It still amazes me the number of people who see the juxtaposition between Nami and Usopp during Wano and their fight against Ulti as "Nami's devotion to Luffy is unmatched, unlike Usopp's" when she isn't able to say he won't be the king of the pirates but Usopp is telling her to lie.
I think most people don't have in mind, either, that Usopp isn't the one being directly asked. He is looking out for Nami and begging her to lie to keep her alive because he is scared to death they might lose her for something as insignificant as lying. For him, lying is a form of survival and it is not that big of a deal because he trusts Luffy enough to tell Nami to lie about her feelings. It is something that will only stay between them because he knows it is better to lie than to die and Luffy would want it that way too.
And that doesn't mean he isn't loyal to Luffy or his dream. He is just looking out for Nami's safety. And as I said-- He isn't being asked directly, either. It is easier to tell others to lie about something of the sort than to do it yourself, and if the roles were reversed I personally think he'd have the most awful of times with it too.
Nami refuses to say Luffy won't become the king of the pirates because for her, even if lying has gotten her out of messes, she puts her trust and loyalty in Luffy before her own instincts of survival because lying is what got her to push them away when they first met and this is the one thing she can't lie about because it would hurt more than death.
Then again, I think she would do the same exact thing Usopp did if she wasn't being the one asked. It is the whole point of the scene, actually. They both know the most rational thing is to lie so the one witnessing the scene will always be cold-headed about it, but the one having to lie is the one suffering the bitter realization of how lying about this and saying it out loud is way harder than it seems from an outsider's perspective.
So I am tired of seeing people criticizing Usopp for his decision during the fight against Ulti as if it were that easy for him to see Nami being about to get killed if she doesn't lie. Sorry for the guy to actually want to protect the people he loves instead of letting her be reckless and basically kill herself freely for telling a truth even Luffy would tell her to lie about if it meant living.
141 notes
·
View notes
This is an analysis of Kaveh and Alhaitham’s argument posted on the Port Ormos bulletin board!! Because it is crazy actually!!
I think this exchange of theirs out of the three posted throughout Sumeru is particularly interesting, and this is due Alhaitham openly expressing that Kaveh does not understand what Alhaitham is really trying to say to him: “I have never denied what you meant, but you don’t understand what I am saying to you at all.”
This exchange is relevant in various ways in exploring the motif of communication. As according to their usual rapport, the two disagree over their differing philosophies, as in sensibility versus rationality, however, Alhaitham’s particular concerns in Kaveh spending his money on “nonsense” highlights the underlying reason for this exchange. From this comment, the argument is recontextualised through Alhaitham’s intention for getting involved, as Kaveh prompts the workmen to take his money in order to help them out.
When Alhaitham states that this is a meaningless action due to the inevitability of people rising or falling on their own accord, rather than solely critiquing Kaveh’s “impulsiv[e]” altruism, as Kaveh interprets, Alhaitham is directly contradicting his own comment – as he is interfering on Kaveh’s decisions.
As concern is evidently the intention behind his interference, Kaveh cannot perceive this, and instead attempts to critique Alhaitham’s perspective in return, although Alhaitham states: “Make no mistake. I have never denied what you meant…” This response asserts that Alhaitham does not deny, but rather agrees with, Kaveh’s statement of “mutual assistance, fairness, and righteous anger” driving the world.
In lieu of this, rather than continuing the argument, Alhaitham claims that there is no point to it, as Kaveh does not understand what he is saying, as in, Kaveh does not understand that his intentions in interfering are out of concern. He follows this up, regardless, by criticising Kaveh’s handling of his budget, as, evidently, Kaveh has offered to give his own money to these workmen, and refuses to pay for Kaveh’s drinks for that month.
For Alhaitham, Kaveh’s lack of self-prioritisation leads him to impulsive altruistic acts which serve to jeopardise his own position, particularly regarding money. If Kaveh can afford to give away money, he can afford to pay his own tabs, is the takeaway from this exchange. Although, similarly to the exchange between them posted in Puspa’s Café, this applies to one particular month, insinuating that Alhaitham will continue to pay for next month’s tabs of his own accord.
The main argument, as well as the disagreement over the speaker of Kaveh’s quote, serves as a humorous exchange, but as a motif for communication it acquires a new meaning. The two hold perspectives which contrast the other which puts them on unequal footing, demonstrated within the argument over the speaker of Kaveh’s quote. Although it is not disclosed who is actually in the right, both are convinced of their respective viewpoint. There is an element missing here, a potential solution to this problem, and it lies within the idea of “correctness” established within A Parade of Providence.
The omission of there being an objective, correct answer to this particular debate serves as a parallel to their conflicting viewpoints, with the basis of their exchange being to “prove” to the other their “correctness” – here, it is in regard to Kaveh.
However, “correctness” being the basis of their exchange, and thus, relationship, is challenged with Alhaitham shutting down the initial debate due to Kaveh’s misunderstanding of his meaning. Correctness, then, and its importance, is called into question within this exchange, with Kaveh being the one to chase it; his last message being that he would “prove” himself to be right.
At the core of this bulletin board exchange is the idea that Alhaitham harbours an alternative ‘meaning’ than the one that Kaveh assigns to him: “… you don’t understand what I’m saying to you at all.” This is a meaning which Kaveh cannot perceive due to his current understanding of Alhaitham. This represents the standing of their current relationship, where Kaveh believes Alhaitham holds him in disdain, although this belief is incongruous with Alhaitham’s actions which show his care for Kaveh.
In these instances of communication through the Bulletin Boards, it is interesting to note that Kaveh is revealed to have been drunk and “scribbling” on these notice boards, and hopes that Alhaitham does not know.
Although this is a humorous detail, it adds another layer to the unreliability of their method of communication, as Kaveh has no recollection of these exchanges with Alhaitham, and therefore could not have properly interpreted Alhaitham due to an altered state of mind. It is uncertain whether Alhaitham is aware of Kaveh’s being drunk whilst responding to him, or whether he is believed to have been lucid, which creates another element of unreliability in their exchanges.
Alhaitham understands Kaveh’s thinking and the reasons for why he acts as he does, but he cannot articulate his concern in a way that Kaveh will understand, both out of Kaveh’s incapability of receiving goodwill, but also due to his logical manner of expression. Kaveh perceives Alhaitham’s concealed expressions of concern as personal gripes and criticisms of his beliefs, and therefore believes that their relationship is based on the scholarly principle of proving the validity of one’s philosophies.
The Port Ormos Bulletin Board reinforces the core essence of their relationship: Alhaitham is invested in a personal regard, whereas Kaveh cannot see this due to his perception of Alhaitham and Alhaitham’s inability to communicate in a way Kaveh would understand.
(Update: For more analyses like this, the essay this is taken from is now uploaded! It can be accessed here and here as as a pdf <3)
177 notes
·
View notes
so. i rewatched everything everywhere all at once a few nights ago. and upon my rewatch i was struck by the scene where evelyn embraces nihilism across the multiverse—signing the divorce papers, revealing racaccoonie, turning away deirdre, breaking the window in the laundromat, though im not sure it was in that order—and how it shows that choosing to believe that nothing truly matters actively ruins your life and the lives around you. like, okay, whatever, nothing has any meaning and in the grand scheme of the universe, the consequences of your actions are never going to ripple out and affect the cosmos in a way that truly matters. but your choices don't have to have that kind of massive effect for them to matter at all. does the universe care that evelyn did all those things? not particularly. but look at waymond's face when she signs those papers. the way chad cried when she separated him from racaccoonie. deirde's reaction to the rejection of such a sincere display of affection. that's what matters. it's only when evelyn decides to go back and show that she cares about other people, by helping them or just being kind to them, that anyone's lives can be improved.
8K notes
·
View notes
You know I think you guys might be on to something when you call Sam woman coded cause - genuinely - how do you, as writers of a show, be so misogynistic as to not include any female characters asides from damsels and hookups (specifically referring to the early seasons), and yet need so desperately to have a outlet for macho masculine patriarchy power dynamics that you have an adult male character experience misogyny?? How do you mess up that badly??
It's like, although they thought that putting female characters in the narrative other than to exist as sexy distressed lamps wouldn't appeal to the true blooded 2000s American audience. But yet it was completely necessary for there to be a bottom rung in the masculinity pyramid because - well how else can we as a society function!!
Anyway, ik reading too far into things is my special talent, and in most circumstances all of this stuff is just a joke in the show but wow they really had Dean poking fun of any of Sam's characteristics that don't fit into this Hyper True Blooded American Masculinity ideology as a butt of jokes for 15 years. The fact that he has longer hair, that he cares about his hair, that he's tidy, that he likes salads and isn't a big meat eater, that he's sympathetic, that he's a bitch. And of course these are just silly little jabs that Dean makes in sibling-like fashion but like wow 15 years. Damn.
And of course it's not only this that leads to the rather odd interpretation of a woman-coded Sam, but also the way he is treated directly by the narrative. Like, for example, being the family's possession, rather than an equal member. Dean has seen it as his job to look out for his little brother since he pulled him from the fire and the wellbeing of this infant was thrown onto his shoulders at age 4, and this has created a lot of ricocheting effects on both of them. This isn't to say that Dean doesn't love, care, respect, and value Sam, but it does mean that sometimes he treats him like a possession rather than a person. He makes a lot of crazy decisions in the show that he justifies as being for Sam's own good, even if it goes directly against Sam's wishes. After Sam leaves a note to Dean telling him he's going out for a bit to handle a case, Dean weasels his way in, not trusting him to handle it due to the mental issues Sam is facing at the time, and kills Amy, despite Sam begging him not to. Even though Dean knows Sam would never consent to an angle possessing him, he tricks him into it anyway. He does these things, and many others because he believes that he is acting in Sam's best interests, totally disregarding the fact that Sam has capacity to make judgements and handle the consequences himself, even going so far as to oppose what he directly knows or Sam tells him he wants.
Then of course there is the fact that the fear integral to his character - a loss of autonomy (bodily autonomy, but also autonomy to make his own decisions about his future, to be good, to be pure and faithful), is an explicitly feminine one. Then there is the strong subtext in his story of SA themes, I think in s4 a demon even refers to Sam as a 'whore' or that he's 'whoring it up' (with respect to Ruby), and the interesting prevalent idea of Sam questioning or going against the ideals/ideology of the masculine figure head (which would be Dean I guess) and getting punished for it. Sam suggests that maybe they take a more humanitarian approach with the cow blood drinking vampires in s2 and Dean punches him, Sam tries to get him to talk about their Dad and Dean punches him, Sam tries to get him to talk about Lisa and Ben and Dean punches him, Sam gets caught simply using his abilities and Dean punches him - twice. I think you get the picture.
Anyway. This post comes off as rather critical of Dean, which wasn't really my intention. It's more sort of a broader criticism of the rampant sexism that had its part in shaping the show - being one to come out of the early 2000s. Ideas such as this - you could really go on for hours as its fascinating how ideological frameworks are presented certain ways in media - and the way masculine and feminine social dynamics, to list only one, is presented in supernatural is definitely a can of worms.
214 notes
·
View notes
Keep scrolling if you blame Spider
Spider, who is literally still a child by human standards.
Spider, who never gave away Jake's or the Omatikaya's location.
Spider, who cares about the Sullys' safety over his own.
Spider, who didn't want any blood on his hands or a guilty conscience if he left someone to die.
Spider, who just didn't want anyone else to get hurt.
Spider, who never betrayed the Na'vi (unlike Jake but hey, who's counting that, right?)
Spider, who had to fend for himself to survive the toughest events because he didn't have an adult who would tear the world apart for him like the Sully children do.
Spider, who loves Pandora and Eywa.
Spider, who just wanted to be one of Her children because he never knew what it was like for a mother to love him.
Spider, who probably understands Eywa's whole "balance of life" meaning more than others.
Spider, who already lost Neteyam but he couldn't afford to lose anyone else in his life, no matter how terrible they are as a person.
Spider, who helped Jake save Kiri and Tuk when everyone else was still too shocked to move.
Spider, who chose mercy over violence/death.
Spider, who did what he could to survive (I'd like to see how YOU would react under such pressure. It all seems obvious and easy watching from the other side of the screen, right?)
Spider, who was likely being misled, brainwashed, and gaslit by the Recoms.
Spider, who is clearly a victim but hey, let's blame him for simply being a decent human being, right?
Spider, who likely thought he owed Quaritch after he saved him from being tortured.
Spider, who likely thought he owed Quaritch for giving him life.
Spider, who just wanted a father who was proud of him.
Spider, who has been clearly neglected by the heroes (Jake and Neytiri) but doesn't openly or verbally blame them.
Spider, who doesn't purposely threaten children's lives like Quaritch and Neytiri do.
Spider, who just wanted to be one of the People.
Spider, who wouldn't have made those difficult choices had he been properly loved and raised.
Spider, who is as easy to blame as Lo'ak for endangering the people they love (but again, no one's counting, right?)
Spider, who is clearly not a villain, just misunderstood.
Spider, who wasn't raised by the village but didn't burn it down to feel its warmth because he's not petty, not vindictive, not evil, and not a killer.
Spider, who is. A. Child.
193 notes
·
View notes