#like. i hate it when people say things and expect common sense (or assumptions based on their personal worldview) to fill in the gaps | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

divergent-one-1984 · 2 years

Text

Organized Crime Ring in Astoria, NY. I have been the victim of TARGETED COMMUNITY HARASSMENT SINCE SUMMER 2016 because of my race and gender first, making this ongoing abuse DISCRIMINATORY HATE CRIME. I am an African American female.

This ongoing abuse since Summer 2016 is going on in a neighborhood under the jurisdiction of the 114th Precinct, in apartment buildings managed by Central Astoria, LLC.

In addition to me being stalked and harassed because I am an African American female, I am being harassed for who I am and my life views, based on personal, private, confidential information illegally accessed and leaked while I was employed at NYC Department of Education where the abuse started in the form of WORKPLACE MOBBING, forcing me to quit in 2016 because I could not take the abuse anymore.

Confidential medical information (HPV, ABORTION) illegally accessed and leaked, was also used to justify the abuse.

I am being abused also because of my life views, which are more liberal, individual, critical thinking, free thinking, and open-minded, including my atheism. Basically, I don't fit into boxes people try to put me in, I am being targeted and abused for who I am and how I think, on multiple levels.

Also, to be quite candid, these people appear to highly subscribe to a group think mentality, don't seem to think for themselves of to think critically and let their religion overrule common sense, intellectual, and emotional intelligence so much so that I don't even think most of them have the ability to even fully understand who I am, the complexities, and the importance of individualism, choice, free will, dignity, privacy, anonymity as basic human rights simply based on the fact that they are closed off in their thinking, operate at a low vibrational level, and probably lack education and knowledge about history and culture of this country because they chose to siloe by their religion and ethnic origins and have the nerve to flip things when they are the ones filled with so much hate, they can even see it, its natural to them and seems to be an extension of their religious beliefs and their own bigotry, they are projecting their hate onto me even though I have never done anything to them.

They are operating off of some lies, half truths someone(s) told almost a decade ago, simply because they have hate and intolerance inherently in their spirit and opposed to anyone who does not subscribe to the life views they have, instead of living and let live they condemn people for being themselves and try to exert coercive control (an actual crime in some European countries) to try to change them as a person as if they have a right to do this.

They also make ridiculous assumptions because of close mindedness, which does not take into account details, context, and nuance, pretty much a reflection of the way society operates today.

We live very much in a society where if people don't think like the labels / boxes they "are supposed to" think then they should be condemned and cast out and the assumptions / perceptions about them are true and make them entirely who they are. Instead of leaving people alone we have to get them to agree with us or see things our way, that is ridiculous.

There are many reasons why people don't see eye to eye on things and there is nothing wrong with that, it should be expected based on the sheer volume of people in the world and the diversity of people, this is healthy intellectual debate, as long as boundaries and beliefs are respected, noone should be trying to force their way of life or way of thinking onto another just because you dont agree, especially if you resorting to emotional violence to punish / change someone (especially when your point of reference is based on lies someone with mental health issues and an unhealthy interest im me started seemingly because I would not give them attention they expected), that's morally and ethically wrong.

Since this hate, abuse, and coercive control is mostly coming from religious people I find it quite ridiculous and hypocritical, and they say Atheists have no morals, that's a joke.

I probably have more of a moral and ethical compass and understanding of right and wrong than any of these people put together, obviously, or they would not be harassing, stalking, and abusing me everyday for going into 8 years now.

These people hide behind religion to justify hate and hateful actions against another human being.

Live and Let live and Agree to Disagree are my mottos, this is an adult, intellectually healthy way to be and live. Mind your own business and don't bother me if I don't bother you.

Many people are not just not one thing, we are multifaceted, if your intellectual abilities are diminished in some way you will probably never even be able to grasp that concept, but at the end of day regardless of all this, no one has a right to harm or abuse another human being for any reason, it does not take a high IQ to know this, it's basic right and wrong, but religious zealotry, fundamentalism, extremism, racism, sexism, etc. can make people do nonsensical, stupid cruel things just because.

I have been part of this particular community since 1976, I have never had problems with individuals or groups of individuals and have never done anything to anyone here or in the workplace so obviously the abuse is entirely NOT instigated by me. Someone(s) with severe mental health issues and an unhealthy interest in me started this purely based on something made up in their head and unwarranted hate.

Everyday in this neighborhood, the majority of people I am being harassed by are Muslims and Latinos, 2 of the most religious groups of people on the planet. I do not believe this to be a coincidence, its by design because what is being done to me comes from a place of pure hate, discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, misogyny and religious zealotry, along with straight up lies, truths, and half truths from a gossip and a rumor mill started as part of WORKPLACE MOBBING HARASSMENT while I was employed at the NYC Department of Education simply because someone did not like me and wanted to exert control over me for some reason, not because I did something to them.

Btw, I was awakened this morning around 430ish AM due to the ongoing, daily NOISE HARASSMENT in my apartment building and in the neighborhood, which is why I am up so early. Ongoing NOISE HARASSMENT and SLEEP DEPRIVATION especially this morning to agitate me because I have an appt to leave the house today for bed ridden relative. These stalkers / harassers / abusers want to not only harm me but exert coercive control over me and agitate me to try to get me to "act out" in public so that they can get police involved, this has been happening since the WORKPLACE MOBBING I experienced while I was employed at NYC Department of Education.

The last straw that made me quit was because I realized they were trying to not only fabricate a firing for cause they were trying to get me to lash out and put hands on someone so that I would be arrested and get entangled with the legal system, even though I have been a law abiding citizen and am not even a violent person. I suppose they wanted to fabricate situations repetitively in hopes I would act and fall into stereotypes of the angry black woman and violent black person. I knew it was time to go after a specific interaction with a staff member where she tried to block my egress from elevator upon my arrival to work. She was obviously trying to get me to lash out and put hands on her on camera even though she is the one in the wrong by physically blocking my egress. Multiple people in the woekplace had been harassing me for months at that point so I think they thought I was agitated enough that it could potentially cause me to act of violently but it did not and still hasn't after about 8 years now of daily stalking, abuse, and harassment.

0 notes

bigskydreaming · 3 years

Text

Something else to keep in mind is the way things compound? Like for instance, I’ve seen a mini trend of fics lately focusing on the issue of Dick dropping out of college or not wanting to go, which for the record, I feel is another way of building up to the idea that he and Bruce have all these fights during this period that are two way streets instead of like....what canon actually was (reminder that in the canon that Dick actually dropped out he and Bruce actually were never really NOT on good terms, like there’s never been a big fight in the comics about this topic so.....incheresting).

But anyway, my point is its worth keeping in mind that how you frame something at one point in a narrative like.....ideally, you want it to mesh up and align with other things you’ve brought up throughout the narrative, and not accidentally contradict yourself narratively.

I mean, this is really the big gripe most Dick Grayson fans have with his fanon characterization overall:

The fact that it just doesn’t make sense.

In Jason-centric fics that are after his resurrection, how often is Jason utterly convinced that Dick can’t even wipe his ass without Bruce’s approval? And yet in Jason-centric fics that are before his death, how often is Jason thinking about how Dick and Bruce are constantly fighting and Bruce can’t seem to do anything without Dick objecting? Reconcile these two things. They make no sense.

Same thing with fics that talk about Dick being the emotional glue of the family, the one keeping a cool head to calm down everyone else when they’re all taking shots at each other.....until randomly he just pops off without warning because he’s just that hot-tempered. These things mesh, how?

Same thing with Dick being frequently referenced as idealized by the hero community......but every time he interacts with someone like Roy or Kori or other Titans he can’t seem to avoid pissing them off and creating epic grudges. Make it make sense.

Or how Dick disliked or didn’t care about Jason to the extent that he only references him as a cautionary tale because of one line in canon......but the whole damn story where he kills the Joker because of Jason doesn’t count.

Or how its not okay to blame Dick for his own rapes but both of his major breakups which are intrinsically linked to the actions of his rapists like....were clearly and objectively all his fault somehow.

Dick Grayson fans aren’t on board with most of fanon because you can’t sell people on a constantly conflicting characterization that makes no sense and has no internal consistency.....you can only cater to people who don’t NEED to be sold on that because they’ve already decided they’re down with hating a character or largely ignoring him.

And I think people have gotten so used to not thinking twice about contradictory takes on Dick Grayson that they unintentionally undermine their own fics by contradicting themselves without even realizing it.

Like its ridiculously common to come across fics that reference Dick being beloved and charming everyone at the society galas they all have to go to.....but these fics take pot shots at Dick’s name, fashion, mannerisms etc all throughout it just because the author likes it or fans expect it or whatever reason.

But actually THINK about it:

Think how snobby the socialites at these galas are characterized as being any time its Jason their noses are turned down at.....and then look at like.....the constant jokes you as the author make YOURSELF at Dick’s very name, fashion and circus origins......how on Earth does it make ANY sense that these same people aren’t doing the same damn thing about Dick? That they’re actually any more fond of him than they are Jason, if no matter how charming he might be in the moment, the second he turns around its just as easy and likely for them to make a joke about his circus background or name as it is for writers and readers? If you can’t resist doing it, you really think snobby one percenters would bother in-universe?

Hell, they’d be more likely to hate him BECAUSE of his name, his fashion, etc.....because think of how often people not so subtly infer that he’s making a bad choice when he refuses to go by a different name, or dress more accordingly to normal fashions, etc.....

Dick has a million ways he could more easily fit in with the society he was brought into and ease his passage through it, but he puts his foot down at practically every opportunity. The idea that everybody is just dazzled by him at these galas makes no sense because the most consistent character choice made by Dick throughout the decades is that he refuses to CONFORM to others’ expectations of what he should be like.

EVERY SINGLE CHOICE he makes from his name to his wardrobe to his costumes to his education to his city to his living arrangements and on and on is in complete and utter DEFIANCE of what people expect of the eldest son or ward of Bruce Wayne, Prince of Gotham, and that’s by Dick’s conscious and consistent choice. He knows damn well how to be more what people want or expect of him, and that’s not what he wants so he says mmmm but also how bout no.

Dick constantly embodies the idea that you can take the boy out of the circus but you can not and will not take the circus out of the boy no matter what environment you place him in or who you surround him with. He will not allow it. He will not play along.

In what universe is that going to endear him to the very people who would most likely view his choice to prioritize the very things they look down upon as something he consciously PREFERS over their projected expectations or assumptions?

Its not.

Personally, I think Gotham high society despises Dick Grayson no matter what they pretend to his face, and he’s perfectly aware of it. And probably gets some kind of trollish glee out of it because fuck them too, anyway.

(And all of that is WITHOUT even taking into account the fact that a good number of the people at these society galas all along were looking at Dick as their future property, given that they were Owl members who knew all along what they intended for their Gray Son. These people simply do not view and treat Dick as an equal. Its impossible. There’s no way).

Or then back to the idea of Bruce and Dick’s fights in his later teenage years being a two way street....

The core problem at the root of all this is the very idea of a two way street implies a certain give and take. A clashing of equals.

And that’s just not the reality in ANY continuity.

Because the question is, in any given fight between Dick and Bruce in ANY canon....

When does Dick ever WIN these fights?

When does Dick get the outcome he wants OVER what Bruce wants? When does Bruce ever cave? When is it NOT Dick leaving the manor without getting what he came for, or even being kicked out? When has Dick ever been able to say no, I’m NOT fired, or no, I’m NOT giving you control over what happens with Robin. Even when he DOES confront Bruce on these matters, Bruce STILL infamously never caves. He never actually apologizes or admits wrongdoing, he still usually tells Dick to leave. Like I said, basically the only time Dick’s ever got the upper hand in an argument was over the college thing and that time it wasn’t even a fight! Bruce didn’t actually care that much! That was the good timeline! LOL.

But there’s never actually a reversal. There’s no real precedent for Bruce caving to a teenage Dick Grayson and saying hey you know what, you’re right here, I’m overstepping or I’m in the wrong or I’m the one who doesn’t know what he’s talking about because our divergent life experiences here have mine as less relevant to the issue in question than yours do?

It doesn’t happen.

And here’s the problem with that:

Dick’s a literal genius. Every member of the Batfam is. Its how they’re able to do what they do. They’re ALL smart as fuck, capable as fuck. Put any of them in any other situation where they’re the only Bat present, and everyone usually defaults to them. They know what to do, they know what call to make, their approach is borne out by the narrative as being the correct approach. Their intelligence and strategy is validated by the narrative, with Dick being no exception here. In fact he’s particularly NOTED within canon narratives for being the guy everyone in the DC universe trusts to lead them.

Now.....imagine being this guy, who while although still a teenager, is in his late teens, and has YEARS of leading his own team under his belt. Years of being responsible for the lives of teammates and civilians. Years of becoming aware of and comfortable with his own natural brilliance. Years of becoming confident in being capable of making the right call when the situation demands it. Years of learning to TRUST in his ability to make the right call, to know the right approach, because not only are people relying on him to make those calls, he needs to be able to trust he can make them in order to have the confidence to follow through and DO so instead of being frozen with indecision or trying to pass the decision off to someone else, which he NEVER does?

With all that....and even with all due respect to Bruce’s own genius and experience....

What are the chances that in all the times that Bruce and Dick clash in his late teenage years....

Dick is NEVER right?

And yet.....when in any of these conflicts.....is he ever validated in that, versus shut down by Bruce who insists his way is still right?

Imagine being an acknowledged genius with years of experience and responsibility under your belt, but NEVER getting to be right in any arguments with your father, even when just based off pure freaking statistics, its frankly impossible for you to be 100% wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME?

Do you see where the two way street thing starts to fall apart? How can it truly be a two way street if part of the reason the two of them so often end UP aggressively opposed to each other during this time period.....is because of how many times previous encounters have only ended ONE way no matter WHAT?

It makes sense for Dick and Bruce not to clash as much during their younger years, because even the most stubborn kids do understand on a fundamental level that they have things to learn from more experienced adults. And Dick has never been someone mindlessly predisposed towards conflict. He didn’t become an exceptional acrobat by the age of eight by butting heads with his parents every time they tried to teach him, he couldn’t have. He KNOWS how to listen, he KNOWS how to acknowledge when someone else is right.

But as he grows older, when he has more and more experience under his belt, more and more confidence in his own insights in large parts thanks to Bruce’s own efforts in buttressing his confidence in his younger years.....what happens when the balance of who is right and who is wrong in their arguments NEVER EVER starts to shift in his direction even a little bit, no matter HOW much more experienced he seems to get....and what happens when communicating this problem, this imbalance, to the person that really matters here, Bruce himself....still inherently requires Bruce accepting blame and acknowledging even just in THIS case, the idea that he’s not always right at this point and Dick has insights that can challenge his?

Of course there’s going to be more and more conflict....but can you truly argue that its a two way street, even just based off THIS? Is the teenage son truly to blame for being frustrated that he’s not allowed to ever be right, because the thing getting in his way is his father never ever being willing to back down or cave or not have the last word?

This is the sort of inherent contradiction I think lies at the heart of a lot of conflicting viewpoints here. It doesn’t matter how much lip service is being paid to the idea that Dick is intelligent, that Dick is respected, if all your content continually bears out the idea that actually no he’s not, because Bruce is always right, Dick never is in the right in arguments or conflicts.

The latter evidence just is not aligning with the former claims, and thus readers are innately forced to make a choice as to which to believe.....and more likely than not, they’re going to err on the side of substantiating whichever stance actually has more narrative support behind it, in any particular story.

See what I’m saying?

You need to make sure your story is ACTUALLY saying what you think you’re saying or you intended to say....or you end up undermining your own intentions.

Anyway. Just throwing that out there.

103 notes · View notes

a-master-procrastinator · 3 years

Text

Long ass post about the Eternal family not being a copy-paste from ATLA (aka I like the memes but my god can you please stop)

Because some people truly think that Vaylin is off-brand Azula, Arcann is Zuko and so on.

It's. Called. A. Trope. (I mean how often do we come across abusive manipulative fathers in media? Mothers who couldn't much to change anything? Children, desperately looking for their parent's approval no matter what?)

Of course, you have to consider the fact that the writing of ATLA is simply better than of KotFE/ET, so this might have been one of the reasons why people say that.

Spoilers for Avatar: The Last Airbender, Knights of the Fallen Empire and Knights of the Eternal Throne expansions!

Okay, so here's my unprofessional, maybe biased, not super deep take.

(not going to mention that all of them are members of royal, ruling family, kinda obvious)

What roles do they play in their stories? Well, both Valkorion and Ozai are main antagonists, but their presence throughout the story is very different. Ozai is rarely shown in first two seasons, we don't even see his face until season 3. He doesn't have a direct connection to the protagonist, they only meet at the very end of the show, and Ozai's role is to pose a threat to the world, while Aang's is to save it. Valkorion, on the other hand, is constantly on the screen, interacting with the main character, challenging their viewpoint and influencing them directly. His end goal is similar to Ozai's (destroy everything and be the only ruler of the his nation), but with one major difference - he's trapped in Outlander's mind, so to achieve his goal Valkorion attempts to take control of the main character. Their interactions play important role in the story, and we spend a lot of time with Valkorion.

In addition to that, their relationship with children are also not exactly the same. It seems like Azula is Ozai's favorite and Zuko is a failure in his eyes until he meets his expectations, and the same goes with Vaylin, Arcann and Valkorion, right? Well, partially. Indeed, Valkorion and Ozai's treat their sons in similar ways (are disappointed in them until they meet their expectation by doing something that goes against their morals), but when it comes to Vaylin and Azula, it's not that easy. See, Valkorion claims that Vaylin was always his favorite creation (even though we know it's actually his empire), and he certainly seems to take pride in her potential in the Force. But her power is the very reason he's afraid of his own daughter, and in this fear Valkorion literally locks Vaylin away and allows to put her through physical and mental torture just to make sure she won't become a threat, won't overpower him. Maybe he thought of her better than of Arcann, but she wasn't his favored child for sure. I don't want to say that Azula hasn't experienced abuse from Ozai, but for the most part he clearly favored her over Zuko. He has never shown fear of Azula's power and abilities (or at least I haven't noticed), quite the opposite - allowed her to do a lot, as long as she brings results.

I could also mention their slightly different characterization (mostly that we get more characterization of Valkorion, get to learn his motivations, views, philosophy and all that, also he's portrayed as more nuanced, even if he not really is) and role in their respective governments (ozai is one of many Fire Lords and arguably not the greatest, while Valkorion is a god to citizens of Zakuul, their only Immortal Emperor), but those are details, and I think you get the point.

What's similar: role of the main antagonist, manipulative and abusive father, goal of destruction of everything that isn't their nation/empire, relationship with disgraced son.

What's different: presence in the overall narrative, relationship with the main character, relationship with daughter, role in their societies.

Senya and Ursa are even less similar. Yes, they both are mothers who love their children, but have to leave them, but these are probably the only things they have in common. Just as with Ozai and Valkorion's presence throughout the story, Ursa is only shown in flashbacks (for obvious reasons), and Senya is one of major characters in KotFE and (a bit less major) in KotET. Ursa leaves because she has to kill Azulon in order to save Zuko, and later isn't present in the story (I'm aware that her fate is told in comics, but we aren't talking about it). Senya leaves because when she tries to take children with her, they refuse, and she understands that she can't force them to, nor she can help them to break free from Valkorion's manipulations. For a long time she's absent from Arcann ad Vaylin's lives, but at the time of game events she attempts to save her children and stop the madness and destruction they've caused, and it isn't a small part of the story.

I also want to add that their relationship with Ozai and Valkorion are also different, but can't say much about Ursa. I heard that she didn't choose this marriage and suffered emotional (and maybe physical???) abuse from Ozai. I can say with confidence, though, that Senya genuinely loved Valkorion, and strangely enough, he seems to at very least respect her. But, of course, this wasn't the best marriage either.

Plus, we see more of Senya's relationship with Vaylin than Arcann or Thexan, but with Ursa we see her more with Zuko than Azula. Just a detail to remember.

(also Senya is simply a better character but that besides the point, moving on. in this house we stand Senya)

What's similar: role of loving and caring mother, abandoning their family at some point.

What's different: presence in the overall narrative, relationship with husband, characterization in general.

Boy, where do I even begin. Vaylin and Azula are similar in that they are both extremely powerful (one is firebending prodigy, the other is potentially stronger than Valkorion), both are cruel "craaaaazy" (i hate that cliché), both are younger sisters, have serious mother issues (seemingly more so than father issues), both go through betrayal of people they could always rely on, which eventually leads to their downfall. But when I took a look at their personal arcs, it became clear that they aren't the same (unfortunately, Vaylin's arc is very rushed and underdeveloped, but we'll have to go with what we have and my personal view, sorry).

There's a really good video about writing corruption and madness, and I'm going to base my thoughts on it. To summarise it: a good corruption arc should have 4 components:

- the character has a specific goal (or a goal and subgoals);

- in pursuit of said goal they become the cause of a significant event that brings serious consequences;

- as the result of these consequences, character abandons their morals, ideals or a code in pursuit of goal;

- character either will not achieve their goal or will succeed, but it won't be enough to satisfy them.

And then the author brings Azula's arc as one of the best examples of compelling story of corruption (so basically, she represents it perfectly). In short, Azula's main goals are perfection and control, and subgoals help achieve the main ones. In pursuit of these goals, Azula causes Mai and Ty Lee to betray her (by pushing them too far to do something they wouldn't do), which then causes her to become paranoid, which makes her to attempt controlling everything and everyone around her, *breathes* which makes her lose control over herself and ....

Now, I thought if Vaylin's arc could fit into a corruption one, and next part will be based a lot on my assumptions and personal view of her character (plus rushed writing doesn't help), but I think yes (or at least mostly). The difference is in goals, ideals and details.

While the story strongly makes us think that Vaylin's goal is freedom (or control over her life and everything around her) or power and destruction, I think it's actually self-determination (which was said by Tenebrae in 6.2) and feeling safe. Let me explain (and here I thought this would be a short comparison). Sure, when Valkorion caged Vaylin on Nathema, he took choices and control over her life from his daughter. But let's not forget whom Vaylin blames for this (even more than Valkorion): her own mother, and I think this details tell us that the most important thing that Vaylin lost on Nathema is feeling safe. Then, after Arcann brought her home, I assume Vaylin still didn't feel safe enough under Valkorion's rule, still too afraid that he'd simply send her back to that hellish place.

It's when Valkorion is struck down Vaylin finally has a feeling of personal safety, even if she isn't the one on the throne. Why? Because back on Nathema there were two people who haven't turned on her - Arcann and Thexan (yes, this is also a huge assumption, bc the game states that only Thexan visited her, but it doesn't make much sense).

I've always noticed (and I'm not alone in this) that her behavior in Fallen Empire is different from the way she acted in Eternal Throne. Most likely bc of rushed writing, but I see a character driven reason here. In first of these expansions, Vaylin is the second person in power on Zakuul, and with Arcann being in charge, person she can trust more than any other living being, she feels safe - she can test her power, and now Valkorion won't prevent it, she can do pretty much everything she wishes, and the most Arcann will do about this is mildly complain (without blaming her). Really would be nice if we got to see any normal hobbies of Vaylin (like wasn't there something about books or art?), but I digress. She might have some questions about Arcann's tactics, but they get along just fine. The important thing to note is Vaylin not seeking to hunt the Outlander personally, to rule or conquer the rest of the galaxy, or trying to achieve absolute freedom or power. She's kinda there.

This, however, changes when Arcann doesn't allow Vaylin to kill Senya. Their relationship was getting somewhat worse towards the end of KotFE, but this is a turning event Vaylin caused by attempting to strike her mother. By saving the person Vaylin blames for all the trauma from sending her to Nathema, Arcann threatened her feeling of safety. And now Vaylin starts to believing that to achieve safety she now needs to kill people who hurt her (that's why she's so determined to find Senya and Arcann), take the throne and hunt down Outlander (she was manipulated by SCORPIO to these subgoals).

(The following is the weakest, I'll admit, but I hope I can at least express what I see). So, in trying to achieve goals she didn't want before Vaylin loses in self-determination, being either driven by overwhelming anger or manipulated by others (SCORPIO or Commander on Odessen), desperately trying to accomplish anything, or even goes against her morals (like by erasing GEMINI's free will protocols, when earlier she agreed that freedom to choose is important; or breaking the deal on Odessen). All of these result in her downfall.

But even this isn't the end. The key difference between arcs of Azula Vaylin lies in it's resolution, or that Vaylin have a chance to overcome corruption in the main narrative (and Azula doesn't. again, not including comics here, sorry). After death, Vaylin is again controlled by Valkorion in Outlander's mind. First time physically (she can't resist it), second time mentally. This is where Vaylin has to choose - kill brother who betrayed her and Commander who killed her, or go against Valkorion, person responsible for almost all of her pain and trauma. She has t choose by herself, and I think it's a good start.

Now, before 6.2 we all thought Vaylin was dead for good, but that story update hinted at possibility of her coming back to life. What I like to think is that now that she dealt with people responsible for her trauma (helped defeat Valkorion and actually for once listened to Senya), Vaylin can now have a different life, finding herself with support of someone she doesn't hold a grudge against and who treats her well (Satele, I mean).

I'm so sorry for going into details, but I needed this long explanation to present the point (and I suck at explanations). As said before, this is my version of her arc, and most likely wrong interpretation, but even with personal freedom of choice, Vaylin character differs from Azula a lot.

Need I mention that Vaylin relationship with Arcann and Valkorion are drastically different from those between Azula, Zuko and Ozai?

(Also a little detail - with royal family of Fire Nation, Azula is the golden child, while with Tiralls it's actually Thexan, not Vaylin).

What's similar: role of extremely powerful, emotionally damaged daughter with little to no regard towards others, close people betraying them, resulting in their downfall.

What's different: characterization, role in the narrative, relationship with father and brother.

Arcann and Zuko is the most difficult part, but I still believe that calling Arcann just a cheap copy of Zuko is incorrect.

So, they fall into role of less successful son, always getting disapproval from father, being in shadow of more talented sibling, both obsessed with capturing the main character but ending up helping them end the war after going through a redemption arc with help of caring family member. Even both have scars on left side of face. Yeah, seems similar. I still think they are different characters.

Let's start with their relationships with family. In Valkorion section I said that his attitude towards Arcann is similar to that of Ozai towards Zuko, so not going to spend too much time here. However, there's slight difference - Zuko didn't kill his father even he had a perfect opportunity (bc it wasn't his goal), Arcann did (bc it was one of his goals), which says something about their characterizations.

Zuko and Ursa were shown to have a good mother-son relationship, and it played a role in Zuko's character. With Arcann and Senya, we don't really know (not much was shown in expansions). We know Arcann didn't hate his mother, but possibly didn't have warm memories of her either. The reason is most likely, like Senya said, her children wanted nothing to do with her (which is a bit untrue about Vaylin, but okay) and leaned more towards Valkorion. We need to remember that on Zakuul Valkorion isn't just one of many great leaders, he's the greatest, and seen as a god by most citizens, so safe to assume the same would apply to his children as well.

Zuko and Azula's siblingship (i'm out of words) is a bit similar to Arcann and Vaylin's in way of brother knowing that his sister isn't good, but still caring about them (even if not showing). At least it's what I saw. What's different is how Azula treats Zuko, compared to how Vaylin treats Arcann. I think Azula showed compassion or concern for Zuko maybe twice, but I'm not entirely convinced that it was 100% sincere. Vaylin, on the other hand, seems to trust and care about Arcann (with bits of sass and questioning his life choices), and switching to complete opposite after him saving Senya. Also, I don't she ever called Arcann a failure in their father's eyes.

Now I want to say that their roles in stories aren't the same either. Sure, both are introduced to us as antagonists, but in reality, Zuko was never a true antagonist (we get to learn this somewhere mid-season 1), when Arcann remains the main antagonist for whole of KotFE. Zuko didn't start a war and didn't participate in conquest of other nations too much, his main goal was to capture the Avatar so to restore his honor (and deserve his father's forgiveness). Honestly, I think it's safe to say the Zuko is one of two main protagonists of ATLA. Why does Arcann want to capture the Outlander? Solely because his father's spirit still lives inside this person's mind, and the best solution to keep Valkorion away from the galaxy is not letting the Outlander free (hence the carbonite freezing). And Arcann doesn't want or need Valkorion's forgiveness when he attempts to kill him (or kills him, depending on your choice. anyway, his action directly leads to Valkorion's "death"). And right after that he becomes a ruler of Zakuul and begins the conquest of Republic, Sith Empire and everything he can reach (the reasoning behind this is still unclear to me though; maybe because he was raised with ruling Zakuul in mind and he didn't anything else, idk). Point is, he's responsible for war and main's character imprisonment, which makes him the main antagonist of KotFE. They have it the opposite ways - Zuko starts as disgraced prince, supported by a little group of people, and in the end he's recognized and appreciated by his nation, and Arcann starts as respected by his empire, later becoming less and less loved, until some groups start rebelling his rule, and in the end he doesn't get to rule Zakuul again.

This leads me to their morals. See, Zuko didn't have the worst morals in Fire Nation, even more, he expressed care for loyals soldiers of his nation before getting punished by Ozai. During first season (and about a half of second one) his views on other nations are what he was taught before. However, these views are challenged by travelling in Earth Kingdom, witnessing people suffering from war Fire Nation started and hating its people (you already know all of this), and with this he comes through final stage of redemption when he's back home. Unfortunately, Arcann doesn't go through this, and he's shown to be more ruthless.

Alright, when it comes to their redemption arcs, well let's say they are different (both in quality and the way they go through it), I'm just a bit tired of long explanations at this point. Zuko's arc is one of the best ever put on television, and Arcann's... well, it definitely has potential, but is criminally underdeveloped (there are other people who will explain it better than I ever could).

What's similar: role of disgraced son, living in shadow of their sibling, serious injuries on the left side of face (though with different meanings), obsession with capturing the main character, having a redemption arc.

What's different: role in the narrative, role in their society, characterization, relationship with sister and mother, different end goals (before redemption), paths to redemption.

#ah. ofc it didn't show in the tag bc of the youtube link. ofc. gonna be down bc of this)#hey look at me rambling about something only maybe 2 people take seriously #also i noticed that parental characters are better in swtor and children characters are better in atla. do what you want with this #it's 3:30 am i should be sleeping but here instead writing this #(forgive if i have some spelling mistakes. brain shutting down but i won't be at peace if i don't post it right now)#okay so if you have thoughts on this... you really don't have to waste time on this #i really only wrote this because i was annoyed by some peeps on reddit claiming vaylin is off-brand with a straight face #(and then posted this on tumblr bc i don't want to suffer those people on reddit)#what am i doing with my time #(not gonna tag atla bc it's not really about it)#swtor #arcann #vaylin #valkorion #senya tirall #kotfe #kotet #pauletta's babbling #pls send help #(or oc aks to give me some free serotonin but no obligations ofc)

50 notes · View notes

hermannsthumb · 3 years

Note

If you're still taking requests!! Fake Dating situation where Newt and Hermann go to a public event together. they're used to being mistaken for a couple at the Shatterdome, so they expect to be mistaken for a couple at the event. But then they meet someone who definitely Does Not mistake them for a couple (because homophobia) and assumes they're just Very Good Friends. cue Newt and Hermann aggressively pretending to be a couple.

always and forever taking requests!!! this is such a fun one, THANK YOU

--------------

“We’ll have to go in eventually,” Newt says.

Next to him, Hermann silently fumes, apparently unable to decide whether to continue tugging at his stiff collar or grinding the bottom of his cane—over and over, in a sort of circle—against the sidewalk, leaving streaks of black rubber behind. “I hate these damn things,” he says under his breath, though it’s unclear whether he means his outfit or the event. Hermann’s dressed up tonight in a suit that’s hilariously oversized (even for him) and fraying in places, with a bowtie that he’s knotted crookedly. Newt wonders if the suit’s a hand-me-down from his brother. “Begging for funding, as if we haven’t anything better to do with our time. As if we’re not working for the better of all of them. It’s bloody degrading.” He works his jaw angrily. “And if that isn’t enough—everyone always makes—assumptions—about us.”

Oh, okay. The event. “Assumptions?” Newt says.

Hermann lets out a hiss of air between his teeth. “Assumptions,” he repeats, delicately. “About—ah—the certain nature of our relationship.”

“Oh,” Newt says. “Oh.”

At the last one of these things they went to, someone (actually generous enough to open their checkbook for once) asked Hermann whether they should make it out to the PPDC or Dr. Gottlieb and his husband. At the one before that, a dinner event, the name placards at their table said Dr. Newton Geiszler-Gottlieb and Dr. Hermann Geiszler-Gottlieb. Before that, at a more casual affair at an up-scale bar, some tech hottie sent Newt a martini, before hurrying over and apologizing in person that (gesturing between Newt and Hermann) he didn’t realize Newt was with someone. Newt really wishes Hermann would just get it through his head already that introducing someone as your partner and dropping the important research part of it tends to hold drastically different connotations outside of, like, the group of people who know them on the Shatterdome base, because that would clear up probably sixty percent of the confusion. If not just so he can pick up a few numbers at these things for once. Still, though—for some reason it’s never really bothered him like it clearly bothers Hermann, but Newt supposes he’s not exactly a catch by any standards, so it makes sense. “I just don’t know where they get the impression—” Hermann begins, and Newt interrupts him.

“Yeah, well, you should take it as a compliment,” he says. “You could do a lot worse than me.” He opens the door for Hermann and ushers him in. “Seriously, we’ll be late if we don’t go in now, and that makes it, like, twice as awkward.”

As usual, they have to sit through some incredibly boring speech about how they’re sitting among some of the best scientific minds of the century right now, how they’re honored to play host to their colleagues at the PPDC, how the buffet will opening shortly for dinner, and then a different person gets up and makes another speech, and then another person with another, until finally the first person gets back up and promises that closing remarks will be in three hours, and how they should all enjoy themselves until then. Claps. Under his breath, Newt says to Hermann, “Doubt it.”

“Which side shall I take, then?” Hermann sighs. He’s probably the only one in the room not clapping. He told Newt a while ago that he doesn’t like to put on airs, and especially not in the service of flattering someone’s ego, and he’ll only clap for a speech if he feels it deserves it. He’s such a weirdo.

Newt surveys the room, considering. Luckily, people tend to flock together in similar little groups at these things. Birds of a feather shit. “Left. Everyone on the right is too young and hip-looking, so that’s out of your range.” He gets a cane to his shin, and grins even has he winces. “Kidding. Let’s just do it together, it’ll make it more bearable.”

Their first target is a forty-something marine biologist who’s very excited to meet Newt— “I followed your research on jellyfish for years!” she says. “I had no idea you’d be here tonight!” —and who is more than happy to promise donating a little to help fund the war effort. Their next is someone younger than both of them, whom Newt suspects is heir to his dad’s tech company or something, and who is easily guilted into promising even more than the biologist. “We’re having a lot better luck than usual,” Newt says, as they watch the kid hurry away to mingle with a group of other twenty-somethings. “Do we look more, like, respectable tonight or something?”

“It’s the open bar,” Hermann says.

“Yeah, probably,” Newt agrees.

“And anyway, we’re still terribly behind on our goal, so there’s no use getting too pleased over ourselves,” Hermann says. He sniffs. “If you still want that bloody—whatever it was—kaiju spleen, we need at least—”

“Okay, okay,” Newt says.

He nods at a small group standing by one of the buffet tables, holding half-eaten plates. People tend to be in better moods when they’ve eaten something. Hopefully more generous moods too. “Let’s try them,” he says.

Hermann is the one to initiate the conversation this time, launching at once into a variation of the little script he and Newt penned so long ago the night before their very first gala. “Good evening,” he says. They get a few polite smiles and nods of acknowledgement in return. “I’m Dr. Hermann Gottlieb, and this is my partner—” Newt tries not to groan. “—Dr. Newton Geiszler. We’re here representing the PPDC tonight. I don’t suppose we could have a moment of your time?”

The mood of the group changes immediately, but why Newt can’t figure out; it’s like they suddenly go hostile on them. Hostile, and tense. Newt is suddenly astutely aware of how each of the three dudes have a good few inches on both him and Hermann. “The PPDC?” the guy in front says. He's not smiling anymore. Maybe they all supported the jaeger program defunding or something. “Sure.”

“Er,” Hermann says. He clears his throat. “Newton—that is, my partner and I work for the kaiju research division at the PPDC’s Hong Kong base. As you may well be aware, the latest cuts to the PPDC’s budget have been quite dev—”

“So you and your friend,” the guy says, with a little more emphasis on the friend than Newt would like, “are going around asking for donations? To help buy pencils or something?”

“Well. Essentially,” Hermann says. He doesn’t seem to have picked up on what Newt did, though he grows visibly nervous anyway. Outright hostility isn't anywhere near as common as indifference at these sorts of things. “Though, pencils is—er—a vast understatement.” He casts a furtive, desperate glance at Newt—a help me if Newt ever saw one. “My partner—Dr. Geiszler—simply doesn’t have enough funding for the samples he needs to study—and donations would certainly help with our funding for other necessary supplies—"

“I sure we’d love to help you and your friend,” the same guy says, and there’s no missing the emphasis this time, “but we’re a little busy at the moment. Please come back and talk to us later, though.”

Hermann clamps his mouth shut. Newt narrows his eyes, and in a move bold enough to surprise even himself, snags Hermann’s arm and links his own with it. “Sure thing,” he says loudly. Hermann goes rigid and stiff under him. “Come on, babe, let’s get something to eat. I know how you get when you’re hungry.” Then, before he can stop himself, he brushes a single kiss at Hermann’s cheek, and tries not to laugh at the looks they get.

He waits until they’re out of eyesight (Newt having had to sort of drag Hermann along with him) to drop Hermann’s arm. Hermann hasn’t moved a muscle since Newt touched him, and even now, he just sort of blinks at Newt. “What on Earth—?”

“Dude,” Newt says. “That guy was a total jerk. He thought we were together, and—”

“He did not,” Hermann says. “He kept calling you my ‘friend’. It was a bloody nice break from what usually happens, I might add, and now you’ve gone and—”

“Hermann,” Newt says. He sighs. “You’re, like, totally missing my point. He thought we were together.”

“But he called you—”

“Yeah, exactly,” Newt says.

Hermann blinks a few more times. “Ah,” he says.

“No way in hell do we need his money,” Newt says. “Anyway, sorry about the—” He touches Hermann’s cheek, and then gestures to Hermann’s left arm, which is now just sort of hanging limply at Hermann’s side. “I just wanted to screw with him. I won’t do it again, though—”

“No!” Hermann says quickly. The tips of his ears go red, and he fumbles as he grabs Newt’s arm again. A sudden warmth situates itself like pressure over Newt’s chest, identical to the kind that’s creeping up his wrist where Hermann’s fingers just grazed his bare skin, and he’s struck with the sudden bizarre urge to duck his head and blush himself. Since when has Hermann had this kind of effect on him? “What I meant to say is—” Hermann licks his wide lips. “He might still see us. We ought to—to keep up the ruse.”

“To really screw with him?” Newt says.

“For what other reason?” Hermann says.

Newt forces himself to keep a smooth, neutral expression as Hermann unwinds his arm to lace their fingers together instead, with a lot more awkward fumbling. “Uh-huh,” he says. He remembers how soft and smooth Hermann’s cheek had felt, so unlike his own, which can never seem to hold a clean shave. How nice Hermann's hand feels in his now. He’s definitely going to have to unpack this later. “Yeah, that’s—good idea, Hermann. Let’s do that.”

#newmann #maria's fanfiction tag #Hermann's POV in this fic is just newt touching his hand - REALIZATION #Anonymous

78 notes · View notes

a-room-of-my-own · 4 years

Note

Have you read "An Apology to JK Rowling" by Petra Bueskens on Areo? I'm pathetically grateful to read something so clever and well articulated on the subject after the amount of abuse JK has been subjected to

It's a great piece so here it is, thank you anon!

Rowling recently published an eminently reasonable, heartfelt treatise, outlining why it is important to preserve the category of woman. There’s only one thing wrong with it: it assumes a rational interlocutor. Rowling outlines why the biological and legal category of sex is important: in sports, in rape crisis shelters, in prisons, in toilets and changing rooms, for lesbians who want to sleep with natal women only and at the level of reality in general. Rowling marshals her experiences as an androgynous girl, as a domestic violence and sexual assault survivor and as someone familiar with the emotional perils of social media, in ways that have resonated with many women (and men). Her writing is clear, unpretentious, thoughtful, moving, vulnerable and honest. At no point does she use exclusionary or hostile language or say that trans women do not exist, have no right to exist or that she wants to rob them of their rights. Her position is that natal women exist and have a right to limit access to their political and personal spaces. Period.

Of course, to assume that her missive would be engaged with in the spirit in which it was intended, is to make the mistake of imagining that the identitarian left is broadly committed to secular, rational discourse. It is not. Its activist component has transmogrified into a religious movement, which brooks no opposition and no discussion. You must agree with every tenet or else you’re a racist, sexist, transphobic bigot, etc. Because its followers are fanatics, Rowling is being subjected to an extraordinary level of abuse. There seems to be no cognitive dissonance among those who accuse her of insensitivity and then proceed to call her a cunt, bitch or hag and insist that they want to assault and even kill her (see this compilation of tweets on Medium). She has been accused of ruining childhoods. Some even claim that the actor Daniel Radcliffe wrote the Harry Potter books—reality has become optional for some of these identitarians. Rowling’s age, menstrual status and vagina come in for particularly nasty attention and many trans women (or those masquerading as such) write of wanting to sexually assault her with lady cock, as a punishment for speaking out. I haven’t seen misogyny like this since Julia Gillard became our prime minister.

The Balkanisation of culture into silos of unreason means that the responses have not followed what might be loosely called the pre-digital rules of discourse. These rules assume that the purpose of public debate is to discern truth and that interlocutors on opposing sides—a reductionist bifurcation, because, in fact, there are many sides—engage in argument because they are interested in something higher than themselves: an ideal of truth, no matter how complicated, multifaceted and evolving. While in-group preferences and biases are inevitable, these exist within an overarching deliberative framework. This style of dialogue assumes the validity of a persuasive argument grounded in reason and evidence, even if—as Rowling does—it also utilises experience and feeling. By default, it assumes that civil conflict and opposition are essential devices in the pursuit of truth.

Three decades of postmodernism and ten years of Twitter have destroyed these conventions and, together with them, the shared norms by which we create and sustain social consensus. There is no grounding metanarrative, there are no binding norms of civil discourse in the digital age. Indeed, as Jaron Lanier shows with his bummer paradigm (Behaviours of Users Modified and Made into an Empire for Rent) social media is destroying the fabric of our personal and political lives (although, with a different business model and more robust regulation, it need not do so). The algorithm searching for and recording your every click, like and share, your every purchase, search term, conversation, movement, facial expression, social connection and preference rewards engagement above all else—which means that your feed—an aptly infantile descriptor—will quickly become full of the things you and others like you are most likely to be motivated to click, like and share. Outrage is a more effective mechanism through which to foster engagement than almost anything else. In Lanier’s terms, this produces a “menagerie of wraiths”—a bunch of digitised dementors: fake and bad actors, paid troll armies and dyspeptic bots—designed to confect mob outrage.

The norms of civil discourse are being eroded, as we increasingly inhabit individualised media ecosystems, designed to addict, distract, absorb, outrage, manipulate and incite us. These internecine culture wars damage us all. As Lanier notes, social media is biased “not towards the left or right but downwards.” As a result, we are witnessing a catastrophic decline in the standards of our democratic institutions and discourse. Nowhere is this more evident than in the contemporary culture wars around the trans question, where confected outrage is the norm.

This is why the furore over Rowling’s blog post misses the point: whether we agree with her or not, the problem is the collapse of our capacity to disagree constructively. If you deal primarily in subjective experience and impulse-driven reaction, under the assumption that you occupy the undisputed moral high ground, and you’ve been incited by fake news and want to signal your allegiances to your social media friends, then you can’t engage in rational discussion with your opponent. Your stock in trade will be unsubstantiated accusations and social shaming.

In this discombobulating universe, sex-based rights are turned into insults against trans people. Gender-critical feminists are recast as immoral bigots, engaged in deliberately hurtful, even life-threatening, speech. Rowling is not who we thought she was, her ex-fans wail, her characters and plots conceal hidden reservoirs of homophobia and bigotry. A few grandstanders attempt to distinguish themselves by saying that they have always been able to smell a rat—no, not Scabbers—and therefore hated the books from the outset. Nowhere amid this morass of moral grandstanding and outrage is there any serious engagement with her ideas.

Those of us on the left—and left-wing feminists in particular—who find trans ideology fraught, for all the reasons Rowling outlines, are a very small group. While Rowling is clearly privileged, she has also become the figurehead of a rapidly dwindling and increasingly vilified group of feminists, pejoratively labelled terfs, who want to preserve women’s sex-based rights and spaces. Although our arguments align with centrist, conservative and common sense positions, ours is not the prevailing view in academia, public service or the media, arts and culture industries, where we are most likely to be located (when we are not at home with our children). In most of these workplaces, a sex-based rights position is defined a priori as bigoted, indeed as hate speech. It can get us fired, attacked, socially ostracised and even assaulted.

As leftist thinkers who believe in freedom of speech and thought, who find creeping ideological and bureaucratic control alarming, we are horrified by these increasingly vicious denunciations by the left. The centre right and libertarians—the neo-cons, post-liberals and the IDW—are invariably smug about how funny it is to watch the left eat itself. But it’s true: some progressive circles are now defined by a call out/cancel culture to rival that of the most repressive of totalitarian states. Historically, it was progressives who fought against limits on freedom of speech and action. But the digital–identitarian left split off from the old print-based left some time ago, and has become its own beast. A contingent of us are deeply critical of these new directions.

Only a few on the left have had the gumption to speak up for us. Few have even defended our right to express our opinions. Those who have spoken out include former media darlings Germaine Greer and Michael Leunig. Many reader comments on left-leaning news sites claim that Rowling is to blame for the ill treatment she is suffering. Rowling can bask in the consequences of her free speech, they claim, as if having a different opinion from the woke majority means that she is no longer entitled to respect, and that any and all abuse is warranted—or, at least, to be expected. Where is the outrage on her behalf? Where are the writers, film makers, actors and artists defending her right to speak her mind?

Of course, the actors from the Harry Potter films are under no obligation to agree with JK Rowling just because she made them famous. They don’t owe her their ideological fealty: but they owe her better forms of disagreement. When Daniel Radcliffe repeats the nonsensical chant trans women are women, he’s not developing an argument, he’s reciting a mantra. When he invokes experts, who supposedly know more about the subject than Rowling, he betrays his ignorance of how contested the topic of transgender medicine actually is: for example, within endocrinology, paediatrics, psychiatry, sociology, and psychology (the controversies within the latter discipline have been demonstrated by the numerous recent resignations from the prestigious Tavistock and Portman gender identity clinic). The experts are a long way from consensus in what remains a politically fraught field.

Trans women are women is not an engaged reply. It is a mere arrangement of words, which presupposes a faith that cannot be questioned. To question it, we are told, causes harm—an assertion that transforms discussion into a thought crime. If questioning this orthodoxy is tantamount to abuse, then feminists and other dissenters have been gaslit out of the discussion before they can even enter it. This is especially pernicious because feminists in the west have been fighting patriarchy for several hundred years and we do not intend our cause to be derailed at the eleventh hour by an infinitesimal number of natal males, who have decided that they are women. Now, we are told, trans women are women, but natal females are menstruators. I can’t imagine what the suffragists would have made of this patently absurd turn of events.

There has been a cacophony of apologies to the trans community for Rowling’s apparently tendentious and hate-filled words. But no one has paused to apologise to Rowling for the torrent of abuse she has suffered and for being mischaracterised so profoundly.

So, I’m sorry, JK Rowling. I’m sorry that you will not receive the respectful disagreement you deserve: disagreement with your ideas not your person, disagreement with your politics, rather than accusations of wrongspeak. I’m sorry that schools, publishing staff and fan clubs are now cancelling you. And I’m sorry that you will be punished—because cancel culture is all about punishment. I’m sorry that you are being burned at the digital stake for expressing an opinion that goes against the grain.

But remember this, JK—however counterintuitive this may seem to progressives, whose natural home is on the fringe—most people are looking on incredulously at the disconnect between culture and reality. Despite raucous protestations to the contrary, you are on the right side of history—not just because of the points you make, but because of how you make them.

#Jkr #Team jkr

414 notes · View notes

fyeahnix · 3 years

Text

Pathfinder's Quest — Bangalore/Wraith, Voidstrike Shipping Speculation? (7/7)

I'm going to talk about my thoughts on the Apex Legends lore book in a series of smaller posts. I have a LOT of fractured thoughts on this book and it would be unnecessarily long if I were to list them out in the same post. If you want to skip to some other post because the content in this one doesn't sound interesting, please do so! I will be numbering the posts and tagging them with "nix talks apex book lore" if you'd like to follow these specific posts and "apex book spoilers" if you'd like to avoid them.

This special post will strictly be about Voidstrike speculation. Keep in mind that this is speculation with a theory based on available lore. You don't have to take this seriously, but if you ship Voidstrike in any capacity, you might want to read this. Caution that this post will be very long and will contain quite a few images from the book as well as Broken Ghost and other supporting material. Let's go!

Book Content + Supporting Material

All right. I've been waiting an entire month to write up this post. You all know by now that Voidstrike is my OTP for Apex Legends. The unfortunate problem with this ship, like some other ships in Apex, is that they have the bare minimum of interaction with each other. Even in this book that proves to be true, except for one interesting little exchange through Pathfinder...

Do you see this comment? I asked Tom Casiello, Senior Writer of Apex Legends and Target of Internet Scorn (just poking fun at his twitter bio here), about it on Twitter and this is what he said:

Yes, that's right, y'all. These two have beef. I can imagine Wraith is little pissed about the whole "headcase" thing from Season 5's Broken Ghost quest:

I mean, can you blame Wraith? Anita’s kind of an asshole in canon, if we’re being honest, so Wraith wanting to get back at her in some way makes sense. She went the fuck off on Mirage when he made a similar comment about her in the Season 6 comic posted on Twitter. What's even weirder is Anita's response when Pathfinder tells her what Wraith said:

Now. I know what you’re thinking. “Nix, it’s not that deep, Anita’s just being a sarcastic dick.” And you would likely be correct, and I would not disagree with you. On the next page, however, this exchange happens:

First of all, why would Anita ask "why would Wraith tell me anything?" Has she tried talking to Wraith before and Wraith may have been closed off and/or hesitant? Or maybe she doesn't fully trust Anita because Anita has such strong feelings about the IMC? Is she... hurt by Wraith not telling her things? Did Wraith try to open up once before, get shot down by Anita's reaction to the IMC, and Anita's been a little salty about it since, henceforth, the shitty "headcase" comment? Maybe Wraith is being a little shit and getting back at her in a weird way. This comment initially sounded vaguely flirty but what do I know except the writers haven't been known to just write things for literally no reason...

Lots to think about here, but I'm hoping we'll get a follow-up to this in-game at some point.

And second of all, why would Pathfinder ask if they're best friends? I know he has an interesting view of who he considers friends...generally people who have talked to him for more than a minute:

But a “best friend”? What would give him that assumption about these two? Is it because they have some things in common? Or has he seen them interacting more than we (the players and lorehounds) know of? Is it because of their one exchange in Broken Ghost? I don’t think so at all. Granted, right on the next page Anita calls Wraith a lab rat (pretty shitty!), but as we learn later on, she is really sensitive and defensive about people who speak badly about the IMC (more on this in my post about Bangalore). I'm thinking Path mentioning Wraith being IMC pissed her off because Wraith, overall, blames them for what happened to her.

In any case, it's an interesting question to ask, and I do have to wonder if Wraith and Anita have been seen talking to one another for more than a minute lol. But Anita's answer is intriguing. She doesn't flat out say no. We know Anita to be very direct—sarcastic, sure—but generally you'd expect a straight fucking answer from her. Here, she doesn't even give one. She beats around the bush for an answer. What I think is happening here is about the same as her talking about Octane and Mirage. Remember that loading screen from Season 3? No? Well, let me refresh your memory...

Send in the Clowns (Season 3 Loading Screen)

Numbnuts! That’s what Mama used to call guys like that. You know the type. Big jokes, big trucks, big wallets...they need all that big to cover up what’s small. I got four brothers. Real gentlemen, raised with respect. They don’t have to woo-hoo their way through a battlefield like it’s a joke and they’re the punchline. Sorry, Laughtrack. The only punchline is you’re going home in a box.

Maybe Silva isn’t so bad. He’d take a bullet for anyone… mostly ‘cause he’s already fifty paces ahead, charging in with no game plan and even less strategy. Witt’s had my back more than once. And whatever, he’s gotten a chuckle out of me. Occasionally. Maybe they’re good. For morale, I mean. I mean… I just need them to stay out of my way.

She's just... like that. Anita is the type of person who won't openly admit that she actually likes or respects anyone. She's guarded, and she's probably been this way since her brother Jackson died. And that's where Loba comes in.

See, I think Loba has been making Anita rethink some things about opening up. Anita initially pegged Loba wrong, and in her chapter, Pathfinder basically figures out that she initially hated Loba because Loba reminds her of her older brother's shitty girlfriend:

I think Loba's purpose in her and Anita's budding friendship is to eventually lead Anita to opening up to others, especially Wraith, since Path mentioned they have a lot in common, which is something I've been saying for fucking months. Now, Wraith and Anita haven't really had any interaction that we know of outside of Broken Ghost and the book, but there have been some....very minor hints/foreshadowing. I'm going to preface this by saying you may think I'm being a little...out there with these points, but trust me, we'll touch on why these matter later. For now:

Back in Season 1, both Bangalore and Wraith were the first two Legends to get Legendary skins in the Legendary Hunt themed event. First occurence is an incident.

In the Season 3 opening trailer, Caustic throws a gas canister inside a room and you can vaguely see Bangalore and Wraith in the room on the same team:

In the Legend select screen, these two were right next to each other up until they were separated in Season 6. They were together. Five. Straight. Seasons. Was there another, more subtle reason they were separated? Common sense would say no, it's because we're getting more Legends and the UI needs to change to accommodate. Shipping and speculation sense would say maybe it's metaphorical and foreshadowing a story element. Maybe something happened between them that we aren't aware of yet and they've separated.

At the end of Season 6 for the Fight or Fright Halloween event, we got a bundle of skins called the Wicked Wraith bundle. Guess who's in it? Bangalore and Wraith plus some gun skins. But only these two Legends.. Hm.. Two's a coincidence.

In Season 7, we got the Black Friday event where we got both Airship Assassin and Outland Warrior back in the shop, two beloved Wraith and Bangalore skins respectively. Three's a pattern, and with this lovely banner:

In Season 8, for the Two-Year Anniversary Event, both Bangalore and Wraith received stat trackers of their concept art... We typically only get two Legends' trackers per each event with a prize track, and we got these two for this event? I predicted back in October 2020 that they would get stat trackers in the same event, but I didn't expect this event out of everything.

If one's an incident, two's a coincidence, and three's a pattern, then what's four very similar occurrences?

If you've read up to this point, you're either deprived for Voidstrike content like I am, or wondering just how much further I'm willing to dig for hints to support this ship. Trust me, I have a little more.

I am predicting that Anita and Wraith will start having some interaction starting Season 9 or 10. Why? Well, back at the start of Season 7, there was a Reddit AMA with the senior team members of Respawn. It was mostly to address the battlepass issue, but Manny Hagopian, the Lead Writer for Apex Legends, was also there answering questions, so I took a shot and asked him one:

You can totally chalk this up to typical “I can’t say anything right now” PR talk, sure, but I think he's hinting that this was in the plans. Tom has also said something:

Now, granted, this is Tom and mostly everyone takes whatever he says with a grain of salt, myself included, but it's worth keeping an eye on since what Manny says kind of lines up. We were supposed to get a follow-up to Broken Ghost, but that story, whatever it was, ended up being... let's say, "altered"? Tom has a thread on what actually happened on Twitter (that I did link here, but removed for fear of this post not appearing in the tags), but the follow-up was essentially "axed" and bits and pieces of it had to be kicked down the road in various different formats in the lore. What does this have to do with Season 9 and my theory?

Well, there's supposed to be some crazy stuff happening in Season 9 and I think we're going to start to see some elements pop up from what was supposed to happen in Broken Ghost. Why? Well another thing Tom said from that same Twitter thread:

I think whatever Tom was working on was related to IMC, Bangalore, and Wraith. And the reason I believe this is because of a now-deleted video from Chris Edgerly’s twitch stream from back around May 27th, 2020 or so where Tom was a guest. I unfortunately didn’t think to archive the page or video so I don’t have it, but I can say with confidence that I asked a question about Anita and Wraith having some future interaction about the IMC stuff, and the answer he gave was...suspiciously vague. He said something along the lines of:

"I just started writing something dealing with that and you should get to see it before the end of the year [2020]. And that’s all I’ll say on that :]"

I know that’s...well it doesn't say MUCH, but it is making me think that it's the same content he may have been working on. I have a feeling it may be in comic form, but who knows how the format may change. Season 9 is supposed to be fairly game-changing for Apex overall, according to the devs.

The last bit I wanted to mention was character development. I said earlier how I think Loba is helping Anita open up a bit more overall, and eventually that will turn towards others as well as Wraith. Anita, compared to other Legends, has seen character development through voice lines. And Wraith is kind of doing the same. Like sure Loba talks to Anita, but she hasn't really...progressed as a character much. She's remained fairly flat so far. We're actively seeing Anita's walls break down as she becomes more vulnerable as a person. And no one else is really doing this much except for, arguably, Wraith.

Wraith has had some very introspective voice lines to herself while on Olympus, basically wondering if the Rift explosion was a result of her experiments, wondering what type of person she was to have partnered with Singh. Wattson even mentions she looks more lost than usual, and Wraith responds that she needs to handle this on her own for now. We know from the end of Season 6's comics that she's learned she was apparently a shitty person in her past life with anger issues and a severe lack of empathy. She wonders about this and is actively working towards... not being like that lol. She's also fairly sarcastic as we've seen with her voice lines with Rampart, but she's developing as a character, albeit slowly and more subtly than Anita.

So now that that's all out of the way. Where do we go from here? Well, this brings me to a theory I've manifested due to the points in the post so far.

The Theory

What if Anita and Wraith were on pretty okay terms with each other previously and we just haven't heard about it yet? What if they’ve known each other for a while?

Anita has been in the Outlands with a small group of IMC soldiers, her brother Jackson and General Lewis included, for about 18 years. She's been in the Apex Games for about 3 years and the Hestia incident happened about 3 years ago:

That lines up. Since the start of the Apex Legends lore takes place in 2733 (as of Season 8 we are now in the year 2734 in lore), that would mean she had to have joined around 2730. What about Wraith?

Well... I think Anita and Wraith joined the Apex Games around the same time. In the book Wraith mentions that she took a few years to hone her skills before she ended up in a qualifying match:

She arrived at our Kings Canyon in 2727. If she took a few years, she had to have joined around 2730-2731. What if they met and actually were amicable? Closed-off on both ends, but mutually respectful towards each other as coworkers? And maybe this is what causes Pathfinder to assume they're "best friends" in the book.

...That is until the Repulsor incident happened and the IMC labs under Kings Canyon were eventually unearthed. Wraith learned her real name and what the IMC (ARES more specifically) did to her and so did the rest of the Legends she was somewhat close to—Mirage, Pathfinder, and...Anita.

What if Anita took the IMC disrespect personally, thought Wraith was placing blame on the IMC instead of taking responsibility for her own actions like Anita mentions in the book, and Anita blew up about it? Wraith would probably feel extremely hurt by this and withdraw from opening up even more. At this point, Anita would hold a bit of a grudge about the IMC bad-mouthing.

They continue to work as coworkers and on a team when necessary, but the mutual respect has been...lost. Wraith finds friendship elsewhere in Wattson. Fast forward to the events of Broken Ghost. Anita is stressed, annoyed, dealing with too much shit at leading the operation, and hurls an insult at Wraith, the infamous "headcase" comment. It's extremely shitty and uncalled for and while Wraith doesn't explode at her in the moment because of dire circumstances, she absolutely doesn't forget it. It hurts her deeply.

What if after the events of Broken Ghost, their connection is severed. There's some bad blood between them. Wraith's friendship grows with Wattson while Anita's friendship grows with Loba. That separation in the Legend Select screen starting from Season 6 onwards seems a lot more metaphorical...

So fast forward once again to Wraith's comment directed at Anita in the book. It was an opening Pathfinder inadvertently provided and it was an opportunity to take a jab at Anita. But instead of being overtly shitty, she makes a relatively teasing comment. Maybe an olive branch to squash what they have and move on? Anita's response is to thank Wraith when she sees her again. Sarcasm? Maybe. But what if she's being genuine? What if the comment was a joke reflective of the type of humor they shared when they were on better terms with each other?

Anita has been opening up more to Loba, and though shes's still sensitive about the IMC, what if she's more willing to...apologize for the initial shitty comment?

The Theory Continued

Anita has recently, in canon, mentioned Jackson to Loba. Jackson is a VERY sensitive topic for her, and so far, the only two people we know of who have heard her discuss Jackson are Loba and Pathfinder. An interesting thing about Jackson that can be tied back to Wraith is this:

Anita clearly does not accept the ARES Division as part of the IMC, but more than that...Jackson found out the ugly truth about the IMC overall and believed it. Wraith was part of ARES Division and it's why Anita doesn't consider her IMC. Here's where the connection can work:

Continuing the same theory, what if Wraith reminds Anita of Jackson in the worst way possible because of what he told her about the IMC and ARES? Wraith revealing her name and what happened to her conjured up old, painful memories and caused Anita to lash out and close herself off again. Now that Loba is bringing out discussions of Jackson in canon, what if this leads to Anita and Wraith coming back together and rekindling their friendship? There's a lovely quote from Jackson's letter in the book that I feel could foreshadow that happening, too:

"...But in all seriousness, I'm so proud of you. And always remember, what's broken can be fixed. What's shredded can be mended. And what's torn apart can always be put back together again. Love always, Jackson." (82)

What if eventually—slowly, but surely—rekindling this lost friendship leads to Anita opening up to Wraith again? What if it leads to Anita being open and vulnerable enough to learn more about the IMC and ARES Division with/through Wraith via the labs under Kings Canyon? That place is a goldmine of classified information and she very well can see and hear firsthand all the terrible shit they've done. It would be extremely hard to do this, of course. And that's where Manny's comment from the Reddit AMA comes into effect: "...There's much more for both characters to learn and when they do, it's very possible to experience a moment between them, but patience is important."

This is, of course, all just a theory based on what we know about the lore. Is it ridiculous? Possibly! But I also don't think it's entirely farfetched either.

In Conclusion...

I imagine once we get to Season 9—potentially 10 at the latest for quarantine padding and last-minute changes—maybe we'll start seeing them begin to acknowledge each other in some way, and I'm thinking mostly negatively at first. And I don't think it'll be a lot either. Maybe a snarky location voice line or two. Maybe a little mention in a comic or Twitter lore bit. But only a little.

I definitely do think we can expect to see them getting to the point of interacting in the future, but it'll be a slow ride and slow burn. And hey even if we don't... I'll have this post to keep me warm for the rest of my days playing Apex.

Anyway, that's all I have for you! Thanks for reading if you made it this far, I do appreciate it. I love this pairing a lot, and this was really fun to write! Remember, it's just speculation based on....stuff, haha. You don't have to take it or like it at all, but what else am I to do when I'm starved for interaction of my ship? :]

#Apex Legends #Bangalore #Wraith #Voidstrike #Bangawraith #Apex book spoilers #nix talks apex book lore

43 notes · View notes

wxlfbites · 3 years

Text

The Church of Satan

I can only imagine the amount of criticism and hate I'm going to get for this, so I just want to preface this post by saying that in 2015 I considered myself a LaVeyan Satanist for a while. I was a teenager and felt like what I was reading was exactly how I felt, it gave me a sense of justification for the views I had. I am not just some random, misinformed individual who only read anti-satanism propaganda. In fact, I've still actually never read anti-satanism propaganda. My opinions have been formed based exclusively on what I've read on the Church of Satan's own website. These are of course, my own opinions and people are allowed to disagree... I just think it might be something to think about if you're considering becoming a satanist.

THIS WILL BE AN EXTREMELY LONG POST

Firstly, I'm addressing the membership the Church of Satan is now implementing. ~ While the Church of Satan says that you do not need to become a member in order to consider yourself a satanist, it is clear that they encourage you to do so. It has registration and payment based memberships that allow you access to confidential information, rituals, and online chat groups you are otherwise not entitled to. Their website claims these memberships have always been in place, but I do not remember any such kind in 2015. ~ It is their policy that affiliated members are discouraged from exchanging member-exclusive information with non-members. They also express that if you are a non-member of the church, you should not expect members to keep up extended exchanges or promotion of your wares. Further, your membership is subject to rejection and retraction at their discretion and they openly state that when you apply for a membership, they gather information on you to ensure you are someone safe and trustworthy to allow in. ~ Whether or not it is intentional, they use guilt tactics in order to persuade people into becoming members. To quote some of these phrases on their own website: "Those who proudly carry our red cards identifying themselves as members have the strength and dedication to implement the tools traditionally associated with Satan". "Look to your other possessions and expenses (most people spend far more than this on general entertainment) and we’re certain you can do this if it means something to you to become a member." "We’ve discovered that most individuals can muster these funds if membership is something they truly desire." ~ They describe your membership card as a key that you must show and scan to other members to prove your affiliation. They make a few references to the underground secrecy that members may or may not choose to maintain, and so to protect their identities as members, these... calling cards if you will.. are used to discretely confirm ones membership in the Church. ~ They do not tell you where the money for your registration fee goes. In fact, they say: "That is up to the administration. It will be applied to whatever is most required at the time it is received. If you feel the need to know in more detail, then don’t join." Implying you don't have the right to know exactly where your money goes? ~ Their membership application includes inappropriate questions that no organization, religious or otherwise, should ever ask. These include: " Are you satisfied with your sex life? Describe your ideal of a physically attractive sex partner." "How many years would you like to live?" "In what organizations do you hold membership?" "Are you a smoker? If so, to what extent." "Do you drink alcoholic beverages? If so, to what extent? State preferences." " Secondly, how does satanism compare themselves to other religions and philosophies? ~ The Church of Satan declares themselves to be "a formidable threat to those who would halt progress in the name of spirituality and theism of any sort." "We are a group of dynamic individuals who stand forth as the ultimate underground alternative, the “Alien Elite.” ~ They state things like "Our members and officials will not serve as teachers nor as entertainers—we have neither the time nor the inclination.", "It is our policy not to spoon-feed information to students who are too lazy to do research." and "Your schedule is of no importance to us." so it's no surprise that the satanic texts they do not provide in full on their website, including the Satanic Bible, - which is there main text and one they highly encourage you to read - cost money. ~ They believe themselves to be the only form of satanism, stating: "People who believe in some Devilish supernatural being and worship him are Devil-worshippers, not Satanists.", "Anton LaVey was the first to define Satanism as a philosophy, and it is an atheist perspective." and “Theistic Satanism” is an oxymoronic term and thus absurd." ~ Statements like: "we stand in opposition to theist religions and their

inherent hypocrisy.", [regarding the word Shemhamforash] - "So, Satanists use it for traditional blasphemy’s sake.", [regarding someones question about their experiences with demons] - "Satanists do not believe in demons or other supernatural beings, nor do we believe in spells. Seek help from local mental health professionals to assist you to get over these delusions.", "We Satanists are all anthropologists to some degree and can find that not upsetting people who think in such simplistic and erroneous terms of “belief equals goodness and truthfulness” might be worthwhile to smooth the proceedings in which one is involved. Trying to teach them that they are mistaken in such a belief may not be worth one’s efforts." are pretty much self explanatory as to the lack of consideration satanism has for other religions as being true for others.

~ This statement: "Knowing this, if you choose to affiliate with any pseudo-Satanic or anti-Satanic groups, you may well find yourself disaffiliated from the Church of Satan. Forewarned is forearmed." might sound harmless at first glance, but this kind of reminds me of an isolation tactic where cults discourage their followers to read or engage with opposing or differing opinions because it might open their eyes to the truth of things?

Finally, here are some statements that I personally don't find are morally or ethically okay?

~ In terms of kids worrying about their parents approval the Church says: "Satanism teaches that, so long as you live with your parents, you are in “their lair” and must show them respect". Which... is literally the same shit abuse victims hear all the time..... (example "you live in their house, they're your parents and you should love and respect them no matter what")...

~ "There can be no more myth of “equality” for all—it only translates to “mediocrity” and supports the weak at the expense of the strong." is a statement I just .... wish I were making up at this point.

~"The emotional drive to “change the world” is a common stage of early adult development typically beginning around age 16 and lasting until around age 24. Usually, individuals who become aware as to how the world actually functions—rather than being lost in a fantasy wherein they will be some sort of savior figure—come to realize that idealism (such as changing the world) is less important than the principle of getting what you want for yourself.",

Also! Um.. they are fully aware and okay with people who uphold discriminatory political views....

To quote their website regarding politics: "Our members span an amazing political spectrum, which includes but is not limited to: Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Reform Party members, Independents, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists, Stalinists, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists, Zionists, Monarchists, Fascists, Anarchists, and just about anything else you could possibly imagine."

And to justify this, they say: "Members who demand conformity from other members to their particular political fetish are welcomed to depart.”, "For a Satanist to expect, much less demand, consensus on any given issue, beyond basic advocacy of individual liberty within local laws, is an enterprise which is probably as masochistic as it is insane.", "Some naïve idealists seem to think that the Church of Satan as an organization risks irrelevancy if it does not become an advocate of certain political positions—usually their own pet issues which are assumed “must” be shared by other Satanists. This fear is based upon the assumption that the Church of Satan needs to change the world or risk “fading into obscurity.”

Again, all of this information comes directly from the Church of Satan website itself. It it not "propaganda". It comes from their own mouths. You're free to disagree with my interpretation and views of the above. But if you do agree, I'd love to know.

The things above make me uneasy. They give me huge cult vibes and are actually disappointing to read as someone who once considered themselves a satanist. As an omnistic pagan now, I do believe that all religions hold truths within them and can say that there are certain things within satanism I do agree with. But overall, I feel like calling satanism a religion is a stretch and should be joined with caution if it's something you are really interested in. I am only one person, I can't tell anyone what to do. But if you were considering becoming a satanist but hold values and views that the things in this post opposed or were opposite to, then maybe satanism isn't right for you. It's definitely not right for me.

I hope this post was educational at the very least. I hope that it might help people make a decision either way if they were interested in joining the Church.

#the polymorph chronicles #satanism #the church of satan #religion #satan #satanic #spirituality #philosophy #satanist #paganism #pagan #eclectic pagan #omnism #omnist

25 notes · View notes

dahlia-coccinea · 3 years

Note

You have said that you thought that “some critics overstate the concept of childhood in the story” and that Catherine and Heathcliff are not eternal children. What do you think about the concept of “childhood” in Wuthering Heights? In many ways this is a novel that is so preoccupied with childhood and attachments made in childhood, despite the main characters not being children for most of the book. Is there a distinction to be made between the actual depiction of the childhood of the main characters and the nostalgic conception of their childhood they later have?

I have read a review of the book that said that 5-year-old Hareton’s interaction with Nelly in Chapter 11 is unrealistic and reveals that Emily Bronte didn’t really know children unlike Anne Bronte who worked as a governess. I personally think that she was talented in depicting childhood rivalries, friendships and woes, Chapter 7 of Wuthering Heights is the proof of that.

This is a pretty big topic so I think I’m just going to ramble and explore the topic and see where it leads so I apologize in advance if this is unreadable hah.

For reference, this stems from this conversation, in which I mentioned how Catherine and her daughter both proudly view themselves as mature women and you mentioned how easy it is to forget that Catherine does try to take on difficult, grownup, responsibilities in planning how removing Heathcliff and herself from Hindley's dysfunctional household.

As I said I do think the concept of childhood has a big impact on the story and it is easy to remember moments such as Catherine’s utterance of how she wishes she was a girl again, and her appearance as a child ghost feels not without significant meaning. Many critics have fixated on this and have led them to make a few assumptions. There have been connections made with Freudian child psychology, pathology, and narcissism, or sometimes is developed into theories around Heathcliff and Catherine’s relationship and them having a twin soul in part because of their childhood bond and likeness. Still, I think these narratives give too much weight to the symbolism of childhood in the novel by not mentioning the moments that Catherine and Heathcliff display a grown-up understanding of things, or have wishes and desires that aren’t infantile or nostalgic.

Catherine is typically the character associated with childhood and childishness. Catherine’s anxiety about her choice between Edgar and Heathcliff is partially associated with her distress at life beyond her childhood and while that could be pathological as some critics state, including Marielle Seichepine in her essay Childhood and Innocence in Wuthering Heights. She argued this shows her narcissism and demonstrates Freud’s ideas on the "perversity of the infant.” I’ve written a long post about why I disagree with her here, so to save time I won’t repeat all of that.

Another reason why I think Catherine is sometimes viewed this way is because she dies at 19, which many people today consider to practically be a child. For all of Heathcliff’s longing to return to happier memories during his youth, or returning to their old shared bed, or being spurred to commit revenge against Hindley for disrupting his childhood and trajectory in life, he is still an adult during much of the novel so it seems he is saved from some of this speculation and psychoanalysis. Which may or may not be right. I think a problem with a lot of these theories is that they seem to forget that Emily never knew of Freud, as he was born some 8 years after her death. While an interesting lens to read the book through and I’m glad there are essays on it, I think Catherine’s situation says much more about spiritually, society, and the human experience and is not an overt psychoanalytical case study (I feel like it sounds like I hate Freud, I really don’t lol I just think he’s over/incorrectly used a lot).

Also, like many other proposed narratives, the theories that conclude they both wish to return to their childhood often assume Heathcliff doesn't care about the world or education, that they just want to be dirty children running around the moors forever, etc. All while ignoring that by their teens they both aren't ignorant of how the world works, or injustice of it, and also how they both view the other as the person they would like to marry and to escape from the home that is no longer welcoming to them. J. Hillis Miller, and a few other critics I can’t remember, fall into this trap. Miller’s take was something about their boundaries being blurred by their shared spaces, and childhood, and that all their later struggles are to claim that shared space again. While he believes they are strongly platonic, others make similar suggestions, like their mystical union is reminiscent of a "primordial androgynous being.” I’ve mentioned part of this argument before, but I didn’t mention how it is common that these arguments overstate the importance of childhood and Catherine’s and Heathcliff’s supposed fixation on it. (This is all a lot of ground to cover so sorry if this is hard to follow.)

Now there are few reasons I think childhood is important in the book, and I think can be representative of a number of things. One of the reasons WH is so interesting is because so many metaphors and symbols can be explored in multiple ways. Understood in a very simplistic and broad way it does nicely lend to the imagery of wildness, freedom, and being in a natural rather than materialistic state. It also speaks more plainly of the angst most people feel when surrendering childhood freedoms to adult responsibility and of being introduced into a world that is unfair and tragic. I’ve also thought their moving from childhood to adulthood with their coinciding loss and separation, feels similar to awakening to a vast existential dread that causes the loss of meaning and proceeds to force the characters into chaos.

I think it is also important to the plot that Catherine and Heathcliff's relationship begins early on - it makes more sense that they are unable to view their past, present, or future, without the other since they’re in each other’s earliest memories. It also helps prevent a more cliche "love at first sight" plot and leaves less room to believe it is based on anything superficial.

Something that I find interesting is it seems to be somewhat contested as to how to reconcile the fact their childhood isn’t particularly happy yet they seem to desire to return to it. I don’t remember reading anyone who tries to really tackle this. Catherine and Heathcliff have only a brief time after Hindley leaves and Mr. Earnshaw is still alive that their lives are relatively peaceful. But I don’t think anyone could consider even that part of their childhood as ideal, nor do they specifically mention that time, apart from in Catherine’s diary when she says her father was back because Hindley is a terrible substitute.

I certainly don’t see the story as an ode to childhood as I've seen some critics suggest. Partially because Cathy and Hareton are able to grow up and live the life that Catherine and Heathcliff would have wanted, and also because of how telling it is that Catherine is trapped as a child ghost until she’s reunited with Heathcliff. If the book was an ode to childhood the shepherd boy should have seen two children on the moors and not Heathcliff and "a woman."

You mention how some have accused Emily of not understanding children - I think that’s kind of a funny claim. I think her writing, despite the poeticism, is concerned with humanity and in that way is relatable and the emotions very intelligible - still the characters' actions and language could never be mistaken as striving for hyper-realism. Also, she grew up with siblings and knew family friends, and servants who had children so I don’t think the way little Hareton or whoever, is written has to do with her not understanding children. I don’t think any of the sisters were maternal, so perhaps that changes their writing or what others would expect from them.

#wuthering heights #emily brontë #thoughts #i'm totally forgetting points i wanted to make but i think this has gone on long enough lol

9 notes · View notes

anonthenullifier · 3 years

Text

An Awakening

Vision learns the truth of his life prior to Westview which leads to an honest conversation with Wanda.

Ao3 link

There is nothingness and then there is a calliope, it’s jaunty little ditty shocking his mind enough that Vision’s eyes snap open. Blades of grass tickle his cheek and an aura of flashing lights draws him up, palms pressed firmly onto the ground as he hoists himself up into a seated position. His body aches, a faint echo in his mind of being violently torn apart, but it is a feeling that fades the faster he thinks about it. Since it seems important, he tries to move his mind away, hoping that if he doesn’t explicitly focus on it that it will not be forgotten.

Vision nods, goes to stand up, but finds his legs not responding fully, knees buckling under the weight of a fleeting memory of immense pain. A hand loops under his right bicep, the woman’s other hand coming to rest on his back as she helps him up with an aggrieved, “Why can men never admit when they’re hurt?” The snark behind the comment feels forced, the same underlying terror on her face as all the other residents here.

That’s when he remembers, most of it at least. He was on his own reconnaissance patrol, inching ever more methodically toward the edge of town to see how far Wanda’s influence reached. The horror of his findings, their frozen, crying faces, almost knocks him back to the ground, but luckily the woman’s hands are still there to steady him. “Thank you.”

“Did you go in the funhouse?” It’s not really a question the way her voice falls, more of a statement with a rhetorical uptick at the end. “Heard it’s really disorienting with all the clowns.”

Vision doesn’t recall such an attraction anywhere in Westview but then he looks up, following the still present music in the air, and finds an entire carnival before him. Red and white striped tents tower out of the ground, stalls for food send plumes of greasy smoke into the air, and numerous game stalls are lined up where stuffed animals and blowup hammers hang joyfully from the walls. This is new. What is also new is that there are houses and roads beyond Ellis Avenue, which seems right, as if it was always like that, but there is a niggle of unease that tells him this isn’t true, if only he could access the information that makes him feel that way.

“Oh, um , thank you.” His costume is, at least by his understanding of how Billy and Tommy reacted, not sick by any means. Regardless, he finds his hand moving on its own accord to grip the cape, wanting to feel the object of her jealousy. It feels different, slicker and more aerodynamic than the one Wanda left in the closet. He yanks it a bit farther forward and notes that it is also a much more subdued gold with flecks of crimson in parts. A glance down also confirms that his green and yellow ensemble is gone, replaced by teals and reds, no athletic shorts covering the skin tight ensemble.

This is all wrong.

Vision knows the town never had a circus, nor the rows of houses beyond Ellis, he knows that he was not in this outfit and that everything feels just a bit off.

“Do you want some coffee or a ride back home?” The concern in her voice goes deeper than one would expect, even though she did find him injured on the ground, something more wavers in her words. Vision decides that he needs more answers than questions and, even though he hates taking away people’s autonomy, he reaches towards her temple. “Woah,” the woman swats his hands away, “I have pepper spray.”

“I will not harm you.” Oddly her face softens and she drops the threat, allowing him to send a pulse of golden energy into her head.

The change is instantaneous, the woman’s face becoming far more animated, “Vision?! Oh my God, you’re okay!” This is now the second awakened person to recognize him, to be excited at the prospect that he is there to help. “Oh what the hell!” Vision watches the woman’s hand run along her gaudy canary and ruby diner uniform, one that is common in little run down diners on the highway, a thought that he doesn’t quite know how to substantiate since he doesn’t seem to have a memory of such a stop and yet the knowledge is there. As she inspects her clothes, grunting in disbelief and irritation built into every movement, she confuses him further, “I’m an astrophysicist and this is what I get? So disrespectful.”

Neither Norm nor Agnes responded in such a...laid back way to be awakened, both in immeasurable pain that this woman seems to show no signs of. “Miss, are you okay?”

“Doctor, not Miss.”

“My apologies.”

She turns a bright, closed lip smile towards him, reaching out her hand as she says, “I’m Darcy.”

He takes the proffered hand and gives it a polite shake. Even though it is clearly unnecessary he adds, “And I’m Vision.” What he says next is a bit of a surprise to him, mainly because he doesn’t feel like he has a basis for the assumption that she will know the answer, but for some reason he has full faith she can help him, that she wants to help him. “Who am I? What,” he surveys the carnival around him, “what is happening here?”

“Straight to the big questions.” It is not derisively or caustically stated, in fact there is far more affection than one would expect from a stranger. Darcy glances around, nervous for the first time, “I’ll try to be quick, I’m sure your wife’ll be here soon.” This fear is not new, sadly, the same insinuation made by Norm about Wanda’s involvement. “Let’s see, you’re Vision, obviously,” a small, self conscious chuckle goes along with the statement. “You’re an Avenger,” luckily, she senses his desire for more, quickly adding, “group of super powered people, well, not all of them have super powers, some just have really amazing tech, but anyway you’re a team that fights bad guys and saves the universe.”

“Wanda and myself, we were-“

“Yep, joined at the same time and then fell in love, really cute.”

This confirms what Agnes said, which suggests that perhaps her other words were true as well. “Am I...dead?” All joy leeches from Darcy’s face, a deflated nod going along with the tightening of her lips. “How?”

Darcy looks around again and Vision can’t help but join her in the action, can’t help but feel a little bit nervous about who doesn’t want him to know this. “Shortened version - big purple angry grape named Thanos was collecting all the infinity stones, this includes the Mindstone,” Vision’s fingers rise up to brush the gem. “Wanda had to kill you to try and stop him.”

“She killed me?”

Quickly context is added, “Only because you,” she levels a finger at his chest to emphasize his role and take blame off his wife, “insisted she do it.”

None of what she says makes sense. “Why would I do that?”

The next statement is said in a way that typically is coupled with a playful fist against the shoulder that leads into a jovial shove. “Being all self-sacrificial’s kinda your thing. Which is super noble, don’t get me wrong, but a bit rough on the people around you, like asking them to kill you for the greater good.”

Which is a fair point and one he will need to cogitate on at a later time, “Why did Wanda, specifically, have to kill me?”

“Oh because she was the only one strong enough to destroy the Mindstone.”

A logical assessment that he can easily believe his former self to have made. “Was she successful?”

Darcy’s voice quiets somewhat, a slight tremble in her words, “She was. But then Thanos reversed time, brought you back, and murdered you right in front of her.”

Suddenly his worldview shifts, new meaning and understanding emerging as to some of Wanda’s actions and her strong reaction to his accusations the other night. Despite this dawning of understanding, there is still a major question he feels hasn’t been answered. “But then how are we here? How am I,” he falters on the next word, as early as this evening not thinking it was something that could be false, “alive?”

“That’s the million dollar question. No one knows.” A high pitched whizzing vibrates in the air, punctuated by calls of Vision! “I gotta go,” she begins to walk away, but turns back with an anger not yet present in her words, “Quick FYI, if you meet a guy named Hayward, don’t trust him, he’s a dick.”

“I um, will not, thank you.”

She starts to leave again and then stops, “Also, we don’t have proof it’s all Wanda. Food for thought.”

Vision appreciates the comment, “Thank you.” It is when she actually walks away that he is the one that has a realization of not re-invoking whatever trance the people of the town are in. “Darcy!” She turns expectedly towards him as he approaches with his hands out and ready to take the pain from her, except she swats his hands away, yet again.

“Stop it, I’m a better ally awake.”

Based on the prior two people he has spoken to in their awakened state, this seems a poor choice for her. “Does it not hurt?”

“I mean, yeah, feels like I went on a tequila bender last night and haven’t had water in weeks.” How she remains so lighthearted is beyond him, but he admires it immensely, “but I can’t help you if I’ve forgotten.”

Though he isn’t sure it is in her best interest to remain in such a state, the idea of a confidant is appealing. “Very well.”

Seconds after she walks away, blue streaks materialize around Vision, both his sons and his wife appearing suddenly in front of him. This is unusual but he doesn’t get a chance to inquire about their speedy entrance, Billy rushing towards him first with a relieved, “Dad!” Vision catches him, using the momentum of his son’s leap to lift him and hold him close, Billy’s arm wrapping protectively around Vision’s neck. Tommy follows shortly after, his run far more powerful as he slams into Vision’s torso with a tight hug.

It is Wanda who hesitates, her eyes faintly glowing red, a deep, concerned frown on her lips. “Vizh,” her voice cracks and his heart breaks at the pain she tries so valiantly to mask. Vision manages to get one of his hands free enough to motion Wanda closer. She accepts the offer, one arm winding around his waist and the other laying on Tommy’s shoulders.

They have only been home for three hours and yet this is the tenth Wanda has found herself standing in the doorway, hand propped along the wooden frame. In the room Vision lies in bed, eyes closed and resting, Billy is wrapped around him, his arm thrown across his father’s chest and head buried just under the vibranium dot of Vision’s chin, and Tommy is curled snuggly into Vision’s other side. The boys are still in their costumes, Billy’s cape sprawled behind him on their mattress and Tommy’s now flat hair looking a bit crusty from the spray dye. It’s an idyllic scene and yet Wanda fights back tears, shoving the drops away from her eyes as if they are an enemy that needs to be thwarted.

She almost lost Vision...again. The boys almost lost their father at ten years old, an age for which grief is overwhelming and confusing, can shape a life forever, or so she intimately knows.

Reluctantly her body pulls away from the door, arms crossing over her chest as she walks back downstairs, not once considering peeking in on her brother in the guest room. That is a problem she is still trying to figure out, the man a stranger, an antagonist, but with her brother’s name. There are too many inconsistencies in his behavior, too many contradictions in his words, half of them true to her brother and the other far too knowing of events that occurred after his death. Unsurprisingly he and Vision clash, a thought that briefly makes her mouth perk up, always having a belief that if her brother lived he would have begrudgingly accepted her relationship while also making it his personal duty to make jabs at Vision, who Wanda always knew would take it with a silent dignity that was then removed late at night when he’d insist on lengthy conversations with her to figure out the insults. That’s what life was supposed to be. What life is now, technically.

The gurgle of water washes away these thoughts, her focus now solely on filling the kettle and getting it on a burner to boil. Except the distraction is short lived as she sits down at the kitchen table to wait, fingers interwoven and glowing faintly of the residual scarlet energy she had to use tonight. Wanda fixates on her fingers, bending and straightening them, unsure how she knew what to do or even had the power to expand the town. But that’s not the most troubling incident of the night. No, what pesters at her resolve is a simple thought: Why did Vision want to leave? They have everything here - a house, Billy and Tommy, each other, and the time they always tried so hard to find.

Wanda startles at the creak of the kitchen cabinet, heart still racing as she takes in the curve of Vision’s shoulders and the vibranium band along the back of his head. Silently he makes her a cup of tea, hands moving calmly through the ritual he created, the cup always the same distance from the kettle, bag placed at the bottom with the string hanging out precisely two inches, both hands holding the kettle (one on the handle and one at the base) as a perfect arc of water fills the cup, and finally one and a third spoonfuls of sugar. The sequence completed, Vision walks the cup to the table, placing it gently down with barely a clink from the porcelain. She expects him to sit down across from her, to silently stare for a minute or so before bringing up the town again, reopening the wounds of their last fight because they never actually resolved anything other than to try and act normal around the boys. But he doesn’t, instead he takes her hand, tugging it until she stands, and then he hugs her, engulfing her entire being in his presence. The firmness of his chest and the tinny waft of vibranium are just as soothing as the kisses he peppers along the top of her head, each one more doting than the last. “Vizh,” Wanda reluctantly pulls back a few inches, hand squeezing between their bodies until she can cup his face, “are you…”

“I know,” he kisses her properly now, not like the emotionless peck earlier in the day, this one imbued with all of his love and all of his concern. “I know enough.”

A chill moves through her body, limbs growing rigid and heart almost coming to a complete stop. “What do you mean?”

Vision’s fingers move up to trace lines through her hair, palm coming to rest on her cheek. The surety of his prior statement lessens, mouth sinking lower until it’s a shallow frown. “I know that I am,” it is unlike him to pause like this, to seem to want to avoid a conversation he himself brought up, “that I was dead.”

Her denial is immediate and viscera, “What are you talking about, why would you…” but then his doleful gaze meets hers, the ridges of his synthetic skin bunched together in a show of deep, aching pain, though it is clear from the way he holds her, the way he places a far too gentle kiss to her forehead, as if the action itself might knock her over, that he is more concerned for her than himself, which is the epitome of who he was...who he is. If there is anything she can offer that matches this unerring compassion, it has to be honesty because clearly hiding the truth from him will not stop his incessant march towards the truth. But that is easier to think about than it is to actually commit to doing. Wanda swallows down a sob and fights to keep her voice calm. “You were.” The confirmation is too much, her chest heaving as all the memories rush to the forefront of her mind--her hands erupting in red at the feel of the Mindstone fracturing, at the almost silent I love you , and then having to watch him come back only to die in a far more brutal way.

Strong arms that shouldn’t exist continue to encase her, draw her deeper into the comfort of his embrace, the feel of his fingers running through her hair with the same gentle “Wanda” he always said when soothing her. Deep down she knows it is all a lie, this life, this man, this blissful existence. Because as a Maximoff there is only one constant in life and it is sorrow, biting, empty, unavoidable sorrow. Which begs the question of how, exactly he found out. A question that infuriates her and invokes the well know feeling of being caged in by the inevitability of her life.

Wanda steps out of his arms, trying her best not to show how much pain that simple movement creates, her body screaming to remain against his forever, but selfishly she needs answers more than anything, needs information to help her regain some level of control over her emotions, has to know why he put his family through so much just to find out this awful truth. “Why aren’t you happy here?”

A denial forms quickly, his body taut at the accusation, “I am happy Wanda, how could I not be?”

“Because you left, you...you abandoned us today,” Wanda knows she shouldn’t use the next part in anger or for gain, but she needs her husband to understand the severity of it all. “Did you know Billy can sense you?”

Vision’s “He can?” is hard to read, both concerned and in awe, with something else she can’t quite pinpoint.

“Yes, and his first experience of that was feeling you try to die because we apparently aren’t important enough to stay alive for.” The comment hits as intended, Vision stepping back, horror forming in the spasming muscles of his face as he looks up towards the ceiling, towards where he left their sons. “What are you trying to find out there?”

Vision’s simple, “The truth,” is aggravatingly vague, thankfully, or not depending on how this goes, he clarifies, “There is something wrong in Westview, Wanda. The people are in agony.”

A fed up laugh comes out with her “Aren’t we all?” Only Vision can’t find the humor, the gears in his eyes twisting clockwise and counterclockwise while he stares at her, face ladened with a suffocating sympathy.

He takes a step towards her and she steps back, not missing the way her reaction hurts him. “Wanda, it is not like you to inflict pain on innocent people.”

Since they started this new life, her memories have been hazy, coming in and out of consciousness, enough clarity to understand that whatever is happening in Westview is preferable to outside of it. After tonight, after Pietro’s comment about her dead husband, it’s all there and she realizes that she’s never gotten to say out loud what she did, what Thanos forced her to do, the Avengers too scattered with all that needed to be attended to after his defeat to focus on anyone but themselves. So she squares her shoulders, lifts her head and puts all of her self loathing into her next comment, “If that’s true, then why did I kill you?”

This time when Vision steps towards her she lets him grip her arms, let’s him guide her until her face is pressed into his chest, allowing her to hear the beating of his synthetic heart. “You were only doing what I had asked.”

“Well it wasn’t worth it,” her voice is muffled by the teal sweater he’s wearing, “and I can’t, I can’t forgive myself.”

His arms tighten around her, one hand gripping the fabric of her sweatshirt and the other holding her head to his sternum. “You did nothing wrong. If anyone is to blame-”

It doesn't take a telepath to know what empty words he is about to mutter. Wanda forces herself from his embrace and stares hard into his eyes, “Don’t, Vision, just don’t. It won’t change what happened.”

Reluctantly he accepts it, moving cautiously back to the original topic of their discord, “Is this,” he gestures vaguely around them, “the result of,” it is still hard for him to say, which she appreciates because she can’t say it easily either, “my death?”

“I don’t know,,” this time he seems to accept her ignorance, which allows her a chance to actually consider it more. All she can really recall is the crushing loneliness and the suffocating despair of losing the last person she loved in the world. It’s not a stretch to assume that had something to do with now. “Maybe?” If he knows about his death, she reasons that she might as well tell him the other nightmare she discovered upon her own rebirth, something she’s tried to block out as best she can. “It could also be from finding out some shady government organization was experimenting on your corpse.”

Shock is too gentle a word, hatred a tiny bit too strong for the tone of his voice, “That does not seem like an activity I would condone.”

“It’s the exact opposite of what you requested.” Wanda thinks back to that day, and unlike Vision, pure, unabashed hatred flowed through her veins when she received an anonymous tip. Hatred at S.W.O.R.D, at the scientists going against Vision’s will, hatred at the world for being so awful, and hatred at her teammates who let it happen, who didn’t seem to consider that agencies like that lie, that they would never want the body only for “safe-keeping.” All Vision wanted was a burial and she was determined to provide him that, to allow herself the closure she needed. So she broke in, sickened at the way they’d disassembled him and had separate monitors attached to his limbs and head. “I broke in,” Vision holds his breath as she talks, “I took you from them and all I remember is flying away. I was going to bury you in the forest, like you wanted.” That’s where her memory stops and where Westview begins. “And then we were driving to our house after getting married.” Finally he releases his breath with a shuddering gasp. “That’s all I remember, you have to believe me that I have no idea what’s going on.” Unlike the other night, he wordlessly accepts her ignorance, mind likely still reeling from the revelations she shared. It is this lack of judgment that emboldens her to say what’s been swirling through her mind whenever the knowledge of reality sets in, a thought that should carry with it guilt but she can’t muster up guilt when she finally has what she has been denied over and over again. “But I’d be lying if I tried to convince you that I don’t prefer what we have in Westview.”

With a hand on her back, he leads her to the table, pulling out the chair in front of the barely steaming tea, and then he sits directly next to her, tenderly taking her left hand in his own, thumb rubbing absentmindedly along her wedding ring. “I cannot fault you in any way for that feeling. If not for being complicit in the pain of so many, I would wholly embrace this life we have now.”

His tacit disapproval is only slightly less painful than his yelling, but she has to begrudgingly accept that he may not be completely wrong. Whatever pain he has sensed in others was enough to make him tear through the barrier and risk losing his own family. “But what if,” still she fights against figuring it out, unsure she can handle what it might lead to, “what if fixing this means I lose you again,” which is already incomprehensible, but is made even more harrowing by the next possibility, “what if it means losing Billy and Tommy too?”

Tears lick at the corners of his eyes, a war waging on his lips of how to proceed. “It will be horrifying and it will be immensely difficult but you,” he grabs her other hand, his fingers forming a vice around her own and she isn’t sure if he is trying to convince her or himself more, “are so remarkably resilient.”

Sometimes she wishes his density manipulation applied beyond just his body. “Clearly not, Vizh. Look around us.”

Vision doesn’t, instead he looks down at their enjoined hands, a shaky breath recentering his thoughts. “I think we may be, as they say, putting the cart before the horse.” The verbal shift is so utterly ridiculous that she chuckles, an action that causes him to smile nervously. “Did I use it wrong?”

“No, it just, you always say it so academically.”

“I see.” Finally real, genuine amusement flits across his face. “Well, regardless, we don’t know what is happening, unless there is something you aren’t telling me.” It is not an accusation in the slightest, in fact it is said as an aside, almost hopeful that she’s waiting to surprise him with the solution.

There is a lot she hasn’t said, but none of it seems vital other than perhaps one observation. “I definitely have control here,” this itself is painful to admit. Where he is merely complicit if he remains here, she is actively continuing it, “but, I don’t, I don’t know how to explain it, but I don’t know how I’m doing this.” Vision takes in the admission, brow furrowing as he no doubts files it away in his future mysteries to solve mental folder. “Like tonight,” she thinks back to when Billy told her about the soldiers, to the moment she realized what Vision had done, “All I knew is that I needed to save you because I couldn’t lose you again. I didn’t have any idea of how or what to do, but I felt like if I just put all of my powers into it, that something would happen.”

It’s amazing how easily he transitions into his cool and clinical investigator voice, “Is this the first time you’ve felt that?”

“No. I mean sometimes I have an idea of what I’d like,” such as when she saw the beekeeper come out of the sewer and then vanquished it, “but other times I just have a hope it will be fixed.”

“That is a start.”

Wanda waits for more and when it doesn’t arrive,she pushes for it, “What does that mean?”

He releases her hands and pats his legs, an odd energy reinvigorating in him. “We must figure out the source of these alterations. Clearly it is not just you.” A fact she can’t say for certain but doesn’t have the heart to correct him on, enjoying how it feels like they’re a team again instead of bitter foes. “I met someone tonight who has knowledge of our prior lives.”

This is unexpected and terrifying. Perhaps the only good thing is that she knows it is not Pietro, because she is not willing to trust him, but to be fair, she isn’t sure she can trust whomever Vision found. “Who is it?”

“Her name is Darcy, she says she is an astrophysicist and has a seemingly strong grasp on what happens outside of Westview.”

Vision is not a very strong judge of character all the time, quick to trust and slow to lose hope in a person, as evidenced by his continued trust in her, yet she asks him anyway. “Are you sure we can trust her?”

“I believe so.”

“Okay.” For now she lets him hold on to that belief, knowing that she will be able to assess this person when they meet. Which also means she knows, deep down, that if this person ends up like Monica, one of S.W.O.R.D.'s cronies, that she’ll be forced to take control again.

The sincerity of his “Thank you,” and the tenderness with which he grabs her hand again, bringing it to his lips with a bit too much romantic melodrama, brings about a fluttering warmth in her chest she has so dearly missed, one that chases away all the disparaging thoughts of what is to come, “truly, for your honesty.” Wanda simply smiles in return, not entirely certain her honesty is worth much at the moment.

It is a relief when Vision maneuvers the conversation to a happier topic. “You said Billy could sense me tonight?”

Pride spreads her lips into a toothy grin, “He’s a natural telepath.”

Vision shares her feelings, sitting back with a satisfied smirk. “We shall have to see if he has your telekinesis as well.”

“We will. Also, Tommy has superspeed.”

Vision’s paternal delight perks up his entire body. “Remarkable.”

“They’re pretty impressive.” Wanda finally picks up the tea and takes a sip, not caring it no longer holds any warmth, far too enamored and distracted by Vision launching into a suggestion of a training regime for their sons, the Maximoff family seeming to be front and center in his mind. If there is any kindness in the world, they deserve at least one night to care about themselves and no one else.

#wandavision #wanda maximoff #vision #darcy lewis #scarlet vision #mine

19 notes · View notes

officialkarkat-moved · 4 years

Text

Why I think Karkat is very demiromantic; A remake of an old post of mine.

Before I get into any of this, just an extra bit of clarification. Of course I don’t think any of this is 100% canon. However, I do see a lot of my own personal experiences with how Karkat tackles romance canonically, and I’m, obviously, demiaroace myself. This is just me going into this headcanon, and why I think it really works. I would add demisexual to this headcanon, but obviously none of what I could show would inherently prove demisexuality, only demiromanticism.

This is a very long post, I’ve written about 1182 words below. Yeah, there’s a lot. (I have also written alt text for all of the images below, so no need to add image IDs.)

First, I’ll explain what demiromanticism is for anyone who might be unaware. To be demisexual and/or demiromantic, you’d have to only experience sexual and/or romantic attraction once there is a connection between you and said person. What a “connection” would be would vary on the person, but you’ll have to at least know them personally first. It could be anywhere between only needing to be friends first for it to be a possibility, and needing to be EXTREMELY close before there’s a possibility. This is not to be confused with simply CHOOSING to wait until you know them better, as that is a choice, and being demi is not. There simply is no attraction there prior.

Now with that out of the way, time to get into my headcanon.

I am going to go about this in chronological order, from Karkat’s perspective that is. So I will start with his romantic interest in Terezi. I’ll mention firstly that they seemed to be close prior to Karkat being introduced, going off of how they seemed to be pretty good friends right off the bat when we see them talk the first couple of times. It also took 582 pages since Karkat was introduced in-comic for there to be any romantic tension between the two [page here]. I’d put a screenshot of it here but it’s probably too long. Go check it out for yourself if you wanna see it.

They had spoken on at least 3 times on-screen before this without any romantic tension. However, I’ll mention, it is also implied in this page that there had been a “little moment” between them prior to this conversation. Regardless, because of this, I feel like it is a very fair assumption to say that their romantic interest in each other only became much of a thing DURING their Sgrub session. And, they have presumably known each other for years prior as well. I don’t remember if it was ever directly confirmed between the two of them, BUT it has been confirmed that other trolls have known each other for years, so it’d make sense to say Karkat and Terezi have known each other for awhile as well.

So, because of this, I feel like it is a fair assumption to look at this and determine that it took Karkat years to develop said crush on Terezi. However, I would also like to address this screenshot I got from Hussie’s commentary on the Homestuck books. (I accessed this by using a browser extension: [Chrome] [Firefox]). It appeared on [this page] specifically if you wanted to see it for yourself.

You could interpret this as saying that he was forcing his attraction to Terezi entirely, but I would disagree because of Hussie saying “a PART of their attraction”, and not their entire attraction.

How I interpret this quote here is that Karkat felt the need to force at least some of his attraction out of feeling obligated to do so, which, even if there was some genuine attraction there, is a very common experience for someone who’s demi but doesn’t know yet that they ARE demi, because they probably get the sense that they’re not doing it “the right way” or the way that is expected of them. Because, thing is, even when demiromantic people experience romantic attraction, it just isn’t the same as how allo people would experience it. There’s even a dedicated word to explain it, secondary attraction [wiki link] (Though this link is only for the sexual attraction aspect of it, but can be applied to romantic too).

Then we get along to Karkat’s hate-crush on John. I want to first point out that this crush kind of came out of... no where. I can see why people would see this and think of it like a counter-argument for my headcanon. But no, if anything, it HELPS me. Because, you see, I don’t know about you but I never really read Karkat’s crush on John as entirely sincere. It seemed forced a lot, like he was trying to make himself believe that he had a hate crush on John. Like. Can you seriously read this [page here] and think that it might not even be a LITTLE forced? You might be thinking “Why would he force a crush on John?” And I’ll remind you of what I screenshotted above. I’ll also add that entirely forcing crushes based on no genuine attraction because you get the feeling that’s what you’re “supposed” to do, or you have the complete wrong idea of what attraction actually feels like, is a very common experience with demisexuality and/or demiromanticism. I’ll also mention that later, Karkat got over the crush very quickly, and even seemed embarrassed about it [page here]. Again, I’d screenshot it, but it’s very long. Click on the link if you wanna see it for yourself.

This is not something we see in his crush with Terezi, where he gets jealous very quickly and keeps trying to make the romance between him and her happen.

I went to see if Hussie had at all commented on Karkat’s hate-crush on John, and I found this quote from the Homestuck books on [this page].

I think this doesn’t really confirm nor deny my theory, to be completely honest, but it is still an interesting perspective to his hate-crush on John. It’s at least evident that this wasn’t supposed to be an entirely serious crush, on Hussie’s part. It was almost entirely only there for laughs.

Then, we get onto the elephant in the room. Davekat. Do I even need to explain it? They canonically initially pissed each other the fuck off, they definitely would NOT have been attracted to each other back when they first met each other. Hopefully I don’t need to provide sources for that. People used to legitimately call it a crackship because the idea at the time was outlandish. Even characters WITHIN the story thought it was a surprise (see below screenshot). But, as they spent more time together, likely at least a year or so since they met, THAT’S when it starts getting hinted at that everything there might not be entirely platonic, with other people questioning exactly what is their relationship [an example here].

I’ll also mention that, unlike with Terezi and John, this is the first time we see Karkat not try to force any sort of attraction.

So, when we put this all together, we see a person who feels obligated to experience attraction in a certain way, and thus struggles a lot with it and even tries to force it most of the time, until he just let it happen naturally with Dave. Two out of three examples of when he seemed to be crushing on someone, it was after being close friends with them for awhile prior. The only time this wasn’t the case was in a situation where it could be reasonably assumed to be a completely fabricated crush.

I don’t know about you, but that seems like a very demi way to experience attraction.

#iron text #Karkat Vantas #Homestuck #So many words..... Idk how I did it HSDJGHSJKDGHK #I almost feel embarrassed over it

18 notes · View notes

shadowfromthestarlight · 3 years

Link

The moment a group of people stormed the Capitol building last Wednesday, news companies began the process of sorting and commoditizing information that long ago became standard in American media.

Media firms work backward. They first ask, “How does our target demographic want to understand what’s just unfolded?” Then they pick both the words and the facts they want to emphasize.

It’s why Fox News uses the term, “Pro-Trump protesters,” while New York and The Atlantic use “Insurrectionists.” It’s why conservative media today is stressing how Apple, Google, and Amazon shut down the “Free Speech” platform Parler over the weekend, while mainstream outlets are emphasizing a new round of potentially armed protests reportedly planned for January 19th or 20th.

What happened last Wednesday was the apotheosis of the Hate Inc. era, when this audience-first model became the primary means of communicating facts to the population. For a hundred reasons dating back to the mid-eighties, from the advent of the Internet to the development of the 24-hour news cycle to the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the Fox-led discovery that news can be sold as character-driven, episodic TV in the manner of soap operas, the concept of a “Just the facts” newscast designed to be consumed by everyone died out.

News companies now clean world events like whalers, using every part of the animal, funneling different facts to different consumers based upon calculations about what will bring back the biggest engagement kick. The Migrant Caravan? Fox slices off comments from a Homeland Security official describing most of the border-crossers as single adults coming for “economic reasons.” The New York Times counters by running a story about how the caravan was deployed as a political issue by a Trump White House staring at poor results in midterm elections.

Repeat this info-sifting process a few billion times and this is how we became, as none other than Mitch McConnell put it last week, a country:

Drifting apart into two separate tribes, with a separate set of facts and separate realities, with nothing in common except our hostility towards each other and mistrust for the few national institutions that we all still share.

The flaw in the system is that even the biggest news companies now operate under the assumption that at least half their potential audience isn’t listening. This leads to all sorts of problems, and the fact that the easiest way to keep your own demographic is to feed it negative stories about others is only the most obvious. On all sides, we now lean into inflammatory caricatures, because the financial incentives encourage it.

Everyone monetized Trump. The Fox wing surrendered to the Trump phenomenon from the start, abandoning its supposed fealty to “family values” from the Megyn Kelly incident on. Without a thought, Rupert Murdoch sacrificed the paper-thin veneer of pseudo-respectability Fox had always maintained up to a point (that point being the moment advertisers started to bail in horror, as they did with Glenn Beck). He reinvented Fox as a platform for Trump’s conspiratorial brand of cartoon populism, rather than let some more-Fox-than-Fox imitator like OAN sell the ads to Trump’s voters for four years.

In between its titillating quasi-porn headlines (“Lesbian Prison Gangs Waiting To Get Hands on Lindsay Lohan, Inmate Says” is one from years ago that stuck in my mind), Fox’s business model has long been based on scaring the crap out of aging Silent Majority viewers with a parade of anything-but-the-truth explanations for America’s decline. It villainized immigrants, Muslims, the new Black Panthers, environmentalists — anyone but ADM, Wal-Mart, Countrywide, JP Morgan Chase, and other sponsors of Fortress America. Donald Trump was one of the people who got hooked on Fox’s narrative.

The rival media ecosystem chose cash over truth also. It could have responded to the last election by looking harder at the tensions they didn’t see coming in Trump’s America, which might have meant a more intense examination of the problems that gave Trump his opening: the jobs that never came back after bankers and retailers decided to move them to unfree labor zones in places like China, the severe debt and addiction crises, the ridiculous contradiction of an expanding international military garrison manned by a population fast losing belief in the mission, etc., etc.

Instead, outlets like CNN and MSNBC took a Fox-like approach, downplaying issues in favor of shoving Trump’s agitating personality in the faces of audiences over and over, to the point where many people could no longer think about anything else. To juice ratings, the Trump story — which didn’t need the slightest exaggeration to be fantastic — was more or less constantly distorted.

Trump began to be described as a cause of America’s problems, rather than a symptom, and his followers, every last one, were demonized right along with him, in caricatures that tickled the urbane audiences of channels like CNN but made conservatives want to reach for something sharp. This technique was borrowed from Fox, which learned in the Bush years that you could boost ratings by selling audiences on the idea that their liberal neighbors were terrorist traitors. Such messaging worked better by far than bashing al-Qaeda, because this enemy was closer, making the hate more real.

I came into the news business convinced that the traditional “objective” style of reporting was boring, deceptive, and deserving of mockery. I used to laugh at the parade of “above the fray” columnists and stone-dull house editorials that took no position on anything and always ended, “Only one thing’s for sure: time will tell.” As a teenager I was struck by a passage in Tim Crouse’s book about the 1972 presidential campaign, The Boys in the Bus, describing the work of Hunter Thompson:

Thompson had the freedom to describe the campaign as he actually experienced it: the crummy hotels, the tedium of the press bus, the calculated lies of the press secretaries, the agony of writing about the campaign when it seemed dull and meaningless, the hopeless fatigue. When other reporters went home, their wives asked them, “What was it really like?” Thompson’s wife knew from reading his pieces.

What Rolling Stone did in giving a political reporter the freedom to write about the banalities of the system was revolutionary at the time. They also allowed their writer to be a sides-taker and a rooter, which seemed natural and appropriate because biases end up in media anyway. They were just hidden in the traditional dull “objective” format.

The problem is that the pendulum has swung so far in the opposite direction of politicized hot-taking that reporters now lack freedom in the opposite direction, i.e. the freedom to mitigate.

If you work in conservative media, you probably felt tremendous pressure all November to stay away from information suggesting Trump lost the election. If you work in the other ecosystem, you probably feel right now that even suggesting what happened last Wednesday was not a coup in the literal sense of the word (e.g. an attempt at seizing power with an actual chance of success) not only wouldn’t clear an editor, but might make you suspect in the eyes of co-workers, a potentially job-imperiling problem in this environment.

We need a new media channel, the press version of a third party, where those financial pressures to maintain audience are absent. Ideally, it would:

not be aligned with either Democrats or Republicans;

employ a Fairness Doctrine-inspired approach that discourages groupthink and requires at least occasional explorations of alternative points of view;

embrace a utilitarian mission stressing credibility over ratings, including by;

operating on a distribution model that as much as possible doesn’t depend upon the indulgence of Apple, Google, and Amazon.

Innovations like Substack are great for opinionated individual voices like me, but what’s desperately needed is an institutional reporting mechanism that has credibility with the whole population. That means a channel that sees its mission as something separate from politics, or at least as separate from politics as possible.

The media used to derive its institutional power from this perception of separateness. Politicians feared investigation by the news media precisely because they knew audiences perceived them as neutral arbiters.

Now there are no major commercial outlets not firmly associated with one or the other political party. Criticism of Republicans is as baked into New York Times coverage as the lambasting of Democrats is at Fox, and politicians don’t fear them as much because they know their constituents do not consider rival media sources credible. Probably, they don’t even read them. Echo chambers have limited utility in changing minds.

Media companies need to get out of the audience-stroking business, and by extension the politics business. They’d then be more likely to be believed when making pronouncements about elections or masks or anything else, for that matter. Creating that kind of outlet also has a much better shot of restoring sanity to the country than the current strategy, which seems based on stamping out access to “wrong” information.

What we’ve been watching for four years, and what we saw explode last week, is a paradox: a political and informational system that profits from division and conflict, and uses a factory-style process to stimulate it, but professes shock and horror when real conflict happens. It’s time to admit this is a failed system. You can’t sell hatred and seriously expect it to end.

Matt Taibbi is one of the only people I subscribe to. He’s one of the few journalists I like because I actually believe he’s genuine.

6 notes · View notes

wonder-cripple · 5 years

Text

Hey world, stop telling my disabled ass to go to war with itself!

I’ve been disabled all my life, and I can say with absolute certainty that being raised in a society that frames the very idea of disability as something to “be aware of” so that we can “fight against it” has been seriously detrimental to my mental health and sense of self-worth.

Encouraging millions of people to approach the life circumstances of disabled people within such an incredibly ableist paradigm comes with some very disturbing assumptions made about us and expectations set forth of us, arguably the most common of which stipulates that, in order for us to not only actively participate in and contribute to society, but to – God forbid – be happy doing so, WE must “fight”. WE must “overcome”. In essence, society tells us that we must resist our very nature in order to live truly fulfilling lives, because there is apparently no way on God’s green earth that we are “happy AND disabled”, not “happy DESPITE being disabled”.

And yet, curiously, while screaming this message in our befuddled faces, society simultaneously turns its back on us and exploits us. We’re told to “stop making excuses”, “quit faking” and “try harder” one minute, and used as the centerpiece of cringe worthy “inspirational” sob stories the next, because hey, how are you ever going to feel good about yourself if you don’t know that someone “has it worse than you” but is living life anyway, so what’s your excuse, buddy? Right?

So basically, we’re only allowed to be disabled when it somehow benefits the abled population. And even then, society refuses to take responsibility for disabling us by using person-first language and coming up with apologist-sounding terms like “differently abled”, “physically challenged” and “special needs” to excuse the fact that we wouldn’t HAVE needs that are considered “special”, or that you feel you need to make exceptions for, if this world had been designed with disabled people and their various (and varying) needs in mind.

These terms, as unassuming as they seem, are packed with a plethora of disconcerting implications. They tell me, a full-time wheelchair user who encounters a multitude of accessibility issues on an almost daily basis, that the problem is with me. They tell me that my inability to climb stairs, work with the physical manipulatives required for the psychological assessments that I administer, and toilet myself have nothing to do with the fact that the only stairclimbing wheelchair on the market right now sells at the price of a car, or that I will likely only have access to physical testing kits wherever I end up working unless I specifically request (and the place budgets for) digital ones, or that my cerebellum is nonfunctional. Instead, my difficulty completing these tasks exists because I’m lazy. Because I’m melodramatic. Because I don’t try. Because I make excuses. Because I’m supposed to be a fighter. A warrior, effectively fighting against myself, and I’m not fighting hard enough.

This is why I experience crippling anxiety. This is why I say “I’m sorry” so often, I actually annoy and frustrate people. This is why I’m borderline phobic when it comes to asking for help and often don’t, even when I desperately need it. Because awareness is not acceptance. Because people knowing about my disability has never rendered them cognizant of everything that it means, and willing to see it as anything other than a bad thing. A stain on my life.

For too long, that lack of acceptance extended to me and how I viewed my own disability. I pushed it away at every turn and distanced myself from it as much as was possible given its pervasive impact on my life. I did what society told me to and fought it with everything I had. I pretended it didn’t exist.

So what did that look like?

Well, I pissed myself in class in the fifth grade because I really had to pee and was too embarrassed to ask for help. I was so isolated and angry as a teenager that I basically bitched out everyone and lost all my friends, all because I thought my disability and subsequent lack of proficiency in adaptive skills was somehow my fault, and I hated myself for that. And when the time came to assess possible career paths as I was entering college, I convinced myself that I was going to be either a med student or a pharmacist, because what motor skill deficits? I don’t see any!

Perhaps what I am most ashamed of is that for the longest time, I was adamant that, once I figured out what I wanted to do, I wasn’t going to “box myself in” and work exclusively with disabled people, like everyone was suggesting based on my unique perspective. To be honest, that was a possibility that I was not only reluctant to consider, but actively avoiding in my mind.

It is the idea of acceptance that has changed my perception. The realization that fighting my core self is not only exhausting, but unnecessary, was the most liberating, enlightening eureka moment that someone in my position and with my mindset could have experienced. You wanna talk about a handicap? You wanna talk about disabling? Think about how disabling it is to feel like you MUST deny your most defining characteristic, and watch your very soul slowly suffocate under the crushing delusion that, in doing so, you will one day reach an impossible ideal. THAT, to me, is even more disabling than a flight of stairs, because it is a notion that has the capacity to negatively impact every single aspect of a person: mental, physical, emotional, spiritual, you name it. It breaks my heart to know that, if I had been guided towards acceptance as a child instead of consistently being encouraged to “push through” my circumstances, I would now be so much healthier in each of these respects.

Given this, I cannot even begin to expound upon how much it bothers me to see parents of disabled children calling their kids “[insert disability here] warriors”. In doing so, these children are expected to essentially come out of the womb battling themselves and wishing that an integral part of their existence would just disappear. As a disabled person and future psychologist, who once hit the rock bottom that I hope to God these kids won’t get to, I feel that I have a responsibility to advocate for acceptance, both personally and professionally, and I will.

Awareness is good. It’s a start. But it’s only half of the equation, and it’s time to move forward.

954 notes · View notes

firstumcschenectady · 3 years

Text

“God's Table Extended” based on Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-34

Rabbi Rafi Spitzer of congregation Agudat Achim in Niskayuna, led an amazing workshop this week entitled “People of the Library: An Introduction to Talmudic Literature and the Mythic Transmission of Jewish Tradition for Clergy of Other Faiths.” Schenectady Clergy Against Hate is a VERY cool organization, and I learned a lot.

Rabbi Spitzer talked about the roots of modern Rabbinic Judaism as emerging in the period after the destruction of the 2nd Temple (70-200 CE). This is the same period as the formation of most of the Christian texts. Jesus lived earlier, of course, but most scholars date the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, to 70 CE because it mentions the destruction of the Temple.

That is, both Modern Judaism and Christianity-As-We-Know-It (as a separate faith tradition) emerged after, and in the response to Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. It was in making sense of this horrific disaster that new expressions of God's ways in the world emerged.

This is particularly interesting to me because the Hebrew Bible was written down in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem and the First Temple in 587-586 BCE, when the Jewish leaders and scholars were sent into exile. The stories, of course, were much older, but they were written down then, and that means that they were written down with the question “why did this happen to us?” at the forefront.

That is, the Hebrew Bible gets written down and tries to make sense of death, destruction, and disaster. The majority of the “New Testament” gets written down and tries to make sense of death, destruction, and disaster, AND concurrently the Jewish Mishnah gets written down and tries to make sense of death, destruction, and disaster.

It seems to indicate our faith traditions are deeply rooted in trying to make sense of death, destruction, and disaster, or that God is up to new things when prior systems are destroyed, or that in trying to preserve what used to be we end up making new things possible, or that God can bring good even out of bad, or maybe all of the above.

In any case, I think it is interesting, and worth continuing to ponder. Especially now, when we have experienced death, destruction, and disaster, and are wondering what we and God will be up to next.

Our Hebrew Bible Lesson today from Jeremiah speaks lovingly of the “new covenant” between God and the people. This is such a foundational idea in Christianity that we may not know that this passage is the ONLY time such an idea emerges in the Hebrew Bible.

“Foundational,” you say, “why?” Think of the words “old testament” and “new testament” and remember that testament is a synonymous with covenant here. This is how some people made sense of the whole Christian tradition. That said, there are far too many who take these words to mean that the Hebrew Bible is old, or outdated, or replaced, and that is problematic. We intentionally use the words “Hebrew Bible” to recognize our shared biblical tradition.

Anyway, back to Jeremiah. Jeremiah is a prophet of the exile, and for much of the book Jeremiah warns of the dangers of the impending exile. However, once the exile happens, Jeremiah's tone changes, and he turns to comfort and hope. This passage is part of that, promising a return to God's promises and relationships. The promise is particularly full, as it speaks to both the northern and southern kingdoms, the wholeness of Ancient Israel. It is also full in that the new covenant will not be dependent on the people's faithfulness. God will take care of it.

“I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, "Know the LORD," for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:33b-34, NRSV)

It is a lovely vision, in some ways the ultimate comfort: a relationship with God one can't mess up.

The Christian church has claimed this covenant as their own. Take these words from our communion liturgy, “By the baptism of his suffering, death, and resurrection you gave birth to your church, delivered us from slavery to sin and death, and made with us a new covenant by water and the Spirit.” (UM Hymnal, page 9).

I have some deeply mixed feelings about this claim. On the one hand, it fits with my assumption that our status as beloveds of God is based on the nature of God (grace) and not on our performance. On the other hand, it seems rather profoundly to miss out on the idea that God wants us to take care of each other, and that our actions matter in the building of the kindom.

Or maybe I'm exaggerating. After all, Jeremiah's idea isn't that the people ignore God's wishes. Rather it is that they know God and God's grace so well that it is inherent in them and they live it out naturally. (I have mixed feelings about this too – in that it is lovely, but simply not true of Christians I know.)

In 1 Corinthians we read the first historical record of communion. Paul had planted the church in Corinth but had been away for a few years. In the first century CE the communion meal was a full common meal (think potluck) during which the last supper was remembered. Apparently in the time after Paul left things had gone off kilter a bit. According to Marcus Borg:

the wealthy (who didn't have to work) would gather early for the meal. By the time the people who worked (most of the community) got to the meal, the wealthy had already eaten and some were tipsy. They may also have served the best food and the best wine to themselves before the others arrived. Such was common among the wealthy of the world. For Paul this violated the 'one body' understanding of the body of Christ. It meant bringing hierarchical distinctions of 'this world' into the body of Christ.1

Borg goes on to explain the later threat to those who eat and drink and an “unworthy manner”. “In this context, eating and drinking the bread and wine 'in an unworthy manner' refers to the behavior of the wealthy in perpetuating the divisions of 'this world.' In Christian communities, these divisions were abolished.”2

How quickly the early church struggled with the equality and equity of God's kindom! How hard it is to let go of hierarchy and let love for all be the way decisions are made. How familiar that is. Those of us who are white have been trained in mostly subconscious ways that we are at the top of a hierarchy, and when left to our own devices we will re-create systems that put our needs at the top while telling ourselves it is OK. Like the wealthy Corinthians might have said, “We told them it started at 4, but they don't make it until 5:20. Why should we have to wait when we TOLD THEM what time it started?” Or when a white person takes their own shame, guilt, anger, or aggression as a reason to violate, harm, or kill people of color. Or even in the tiny little micro-aggressions of every day, related to who gets heard, who gets believed, who is expected to be soothing, who is expected to sooth, and whose pain matters.

It took Paul saying, “don't violate God's table like that” for it to be heard. But I'm guessing that the reason he knew it was happening was because the impoverished members of the community had been saying so for quite some time, and finally tried a new way of getting their needs heard. I am hearing from Asian and Asian American friends and colleagues that violence against Asians and Asian Americans has been a regular part of their lives in the United States all along, and has been FAR worse for the past year +. I am also hearing exhaustion and horror that a white man used his own shame as motivation for mass murder, mostly of Asian women.

And let me say, because it MUST BE SAID, that a person doing sex work does not IN ANY WAY change their human value, nor make it permissible to harm that person. Indeed, most people who support themselves with sex work are people who exist in the most vulnerable positions of our society, and as such are worthy of the most care and support to counterbalance the harm they've lived.

The Children and Youth of the Church have been working this Lent to support a Lenten project to respond to hunger. They have invited us to collect one canned good or nonperishables a week to donate to the SICM food pantry. We are invited to bring those gifts this coming Saturday (March 27 for those watching this NOT on Sunday) at the flower sale. Those tangible gifts serve as a reminder of other people's tangible needs. It is also possible to make a donation to SICM through our website or by check, knowing that SICM can buy food at the Regional Food Bank at a very discounted rate.

That is to say, that as we prepare God's Communion Table for ourselves today, given Paul's admonitions, it might be a good time to be sure that as we receive God's gifts of grace, life, and hope, we extend the table as we are able. Or, perhaps this is time for gifts to Patty's place. Patty's Place is an outreach-based service for women at-risk, exploited, or involved in sex work. They provide immediate resources and long-term referrals.

I'm less than sure we're embodying Jeremiah's new covenant, but I am entirely sure that the part that says that God is with us, in our hearts, and claiming us as beloveds is true. And I'm sure that we have wonderful ways to respond to God's love – with love, even, ESPECIALLY in the midst of disaster. Let's do it! Amen

1Marcus J Borg, 59 Evolution of the Word: The New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written (United States of America: HarperOne, 2012), 59.

2Ibid.

Rev. Sara E. Baron First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 Pronouns: she/her/hers http://fumcschenectady.org/ https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

March 21, 20201

#Schenectady Clergy Against Hate #Progressive Christianity #Thinking Church #Interfaith Dialouge #UMC #Sorry about the UMC world #Schenectady #Rev Sara E Baron #jeremiah #Prophet of the Exile #Rabbi Rafi Spitzer #End White Supremacy #Sex workers are workers #New Covenant

3 notes · View notes

catatonicengineers · 4 years

Text

A Defense of Cait Sith

Plushie Princess Saga:

A Hundred Ways to Put the WRO Back Together

A Hundred Ways to Wreck Shinra HQ

Reeve’s Adventures in Babysitting and World Saving:

And Take a Stand at Shinra

While There’s Still Time

On Plushies and Oppenheimer:

A Defense of Cait Sith

“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most people were silent.” - J. Robert Oppenheimer

I was eight-years-old when I played Final Fantasy VII for the first time, exactly one year after its release. Like many 90’s gamers, FFVII was a turning point into the world of RPG’s from which I’ve yet to recover. Kids today will never understand the coming of age that occurred somewhere between Yoshi’s Island and grappling with the ethos of Avalanche blowing Sector 1’s reactor sky high. It’s no surprise that my 3rdgrade brain found an essence of familiarity to cling to amid the existential dread and ecoterrorism that was the greatest game ever made.

Cait Sith was the cute, cuddly party member that validated my love of cats and ignited my adoration for moogles. I would relentlessly make room for him in my party, despite his terrible combat stats, and hurl endless Phoenix Downs every time he fell.

He was quirky, he fought with a megaphone, his limit breaks were oddly sparse compared to the rest of the cast, and his home base of Gold Saucer looked like a unicorn threw up all over a casino. What’s not to love?

According to recent Reddit threads, Youtube comments, and rage bloggers, apparently a lot.

The advent of the long awaited FFVII remake rightfully caused a massive revival of the excitement first felt by long time fans of the franchise. The release date has been confirmed for March 3, 2020 – two days before my 30thbirthday. Not gonna lie; feels like the universe aligned to bless the official passing of my youth with this nostalgia bomb.

It’s with this love of all things FFVII in mind that I’d like to formally pose a defense of the game’s most hated character.

Cait Sith/Reeve, this one’s for you.

The Laughter

We first meet the lively, dancing robo-moogle and cat combo in Gold Saucer and we’re not quite sure if this strange entity should count as one party member or two. Either way, he joins your crew as the quintessential comic relief with nary a backstory in sight. That’s right; you are now the proud owner of Cait Sith. A “fortune teller” by trade, Cait Sith’s motivations remain as murky as your party’s future.

At first glance, it’s easy to pass Cait Sith off as a filler character, the cute one added for giggles. The one the writers never bothered to flesh out because, let’s face it, that moogle is mostly fluff anyway. The “most useless character” title isn’t entirely unjustified.

If this was where Cait Sith’s story ended.

I still remember the day my older brother announced that he’d read ahead in the player’s guide (this used to be a thing, kids) and discovered Cait Sith was a Shinra spy. I’m pretty sure I went through all the stages of grief before settling on denial and assuming he was playing a joke on me. Surely, my favorite slot machine loving companion couldn’t be a traitor.

Enter Reeve Tuesti, the man behind the moogle. He’s the head of Urban Development at Shinra Electric Power Company. He wears a signature blue suit to work everyday. He hates board meetings. He’s not fond of his coworkers. Like Tifa, he’s an introvert. And he’s the guy who engineered the Mako reactors.

If Hojo is Dr. Frankenstein, Reeve is Oppenheimer. The tragedy of the monsters we create is always greater when it’s a monster we loved. Where the other Shinra execs are motivated by greed, power, and a desire to play God, Reeve is the only Shinra higher up we encounter with genuine empathy and a sense of advocacy for the people. It’s easy to assume that Mako reactors would improve lives, but as Marlene so eloquently asks, “isn’t that because we were taking away from the planet’s life?”

When faced with the guilt of a design gone horribly wrong, those in authority have two choices; own the guilt or double down. And Reeve doubles down.

I’ve never been a fan of the way modern RPG’s have everything clearly spelled out and spoon fed to the gamer. The reason we don’t need further backstory for Reeve is because his character arc is already apparent if we do a bit of digging. I was surprised to learn that the common conjecture behind the exact mechanics of Cait Sith involved him being a remote controlled, autonomous but non-sentient robot. Given that assumption, it’s fair to say that Cait Sith is a worthless character who lacks emotion or consequence.

One opinion I’ve seen trending is why not simply make Reeve join the party, sans the giant stuffed animal? After all, we’d get to see how he grapples with his role in Shinra and eventual betrayal of Avalanche.

Two words; cognitive dissonance. You have to question what kind of 35-year-old executive creates a plushie cat proxy to begin with. See I’ve never thought of Reeve and Cait Sith as separate. The gritty psychological mechanics that are Reeve have always been there, plush or human. Reeve has developed an alter that’s effectively a form of escape. The assertion that Cait Sith lacks consequence isn’t false – a robot carries out its duty, incapable of harboring guilt, blame, or moral repercussion. That’s a pretty darn good way to remain detached enough to stab your party members in the back!

Cait Sith is also an outlet for everything Reeve’s repressed executive life lacks. As Cait Sith, he’s silly and carefree, though not completely unfamiliar. Glimpses of Cait Sith’s witty quips are echoed in Reeve’s mock nicknames for his colleagues – “Kyahaha” and “Gyahaha” respectively. When life is tough to take, we laugh so we don’t scream.

Plus, the idea of Reeve controlling Cait Sith in real time, much like an MMORPG avatar, is just plain hilarious. I’ve always imagined him as the kind of guy who rolls up to his 9-5 office job, pops open a spreadsheet to look busy, and boots up Cait Sith in the other tab. He’s the OG Aggretsuko, the guy making Jim Halpert faces at the camera every Shinra board meeting.

And I get you, Reeve. Really, I do.

The Tears

Cait Sith’s sacrifice was a cop out for killing off a real character. Why didn’t Reeve just die instead of the plushie?

First of all, how dare you.

Second, not all deaths need be literal.

A pervading theme throughout FFVII is the concept of identity. Are we born into an existence we have no control over or can we choose who we are day by day? It’s easy to want to be someone else, the First Class Soldier who sweeps in, keeps his promise, and saves the girl. Our reality is often less of a fairy tale and riddled with our own failures.

By the time the party reaches The Temple of the Ancients, the line where Cait Sith ends and Reeve begins is blurring. Reeve speaks more often as “himself” through the plushie and the nuances in their speech and mannerism are blending. It’s no accident that this shift happens as Reeve becomes more at ease around Avalanche, ultimately switching sides.

I’ve heard a lot of criticism on the seeming lack of motivation to Reeve’s redemption. If we examine the cognitive dissonance theory that governs his character, the switch is far less sudden.

Cait Sith’s death is necessitated by Reeve’s accountability. The innocent plushie alter isn’t working anymore. It’s not enough to keep him from recognizing the horrors he’s been complicit to. Sacrificing this part of himself is the ultimate acknowledgment of culpability. It’s arguably a more important death than if Reeve actually martyred himself. Like Cloud, he no longer needs to be “someone else” and has started down the path of doing what only he, and not Cait Sith, can; stopping Shinra.

There will be more wonderful, fluffy moogle-cat plushies, but the need to disassociate completely is gone. He’ll confront whatever comes without a crutch – or in this case a teddy bear. Reeve reminisces that the original doll was “special” and we end with Cait Sith reminding him(self) not to forget this.

The Silence

In 1953, J. Robert Oppenheimer was denied all security clearance and effectively blacklisted by the McCarthy administration for his strong opposition to nuclear warfare.

Sometimes we find ourselves in a place we never hoped or expected to be in, surrounded by people we despise, and convinced the world is going straight to heck. We can either get out of dodge or stay.

If Reeve had indeed sacrificed himself rather than Cait Sith, this would simply have been yet another escape. He stays. He works. He gets Marlene and Elmyra out of Midgar. He spies on Shinra. He finally tells Gyahaha to stick it. He goes on to head the WRO and never stops advocating for the people.

Reeve’s not a fighter. He can barely get by with a handgun in Dirge of Cerberus and Cait Sith’s megaphone is no Masamune. Despite this, he takes a big risk by being the only insider on the team. We’re pretty sure Shinra doesn’t share Reeve’s opposition to capital punishment either.

Maybe this is why I’ve always loved Cait Sith/Reeve. I’m intrigued to see if Square Enix will add any further insight into our favorite plush moogle-cat-spy, but if they don’t, that’s alright too. Cait Sith is still a pretty solid character. After my brother spoiled one of the game’s major plot twists for me, I ended up reading the player’s guide for myself. And he was right. But he was also wrong. I recall marching proudly into the living room to declare that while yes, Cait Sith was a traitor, he was also a hero.

So fight your fight. Fail and fall. Hurl some Phoenix Downs and get right back up again.

#ffvii #ff7 #reeve tuesti #shinra #cait sith #.txt

104 notes · View notes

arecomicsevengood · 4 years

Text

A PANEGYRIC TO THE THINGS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND

I generally don’t talk about why I write criticism; I presume no one cares. The core of my contrarianism rests on the fact that many of the things I dislike or have an aversion to I think the market is set up to reward. This holds true both for what I write about and how I choose to write about it. I’m not writing about all these Drawn And Quarterly books that seem like novelty gag gifts for people who don’t actually like comics. I’m not writing about simplistic YA material put out by major publishing houses. I’m not reading superhero trademark maintenance. To me it feels like pre-chewed food I see and know to avoid. I’m also pretty put off by work that’s self-consciously “lowbrow,” but to that stuff’s credit, I don’t think it’s particularly popular. It just seems to fit into larger trends of what’s readily digestible, due to its own willingness to dismiss itself.

When it comes to criticism, I read a fair amount of other people’s writing, and collate a list of ways I don’t want to write that coincide with what I hate to read. I don’t want to read anything that’s “personal” in a way that takes the general premise of the existence of a book as an excuse for a narcissist to talk about themselves. Still, it seems like people love that. It is essentially the lingua franca for a whole type of websites, to have writers leverage their identity or trauma for the sake of hot takes. Even if no one gets paid particularly well, there is a reward in the economy of attention. People also really like writing that praises things that are already popular, because they want to be given permission to like the things they like, but no one needs that. People also like dismissive takes based around incredibly shallow surface-level impressions of something that then becomes this shorthand “common knowledge.” if you say “Chris Ware’s boring” or “Rob Liefeld can’t draw feet” there will be no shortage of people chiming up in the comments to say the same thing. People love to be given permission to not have to think about things, and while I understand that impulse completely, I’m too far gone down the hole of obsessiveness to play along.

I wish I could say all that I dislike falls into one of a fixed number of categories, but in actuality, I am all too often reading writing that makes me ask “why won’t you just shut the fuck up?” or exclaim “jesus, this is so depressing!” and it seems new ways to garner these reactions are continually being manufactured, though in general, the innovations in this area are being done in the more lucrative world of music writing. Still, many of the things I wish to avoid have been done by writers I absolutely admire, partly because they’re more prolific I am, and so can’t allow themselves the luxury of overthinking what they’re doing for the sake of avoiding trends. (I also try to avoid writing stuff that’s just plain stupid and offensive, but lord knows that gets hate-clicks, and hate-clicks are as valued as any.)

I try to engage the work that’s on the page. The best work encourages a multiplicity of readings, I write a lot with the implicit assumption that the framework I’m bringing to bear might be wrong. I believe the work that has the most ideas present inside it will be conflicted enough in depicting multiple ideas simultaneously that it doesn’t encourage a straightforward and easy read. I relate it to the paradox that the most interesting people are those who don’t talk about themselves, but ask questions of others. Presumably, those who are disinterested in others don’t interrogate themselves in their moments alone.

I might be being reductive. So many of my own thoughts might be overly simplistic, a set of half-thought-through opinions designed to arrive at a place of dismissal so I can move on. I spend a lot of time thinking about the sort of creator-owned genre comics Image traffics in these days, because I have zero interest in them, and they don’t seem appealing at all. They don’t come close to my idea of good. I generally object to the way contemporary comics are colored, but I think the issues run deeper than that. The line generally used in reference to them is to call them movie-pitch comics. But is that why they’re bad? I don’t know. Maybe the issue is just the way their writing stands in relationship to economy, where a single issue is not a satisfying story. Maybe superhero comics work better than that stuff because there’s an explicit formula established doing the heavy lifting, and if you are doing something more “high-concept” you need to spend more time with exposition and can’t just defer to the visuals of a fight scene that superhero comics demand. I don’t know! Any answer to the question of why things don’t work is going to end up with some broad statements, because the act of artmaking involves an incalculable amount of choices, any number of which could balance out or redeem any of the others. It’s almost surprising that the history of comics isn’t littered with works that were concerned failures at the time of their release but seem prescient in their storytelling choices now.

I want to write about work that is interesting to think about. What’s interesting to think about is that which I don’t understand. Obviously, writing is an attempt to make sense of something, and much of what I write about then becomes something I understand, or at least, have a take on. But I still want to engage, in some sort of honest way, the work I don’t understand, that short-circuits my brain.

A good example of something I don’t really understand is Stella Murphy’s comic Hometime, which I ordered from Domino Books. It’s a collection of single-panel gag cartoons, kinda? Every page is meant to be taken as its own entity. It’s printed and red and yellow, it feels eye-searingly bright. There’s dialogue balloons, not captions. The visual language sort of seems like it comes from underground comics, of the way underground comics relate to older cartoon styles. I’m saying all of these things like they’re sentences but if I were speaking to you there would be no hint of certainty in my voice. Another paradox: I often feel like I don’t have the language to describe what images in a comic look like unless I have an idea of what the narrative is doing. Maybe these gags feel like they work because they’re incredibly economical in their subversion of the expectation one comes to gag cartoons with. That almost seems too simplistic an explanation to count. I’m sure, if you haven’t read Murphy’s cartoons and grappled with them, that sort of conclusion seems like I’m saying literally nothing.

I’ve been reading Krazy Kat again. It’s interesting that that’s a strip which is notably formulaic, but also is all about subverting that formula or having it play out differently or avoid it altogether. It seems pretty agreed upon that the key to successful comics writing is to have a degree of economy in terms of the words on the page. This allows the images to carry their weight, but images themselves have their own weight of meaning that’s accrued over time. Think about being born on this Earth, and all of the acclimation to one’s surroundings that occurs concurrently with the acquisition of language. Talking with a computer programmer friend, his stance on writing code was, the easier it is for you, the less lines you have to write, the more code has been written by other people before you that you’re relying on. So many of the best comics are consciously written with an awareness of expectations that are then subverted. I don’t know. Generally the argument I make, when talking about “experimental” work, is to contrast it with “formulaic” work. This is my way of asserting the obvious superiority of the former. But maybe this is wrong, and the best and most effective comics, including the ones I’m labeling “experimental,” nonetheless have a formula they’re playing with? Because the truth of the matter is my use of scientific language is a pose premised on my not actually understanding math.

I imagine that a normal person wouldn’t understand why anyone would feel compelled to write comics criticism in the first place. For all the shame I feel about the fact that this is what I’m doing, I’m proud to say I don’t know what my fucking deal is.

7 notes · View notes