#it makes its xenophobia extremely clear | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

acreaturecalledgreed · 1 year

Text

i think, other than the prevalence of often unchecked white supremacy in these communities, i finally realized what it is about so many american norse heathens that gets so under my skin

its that majority of them dont give a shit about the current cultures that are in scandinavia

sure you read the edda like 15 times but do you know literally anything about norway? sweden? denmark? who lives there? what its like there?

you “corrected” me for “incorrectly” calling christmas Jul, but do you not realize that in scandinavia many old pagan norse traditions have long since fused with christianity? that in norway, christmas is a one to two week long affair that is collectively called Jul? do you not realize that?

you want to reclaim your culture but have you put in the effort to learn anything about it other than an american filtered pile of exclusively ancient traditions? did you double and triple check that those things have not been twisted and co-opted by nazis? are you loud and vocal in making that space unwelcome to them?

im sorry that over generations this country stole all this from you to force your family into cohesive, identityless Whiteness

and you shouldnt be barred from trying to reconnect to your culture. its a good thing. i want you to. and honestly i dont think anyone should need to be of norse descent to get to be a part of it.

but it is always going to leave a bad taste in my mouth when you approach it with some kind of mindset that you, american obsessing exclusively over ancient norse history, act like you are in some way More Accurately And Truly Norse than the actual literal people living in scandinavia today

and there is a personal aspect to it as well, one i know a lot of ppl can understand

this country is extremely xenophobic and no, xenophobia is not the same as racism, though they often do overlap i am very much a white person, i have never and will never had to deal with any racism

i am a very privileged person; im a white person who grew up upper middle class with a loving and generous family, and this is in no way denying that

but i am a norwegian person who grew up in america who faced the brunt end of a lot of xenophobia

peers who mocked me when i tried to share traditions and cultures, who told me i was weird or gross

id come home crying the first years after we moved here, embarrassed that i was norwegian, because that made me Different and Bad and Weird

people who spoke to my mother like an idiot because she has an accent, who wanted to “borrow” her bunad, the cultural dress she got fucking married in, to wear to a fucking costume party, who talked so often to her about how Glad they were that she got the Privilege to move to America and away from such a Poor country like norway when she didnt even want to leave her home at the age 45 and only left because my father had to go back to the states

people who were outright harsh and cruel to us for literally no reason other than we Weren’t American Enough (and for that matter, ive had to deal with it on the other end to- Norwegians telling me im stupid and ignorant because Im American and im Not Norwegian Enough, it makes me want to tear all my hair out and scream) it makes me

so bitter

to see those same people who i know were xenophobic to my family b/c we did not fit exactly into American Whiteness now hyper consume and wear norse paganism with pride and in the same breath tell me that i am being norse Wrong

i want to make clear that i am not crying appropriation. i genuinely feel i dont have the right to.

but i am asking for some kind of self awareness and respect

PS. if anyone comes in here trying to act like you must be white to be norse i will break every limb you have and drop you in a ditch to burn that is nazi shit we dont do that here. we love and support norse pagans of color and if you are not putting in an effort to make them feel safe among white peers, you need to fix that.

#i just have a hard time putting words to why so many american norse heathens raise my hackles #sits #i have a lot of feelings and i just dont know how to make them clear

48 notes · View notes

whilereadingandwalking · 1 year

Photo

The World We Make is the conclusion to NK Jemisin's duology that she began in The City We Became. New York is fully personified: the city and its five boroughs are all represented by avatars. They're anything but united though—the eerie city of R'lyeh hovers over Staten Island, as its representatives attempt to kill the city through any means necessary—whether through a new, fascist mayoral candidate or through slow degradation of the spirit of the city.

I honestly think that this sequel is an even better novel than the first. It's an exciting, rich fantasy fight featuring relatable and lovable characters battling an eldritch evil that uses as its weapons the real-life horrors so many cities have dealt with over the past few years. We get to meet new cities as New York seeks allies in its fight. The fast-paced writing packed with humor and action makes the book impossible to put down.

Lovers of New York will recognize their city in this duology, but anyone breathing will recognize the threats that New York faces. It's the superhero novel we all deserve: the living embodiments of a city, fighting for its people using the same soul that powers its energy. And all of us will know what it feels like to love a place, for all its good and bad, to feel a place, its energy, and to want to fight for it against the people and concepts that threaten to tear it down.

The only bad thing about The World We Make is that I forgot it was a duology and not a trilogy, and I didn't realize this was the end until the pacing of the narrative made it clear that it was, and then I was extremely bummed because this series is so good, because everything NK Jemisin does is good, if we're honest with ourselves. This duology is furious, funny, and fantastical, and I want more, but I also love how it wrapped up. The World We Make is out November 1 from Orbit.

I received a copy of this book from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. Content warnings for xenophobia, racism, homophobia.

#the world we make #the city we became #nk jemisin #fantasy books #bookworm #book review #book recommendation #my book reviews

58 notes · View notes

reflections-in-a-critical-eye · 9 months

Note

Hey m, what's your stance on separation of the art from the artist when it comes to the artist being of a questionable character?

And on a wholly separate note, did you ever talk of Letter and Jimin and Jungkook and if there's a case for interpreting the song as most shippers have done?

Wow, that is a totally separate note there, anon 😆

But let's start with the first part of your ask. I'm sure I've written about this in the past, but my tagging system is not the best. Anyway..

What I can tell you is that there is no definitive answer. Which is probably boring because we're "supposed" to pick a side and stick to it. Regardless of our position, it's almost expected for us to be radical. I've had this exact debate so many times, with people of different ages and backgrounds. It's an ongoing debate and I really don't think there is a correct way of looking at it. I think that the more we try and move away from an abstract position and rather look at the particularities, it would be easier to understand our own arguments and how/why we choose to accept or dismiss some people. Then we also have to keep in mind what is condered questionable character. Does its definition include a general understanding of a person that is accepted all across the board? Or our own character and world views influence the way we perceive other people? And sometimes, there's another element that perhaps it's easily explicable, but in my mind, it's the one about a lack of logic. I'll give you an example. It's close to impossible for me to rewatch CMBYN because of Hammer's cannibalism allegations, more than the ones of abuse against women. I also publicly and vehemently condemn Woody Allen because I believe he is guilty of what he's been accused of, but it doesn't mean I will also never watch Annie Hall. Does that say that I'm a bad person? A hypocrite? Maybe. But it also says that I can't help but be subjective depending on each singular situation and that some of my views don't have any logic even in my own mind.

But these are extreme cases, of people who had actual charges brought against them. There are countless others that are usually accused of wide range of things, from sexism, racism, homophobia to xenophobia, you name it. Everything under the sun. Some people will not care, while others will. It's an individual choice. Not only a moral one, but economic as well.

I'd like to end this though by saying that I personally don't expect art to be made only by morally righteous people. I think that's a dangerous trap that leads to just another type of extremism.

Now, the second part, a bit more fun!

The only time I mentioned Letter was in one of my early posts on the new blog. I said it reminds me of a studio Ghibli movie but that I also have a more personal attachment to it.

I know how it's been interpreted by jikookers. I personally don't subscribe to the theory, but not for some major reason. I think it's nice Jimin had Jungkook do the backing vocals and seeing him sing during a livestream was moving. That's sort of enough for me. I think it's perfectly possible for the song to really be a letter to his fans. What I'm trying to say is that as much as it is really sweet, if it's for Jungkook or not, it doesn't have a major bearing on my opinion regarding them.

But I want to be very clear that just because I believe that, it doesn't mean I have an issue or condemn any jikooker who believes in the theory that it's a song for JK and about them. It's a harmless theory that is not based on any toxic or weird narrative. People should be free to talk about it, without having condescending anons or bloggers making fun of it or even criticising it too harshly. I've seen that happen a lot after the album was released.

P.S. Anon, I just saw your second ask. I'd rather stick to my answer as it is now, without going into any RM specifics as of today. I'm not in the mood for that.

#m thoughts #art discourse #jikook #jimin letter

12 notes · View notes

bonefall · 1 year

Note

And now, part 2!

I really don't like the idea of Skystar not just being the most xenophobic of the Founders, but also refusing to join his clan in exile to maintain power in StarClan? That's… wow. Way to strip all of the character development and intriguing aspects of Skystar's character from him.

Like… half the character development we see about Clear Sky is learning to move past his xenophobia and be more willing to listen to others, to be less stubborn and fearful. I truly can't see him being the most xenophobic of the founders… and, in the end. SkyClan is all that Clear Sky has left in the end. He lost his mate two times over, his eldest son is the leader of ThunderClan and they are not on speaking terms. His brothers are in different clans as well, and while they settle some differences, I don't think it was a perfect ending either. SkyClan is his legacy. It is everything he worked for, everything he sacrificed for. The bloodshed, the pain inflicted, the bonds broken. Everything was for SkyClan.

It just… makes no sense for Skystar to refuse to follow his clan in exile for personal power. Not after all he sacrificed for the clan. And… if anything.

If anything. Skystar would be the leader of the Dark Forest. Star clan's greatest sin, abandoning one of their own. Out for revenge. SkyClan has been revived yes, but it is separate, and its culture has changed so much, is it truly SkyClan anymore? How many cats in StarClan feel no shame over their crimes? How many cats are still in the Dark Forest, due to this decision?

Sure, a Tigerstar v. Firestar fight would be fantastic… but that would still be through violence and battle. What better way than to cap off Firestar's story, by healing old hurts, and bringing peace where there was previously violence? Ending the battle, not by defeating its leader in combat, or through tactical ability. But by reaching out to the other side with compassion and empathy? Truly, what better way is there as a statement against the war culture of the clans?

And what better way for Firestar to save the clans one last time?

See, I don't think that Skystar ever actually developed. I don't think those are traits he ever ended up possessing, and furthermore, the absolute failure of his "redemption" arc is the worst idea that DOTC ever even THOUGHT about doing.

"Interesting" doesn't mean slapping sympathetic traits onto an extremely consistent antagonist. It just ruins good characterization.

-Skystar learned to be less xenophobic

No he didn't. He was nasty to Micah up until his death in Moth Flight's Vision, he was going to kick him out for letting Moth have sap. From a tree. A tree he was already climbing. Sap that he already had, in his mouth. That would save a cat in another clan.

He only let Micah into his Clan at ALL because StarClan TOLD him to, and even then, he was sitting there whining and crying that no OTHER clan had to take in a rogue. Furthermore? He probably wouldn't have even listened to StarClan if HIS kit wasn't sick.

Before his aggressive, selfish, xenophobic actions get Micah killed, he refuses to trust him. He forces him to take Acorn Fur as an apprentice. He's shouting at him all the time, screaming that no one is allowed to leave HIS Clan without permission, throwing his weight around about the borders AGAIN despite all his lessons in DotC...

Oh but maybe THIS time he's Really Learned His Lesson? Absolutely not. He is a xenophobe and he will die one.

And hey, let's not forget how he slashed Moth Flight across the face for telling him he was being an asshole for denying her the sap! Or how he was one of two primary suspects for the murder of Bumble, the battered housewife!

-He learned to listen to others

Clear Sky’s gaze flashed with fury. “That’s easy for you to say. You don’t have to take in a rogue.” Wind Runner’s tail twitched irritably. “You’ve taken in plenty of rogues before, Clear Sky. You just don’t like being told what to do.”

This is constant. This is every scene Skystar is in. Someone saying,

"Clear Sky you should do this very obvious and good thing"

"NO!!! THIS IS MY CLAN AND MY TERRITORY AND YOURE STINKY AND I MAKE THE RULES AND YOU NEED TO LISTEN TO MEEE"

And you know what? HE is the reason Tiny Branch died, and YET, the takeaway he has from that lesson is that it's Wind Runner's fault, because he can never take blame for his own actions.

He got Micah killed. He didn't let Moth Flight finish training the apprentice he foisted on him. He STOPPED Acorn Fur from getting outside help until it was much worse. Then he blames Wind Runner, the ONLY outside force with any influence here, for holding up Moth Flight at the border.

He is categorically incapable of listening to others, or taking responsibility for the consequences of his own actions.

-He sacrificed for his clan

No? He doesn't sacrifice anything, he just loses people because of his horrific, violent personality and then post-hoc justifies it as a sacrifice.

HE abandoned his baby infant son, and rejected all of Thunder's desperate attempts to reconnect with him

HE threw his brother Jagged Peak out of SkyClan for breaking his leg

HE keeps starting fights

HE primarily instigated the battle at Fourtrees and got DOZENS of people killed

It's INSANE that the books tried to bend over in later DotC to say "awww he was just being protective uwu" In WHAT WORLD

IN WHAT

WORLD

DOES A "PROTECTIVE PERSON" KICK THEIR BROTHER OUT INTO THE WILDERNESS FOR BECOMING DISABLED??

-Everything was for SkyClan

My friend, you have it 100% backwards.

SkyClan is for Clear Sky.

Listen. To him, SkyClan is a thing he has made and he owns. LISTEN to his dialogue, CONSTANTLY, "MY clan" "MY territory" "MY kit" "MY cats" Mine mine mine. Everything he does is about him.

Yes, he can be protective at times. Protectiveness is the Dr. Jekyll to Possessiveness' Mr. Hyde. He sure wasn't protective of his disabled brother. Or his medicine cat. Or the safety of SkyClan as an extension of that. The primary trait here at play, for all it is, is absolute, abject selfishness.

And the worst part about the narrative is that it doesn't LET Clear Sky play the villain that he really is. It has this absolutely ridiculous "ohh he's a good boy deep down!" mindset which is absolutely undeserved

He's Ashfur on steroids, fire scenes every other book meanwhile "his only crime is that he loved too much," only there isn't 10 years worth of fandom condemnation yet to make the Erins backtrack and acknowledge it.

There is no redemption arc. There can be no redemption arc; because Clear Sky is not the sort of person who would ever want to change.

-So... Bonefall Skystar

Skystar is EXTREMELY respected by Clan Culture. He's THE symbol of War itself, he embodies the idea of the challenge, the might-makes-right. Without Skystar, they wouldn't have been Warriors. They would just be hunters.

First and foremost, he cares about respect. The tradition of the Clans. He's a fearsome spirit, and the exile of SkyClan... the most fitting way to describe the emotion he has would be offense. He's offended by it. But not enough to give up his position as the avatar of combat itself.

Respected spot on the council, more influence here than he ever had in life, he loves it. Why would he ever entertain the idea of the Dark Forest, a place full of power-stripped nobodies? Just for his namesake clan?

Aye, he founded it. And it was the strongest in the forest... for a time. In his day he would have FORCED ThunderClan to move over. He would have lead SkyClan into a furious war the likes of which no one had ever seen, all-out assaults, the leaf litter would have washed away in a torrent of blood! The fact that Cloudstar just rolled over and lead his Clan away, without a fight?

Well... it becomes pretty easy for him to justify it. And for any coward StarClan warrior who follows them. As a warrior, when you want something, you take it.

If anything, he probably threw a life to Ripplestar. Curious to see how much he could tank, how far he could get. Probably even ruled in his favor to bring him into StarClan, but of course, he was easily outvoted... and, he argues again, that if those dead SkyClan cowards hadn't left, well, maybe they could have voted with him.

In any case, you're free to interpret a character however you choose. I do hope my take on him is still appealing in its own way; but I will never entertain the idea that Skystar is any less than the violent, irrational, self-absorbed xenophobe he is in-canon.

#Skystar #Warrior Cats Analysis #Bonefall Rewrite #As for the Firestar thing I agree completely #I still feel a LITTLE sad I have to give up the cool final fight but it's worth it #Firestar's earlier death makes a MUCH stronger narrative and everyone is so right about it #I just had to come around.#Clear Sky

30 notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 2 years

Text

lately I've had several conversations for some reason about comics Civil War vs MCU Civil War and how much I just. hhhhhhhh.

like it really encapsulates a LOT about the MCU bc maybe it's just because I am the age group that got into mainstream comics via Civil War and similar events but like. Hm. Civil War the comics story is by no means perfect and there's a lot I really don't like about its opinions, but it is, ultimately, trying to have a pretty serious two-way conversation about the excesses of nationalism, surveillance culture, military pressure and xenophobia.

it is very very very explicitly about the Patriot Act and the War On Terror and it spends a lot of time on its (metaphorical) causes and effects. both sides make cogent points and different characters on each side have the same opinions for different reasons. and crucially the reasons for supporting or not supporting state control and surveillance are very easy to take out of the context of Magic Superhero Fights and into the real world, and the comic comes down fairly strongly in the side of 'Captain America is right to oppose the Registration Act but it's not a fight that can be won through force because the government has more force'

there's also. nuance. because there's stakes. it's consistently made clear that those who die in this story are meant to be read as real unfun traumatic deaths. and Cap as the main voice of the anti-registration side is extremely concerned with the ways violence is escalating (which. sometimes works and sometimes reads in a very centrist Protest But Not Too Much way. but it's a solid effort to make sure we get where everyone's coming from).

in the MCU though it's what? Tony Stark 180s on his desire to not be an explicit tool of the military and Cap is mad bc he doesn't want to kill his bestie? like there really is not any attempt to make a philosophical case for either side, and that makes it pretty hard to relate back to any real world situation. which works great for Disney because honestly even with how milquetoast the ultimate message of the comic is, it is focused on criticising US domestic and foreign policy and military dominance by force, which would interfere with the bag for Marvel Studios.

(tbh almost as soon as they wrapped up Civil War I feel like Marvel Comics was kind of trying to walk it back, like, make it less a real world parallel and start saying 'no it was aliens. no it was HYDRA. it wasn't human behaviour it was a Plot' which imo weakens the hell out of Civil War's strengths)

and speaking of interfering with the bag. there's this refusal in MCU Civil War to really commit to the characters fucking up or being unlikeable in the long term (which is an ongoing problem. TELL ME WHY MCU FILMS GLOSS CONSISTENTLY OVER TONY STARK'S NON-IRON MAN ADDICTIONS? bc nobody wants to buy a lunchbox of someone battling alcoholism, is why). and even to like. the "civil war" having any impacts beyond the one film. like this film is literally there to BRING CHARACTERS TOGETHER.

Kofi pointed out that the reason they picked it is bc it's an iconic Cap story, but it's an iconic Cap story bc a) it spends a lot of time on the moral nuances of his position, which doesn't come up in MCU Civil War because there uhhhh aren't any, they sort of forget about the geopolitics of it halfway through the film in favour of No You Can't Kill Bucky and b) it's the run-up to the Death Of Captain America storyline. but like. MCU Cap's death has literally nothing to do with Civil War in the end. He doesn't give up, he ends the film neither a renegade or a prisoner, and Civil War has no lasting consequences on his social or political standing.

tbf the MCU just IS NOT BIG ENOUGH to sustain the themes of Civil War. at that point in the MCU we have only ever seen American superheroes working in American interests, and they're all pretty much on the same side - there's not the like. scattered small scale local groups of superheroes, there's not huge numbers of people with peers, and nobody in the main cast actually like. Has a secret identity to protect. it's only about the Avengers bc those are the only superheroes the MCU had really focused on at that point. nobody outside the Avengers is being affected by the proposed legislation, and the Avengers already act as an unaccountable military force for US interests so it is fairly unambiguously a Good Thing for there to be some oversight. it's been a while since I saw it but I don't remember much focus on surveillance, privacy or mandatory registration of superpowered people bc again like. up to this point it's basically only the Avengers and some supervillains. and the Avengers were set up by a US government agency in the MCU so it's like. uh huh so instead of being about the Patriot Act this Civil War is about how it's bad for American paramilitaries to be accountable on the world stage?

idk it is. frustrating. bc like the Civil War comics event came at a time when like. so much of what was going on in Marvel in the 2000s was focused on problematising the politics of superheroes in order to discuss the real world like. there's so much crunchy stuff about nationalism and mythmaking and the limits of exceptionalism. let's talk New X-Men and how interested it is in what happens when mutation means disability or visible difference instead of superpowers. idk honestly early 2000s New X-Men is so fun. that's a sidebar.

but like. bc of a combination of the pro-military pro-interventionist politics of the MCU, the need to keep characters marketable, and the need for this film to be a building block towards Infinity War instead of an event in its own right, MCU Civil War isn't just utterly surface-level, with conflict coming from misunderstandings and emotional reactions not deeply held beliefs, and being pretty much wholly resolved by the end of the film, but it's also uhhhhhh kind of coming down in an almost opposite place to Civil War imo.

idk and idk why I'm thinking about it when I haven't engaged with the MCU in like a billion years but. why make it Civil War? why???? bc Civil War is significant for four things:

attempting to have a serious and somewhat confrontational conversation about real world politics

leading into Captain America's death by very firmly establishing his moral framework

permanently changing the lay of the land with character's relationships and motivations

moving focus away from a core cast and sprawling across loads of different perspectives

NONE of which the film does so like. why make it Civil War?

#red said

17 notes · View notes

ospreyeamon · 1 year

Text

malgus’ empire: doomed from the start

Why can’t you side with Malgus during The False Emperor? The guy does have some good points – not the fighting everyone in the galaxy at once thing, but about the stupid Sith infighting and stupid xenophobia holding the Empire back, and about the Sith Emperor being unworthy of loyalty.

One of the reasons is the devs can’t offer player decisions that would significantly diverge the overall world-state; creating a break between players who stayed loyal to their faction casting down Malgus and players who joined Malgus and propped up his empire would be hugely resource intensive, especially since the two-faction system is deeply baked into the game code. Another complicating factor is that, because The False Emperor is open to all classes, the logic of gains players making for their faction being promptly offset by the heroes on the other side can’t be used to justify a continuing stalemate the way it can be for Ilum, Makeb, and the class stories.

But those are Doylist explanations. What about potential Watsonian ones? Why would the player character, regardless of class, always turn down Malgus’ offer to join him? Why would a character who broadly agrees with Malgus’ position refuse him?

Maybe because there are hints that, even if they did join Malgus, they would be joining the losing side. Malgus’ new empire was doomed from its proclamation because Malgus just didn’t have the numbers.

With the exception of the imperial troops under his personal command, the two most prominent groups Malgus recruited – the Schism Collective, Talsa-Ko and her fellow voss – are from outside the Sith Empire. While Malgus is said to have “carefully cultivated the opinions of likeminded Sith leaders for years”, recruiting people like Darth Serevin, it’s not clear that Malgus’ primary aim was to bring them into his conspiracy rather than just promoting his more equal and diverse ideology for the Sith Empire. Notably missing from Malgus’ list of supporters are his apprentice Darth Karrid and his old ally Shae Vizla. As a falleen you would expect Karrid to be an obvious proponent of doing away with the Empire’s entrenched xenophobia, and the Mandalorian creed has never been one that looks down on a warrior merely because of their species.

Karrid’s absence is the one that is most suggestive because she is promoted to the Dark Council after Malgus’ defeat with no stain of his treason on her reputation. Given that knowing beforehand about Malgus’ plans but remaining silent would have also constituted a betrayal of the Sith Empire, it is likely that her Master left her ignorant of his plans. That would match with his behaviour towards an Imp-Side player; even though Malgus has been trusting you with missions for years, you still don’t warrant a personal invitation into the plot after delivering the crystals into his hands on Ilum.

It seems that, while Malgus worked hard to secure alliances outside the empire, he failed to properly canvas support for his plan inside the empire ahead of time. He assumed that the desire to see the Sith Empire reformed would translate into the willingness to abandon it. He assumed that discontented imperials would rally to his cause without his needing to make any effort to court, caucus with, or even inform them about his intentions.

This was not only arrogant but extremely stupid because Malgus needed the support of those dissatisfied imperials. Malgus’ first act after proclaiming himself emperor was to declare war on both the Galactic Republic and Sith Empire. Fighting a war on two fronts is something that leaders generally try to avoid for good reason. Because he refused to take the practical route of just picking one and engaging diplomatically with the other Malgus needed more troops, more ships, more supplies. Waging war on the galaxy is not a cheap exercise.

Malgus was depending on his support snowballing once he got going – winning some impressive early victories to raise his new empire’s profile to draw more followers in. Unfortunately for Malgus, not having as much initial support as he expected made snowballing more difficult, especially since attacking both the Republic and Empire meant that both sent their best and brightest to stop him.

Usually I would try to write about the player characters in more general terms, trying to account for the different classes and paths you can take through a story, but in this case it will be more coherent if I stick to mine. Malgus only asking the player character to join him after naming himself emperor means he decided to not preemptively approach:

The new Councillor of Ancient Knowledge, a twi’lek whose career Malgus actively helped further by assigning her plum missions. Darth Occlus has publicly supported Malgus’ position on removing the species-restrictions around military enrolment and imperial citizenship.

Lys’trel, who while younger than Malgus with a narrower support base is his equal in Force-skill and rank, finds herself genuinely offended that Malgus failed to so much as attempted to suborn her. As the only alien on the Dark Council she should have been an obvious potential ally. If he didn’t approach her, who else hasn’t he talked to? His apprentice Karrid apparently. Not a good sign. Malgus has already screwed up so throwing in with him will be very risky – but for how much reward? Lys’trel doesn’t care about war and conquest; violence is a means, not an end. Equality is something she wants, but she believes she can achieve it within the Sith Empire. For the Sith Empire to immediately implement its equality reforms after Malgus’ short-lived rebellion the policy changes must have already been in the works before it began; Occlus is an active participant in Darth Marr’s schemes to that end and had been trying to arrange an in-person meeting with Malgus to bring him in since with both Military Offence and Defence onboard they would have it in the bag. From Lys’trel’s perspective, Darth Serevin being invited in but not her and out of Malgus’ own apprentices Lord Cytharat not Darth Karrid – the lower ranked red sith but not the higher rank aliens – suggests that Malgus’ own subconscious biases are already undermining the equality he’s trying to create and the viability of his faction. It doesn’t help that in some important respects Malgus’ declaration just isn’t radical enough for her. Lys’trel wants to see slavery abolished and Malgus has said nothing about that.

Barrak Akkee of Clan Lok, Champion of the Great Hunt, is the most romantically famous of the aliens among the Sith Empire’s mercenary forces. Her underdog victory in the Great Hunt and adoption by Mandalore the Vindicated made her an honoured ally of the Sith – a feel-good story that improved the perception of fighting for the Empire among Imperial mirialians and mirialians among Imperials generally (which the Empire really needed because they are forcibly occupying Mirial). Then there was the whole being grievously slandered by the late Jedi Battlemaster only to clear her name by… besting the Battlemaster in single combat? forcing the late Chancellor Janarus to repent his lies at gunpoint? dramatically confronting Janarus with the evidence she had been framed before the Chancellor was assassinated by the late Darth Tormen? …the retellings vary but it was certainly very exciting.

As a Mandalorian, Barrak adheres to the Resol’nare and follows the Mandalore. Unless Mandalore abandons the alliance with the Sith Empire to make a new pact with Malgus, her loyalties will remain unchanged. As a bounty hunter, Barrak knows honour and glory won’t mend your gear or feed your family. Unless Malgus’ new empire can pay as well and reliably as the current one can, that’s going to be a problem; you can only pay your troops with loot if you win and keep winning which easier said than done, and it’s one thing to take people’s gold but another to take their grain. Anyway, it’s not like she or Mandalore got more of an “invitation” than Malgus’ widenet broadcast. What a snub.

While the Emperor chose another red sith of exalted lineage as his new Wrath after the previous one ran off with a Jedi, said new Wrath plainly doesn’t hold to the Emperor’s edicts on alien inferiority; he followed Malgus’ advice on tempting the kaleesh war-band on Ilum out of the Republic’s service into the Sith’s. Becoming the Wrath would give any Sith enough insight into the Emperor and his Hand’s behaviour to see the disregard he holds for his Empire. Vitiate’s Wrath publicly disowning him in favour of Malgus would send a powerful message to the Empire.

Tsojât accepted the mantle of the Wrath for personal reasons, not out of loyalty to the Emperor or to serve the Empire. But, having done that, he can’t turn away from the duty it implies. Having met the Hand it is clear that what people have been whispering since before the Treaty of Coruscant about the Emperor’s poor leadership is true – he doesn’t care about the people of the Empire, only his own powers and plans, whatever they may be. In the face of the Vitiate’s absence and apathy what should be the duties of the Emperor, the protection and guidance of the Sith Empire, instead fall to the Wrath as his emissary. Tsojât is honour bound not to betray the Empire and duty bound to attempt to fix it. Despite Malgus’ belief to the contrary, his breakaway is just another example of the destructive Sith infighting Malgus’ is railing against. This split in the Empire’s strength and attention right as the new war with the Republic begins leaves its worlds and its people in even more danger than they would be otherwise; it must be resolved as soon as possible.

(The infamous rattataki Cipher Agent is still officially listed as KIA and is not answering commcalls from the Dark Council at this time. Malgus couldn’t have gotten a hold of Cipher Nine if he’d tried, which he didn’t. Cipher took the Black Codex and ghosted the Imperial establishment with as much of the remains of ImpInt as vhe could safely disappear. To Yjimir, Malgus is just another self-absorbed and selfish Sith; another Dark Councillor unfit to lead the Sith Empire or any empire. His vision of a new empire is neither workable nor desirable.)

And they’ve all heard the story about Malgus and Elena Daru; Malgus taking a twi’lek slave as a lover, arming her to fight beside him, before murdering her because his love was a weakness. It doesn’t paint Malgus in a flattering light, even by the measures of the Sith. Murdering someone you love so they can’t be used against you is a tacit admittance that you aren’t strong enough to protect them. Turning on someone who has followed you loyally without provocation makes pledging service to you less attractive, for a leader who betrays his followers once may do so again.

#Meanwhile in a Galaxy Far Far Away #swtor meta #Darth Malgus #Malgus' new empire #Darth Karrid #reconstituted sith empire #swtor the false emperor #star wars the old republic #murder cw

17 notes · View notes

newmusickarl · 1 year

Text

youtube

Top 50 Albums of 2022

4. Skinty Fia by Fontaines D.C.

Considering their cult-like status and massive global following, it can be quite easy to forget that Fontaines D.C. only founded in 2017. Where a lot of artists after a highly successful debut will sit and stew over their follow-up for years on end before releasing another album, in just five short years the Irish post-punk quintet have already found themselves on record number three.

In that time, they have set a very high bar for themselves too – from their instant classic, Mercury Prize-nominated debut Dogrel to their darker, brilliantly moody sophomore record A Hero’s Death, they’ve already delivered two of the finest albums of the last few years. Both those records landed inside my Top 20 in 2019 and 2020 respectively, but now their incredible third album, Skinty Fia, has earned them their highest spot to date on my annual year-end countdown.

The brilliant teaser tracks for Skinty Fia released earlier in the year heavily suggested Fontaines were about to unleash their best album to date with this latest opus. Now after playing it constantly throughout the year, I am certain that it more than holds up to the extremely high standard set by its two predecessors and that it is for me personally, my favourite of their records so far.

Whilst they may have lost some of the raw punk energy that made Dogrel so captivating, their confidence in what they’re creating has grown and it is coming through loud and clear in the music. The musicianship is more accomplished, the songs more dynamic and Chatten’s poetic storytelling is as entrancing as ever.

In ár gCroíthe go deo sets the tone perfectly – a sermon-like six-minute opener that draws on known modern tales of Irish people living in England and highlighting some of the xenophobia they have faced. With the album largely inspired by the band’s own experiences since moving to London, it is a central theme that runs right through the record.

Big Shot is more classic Fontaines, with the band pondering their newfound fame with genius lyrics like “I travelled to space and found the moon too small.” As great as the original album recording is, the live arrangement of this song is even better, as you can see from the beautiful string-tinged Glasto performance above. How Cold Love Is then features the perfect contrast between a sweet, romantic guitar melody and Grian’s drawling, tired vocals, sonically encapsulating the song’s lyrical subject matter perfectly.

When Jackie Down The Line was released earlier this year it immediately became one of my favourite tracks within their catalogue, and since then only one thing has changed – it is now one of my favourite songs of the whole year too. With a signature jangly guitar melody and an infectious refrain of “I will wear you down in time, I will hurt you, I’ll desert you, I am Jackie down the line” along with the odd “do do do, la la la”, I still think it’s brilliant. The meandering grungy riffs of Bloomsday then make way for other single Roman Holiday, which has a strong, very noticeable Oasis feel to it, both in terms of the Noel Gallagher-esque guitars and Chatten’s own Liam impersonation (which isn't a bad thing).

The Couple Across The Way then sees Grian describing an argumentative couple whilst reflecting on his own relationship. With the track featuring a simple accordion backing for a more Irish trad style feel to it, it divided fans upon release but I have personally always loved it. The accompanying music video is well worth seeking out too, as it really brings the song to life. It arrives at just the right time in the tracklist too, acting as almost a palette cleanser that sets up the final three tracks in quite emphatic fashion. Once the accordion fades and the title track’s brilliantly glitchy synths and thumping drums kick in, you’re suddenly transported into a different zone, and it makes for an utterly exhilarating crossover. With heavy Joy Division vibes, the title track is simply pulsating and another big album highlight.

If that wasn't good enough, subsequent track I Love You then arrives to blow nearly everything else out of the water. Hugely atmospheric, it steadily builds to Grian Chatten’s passionate vocal cries in the song’s outro, with more stunningly poetic lyrics:

“And I loved you like a penny loves the pocket of a priest, And I’ll love you ‘til the grass around my gravestone is deceased, And I’m heading for the cokeys, I will tell 'em 'bout it all, About the gall of Fine Gael and the fail of Fianna Fáil, And now the flowers read like broadsheets, every young man wants to die, Say it to the man who profits, and the bastard walks by, And the bastard walks by, and the bastard walks by, Say it to him fifty times and still the bastard won’t cry, Would I Lie?”

After that jaw-dropping moment, Nabokov then arrives to close the record out perfectly, with some dreamy, spiralling shoegaze riffs that eventually fade the album to black.

Whilst the debate surrounding which Fontaines record is the best will no doubt rage on, and everyone will likely have their own favourite of the three too, there are still some universal conclusions that can be drawn about Skinty Fia. The main one being that this is another hugely impressive and brilliantly crafted work, from one of the finest bands operating anywhere on the planet right now. A worthy addition to their increasingly remarkable discography and without a doubt, one of the year’s very best albums.

Best tracks: Jackie Down The Line, I Love You, In ár gCroíthe go deo

Listen here

#new music #best new music #albums of the year #album recommendation #album of the year #best of 2022 #best of the year #aoty #aoty 2022 #best albums of 2022 #albums of 2022 #fontaines d.c.#big shot #glastonbury #glastonbury 2022 #skinty fia #grian chatten #Youtube

2 notes · View notes

wahlpaper · 9 months

Text

In the Lives of Puppets Review

In the Lives of Puppets by TJ Klune

CW: Discussion of Sex, Described Panic Attacks, Genocide, Described Killing of an Animal, Violence, Murder, Blood, Xenophobia, Kidnapping and Imprisonment, Suicide, Betrayal of Trust, Classism, Totalitarianism, Arson, Grief, Dementia

5/5

If TJ Klune's other books have taught me anything, it's that I don't have to read the description before putting his work on my TBR list. In the Lives of Puppets was my first experiment with this. I put it on hold at the library as fast as I could. I only picked up from others what it would be about. All I got was that it had something to do with Pinocchio. That was plenty for me, I knew Klune would make his own magical and moving story from the material. I know the library hold lines for this book are long, but the wait was worth it.

In the Lives of Puppets is about Victor Lawson, human son of the robot named Giovanni Lawson. These two live in the forest with two other robots named Rambo and Nurse Ratched. Everything starts to change when they bring back a decommissioned robot from the local scrap yard. They give this robot the name Hap and a mechanical heart. Soon, the outside world catches up with Giovanni and takes him from his family and home. Victor, Rambo, Nurse Ratched, and Hap set out into a world they know nothing about, determined to get their father and friend back.

This is a highly emotional tale with a lot of twists and turns. Some ideas were predictable, like the idea that it would all work out in the end, but it still kept me on the edge of my seat. I was just as clueless about the world of this story as the main characters were. It's a rescue mission, a romance, a found family story, and a mystery all wrapped into one. The elements of Pinocchio are pretty obvious, but this book was moreso inspired by its source material than adapted from it. There are characters with familiar names, such as The Blue Fairy and The Coachman. Quotes from the original book are used at the start of each section. There are overarching themes of free will and what makes someone human. I have not read Carlo Collodi's book, so perhaps there is more pulled, but the story Klune wrote was magnificent and unique!

I was ecstatic to discover that the main character, Victor, is asexual! I have mentioned in previous posts (on my website) that we desperately need more representation in books and other media for asexuality. I was able to see some of myself in Victor, and that's why representation is important. Victor found romance and wanted kisses, cuddles, the feeling of knowing another person extremely well, and to share his life with someone. He was shown to be uncomfortable with sex jokes and discussion of what he does in the bathroom. Proven through his love interest, he also experiences aesthetic attraction, something I've found allosexuals confuse with sexual attraction. Although this book takes place hundreds of years after when we readers are alive, it takes the time to address modern misconceptions about asexuality. I hope we will get to a point where these aren't happening, but I am immensely grateful for this sort of representation while we still need it.

In The Lives of Puppets also has great representation of several different disabilities, both mental and physical. Hap has a stutter and needs wooden prosthetics, but he and his family never see it as a problem. These things are just a part of who he is. Victor's mental health issues are never labeled, but it is clear that he has anxiety and gets panic attacks. He also does not strike me as neurotypical, but if he knows no other humans, perhaps that term becomes irrelevant. These are not the only disabilities that Klune has included. Each one is written well, handled with care, and contributes to the beauty of the book.

The top complaint I hear about Klune's books is that the pacing is too slow. The sub-genre Klune is working in, emotional fantasy that focuses on person-stakes, is meant to be like that. I have always enjoyed the pacing, preferring these books to take their time. It's possible that this story goes a little faster than The House in the Cerulean Sea or Under the Whispering Door. The stakes for In the Lives of Puppets go beyond the main characters, it affects the whole world, but that's more of a side goal. Getting Gio back is what matters most to the main characters. I found myself with a few questions about the world state at the end of the novel, but realized they were things that did not matter to Victor and co. They didn't need answers. If you need your books to be fast-paced, this won't be the book for you, and that's okay.

If you're looking for a story about love of all kinds, humanity, and accepting yourself for all that you are, In The Lives of Puppets by TJ Klune is the book you should read. It has robots, butterflies, jazz music, and more. This story is much more than a new version of Pinocchio, but you'll have to find that out for yourself!

#tj klune #in the lives of puppets #book blog #bookblogger #queer books #queer characters #asexual #ace representation #ace mc #science fantasy #mlm romance #pinnochio #disability representation #disability pride month

1 note · View note

qqueenofhades · 3 years

Note

Hi. You made a post a couple of days ago about how queer historical fiction doesnt need to be defined only by homophobia. Can you expand on that a bit maybe? Because it seems interesting and important, but I'm a little confused as to whether that is responsible to the past and showing how things have changed over time. Anyway this probably isn't very clear, but I hope its not insulting. Have a good day :)

Hiya. I assume you're referring to this post, yes? I think the main parameters of my argument were set out pretty clearly there, but sure, I'm happy to expand on it. Because I'm a little curious as to why you think that writing a queer narrative (especially a queer fictional narrative) that doesn't make much reference to or even incorporate explicit homophobia is (implicitly) not being "responsible to the past." I've certainly made several posts on this topic before, but as ever, my thoughts and research materials change over time. So, okay.

(Note: I am a professional historian with a PhD, a book contract for an academic monograph on medieval/early modern queer history, and soon-to-be-several peer-reviewed publications on medieval queer history. In other words, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.)

As I noted in that post, first of all, the growing emphasis on "accuracy" in historical fiction and historically based media is... a mixed bag. Not least because it only seems to be applied in the Game of Thrones fashion, where the only "accurate" history is that which is misogynistic, bloody, filthy, rampantly intolerant of competing beliefs, and has no room for women, people of color, sexual minorities, or anyone else who has become subject to hot-button social discourse today. (I wrote a critical post awhile ago about the Netflix show Cursed, ripping into it for even trying to pretend that a show based on the Arthurian legends was "historically accurate" and for doing so in the most simplistic and reductive way possible.) This says far more about our own ideas of the past, rather than what it was actually like, but oh boy will you get pushback if you try to question that basic premise. As other people have noted, you can mix up the archaeological/social/linguistic/cultural/material stuff all you like, but the instant you challenge the ingrained social ideas about The Bad Medieval Era, cue the screaming.

I've been a longtime ASOIAF fan, but I do genuinely deplore the effect that it (and the show, which was by far the worst offender) has had on popular culture and widespread perceptions of medieval history. When it comes to queer history specifically, we actually do not know that much, either positive or negative, about how ordinary medieval people regarded these individuals, proto-communities, and practices. Where we do have evidence that isn't just clerical moralists fulminating against sodomy (and trying to extrapolate a society-wide attitude toward homosexuality from those sources is exactly like reading extreme right-wing anti-gay preachers today and basing your conclusions about queer life in 2021 only on those), it is genuinely mixed and contradictory. See this discussion post I likewise wrote a while ago. Queerness, queer behavior, queer-behaving individuals have always existed in history, and labeling them "queer" is only an analytical conceit that represents their strangeness to us here in the 21st century, when these categories of exclusion and difference have been stringently constructed and applied, in a way that is very far from what supposedly "always" existed in the past.

Basically, we need to get rid of the idea that there was only one empirical and factual past, and that historians are "rewriting" or "changing" or "misrepresenting" it when they produce narratives that challenge hegemonic perspectives. This is why producing good historical analysis is a skill that takes genuine training (and why it's so undervalued in a late-capitalist society that would prefer you did anything but reflect on the past). As I also said in the post to which you refer, "homophobia" as a structural conceit can't exist prior to its invention as an analytical term, if we're treating queerness as some kind of modern aberration that can't be reliably talked about until "homosexual" gained currency in the late 19th century. If there's no pre-19th century "homosexuality," then ipso facto, there can be no pre-19th-century "homophobia" either. Which one is it? Spoiler alert: there are still both things, because people are people, but just as the behavior itself is complicated in the premodern past, so too is the reaction to it, and it is certainly not automatic rejection at all times.

Hence when it comes to fiction, queer authors have no responsibility (and in my case, certainly no desire) to uncritically replicate (demonstrably false!) narratives insisting that we were always miserable, oppressed, ostracised, murdered, or simply forgotten about in the premodern world. Queer characters, especially historical queer characters, do not have to constantly function as a political mouthpiece for us to claim that things are so much better today (true in some cases, not at all in the others) and that modernity "automatically" evolved to a more "enlightened" stance (definitely not true). As we have seen with the recent resurgence of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, and xenophobia around the world, along with the desperate battle by the right wing to re-litigate abortion, gay rights, etc., social attitudes do not form in a vacuum and do not just automatically become more progressive. They move backward, forward, and side to side, depending on the needs of the societies that produce them, and periods of instability, violence, sickness, and poverty lead to more regressive and hardline attitudes, as people act out of fear and insularity. It is a bad human habit that we have not been able to break over thousands of years, but "[social] things in the past were Bad but now have become Good" just... isn't true.

After all, nobody feels the need to constantly add subtextual disclaimers or "don't worry, I personally don't support this attitude/action" implied authorial notes in modern romances, despite the cornucopia of social problems we have today, and despite the complicated attitude of the modern world toward LGBTQ people. If an author's only reason for including "period typical homophobia" (and as we've discussed, there's no such thing before the 19th century) is that they think it should be there, that is an attitude that needs to be challenged and examined more closely. We are not obliged to only produce works that represent a downtrodden past, even if the end message is triumphal. It's the same way we got so tired of rape scenes being used to make a female character "stronger." Just because those things existed (and do exist!), doesn't mean you have to submit every single character to those humiliations in some twisted name of accuracy.

Yes, as I have always said, prejudices have existed throughout history, sometimes violently so. But that is not the whole story, and writing things that center only on the imagined or perceived oppression is not, at this point, accurate OR helpful. Once again, I note that this is specifically talking about fiction. If real-life queer people are writing about their own experiences, which are oftentimes complex, that's not a question of "representation," it's a question of factual memoir and personal history. You can't attack someone for being "problematic" when they are writing about their own lived experience, which is something a younger generation of queer people doesn't really seem to get. They also often don't realise how drastically things have changed even in my own lifetime, per the tags on my reblog about Brokeback Mountain, and especially in media/TV.

However, if you are writing fiction about queer people, especially pre-20th century queer people, and you feel like you have to make them miserable just to be "responsible to the past," I would kindly suggest that is not actually true at all, and feeds into a dangerous narrative that suggests everything "back then" was bad and now it's fine. There are more stories to tell than just suffering, queer characters do not have to exist solely as a corollary for (inaccurate) political/social commentary on the premodern past, and they can and should be depicted as living their lives relatively how they wanted to, despite the expected difficulties and roadblocks. That is just as accurate, if sometimes not more so, than "they suffered, the end," and it's something that we all need to be more willing to embrace.

#history #medieval history #queer history #meta #long post #anonymous #ask

125 notes · View notes

soraka-in-warhammer40k · 2 years

Text

I wonder if r/grimdank just has the weirdest active userbase sometimes. This whole LGBT-Theme, or rather, the mod's absolute dumb handling of it, is boiling up with the bigots making whiny memes like "I want this place to go back before it got political mimimi".

Let's for a moment completly set aside the fact that 40k, a setting heavily leaning on the horrors of facism, religious extremism, and xenophobia is inherently political (and that's just the Imperium really), and look back to what those exact same fuckers where complaining about before: "muh this sub has only 4 jokes it repeats its all so stale and boring".

So either its "too boring" or "too political" - make up your fucking mind. And you know what the "political" part of it is? "LGBT People existing". That's it. Apparently for some PEOPLE JUST BEING ALIVE is "political" and therefore "up to debate". Ya know, if you want to debate if someone should exist or not after they are definetly already here, that's going really fucking hard full throttle into asshole territory. Just saying.

Next time just ban the whiners, and the meme-collective will jump on the next thing not even 24 hours later. Now instead the mods just ban lock ANY thread that is LGBT (but leaves the ones whining about such threads wide open), essentially giving the assholes what they want: a clear message about what can be discussed and exist in 40k and what not in their favor. This does not sit well with either side, as one can now prance around rubbing their assholery in everyone's faces, while the other is quite rightfully pissed about that. This will drag on forever now. Urgh. How can you be so incompetent with handling a subreddit?

#wh40k #warhammer 40k #grimdank #r/grimdank

13 notes · View notes

concerningwolves · 3 years

Note

Question for you! I see Fae show up a lot in the fantasy genre, and I really love it and want to play with those ideas in some of my own works, but I was wondering — is this something that can be mishandled? I’ve seen some discussion on things to look out for in terms of insensitive portrayal of neurodivergence, but I’ve also just been mulling over the fact that there is a lot of very rich folklore that varies depending on what culture you’re looking at, and that there is potential to disrespect that out of simple fascination for the trope. Being extremely American with no cultural ties to the folklore, I’m just not sure. Is there harm that can be done by sicking solely to the tried and true tropes, or alternatively, by trying to put a new creative spin on those ideas? So sorry if this doesn’t make very much sense, this was harder to put into words that I expected. I was just wondering if you might have any thoughts or advice on this

Oh, this is a nice question for me. Thank you, Nonny :3

Full disclaimer: folklore and mythology, particularly relating to the fae, is my special interest. That doesn't mean I'm an expert in myths and folklore (or the linked history/anthropology). I'm just a person who spends inordinate amounts of time thinking about these things and am exceedingly happy to infodump on the drop of a hat. So, my word isn't law, I'm always happy to hear other opinions, please correct me if I make a mistake etc etc.

"Can you mishandle writing the fae?" is something i have many thoughts on. If you'd asked me this a few years ago, I'd have been all "yes you can, the fae have been appropriated and butchered by popular culture blah blah blah" because I was insufferably anal about things being Correct. But lately, I've come to really love just how vast this – I guess you could call it the popular culture faerie mythos – is. So much of it isn't what a folklore purist would consider correct, but I'm fascinated by how these folkloric figments have evolved and become ingrained in the general psyche nonetheless.

I think writing the fae can become harmful if writers use Welsh/Irish/Scottish folklore as their base without properly researching or without an awareness of the historical context. There's this trend of ignoring centuries of actual history from these countries and instead creating a very warped idealistic fiction. For example, if a writer presents a fantasy world with faeries and says "This is based on Welsh mythology" and then goes on to perpetuate such bunkum as "they all worship a mystical moon goddess" then that's Very Not Good. Similarly, if a writer says "here is my fantasy faery race, they're based on Celtic [Irish] mythology" then I'm going to have some Problems with that, because Celtic mythology and Irish mythology aren't the same thing. (The Celts were an Indo-European people comprised of many cultures and tribes, spread from Ireland to central Europe. While their influence in Ireland is clear, not everything Irish is Celtic and vice versa).

Irish, Welsh and Scottish cultures have historically been persecuted by the English, and that shows in how the English retconned their respective folkloric beliefs to create the British fairy mythos. It's something writers ought to be mindful of but generally aren't imho. This "British" faerie mythos is actually a melting pot of Irish, Scottish, Welsh and Nordic folklore with a healthy dose of medieval romanticism. It's what gave us the popular images of the Seelie and Unseelie ("good" and "bad") faerie courts, wherein the fae are generally more "civilised" (read: like Proper British Victorians) and have humanoid appearances. I don't think that any story which uses this bastardised fairy mythology is automatically bad, but I do get wary when writers plunge into it without giving any thought to why the British fairy image is Like That.

I recently listened to Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke and I was absolutely enthralled. Clarke's fairies are based on the medieval romantic image of them, particularly medieval children's tales. They exist in the realm of Fairy, which is near to Hell, and have a society that falls somewhere between feudalism and the Victorian. What gripped me was how Clarke used the Bastardised British Fairy Lore to create this... almost satirical criticism of "Englishness" and what the English identity actually means (without tiptoeing around xenophobia, arrogance and racism). It's very much based on this bastardised British "folklore" but it works because that's the whole point. I found it thoroughly fascinating and enjoyable and basically haven't stopped thinking about it for a month.

I do get very excited when writers take a new angle with faeries, too! Like, Eoin Colfer's faries in the Artemis Fowl books were so cool. (Bearing in mind it's been ten years since I picked up an Artemis Fowl book, and I never read the whole series so most of what I know I've absorbed via late night Wiki reads and Tumblr osmosis, but anyway—) They live underground, which is a very neat take on the Irish Aos Sí. Irish fae folklore has the faeries living in mounds, as in, every mound in Ireland is its own faerie "court". Colfer's faeries call themselves the People, again, a play on the Irish because their name means People of the Mounds. I think what Colfer did was an extremely neat way of calling on Irish mythology to create a cool new fairy concept.

What you say about being American is an intriguing point in itself, too. I've said before that the American cryptid culture is simply delightful, because although it isn't what one would think of when you talk about folklore, that's exactly what it is. American culture is a melting pot. Which is to say, yes, as an American you won't have a lived cultural experience of, say, Irish folklore and how it impacts modern day life there, but there are elements of it all around you! Think about how in states where it's common to see vast fields of corn, it's also common for tales of corn demons. Sure, maybe that sounds like a weird tale some kids tell to scare one another, but to me it sounds a lot like the feldgiester of Germanic folklore.

American Gods by Neil Gaiman explores this concept that immigrants and settlers brought their own gods and mythological/folkloric creatures with them. I often think about this part of the book that talks about a faerie man who followed an Irishwoman to America because she always left out cream for him. I found that really heartwarming in this way that I can't quite explain. If you're into contemporary fantasy epics, I definitely recommend American Gods!

Sorry, I know this answer is getting quite rambly but I guess I... don't have a solid answer. Like I said, this is very much in my special interest wheelhouse BUT I'm not an expert. When I started out reading more about faeries and their various mythos I consumed a lot of nonsense, and I'm slowly sifting back through and unlearning much of what I took as gospel fact. I don't want to sound like I'm telling you what you can or can't do because that isn't my place (nor is it anyone else's). Really all you can do is listen to people from the cultures you're drawing from and research carefully and critically.

Happy writing! (*^▽^*)

#faeries

39 notes · View notes

mymelancholiesblues · 3 years

Text

No, Mia isn’t "low-tier" compared to Ada (morally speaking, or w/e) – a measured answer?/essay

So, a couple of Ada haters tried to put up a false symmetry between both of these characters there on twitter, and it inspired me to put my own thoughts down in a more articulate essay as to why that's (Ada's somehow being morally worse than Mia) not sustained by canon in Resident Evil.

standing there, killing time

can't commit to anything but a crime

all the good girls go to hell

'cause even God herself has enemies

and once the water starts to rise

and heaven's out of sight

she'll want the Devil on her team. ⁕

First things first: let us debunk the false symmetry that they tried to establish between these two characters with extremely distinct archetypes – and worse, the following replies to this false symmetry and its poor arguments trying to validate it, pointing out that, in fact, no, character B (that would be Ada, btw) – which is so evidently and ridiculously different from character A (and that would be Mia) – is, in fact, WAY WORSE than character A, and then proceeding to assert some unsupported propositions about misogyny in Resident Evil (which, tbh, definitely IS a recurring problem in the franchise, but that in this case particularly, little or does not apply AT ALL) and how Ada contributes to "the perpetration of a biological cold war".

Starting with what differentiates Mia from Ada grotesquely: we know NOTHING of Ada's true alliances in RE's world. Mia, however, canonically worked for a group that participated in the importation and exportation as well as the manufacturing, testing and marketing of biological weapons: "The Connections", a CRIMINAL SYNDICATE which, amongst other things, was also involved in money laundering, assassinations as well as weapons and drug trafficking. I don't care at all about Mia, so I don't intend to waste much of my time going on about her role in the plot, but people should've already realized by just that much how infinitely dishonest is to try to put these two characters as "similar" ones, or argue that Ada is somehow worse.

Another detail that shouldn't escape anyone's attention too, are the origins and nationalities of both – and yes, I intend to briefly bring up racism against eastern-Asian looking characters (a silent plague that takes form by each passing day in all fiction fandoms) and anti-China xenophobia, but for now, hold this tea there just before I drop it: Mia is canonically American, and previously a Texas-state resident; meanwhile, we have no confirmation of Ada's nationality except for her pretty evident Chinese ancestry. But, as I said, hold it there for a while.

i) espionage — the job

red so silent

wait a minute

or just a little while.

what are you looking for? ⁕

At all times that Ada's "job" was brought up in this franchise, in ALL of her cameos, she has NEVER been called a mercenary in the original Japanese. She's always referred to as a SPY. Even in RE2R, the most recent title in which she's featured in, the original text of the game makes a point of labelling her as a SPY (and not a mercenary) in the dialogue that transpires between Annette and Leon.

It's the North-American translation and correspondent localization that now and then falls for the equivocal use of this other term. This distinction is important since espionage NECESSARILY implies operating in an organized service for, perhaps a country, or a political cause, or a class/group, or a corporation, or whatever. While a mercenary is someone who's acting per their self financial interests, indiscriminately selling their specialized "labour" and skills to anyone who'll offer more.

Ada's not a mercenary, she's a spy. But Mia, in addition to being hired to a canonically criminal company, was also the handler personally assigned to Eveline. I don't care how exactly Mia got in that predicament but the fact is: Mia was canonically employed by a company that profited over illicit activities and directly watched as a family was destroyed and toyed with by this new killing machine (Eve). Yet, we can't state for sure that we know to whom or to what Ada is truly affiliated with.

ii) sources — check them

who's a heretic now?

am I making sense?

how can you make it stick?

and I'm on a trial

waiting 'til the beat comes out. ⁕

This fandom should put a little more thought into which translation and localization of the game texts, dialogues and files they are using to support their arguments. I know that in some cases the United States people have a bit of an inclination to think of themselves as the owners of the planet and deem English as the only language that matters in this world, but let's not forget that RE is a Japanese franchise (wow, insane, right?!). Therefore, the most valid script, with the greatest amount of details, and highest credibility, is the Japanese original. Throughout these years, there have been several errors in translation and localization of the Japanese original to North-American English. And, believe me, curiously enough, plenty of those concern Ada, since she's often mentioned or referred to in a very vague way – without the use of pronouns or adjectives or adverbs that could help in indicating gender. This ended up causing those details and mentions to her to get overlooked, even though in the Japanese text it was a clear reference to her character (per observation of context).

iii) the good guys — one of

head in the dust

feet in the fire

labour on that midnight wire

listening for that angel choir

you got nowhere to run

careful son, you got dreamers plans

but it gets hard to stand. ⁕

Yes, as much as haters try to minimize it, it is SIGNIFICANT that Ada saved so many important characters and stood for unquestionably heroic actions in so many moments - like stopping everything she was doing so she could help completely random Chinese civilians with the helicopter she managed to pilot in that chaos in China (yeah, I know you haters love to forget about this, but it happened, it's there in canon, and no, it wasn't her direct OR indirect responsibility what was going on in China: REPLAY RE6 and for the love of GOD, never again argue that what she did was somehow "the equivalent of evacuating a city after selling a WMD to destroy that same city". It's a case of pure intellectual dishonesty to say such a thing. It's canon that Carla was the one who caused what happens in China, PLEASE, PLAY RE6).

Furthermore, Ada shows compassion on some occasions even for characters who are directly putting her in harms ways, like Annette (in RE2 OG, right after - in order to defend herself - she slaps Annette leading her to lose balance and collapse over the sewers fences, Ada makes an effort in trying to pull Annette back and prevent her from falling) and Carla.

Replay RE4 and pay attention to it, pay attention to her solo campaign: getting involved with Leon's journey in Spain hasn't brought any real benefit to her mission or herself: Ada deviates from her main path several times due to worrying about him and trying to help him and almost ends up dead in several of these occasions over her insistence in doing so: by saving him from Bitores Mendez, by helping him and Ashley against Sadler, by confronting Krauser and stopping him.

It's so lazy to only read/listen to a file in which she says in English that "Leon might be useful to her plans" (this is way more nuanced in the Japanese original of Ada's Report), and ignore everything that was SHOWN in the game: every effort she made to ensure that Leon could rescue Ashley, remove the parasite from his and her bodies, and escape from that hell-island.

The jet-ski she left for their escape was ALREADY there before she was captured by Sadler (or you think she arranged it while she was caught?). Leon having to intervene and save her from Sadler WASN'T her plan. It WASN'T her plan to take the sample from Leon's hands. She wanted to help him get out of there with Ashley and she guaranteed he could do so, she wanted to get the sample by herself and escape too while sending that hell to kingdom's come. But, because she chose to help Leon rescue Ashley right in front of Sadler, she ends up captured.

On her end, Mia never did anything minimally compared to that, and all of her "selflessness" or self-sacrificing actions involved a much, MUCH smaller scope than Ada's: wanting to help her husband and HERSELF is not at all comparable to saving a few dozens of unknown Chinese civilians. So no, they aren't "cut from the same cloth". They don't come from the same place, nor do they share the same intentions or goals, and their contributions to the RE storyline are quite different.

iv) unknown true purpose (shades of grey)

lining up in the background

waiting for the crowd shot to be seen

in the shadow of the big screen

everybody begs to be redeemed. ⁕

In databooks, Ada is recurrently described as "a Chinese spy with extraordinary physical abilities, vigorous health and composed mind and spirit, capable of coping with grim situations and handling even the most difficult requests without losing composure". If we are paying attention to the storytelling ingame, however, we know that this isn't always the case: Ada did let her mask of unswerving emotional and physical strength fall and showed a very fragile side under strenuous circumstances a couple of times already.

Also, in these databooks, they often point out that "she has her own 'true purpose' and has FREQUENTLY betrayed organizations and clients to achieve it". Huh, we can AGAIN, by this only, see how completely different she's from Mia, who personally watched an entire family being driven to insanity by Eveline's hand.

Furthermore, in these databooks, it's often said that "this true purpose is still obscure and whether she truly cared for anyone or simply used her charms to manipulate people that crossed paths with her isn't ever clear". If people are willing to be open-minded and exercise their text comprehension skills, though, they'll see that in multiple occasions of emotional confrontation it has been established time and time again that yes, Ada DOES care. She wasn't capable of shooting Leon and there has been a couple of other times that failing to choose a cool, sociopathic calculation and pragmatical demeanour over empathy and humanity towards others has put her in harms ways: nonetheless she still chose it.

v) positive impact

I'm gonna break the cycle

I'm gonna shake up the system

I'm gonna destroy my ego. ⁕

To this point, RE's plot systematically leads us to believe that Ada has been covertly acting behind the scenes of multiple biological incidents COLLECTING INFORMATION (the job of a spy, who would've thought! lmao), that is valuable to numerous organizations, companies, groups and different contexts, but at the same time of allegedly offering to handle this knowledge for the right price to the big players involved with bioterrorism and clandestine trading of bioweapons, she's also working to sabotage said players.

This is evident throughout the franchise: she intended to hurt Umbrella's business. She outwitted and deceived Wesker multiple times. She even undermined Simmons, someone who was in a position of power in the US government and actively using that position to lead bioterrorist ventures on the parallel side.

There's no concrete evidence or hint as to what she does with the information she collects, and for all purposes and effects, I can presume that she's gathering this knowledge to assist in the discovery of countermeasures and vaccination studies. I might as well argue that she is a Chinese spy who is working against European and North-American capitalism and the imperialism that creates such monsters like the biochemical and bioweapons industry and that her real objective is to dismantle the market for bioweapons and bioterror supported mainly by the USA (see: Simmons and The Family).

That is, as long as it is unclear what her true purpose is, I have the freedom to surmise whatever the heck I want and that all of what she's been doing was for the sake of the greater "good" - and I'll even have canon moments to support this reasoning as it's clear that she regularly sabotages her customers (customers that are unquestionably established as playing for the "evil" side, with perverse intentions) - throughout the franchise. She did this on RE2, RE4, RE6 and Damnation. It's there, transparent in canon, people just choose to ignore it.

She laughs in the face of whoever she's talking to by the end of Damnation, saying she doesn't intend to deliver the Plaga; she scoffs at Simmons; she betrays Wesker and kills Krauser. She had been sabotaging Wesker for so long, that he sent Krauser to be the main agent in the mission in Spain, and Ada was just a "side effect" that he didn't have in control and had to keep an eye on, so he ordered Krauser to keep tabs on her. It's not a mutually beneficial dynamic. Ada doesn't want Wesker to succeed, she despises him; this is clear in the games in which they interact. There are even files that indicate that she was trying to double-cross and get in the way of his plans for at least 2 years before Spain, and he was constantly catching up with her. See here and here.

On her end, Mia was employed by and consciously working for a criminal syndicate.

vi) a (secretly) helping hand

oh, I'm a master pretender

just felt more alone

the further I'd go

but I'll stick around

I'll be your master defender

yeah, I'll stick around. ⁕

Ada approached characters such as John Clemens and Luis Sera, and both had a canonical intention to, in addition to putting an end to their connections with the criminal companies and organizations they've been working for, also expose and denounce them for their crimes. It's in this context that Ada comes into contact with them. And why is that?

Check John's background: he had made up his mind about disclosing Umbrella's crimes to the public. Check Luis' background: Ada went to Spain to assist in his extradition since he feared for his own life if he resolved to turn his back on the cult of Los Illuminados, and also dreaded the consequences of the liberation of Las Plagas on an international scale.

Keep in mind that Ada handed over to Wesker a USELESS Plaga sample. Wesker only got the sample currently circulating in the underground market because he went after Krauser's body. We don't know what Ada did with the master Plaga sample she obtained. We only know from Ada's Report and the Plaga Recovery file that she didn't deliver it to Wesker, and he needed to go out for a plan B to get it.

Even the G-Virus sample that fell into the hands of the clandestine business, it's possible to argue that Ada's involvement in it was flimsy, since Simmons CANONICALLY made over a thousand laboratory tests in Sherry, and, as we know, he was a leading figure in bioterrorism and bioweapons trading with the aid of his position in the US government.

But, guess what, Ada clearly is a non-white character with obvious Chinese heritage and Mia is white, so of course, OF COURSE, someone can so nonchalantly affirm that Ada, this "vile bitch", is somehow WORSE than Mia. The same Mia who watched the Bakers being destroyed. Right.

Also: trying to validate one's point by claiming anything related to the misogyny present in RE franchise, while IN THE SAME BREATH AND TWEET reducing Ada's entire character arc to that of "a sociopathic bitch cured by the magic dick of her love interest" is supposed to be a joke, right? No, really. Joke.

conclusion and a word against misogyny

we are waiting on a telegram to

give us news of the fall

I am sorry to report

dear Paris is burning after all

we have taken to the streets

in open rejoice, revolting

we are dancing a black waltz

fair Paris is burning after all. ⁕

To any Ada fan that has been reading this so far: PLEASE, I ask to consider refraining to use the "oh yes, Ada did some bad shit, bUT" take to defend the character because that isn't sustained by canon in RE, lmao. She didn't do anything evil that had an indisputable bad impact on the plot and other characters arcs. For one, I myself do love some villains, but that isn't the case with Ada.

She did do some unconventional shit yes, since she's a morally GRAY character and an anti-heroine, but by the end of the day, each and every action of hers had a positive impact on the journey of other characters and main plot. Just pay attention to it.

Like idk man, Black Widow, Elektra Natchios, Scarlet Witch and Black Cat from Marvel, Catwoman from DC, Yennefer from The Witcher (some pop culture examples that come to mind).

Saying that this is an "extremely selfish prototypal bad bitch except when it comes to the magical redeeming dick of her love interest" it's a grotesque reduction of a complex female character, and, in its attempt to critique the misogyny present in RE's franchise an expression of misogyny in itself.

Remember: Ada has actions and impact on the franchise ASIDE and IN ADDITION to her romantic involvement with Leon.

#Resident Evil #Ada Wong #Leon x Ada #Ada x Leon #Aeon #Leon Kennedy #[mine]#[meta]#//#Aeon fandom

28 notes · View notes

kendrixtermina · 4 years

Text

The “Genocidal Edelgard” Shallowtake

I was not going to make a post about this because it’s most likely futile and not going to convince anyone nor do I believe in dinifying the purity police with attention, but maybe it will let some ppl know that they dont have to let themselves be shamed for liking the wrong video game character

Whatever might have been the case in the distant past when Nemesis was around, by the “present day” the Nabateans are not at all some commonly oppressed stereotyped minority - the setting is chock full of characters that fit that bill a lot better like Dedue or Cyril. Characters that are ordinary humans not magic dragons.

And even that is more founded on general purpose xenophobia than from the specific, relatively new early modernity construct of racism. (the dedue situation probably comes the closest)

Sure, Seteth and Flays have to hide from their old enemy the Agarthans, I see how some might find that relatable etc. but most of the population isn’t aware that they exist at all. They hold high status positions, are worshipped by the local religion and Rhea all but rules the entire continent (and says so herself to Byleth in that speech about how she was just “ruling this wayward country in your stead”, “you” being Sothis) - though that is mostly Rhea’s doing of which Seteth and Flayn are relatively innocent.

The interviews pretty much confirmed that the Nabateans constituted the local aristocracy and that many humans genuinely saw the Elites as liberators - though there was definitely also an element of ppl going around killing random Nabateans to gain superpowers, not to speak of Nemesis’ very obvious very unambiguous mass murder. Not wanting to be ruled over by foreign powers is understandable, though obviously killing them all down to the last civilian was just flat out evil - its certainly not a simple situation, we can all agtree Nemesis & the Agarthans were evil but there is no clear defined good guy.

There are historical conflicts you could compare this to, perhaps some conflicts in Africa or the middle eastwhere different groups took turns being the ruling class after the latest war, but it’s not at all like the modern USA or early modernity colonialism, and forcing every real or, in this case, imagined scenario inherently dependent of fantasy elements, into this one framework from the present or near past isn’t conductive to understanding at all.

And in the present day, by the time Edelgard is alive, we are talking about three specific people that she has good reason to dislike individually. Not any sort of group at all.

She calls Rhea a cruel beast because that’s all she’s ever seen Rhea to be. She’s the shadow tyrant who rules her world, who created the crappy world Edelgard grew up in. It’s no different Cubans thiking badly of the castros after suffering through famines - or, no need for such extreme examples really, ppl call their least favorite politicians monsters all the time.

She’s wrong to assume that Seteth & Flayn are wholly on board with this, but on the other hand, it’s not at all a far-fetched assumption to make: They hold high positions in the church though they ostensimbly just appreared out of nowhere one day. Do you have to be an evil bigot to assume that the brother and right hand man to the tyrannical god-queen is condoning & supporting her actions?

The truth is of course that underneath her pseudo-parental facade Rhea is sort of a scared girl, very lonely, very afraid, and ashamed, in a shallow, childish way, for “breaking the rules” just because they are rules. She says she can’t trust anyone, that she feels lonely & isolated... and while no one can blame her for distrusting humans after the slaughter of her people, but the reason she can’t trust Seteth is that she’s keeping her bad deeds secret from him. He wasn’t there the whole time, he just showed up a few decades earlier.

She sees herself only as filling out for Sothis and doesn’t quite grasp that she’s in charge, very much a follower personality bent on stasis & regularity.

Is Edelgard obliged to try & unravel the complex psychology of the tyrant who rules her home to correctly deduce why she would deceive even her own family? By all intents and purposes, Edelgard is the one getting rid of an oppressive government that doesn’t let ordinary humans let a say at all. A government where ppl of others faiths and nationalities are typically oppressed unless they work directly for the church.

It’s like having a disdain for, say, Ivanka Trump. She holds a high position in her father’s administration despite having no obvious qualifications, she appears to be profiting & making bank from her father’s atrocities, she certainly hasn’t done anything to stop him or disavow him the way that, say, her cousin Mary did - if you suffered under Trump’s regime you’d be very justified in assuming that Invanka is probably a bad person.

Flayn only looks young (She might not if we saw her in other clothes). I mean, Kronya could badly impersonate a schoolgirl. At the very least they’ve supported the regime by refusing to question their own side and they show some however benevolent belief that it is their duty to “guide” the people. Leaving her to the Agarthans is certainly questionable, but no more so than doing it with Rhea herself, under the assumption that she’s guilty and that it’s a sacrifice that will prevent larger chaos. The agarthans had their plan long before they created Edelgard as we know her, and she couldn’t stop their plots all on her own.

You could say that it’s callous, distasteful or a deal breaker - as the death knight is her direct subordinate & she makes a personal appearance in mask, I would argue that she definitely knew & sanctioned the kidnapping - but she’s no more callous towards Flayn than towards anybody else.

Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re evil, or that they deserve to die.... and Edelgard would agree with me. She doing all this to prevent death – flipping the lever on the trolley problem so it crushes one person instead of five so to speak. She always gives her enemies the chance to surrender, unwilling allies the chance to leave, and jails enemies whenever leaving them alive wouldn‘t lead to further death… even the ones she has the most personal reason to hate, like the PM.

As servants of the church who have chosed to back her enemies, she’ll certainly kill them if she has to, but not any more than any other enemy. At no point anywhere in the story does she say anything like that they need to die on principle. Nowhere at all. Indeed there is much evidence to the contrary.

The church paints her as being completely against the religion or even wanting to set herself up as a satanic godess cause it‘s good politics & they don‘t get what she‘s doing – to an extent her own credibility & messaging is compromised by her secretive and at times unscrupulous actions, no one said she was perfect. In truth all she wants is to have the church out of politics, you know, what we have in nearly every modern country outside the vatican and saudi arabia.

You can absolutely let Flayn & Seteth go on CF and there is no word, no fuss about it anywhere. No „make sure to kill em all“ which would certainly be there if the narrative wanted to portray Edelgard that way. It requires the mediation of Byleth as someone they would talk to & not immediately assume the worst of, but, they see the church as the embodymet of all that is good & fighting its enemies as their sacred duty so of course it wouldn‘t be possible for just anyone to talk them down. It‘s framed as Flayn letting Byleth go cause they saved her life once, even if we know from behind the screen that she wasn‘t going to survive a fight to the death against the player-controlled faction.

Heck, even when it comes to Rhea, the one most guilty that Edelgard has the most reason to loathe, she‘s ultimately surprisingly gracious. She gives her the option to surrender – and this is not a lie, she discusses this with Byleth in a lecture question, and seriously ponders the possibility. Here Byleth gets a range of options like „stab her in the back“ and „keep the church under imperial control“ but you know which one nets you the support points? „Strip her of her authority so she can‘t interfere in politics“. She wasn‘t gonna mess with the religious folks & their religion at all, just make it so it‘s separate from government. Rhea could even keep being pope, if she could be satisfied without having complete supreme authority (and ripping her precious artifact out of Byleth‘s chest) – even when she puts her down she‘s not 100% without pity, telling her that „Your duty is done“ (the translators mucked this up)

Couldn‘t be any further from „lets kill them all on principle“.

What really annoys me is how ppl go and twist everything Edelgard says out of context to ascribe a motive to her that just isn’t there.

Common examples:

„If you have Flayn or Seteth fight her she‘ll say they need to die because they‘re nabateans“

Actually what she says is this: „You are a child of the godess. You must not have power over the people!“ Not getting to be privileges rulers anymore =/= being opressed. Stay out of politics =/= Diediedie. Also, this is from the VW/SS boss fight, where they have literally come to get her in her own capital.

„Linhard & Leonie don‘t tell her & hubert about Indech, probably cause he expects that she‘ll go & kill him„

What he actually says is: „Lake Teutates is a place that concerns the saints of the Church of Seiros. It may become bothersome should the two of them find out...“

„It may be bothersome“ as in, „we might get in trouble“, for doing the possibly very inadvisable thing of waltzing into what could possibly be an enemy location to satisfy personal curiosity. If it‘s something related to her agenda she might take over and Linny wouldn‘t get to investigate as he pleases – at very most you might construe it as Linny fearing that they‘ll be accused of consorting with the enemy, but „bothersome“ suggest possible annoyance not imminent murder.

The whole scene ends with Linhard telling Byleth to fill her in later. Doesn‘t sound at all like he expects her to go back with a harpoon.

„She said Claude isn‘t fit to be a ruler cause he‘s a foreigner“

What she actually says: „I understand your ideals are not so far removed from my own. But without knowledge of Fodlan‘s history, I cannot entrust its rule to you“

Now without the additional contexts that Claude won‘t get until after the fight, it might easily feel a bit like the former with the raw spots he‘d have from his backstory, but what she means is that he‘s ignorant of the Agarthan threat – which he is. Edelgard is all for making peace with Almyra and sees fostering isolationism & prejudice as one of the many faults of the church.

Once Claude basically kills Edelgard for information, he winds up having to take care of the storm she had been holding back. But to his credit, he DID „finish the job“ and get the info. But he didn‘t have it at that point.

And I don‘t mean any of this in the least bit as a diss of Claude - He is the smartest character, so there would be no plot if he got easy access to the info. At this point, they both think they can probably do better, and more importantly, both their backstories have made them so that they won‘t let down their guard far enough to cooperate in this scenario.

That‘s also why the outcome in CF is contingent on Byleth‘s choice. - You‘d sort of have to trust that he will also act so as to minimize casualties.

Very disingenious since many players wouldn‘t necessarily trigger these dialogues.

I guess because Adrestia got a vaguely central-european aesthetic (partially; all the countries are hodgepodge mashups and there’s more than enough spanish or ancient roman vibes there) and central europe existed only for those 12 years of tyranny I guess, even though many other places have had similar BS happening, including the US that delights in making craptons of movies about their faraway victory because their governments haven’t added much of value to the planet as of late. -.-

Faerghus (vaguely french/ russian - not at all places where nothing bad happened ever) has actually annexed some territory from their northern neighbors in the recent past, not to speak of the whole Duscur atrocity - but no one seems to go around laying that at Dimitri’s feet, because it would be nonsensical - he was a child at the time and as an individual he is super against it and champions a policy of reconcilliation if he gets to rule. after all, there wouldn’t be much of a plot if the characters inherited three perfect faultless problem free countries.

Edelgard, too, is completely against the previous administration under Duke Aegir (which was in charge during the Bridgid war). She deposed him and is plotting to do the same with Arundel once she can politically afford to do so. For all that one can understand why she would chose the other path (depending on how much she knows about what Edelgard’s doing and why) it makes all the sense in the world for Petra to support her on CF or if not recruited, because again, she got rid of that previous administration.

#edelgard #edelgard von hresvelg #fe3h #fire emblem: three houses #fire emblem three houses

58 notes · View notes

mbti-notes · 4 years

Note

What do you think is the best way to deal with the fear of things getting even more conservative and harsh? I'm so scared about the future, living in a dystopian society and having all my rights taken as a non binary queer person. Infj.

I suppose you’re referring to US politics? Please be more specific because the majority of my readership isn’t from the US. You’re asking a loaded question that basically requires me to agree with the premise that everything will be doomed. I can’t agree with that, since I purposely don’t approach politics in a reactive way.

When you’re drowning in fear, you’re not thinking straight. One of the reasons political discourse has reached the lows that it has in the US is because of incessant screaming and hyperbole. The political mediascape is a for-profit machine that is designed to work people up, manipulate their emotions, and keep them living in fear of “enemies”. This creates the mindset of being in a constant fight for survival against various abstractions of “evil”, and it’s much easier to separate you from your money when you’re so threatened that you’re willing to pay to feel safe/validated. The more that people get sucked into this war mentality, the less capable they are of making wise political decisions, since every important problem gets made into an oversimplified “wedge” issue to test your loyalty to your team.

The world is a lot more complex than red vs blue. To make a living, I have to follow news from around the world very closely. Yes, people get heated about politics, but observe the political reporting from other countries and you will see a difference in the tone and quality. In some countries, there are, gasp!, more than two viable political parties, and thus, more ideas and approaches to choose from. The US has commodified political fear and outrage like no one else by purposely pitting people against each other like rival sports teams, in a state of perpetual conflict, and, most importantly, always distracted from the underlying power structures that are making their lives worse.

To be clear, I’m not a conservative, though I’ve been surrounded and preached to by conservatives my whole life - I engage with them continuously. I am certainly angered by people being stripped of their rights and opportunities. I am certainly depressed when I see people abused and oppressed. I am certainly frustrated when my life suffers from the decisions of politicians I did not vote for. However, I staunchly defend freedom and diversity of beliefs and values. I often have to remind people that many countries and cultures around the world are conservative, and they are not abject hellscapes. Do not equate conservatism with dystopia, barbarism, fundamentalism, extremism, terrorism, xenophobia, or lord of the flies - it doesn’t matter who is doing it, hyperbole and stereotypes are dehumanizing, which enables the violence of war mentality. Conservatism, at its best, is actually needed by society to function well. Progressivism, at its best, is actually needed by society to function well. Intelligent political discourse begins with each of us getting our facts and concepts correct, otherwise, there’s no hope of cooler heads prevailing. It’s important to correctly identify the cause of a problem by labeling it properly.

Every system has flaws and every system will eventually fall apart when those flaws are left to fester and worsen. The US is supposed to be a democracy, right? A democracy is only ever as smart as the people participating in it. Can you say, with a straight face, that Americans have a deep understanding of their political system and work hard to be well-informed of all the political, economic, social, and international issues that the country grapples with? Can you say that the majority of people even understand the political terminology they use?

The US is admired around the world for its individualism. Individuals succeed and fail by their own hand. Individuals are free to pursue their own happiness and well-being. “The Land of Opportunity”, right? Americans have exported this idea, drawing immigrants from all around the world. However, individualism, taken to an extreme, exacts a very steep price. The bonds which hold individuals together to form a well-functioning society gradually weaken over time. This is a huge problem if you hope to make good collective decisions, which is what elected officials are tasked to do.

The language and currency of politics is power. With power, you get to write the rules. Without power, you are subject to someone else’s rules. It’s really that simple and crass. The purpose of there being many different voices in a discussion is to make sure that no 1 agenda/group gets to dominate the discussion and become too extreme. Opportunists, corporations, and media companies figured this out a long time ago, so they do what they can to shut down nuanced debate and discussion. They all have a deep vested interest in hyping up the individualist ethos of American culture, not because they actually care about “culture” in any noble sense, but because they know that individuals have very limited power. One person alone cannot disrupt the status quo, and keeping everyone psychologically isolated means that those with power can keep enriching themselves without disruption.

Currently, almost every major aspect of American society is designed to stop you from realizing and using your power. Media keeps you locked in fear, feeling victimized, demonizing each other. Big corporate interests keep you hyperfocused on your own emotional vulnerabilities, telling you to earn and consume your way to a false sense of power, as they quietly dismantle workplace and social supports that would preserve your actual power. The prevailing social mandate to be ever productive and “successful” keeps you running like a hamster on a wheel, with little energy to spare for anything else. You are expected, at adulthood, to become a self-made person, never having to rely on anyone for anything, thereby eroding your ties to your roots and kin. If you fail, you are shamed and dubbed a loser, and expected to redouble your efforts to chase higher social status. And some people simply choose to drop out completely, thus relinquishing any social power they had.

In US society, those in power abuse the archetype of the “individual” and the virtue of “independence” to siphon more and more power. Individualism, in its most immature form, is really just self-centeredness. Everyone is only out for themselves and grabbing what they can before someone else does. People fight each other for scraps. And the ultimate goal of life is to have more than the people around you, such that you have the power and privilege to shield yourself from the other hungry dogs. There is no bigger picture to aspire to beyond one’s own survival and daily pleasures. If this is the underlying ethos of your society, are you surprised that the political system reflects it? A lot of people around the world look at the US and mostly see a bunch of immature adolescents.

Transcending social forces isn’t easy. Power is always unevenly distributed, so it is always ripe for abuse, and fighting against abuses of power requires sustained effort. Therefore, it’s important to understand the many ways that power is used to oppress. I’ve spent a lot of time studying historical movements, political philosophy, and power dynamics, so my view of politics is always the long view. I believe that political progress is constant work. I don’t believe in end goals or being free to rest on your laurels. I believe history teaches us that, whatever your political allegiances, the complacent eventually become the victims. I believe that social change is relatively easy to understand by observing the way that power changes hands in society.

Politics boils down to an endless series of change-and-backlash sequences. Whenever one group takes a significant political step, someone somewhere will lose out on some power and privilege, and they’re not going to take it lying down. Fear and anger drive the changes, and fear and anger drive the backlashes. Rinse and repeat. When the tide turns against you, it only means that it’s your turn to step up again. Fear and anger are not reasons to give up, rather, they are the wake up call that spurs the next round of changes. From conflict comes motivation.

Political power is gained through organization. The fastest way to accumulate power, especially in a democracy, is to stand together and pool your resources. But what is the motivation for organizing? Usually anger. Civil rights are never won by waiting around for the privileged to relinquish their power. No, people get together to claim their rights, DEMAND change, and MAKE the changes that they want to see, refusing to surrender to oppression. They loudly infiltrate social spaces, influence officials, run for office as representatives, and accumulate the political power to rewrite the rules. This is true whatever your political stripe. This is what conservatives have excelled at for the past thirty years in the US.

However, as soon as you change the status quo, there will always be people that want to reverse it. It is difficult for younger people to grasp, but politics has no end, it is merely an ongoing struggle for power, as power changes hands from the complacent to the aggrieved, and then back again. For example, LGBTQ people view a right-dominated supreme court as a danger to their existence, for good reason, and that should motivate them to fight back even harder to reclaim their right to equality. Conservatives view a right-dominated supreme court as progress, and having achieved that success, they will become complacent, which provides the opening for progressives to regroup and rise again.

The only escape from this cycle comes in the form of death or transcendence. To transcend means to see the bigger picture of what can be achieved, so that you are able to set aside the petty and work for something greater. Human beings have had their transcendent moments here and there throughout history, so they are certainly capable of it. Progress on civil rights has indeed been made over many decades, but there is always more work to do, as long as there are people that don’t view it as “progress”. For example, the fact that, after decades of tireless activism, the majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage, is something you should be building upon, rather than only focusing on the setbacks.

If you think that I’m singling out the US, I’m not. Oppression happens everywhere. It is a part of human nature to be egotistical, complacent, and short-sighted. But that’s not the only part of humans. For a democracy to work at its best, we have to appeal to the better parts of our human nature, i.e., the parts of us that: understand and care about how we affect each other, appreciate hard-won freedoms and never take them for granted, and envision a better future and plan well for it. The best changes come from passion and inspiration - not fear and anger. If you, as an individual, are not capable of bringing out and offering up your own better nature by transcending the worst parts of yourself, you can’t really expect the sociopolitical system to be capable of it, either. If you, as an individual, always lose sight of the bigger picture that you’re aiming for, then how will you help others see the importance of your cause?

Gandhi said: “We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.”

IMO, the job of a good citizen involves: 1) caring about the broader impact that your vote has and educating yourself properly so that you make wise voting decisions, 2) exercising your power by actively participating in organizations that advocate for the changes that you want, and 3) having enough self-awareness to avoid being emotionally manipulated into making destructive political judgments. Humans aren’t perfect, but they don’t have to be to create a well-functioning society. Humans make better decisions when the social atmosphere encourages them to open up the mind and heart. We all have a part to play in creating an encouraging social atmosphere for people to deliberate more carefully on their political beliefs.

Are you an unwitting pawn of the media, rewarding the players that only care about getting your eyeballs for ad revenue? Are you only caring about political issues because you read something that incited your outrage? Are you resigned to cynicism, indifference, gloom, or paranoia? Are you all about “owning the enemy”? Are you only concerned about your own prospects in life? Are you waiting helplessly for someone to hand you what you deserve?

OR: Are you joining organizations that create positive change? Are you listening to the experiences of the people around you and understanding how their reality informs their politics? Are you doing the hard work of inspiring the people around you to be their better selves? Do you hope that everyone in your country has a chance to live their best life? Do you stand up to support people in need and work to eliminate injustice? Will you learn the best way to (re)claim what is owed to you from those that deny or oppress you?

You are only one person, so your power is limited. What are you doing to amplify your voice and extend the reach of your power? Are you dying or transcending? A democracy is only ever as strong as the people participating in it.

#politics #lgbtq #history #conflict #power #media #social media #ask

21 notes · View notes

windstorm64 · 4 years

Text

Attack on Discourse I Guess

I swear to god if I see one more post on tumblr dot com saying that Attack on Titan is “pro-fascism” or “pro-imperialism” I’m gonna lose my freaking...

*deep breath*

Listen, I absolutely want people to be critical of the media they consume, especially from Japan. Due to their role in WW2 and their glorification of past military actions from their conservative side, there’s a lot of Japanese media that contains themes and imagery that would (ideally) not at all fly in the west. Sometimes it’s harmless, being simply misguided, other times it’s bad, containing some pretty horrific subtext regardless of the author's actual intention. Attack on Titan absolutely does contain themes of imperialism, xenophobia, propaganda, extreme nationalism, and more. But the all important distinction here is that Attack on Titan does it

with.

purpose.

It’s NOT condoning them. Just like how Lolita isn’t promoting pedophilia, or the clockwork orange isnt promoting whatever the heck that movie is about, simply having these themes present in your story does not mean they are being condoned.

Do I blame people for not understanding that at first? No. AoT takes its sweet time when developing its themes, and is constantly overturning what you thought you knew about its worldviews. That’s just the kind of story it is. It will go incredibly into detail about a plethora of opposing views, some being downright deplorable, and takes extra care to make them all look inviting and sweet. You don’t realize it at the time, but what seems to be the only right answer at the time is secretly ushering in the worst that man can muster. That’s how it is in real life. That’s how these evils get into real society; “with thunderous applause”. The difference here is that AoT, even if it takes 100 chapters to do so, slowly but surely will overturn all these themes and let the right way show itself over the course of the series. It doesn’t hold your hand, it doesn’t sugarcoat it, and I’ll even admit that I was a little nervous during some parts over what exactly the author was trying to say, but every single time Isayama chose to let the reader decide what was right in the moment, until AoT’s own in-universe marketplace of ideas eventually worked as intended and snuffed out the unsavory.

Does that mean you personally have to enjoy seeing it? No. The marketplace of ideas approach often does not work in real life (punching nazis is good) and seeing it used in fiction might not be your cup of tea.

Does that mean I think all of its themes are handled well or tactfully? Absolutely not. There are some stories that I think are handled VERY poorly, with the redemption of Magath’s character, for example, being downright horrendous. But those aren’t the complaints I hear from you people. All I hear are the same tired arguments that have been countered in-universe time and time again.

You think the survey corps are an allegory promoting imperialism? Then you’ll love the part where the real villains are revealed to be actual greedy governments invading foreign lands to oppress and murder the populace and steal valuable resources. And how the main characters, in-turn to learning that there’s more people out there in the world, switch their goals from expanding their territory to understanding and allying with the outside population.

The titans represent xenophobia? Then you’ll love the internal conflicts of the main cast when they realize that the titans are just like them, and the constant struggle thereafter against the prejudiced countries outside the walls who seek to punish them for their ethnicity.

Nationalism? Propaganda? The story has just spent the better part of 2 arcs displaying just how evil, dangerous, and reality-warping these things can be.

Fascism? Y’all’s favorite arc would probably be the one where the main cast literally overthrows their own corrupt fascist government because it was, in fact, fascist and corrupt.

German influences glorify nazism? Germany does not equal nazi. The author is clearly a fan of all parts of German history, and is a fan of war memorabilia in general (which admittedly becomes pretty risky when looking through the lens of conservative Japan’s notoriously glorified WW2 outlook), but nothing about it supports Nazism, or any of their ideals. Misguided? Perhaps, I can’t say I’m a fan. But it doesn’t denote anything about the author's character that we can reasonably glean. Eventually the true villains of Aot were given clear similarities to Nazis, clarifying Isayama's true moral priorities.

And before any of y’all start trying to point out what the author said in the past- I KNOW what the author has said. Or rather, what he was rumored to have said. But even if the rumors are true, and that shitty ignorant take on Twitter about Japan and Korea was from him, it's 100% the kind of thing that can be called out and learned from. The tweet was like, what? 10 years ago? Maybe more? Even if it was him he has clearly been educated on the deeper implications of his statement, as evidenced by the way these themes are handled in his story. Attack on Titan directly condemns eugenics on multiple occasions. It tackles it in a surprisingly on-the-nose way too, compared to how the series handled its serious themes prior to that point.

That's why I WANT y’all to be critical of the media you intake. So you CAN call out the glorification of unsavory themes and bring them to the attention of those in charge of them. Because that’s how people learn and grow. That’s how you create an educated populace that understands the implications of the things they create. I am 110% convinced that all these themes were tackled in AoT BECAUSE of all the criticism he got in the past. 10 years is a long time, and we are still getting new developments to this day that challenge the themes introduced in the first couple of chapters. Whether or not these themes were planned to be tackled from the start, or were introduced later on after being called out, is something we’ll probably never know. But please do yourselves a favor and learn what the heck you’re talking about, and the context around it, before going off for years about misguided claims. Don’t cheapen words that should be reserved for the most grievous of behaviors when you really just want to make a point.

Attack on Titan is a brutal nuanced story that shows off the worst that humanity has to offer, and how hard it is to do the right thing in a world where the right thing doesn’t always work. But taking an honest, elongated approach to exploring how these themes interact with humanity and society is NOT the same as promoting it. If you like your stories more black and white, where the good and bad of real world themes are more clearly defined as opposed to AoT’s more nihilistic and gray approach to morality, then by all means go enjoy that other story. I’m not trying to convince anyone to like it. I’m not expecting everyone to enjoy seeing these themes shoved in your face every installment. And I’m certainly not expecting anyone to understand all of this right away, hell I’m constantly arguing with dudebro AoT fans on reddit who are SURPRISED that Armin and the Alliance are taking an anti-genocide stance. And somehow I’m the crazy one for seeing this plot line coming for literal years. There’s simply just a lot more to this story than you can understand at a glance, and I implore anyone who thinks that’s they can simplify the real world themes dealt with here in such a menial way to seriously reconsider.

You are welcome to dislike Attack on Titan. You are more than welcome to criticize it’s possible mismanagement of sensitive real world themes. I am not so enamored by Isayama’s writing to expect a young manga artist to be the forefront of knowledge on such complicated, disturbing topics. But please, cut it out with the crazy claims. I’ve been hearing these things for so many years and it’s all the same. AoT has risen to become one of the most popular anime/manga of the current era. If the story was really as deplorable as you claim it would not have become as popular as it has been. The fans aren’t stupid (well, not all of them. Together, we can beat the reddit dudebros and save the world). This didn’t happen by mistake. The fans aren’t ignorant of the messages it’s sending. Attack on Titan is just... good! Even if I can’t get you to agree with me on that, at least look at it honestly for what it is, and what it’s trying to be. It’s really, really, not at all what you think, or what other tumblr users are trying to get you to believe.

#attack on titan #shingeki no kyojin #aot #snk #eren yeager #armin arlert #snk anime #aot anime #snk manga #aot manga #discourse #fascism #imperialism #genocide

51 notes · View notes