month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). Your rate will be calculated each month by adding a margin between 1.82% and 5.50% to the one month LIBOR. The rate will not increase more than once per month. Earnest rate ranges are current as of March 18, 2019, and are subject to change based on market conditions and borrower eligibility.

Auto Pay discount: If you make monthly principal and interest payments by an automatic, monthly deduction from a savings or checking account, your rate will be reduced by one quarter of one percent (0.25%) for so long as you continue to make automatic, electronic monthly payments. This benefit is suspended during periods of deferment and forbearance.

The information provided on this page is updated as of 0318/2019. Earnest reserves the right to change, pause, or terminate product offerings at any time without notice. Earnest loans are originated by Earnest Operations LLC. California Finance Lender License 6054788. NMLS # 1204917. Earnest Operations LLC is located at 302 2nd Street, Suite 401N, San Francisco, CA 94107. Terms and Conditions apply. Visit https://www.earnest.com/terms-of-service, email us at [email protected], or call 888-601-2801 for more information on ourstudent loan refinance product.

3 Important Disclosures for Laurel Road. Laurel Road Disclosures

FIXED APR Fixed rate options consist of a range from 3.75% per year to 5.80% per year for a 5-year term, 5.14% per year to 6.25% per year for a 7-year term, 5.24% per year to 6.65% per year for a 10-year term, 5.30% per year to 7.05% per year for a 15-year term, or 5.61% per year to 7.27% per year for a 20-year term, with no origination fees. The fixed interest rate will apply until the loan is paid in full (whether before or after default, and whether before or after the scheduled maturity date of the loan). The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 3.75% per year to 5.80% per year for a 5-year term would be from $183.04 to $192.40. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 5.14% per year to 6.25% per year for a 7-year term would be from $142.00 to $147.29. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 5.24% per year to 6.65% per year for a 10-year term would be from $107.24 to $114.31. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 5.30% per year to 7.05% per year for a 15-year term would be from $80.65 to $90.16. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 5.61% per year to 7.27% per year for a 20-year term would be from $69.41 to $79.16.

However, if the borrower chooses to make monthly payments automatically by electronic funds transfer (EFT) from a bank account, the fixed rate will decrease by 0.25%, and will increase back up to the regular fixed interest rate described in the preceding paragraph if the borrower stops making (or we stop accepting) monthly payments automatically by EFT from the designated borrower’s bank account.

VARIABLE APR Variable rate options consist of a range from 3.48% per year to 6.30% per year for a 5-year term, 4.85% per year to 6.35% per year for a 7-year term, 4.90% per year to 6.40% per year for a 10-year term, 5.15% per year to 6.65% per year for a 15-year term, or 5.40% per year to 6.90% per year for a 20-year term, with no origination fees. APR is subject to increase after consummation. The variable interest rate will change on the first day of every month (“Change Date”) if the Current Index changes. The variable interest rates are based on a Current Index, which is the 1-month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) (currency in US dollars), as published on The Wall Street Journal’s website. The variable interest rates and Annual Percentage Rate (APR) will increase or decrease when the 1-month LIBOR index changes. The variable interest rates are calculated by adding a margin ranging from 0.98% to 3.80% for the 5-year term loan, 2.35% to 3.85% for the 7-year term loan, 2.40% to 3.90% for the 10-year term loan, 2.65% to 4.15% for the 15-year term loan, and 2.90% to 4.40% for the 20-year term loan, respectively, to the 1-month LIBOR index published on the 25th day of each month immediately preceding each “Change Date,” as defined above, rounded to two decimal places, with no origination fees. If the 25th day of the month is not a business day or is a US federal holiday, the reference date will be the most recent date preceding the 25th day of the month that is a business day. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 3.48% per year to 6.30% per year for a 5-year term would be from $181.83 to $194.73. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 4.85% per year to 6.35% per year for a 7-year term would be from $140.64 to $147.77. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 4.90% per year to 6.40% per year for a 10-year term would be from $105.58 to $113.04. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 5.15% per year to 6.65% per year for a 15-year term would be from $79.86 to $87.94. The monthly payment for a sample $10,000 loan at a range of 5.40% per year to 6.90% per year for a 20-year term would be from $68.23 to $76.93.

However, if the borrower chooses to make monthly payments automatically by electronic funds transfer (EFT) from a bank account, the variable rate will decrease by 0.25%, and will increase back up to the regular variable interest rate described in the preceding paragraph if the borrower stops making (or we stop accepting) monthly payments automatically by EFT from the designated borrower’s bank account.

4 Important Disclosures for LendKey. LendKey Disclosures

Refinancing via LendKey.com is only available for applicants with qualified private education loans from an eligible institution. Loans that were used for exam preparation classes, including, but not limited to, loans for LSAT, MCAT, GMAT, and GRE preparation, are not eligible for refinancing with a lender via LendKey.com. If you currently have any of these exam preparation loans, you should not include them in an application to refinance your student loans on this website. Applicants must be either U.S. citizens or Permanent Residents in an eligible state to qualify for a loan. Certain membership requirements (including the opening of a share account and any applicable association fees in connection with membership) may apply in the event that an applicant wishes to accept a loan offer from a credit union lender. Lenders participating on LendKey.com reserve the right to modify or discontinue the products, terms, and benefits offered on this website at any time without notice. LendKey Technologies, Inc. is not affiliated with, nor does it endorse, any educational institution.

5 Important Disclosures for CommonBond. CommonBond Disclosures

Offered terms are subject to change. Loans are offered by CommonBond Lending, LLC (NMLS # 1175900). If you are approved for a loan, the interest rate offered will depend on your credit profile, your application, the loan term selected and will be within the ranges of rates shown.

All Annual Percentage Rates (APRs) displayed assume borrowers enroll in auto pay and account for the 0.25% reduction in interest rate. All variable rates are based on a 1-month LIBOR assumption of 2.5% effective February 10, 2019.

6 Important Disclosures for Citizens Bank. Citizens Bank Disclosures Education Refinance Loan Rate Disclosure: Variable rate, based on the one-month London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) published in The Wall Street Journal on the twenty-fifth day, or the next business day, of the preceding calendar month. As of March 1, 2019, the one-month LIBOR rate is 2.48%. Variable interest rates range from 2.98%-9.72% (2.98%-9.72% APR) and will fluctuate over the term of the borrower’s loan with changes in the LIBOR rate, and will vary based on applicable terms, level of degree earned and presence of a co-signer. Fixed interest rates range from 3.89%-9.99% (3.89%-9.99% APR) based on applicable terms, level of degree earned and presence of a co-signer. Lowest rates shown are for eligible, creditworthy applicants with a graduate level degree, require a 5-year repayment term and include our Loyalty discount and Automatic Payment discounts of 0.25 percentage points each, as outlined in the Loyalty and Automatic Payment Discount disclosures. The maximum variable rate on the Education Refinance Loan is the greater of 21.00% or Prime Rate plus 9.00%. Subject to additional terms and conditions, and rates are subject to change at any time without notice. Such changes will only apply to applications taken after the effective date of change. Please note: Due to federal regulations, Citizens Bank is required to provide every potential borrower with disclosure information before they apply for a private student loan. The borrower will be presented with an Application Disclosure and an Approval Disclosure within the application process before they accept the terms and conditions of their loan. Federal Loan vs. Private Loan Benefits: Some federal student loans include unique benefits that the borrower may not receive with a private student loan, some of which we do not offer with the Education Refinance Loan. Borrowers should carefully review their current benefits, especially if they work in public service, are in the military, are currently on or considering income based repayment options or are concerned about a steady source of future income and would want to lower their payments at some time in the future. When the borrower refinances, they waive any current and potential future benefits of their federal loans and replace those with the benefits of the Education Refinance Loan. For more information about federal student loan benefits and federal loan consolidation, visit http://studentaid.ed.gov/. We also have several resources available to help the borrower make a decision at http://www.citizensbank.com/EdRefinance, including Should I Refinance My Student Loans? and our FAQs. Should I Refinance My Student Loans? includes a comparison of federal and private student loan benefits that we encourage the borrower to review. Citizens Bank Education Refinance Loan Eligibility: Eligible applicants may not be currently enrolled. Applicants with an Associate’s degree or with no degree must have made at least 12 qualifying payments after leaving school. Qualifying payments are the most recent on time and consecutive payments of principal and interest on the loans being refinanced. Primary borrowers must be a U.S. citizen, permanent resident or resident alien with a valid U.S. Social Security Number residing in the United States. Resident aliens must apply with a co-signer who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. The co-signer (if applicable) must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident with a valid U.S. Social Security Number residing in the United States. For applicants who have not attained the age of majority in their state of residence, a co-signer will be required. Citizens Bank reserves the right to modify eligibility criteria at anytime. Interest rate ranges subject to change. Education Refinance Loans are subject to credit qualification, completion of a loan application/consumer credit agreement, verification of application information, certification of borrower’s student loan amount(s) and highest degree earned. Loyalty Discount Disclosure: The borrower will be eligible for a 0.25 percentage point interest rate reduction on their loan if the borrower or their co-signer (if applicable) has a qualifying account in existence with us at the time the borrower and their co-signer (if applicable) have submitted a completed application authorizing us to review their credit request for the loan. The following are qualifying accounts: any checking account, savings account, money market account, certificate of deposit, automobile loan, home equity loan, home equity line of credit, mortgage, credit card account, or other student loans owned by Citizens Bank, N.A. Please note, our checking and savings account options are only available in the following states: CT, DE, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, and VT and some products may have an associated cost. This discount will be reflected in the interest rate disclosed in the Loan Approval Disclosure that will be provided to the borrower once the loan is approved. Limit of one Loyalty Discount per loan and discount will not be applied to prior loans. The Loyalty Discount will remain in effect for the life of the loan. Automatic Payment Discount Disclosure: Borrowers will be eligible to receive a 0.25 percentage point interest rate reduction on their student loans owned by Citizens Bank, N.A. during such time as payments are required to be made and our loan servicer is authorized to automatically deduct payments each month from any bank account the borrower designates. Discount is not available when payments are not due, such as during forbearance. If our loan servicer is unable to successfully withdraw the automatic deductions from the designated account three or more times within any 12-month period, the borrower will no longer be eligible for this discount. Co-signer Release: Borrowers may apply for co-signer release after making 36 consecutive on-time payments of principal and interest. For the purpose of the application for co-signer release, on-time payments are defined as payments received within 15 days of the due date. Interest only payments do not qualify. The borrower must meet certain credit and eligibility guidelines when applying for the co-signer release. Borrowers must complete an application for release and provide income verification documents as part of the review. Borrowers who use deferment or forbearance will need to make 36 consecutive on-time payments after reentering repayment to qualify for release. The borrower applying for co-signer release must be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. If an application for co-signer release is denied, the borrower may not reapply for co-signer release until at least one year from the date the application for co-signer release was received. Terms and conditions apply. Borrowers whose loans were funded prior to reaching the age of majority may not be eligible for co-signer release. Note: co-signer release is not available on the Student Loan for Parents or Education Refinance Loan for Parents. 2.54% – 7.12%3Undergrad & Graduate

Visit SoFi

2.54% – 7.27%1Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Earnest

2.67% – 8.96%4Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Lendkey

3.23% – 6.65%2Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Laurel Road

2.69% – 7.43%5Undergrad & Graduate

Visit CommonBond

2.98% – 9.72%6Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Citizens

Our team at Student Loan Hero works hard to find and recommend products and services that we believe are of high quality and will make a positive impact in your life. We sometimes earn a sales commission or advertising fee when recommending various products and services to you. Similar to when you are being sold any product or service, be sure to read the fine print understand what you are buying, and consult a licensed professional if you have any concerns. Student Loan Hero is not a lender or investment advisor. We are not involved in the loan approval or investment process, nor do we make credit or investment related decisions. The rates and terms listed on our website are estimates and are subject to change at any time. Please do your homework and let us know if you have any questions or concerns.

The post 3 Things I Wish I Knew Before Accepting My First Job appeared first on Student Loan Hero.

from Updates About Loans https://studentloanhero.com/featured/3-things-wish-knew-accepting-first-job/

0 notes

aaronsniderus · 5 years

Text

3 Things I Wish I Knew Before Accepting My First Job

HR: “We’d like to offer you the position of Marketing Assistant.”

Me: “Great!”

HR: “The salary will be… [insert insultingly low number, which was still more than I’d ever made as a teen or college student].”

Me: “Great!”

HR: “We’d like you to start on Monday.”

Me: “Um… great?”

I didn’t realize it at the time, but I made several mistakes on that 2-minute phone call. Here’s what I wish I had known ahead of time:

1. Never accept an offer on the spot.

2. You don’t have to start immediately.

3. Don’t accept the first salary offer, unless you’ve specifically named your price and they’ve met it.

This article originally appeared on Fairygodboss and was written by Rebecca Horan.

Interested in refinancing student loans? Here are the top 6 lenders of 2019!

LenderVariable APREligible Degrees Check out the testimonials and our in-depth reviews! 1 Important Disclosures for SoFi. SoFi Disclosures Student loan Refinance:

3 Important Disclosures for Laurel Road. Laurel Road Disclosures

4 Important Disclosures for LendKey. LendKey Disclosures

5 Important Disclosures for CommonBond. CommonBond Disclosures

Visit SoFi

2.54% – 7.27%1Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Earnest

2.67% – 8.96%4Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Lendkey

3.23% – 6.65%2Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Laurel Road

2.69% – 7.43%5Undergrad & Graduate

Visit CommonBond

2.98% – 9.72%6Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Citizens

The post 3 Things I Wish I Knew Before Accepting My First Job appeared first on Student Loan Hero.

from Updates About Loans https://studentloanhero.com/featured/3-things-wish-knew-accepting-first-job/

0 notes

aaltjebarisca · 5 years

Text

3 Things I Wish I Knew Before Accepting My First Job

HR: “We’d like to offer you the position of Marketing Assistant.”

Me: “Great!”

HR: “The salary will be… [insert insultingly low number, which was still more than I’d ever made as a teen or college student].”

Me: “Great!”

HR: “We’d like you to start on Monday.”

Me: “Um… great?”

I didn’t realize it at the time, but I made several mistakes on that 2-minute phone call. Here’s what I wish I had known ahead of time:

1. Never accept an offer on the spot.

2. You don’t have to start immediately.

3. Don’t accept the first salary offer, unless you’ve specifically named your price and they’ve met it.

This article originally appeared on Fairygodboss and was written by Rebecca Horan.

Interested in refinancing student loans? Here are the top 6 lenders of 2019!

LenderVariable APREligible Degrees Check out the testimonials and our in-depth reviews! 1 Important Disclosures for SoFi. SoFi Disclosures Student loan Refinance:

3 Important Disclosures for Laurel Road. Laurel Road Disclosures

4 Important Disclosures for LendKey. LendKey Disclosures

5 Important Disclosures for CommonBond. CommonBond Disclosures

Visit SoFi

2.54% – 7.27%1Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Earnest

2.67% – 8.96%4Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Lendkey

3.23% – 6.65%2Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Laurel Road

2.69% – 7.43%5Undergrad & Graduate

Visit CommonBond

2.98% – 9.72%6Undergrad & Graduate

Visit Citizens

The post 3 Things I Wish I Knew Before Accepting My First Job appeared first on Student Loan Hero.

from Updates About Loans https://studentloanhero.com/featured/3-things-wish-knew-accepting-first-job/

0 notes