#there’s obviously others kind of mischaracterization but this is one of the most prominent ones

[sasukeless]

a lot of mischaracterization in fandom can be traces to how people want a ship to be but since they dont fit those tropes people need to rearrange how the characters actually are

#there’s obviously others kind of mischaracterization but this is one of the most prominent ones #almost every naruto characters suffer from this #but also u can see it everywhere else i mean look at kl*nce #phenomenon #mine

[seventhdoctor]

Third Eyes, Dragon Surgery, and Other Past Life Worldbuilding

Need is kind of a mix of my GX past-life headcanons and theories with a few what-ifs thrown in, and unfortunately Yubel's singular focus communicates less about the setting and its details than I'd like. The Dragoning in Chapter 3 (which I'm about to post right now) is...intentionally very vaguely described, given that Yubel is not able to or focused on observing their own transformation, but I thought I'd add more details about it (and compile some other worldbuilding bits) here in case anyone was curious.

Topics include: Yubel's family, the microaggression Yubel totally failed to notice in Chapter 2 of Need, the significance of Yubel's gem, and of course what's involved in Becoming Dragon.

Obvious disclaimer: This should go without saying, but this post is a mix of personal headcanon and lore conceived specifically for this one fic. I'm not saying any of this is actual canon to 2004-2008 anime Yugioh GX. Please don't mischaracterize this post as saying things about canon.

Yubel's family

Yubel is the youngest of five children, born to the Ruby Kingdom's royal librarian (Yubel's father) and a religious scholar from the Cobalt Lands (Yubel's mother). From oldest to youngest, their siblings are: Liese, Aenor and Ansoald (twins), Erneis, and of course Yubel themself.

Nearly everyone in the family is an academic of some kind. Yubel and Liese are the family jocks, although they still make an effort for their studies thanks to their upraising.

Cobalt And Ruby

The Cobalt Lands aren't that close to the Ruby Kingdom, so it's not that often that in the Ruby Kingdom's capital see a lot of people from there. And while Yubel and their siblings were born in the Ruby Kingdom, they still adopted customs and culture their mother passed on to them.

And sometimes, it's obvious when someone comes from a foreign culture.

(This is Liese! In my head she ends up looking a lot like Lyn/Lyndis Fireemblem as she gets older so I made a screenshot edit - thanks to Silver from the No One in Yugioh is Straight server, who helped with the colors.)

In this fic, wearing a gemstone on your forehead is a tradition from a religion most strongly associated with the Cobalt Lands. That Yubel's family goes around wearing them is a bit like wearing bindi or a hijab IRL - it indicates influences of a foreign culture, and a thing that certain people do for religious reasons (and you're kind of an asshole if you give people shit for it).

Yubel, Liese, and the rest of their family being immigrants and first-gen immigrants aside from their father is something that Yubel doesn't pay that much mind but it is something that others are aware of. On the whole nobody's outright hostile about it, but it lead to occasional misconceptions! Chapter 2 of Need includes the equivalent of Odila telling a kid born in Illinois "Hey, let me explain Christmas, do you have that in Taiwan?" Yubel totally fails to recognize the faux pas while accidentally calling it out, but Liese is aware and tries to rescue the situation.

Liese herself is often misinterpreted as wearing a ruby as a show of Ruby Kingdom patriotism, because hey she's a knight of the kingdom and the king certainly wears rubies. Rubies have a different meaning in Cobalt culture, but obviously most people in the Ruby Kingdom miss the nuance.

(The king and Judai wear gemstones prominently, but they're always placed on a crown, or on wristbands, always part of larger accessories - unlike how Yubel and Liese wear theirs.)

Third Eyes

Yubel explains a little bit about the significance of gemstone third eyes in Chapter 1. Different gemstones have different meanings (that don't correlate with modern-day Western gemstone symbolism, so don't go expecting that). Choosing your own gemstone is a personal milestone and a way to represent something meaningful to you - goals, memories, ideals, things like that.

Liese chooses ruby (virtue) for herself because she wants to be an honorable knight and leader. Yubel chooses spinel (vigilance) because they want to watch over the people they love to keep them safe. But of course, they won't be wearing that spinel forever...

But there's a little more to the tradition than that.

The king describes the history of the gentle darkness and the Light of Destruction to Yubel briefly but informatively, and the way I interpret that for this fic is that they're old tales that the king is confirming as truth.

The Ruby Kingdom here has the most concrete records for those old tales, and some way or another anticipated that the gentle darkness would find its holder - which turned out to be Judai. Outside of the highest administration, though, the gentle darkness is mostly forgotten or considered obscure.

The Cobalt Lands don't have the historical records that the Ruby Kingdom, but their religion and culture have a lot of old concepts and symbolism that originate from the gentle darkness and other old forces. And this includes - you guessed it - the tradition of third eyes!

The Dragoning

In even older times, third eyes were a very literal thing and involved implanting a philosopher's stone inside yourself as a process of enlightenment. Yeah, we're back to alchemy, this is Yugioh GX the cardgames and alchemy symbolism anime.

Fic lore aside, it's actual alchemical symbolism that the rebis - half male and half female, a concept that informs Yubel's design - is the end result of the magnum opus, the process to create a philosopher's stone. The philosopher's stone is sometimes characterized as red in color (famously so in Fullmetal Alchemist), and - isn't it interesting how the main element of red in Yubel's design is the eye that persists through each of their forms?

The Cobalt Lands preserved the cultural meaning of the third eye through the wearing of gemstones, a much safer and more accessible practice than a long, involved, and generally life-threatening process that was extremely time- and resource-intensive. This also allowed them to develop symbolism for different gemstones, evolving into the traditions Yubel and Liese observe.

The Ruby Kingdom preserved the actual (and very dangerous!) procedure for developing a philosopher's stone and implanting it, and eventually would use this knowledge to create the perfect defender from a young knight.

...With an experimental dose of dragon essence, of course.

In this fic, Yubel's transformation is achieved through embedding a philosopher's stone within their body - which becomes their new, more literal third eye and the focus of their powers. But there's also a new element thrown in, to further transcend them beyond human into something eternal - an immortal guardian spirit, able to call upon otherworldly power to protect the gentle darkness' chosen bearer from the forces of light.

(Also dragons have their own alchemic symbolism based on some research, but I'm not confident in saying too much because I've been having trouble finding sources that look wholly reliable. On the off-chance someone more knowledgeable is reading, hit me up please.)

Did anyone tell Yubel this part was experimental? No. Would they have cared? Probably not.

In the king's defense, he and his alchemists wouldn't have done the procedure if they weren't pretty sure it was going to work out. Someone as dedicated to Judai as Yubel, human or not, isn't a resource to risk carelessly.

That said, was it all above board to pull out ancient rituals and convince a kid to become a dragon for the sake of protecting the chosen one, without telling the chosen one until too late? Probably not, but we can only guess that he thought the end justified the means.

#yugioh series #yugioh gx #fic #my fic #meta #sorta #yubel #judai yuki

[carrotkicks]

I’m white so it might not be my place to say. But it really seems like Duke, Cass, and Damian’s constant mischaracterization within fandom is all about shoving them into the only archetypes readers can see them fitting into based on their race. Like...Cass being martial arts based and mostly nonverbal is probably already kind of stereotyping on the part of her creators, but the fandoms remaking of her as a quiet and demure little nonentity when she’s historically been a full of herself little shit. Or, like, Duke being made into “the calm sensible one” when he’s just as Batshit (pun intended) as everyone else in Gotham really just seems like him getting put into the “witty black guy serving as voice of reason for a bunch of white people” box. And I can’t even begin to parse out Damian’s simultaneous CONSTANT whitewashing andvilification for his ethnicity.

hoo boy this one is MEATY. In short: You're right, and your right for saying it. But you obviously brought your take to me for a reason, so lemme offer ya my perspective. As a person of color.

It's fairly easy to recognize racism in canon since a.) we know exactly who's writing (usually an old white cishet guy :/) b.) we as the audience tend to use actual critical thinking skills more often with official works, we actually pay attention to and can identify racist subtext much easier. And this is a general statement for all fandoms but like,,, when people consume fan content, they tend to turn the critical thinking switch off -- which is fine! totally fair because fanart, fanfiction, headcanons? thats all for self-indulgence more than anything.

Now since fandoms are much more prominent on platforms like Twitter and Tumblr you’d imagine people would display more awareness for racist/misogynistic/bigoted subtext, considering these sites are known to host people who are,,, well, socially aware is how I’d put it. (don’t believe me? take a trip down to some Reddit discussions. it can shrivel your soul) Uhhhh... but sometimes I find the double standard in fans so offputting. 

For more Batman-fandom specific racism,,, it’s kinda a lot actually. Listen, listen comic books are kinda racist sometimes. It’s an old medium, and has had a long line of old white guys penning them, it’s just a thing. Not a good thing, but what’s been printed just is y’know? I see a lot of these racist storylines or characterizations from old and I just cringe and move on bc a lot of the problematic writers are out of the game now, and in modern books we can go harass the creative team on Twitter. That’s in the bag. But in the actual fandom? Like i said, people don’t really think. they don’t understand or just don’t care if their art/writing/hcs are problematic bc it was made for fun - being morally correct isn’t really a concern. (especially considering we got murder/abuse sympathizers in this one but lest definatly not get into that agian--)

Since you mentioned some specific ones I’ll talk about them for a sec. Takes like “Cass Cain is the most powerful baddest b*tch in the fam and she can do no wrong at all” but also portray her as only existing to support her brothers or Steph is a huge disservice to her entire character. Like yeAH Cass is obviously the best fighter in the fam but there is so much more to her than that! (actually now that the cat’s outta the bag, i’m a lil wary of Cass ships in general bc SO OFTEN they use her as just a prop for the other partner and im just hhhhh ok back on track) and lemme be real with ya, the reason Cass is so often portrayed like this because they are blatantly riffing on the “Dragon Lady” and Asian houswife tropes. (now Cassie defs has some dragon lady as a part of her base character/backstory but, her solo actually worked to make her way less one dimensional.) And while I’m still talking about Cass and how she’s always portrayed as the perfect Good Daughter-- I feel like it’s kinda a lil just maybe a bit sexist to portray female characters as flawless since it’s kinda takes away a central part of their character that humanizes them perhaps? I know I was just talking about how some people unecessarily emphasize female character’s problems but I feel like the opposite is true as well where some people gloss over their issues and make them out to be too good for anyone unproblematic queens. I see it a lot with the Batgirl trio and honestly I’m annoyed by it a little bit. Flaws make a human too, and depicting females without them feels like taking a piece of their humanity, if you get what I mean? I just wanna be able to relate to the ladies being crappy! I have enough self awarness to want that.

Okay back on the rails for reals now haha! I ALSO see that people sorta box Duke into the stoic black guy trope a lot too which is also.. yanno... racist? Duke is definiely as insane as the rest of the fam- homie jumped off a bridge from a moving police car. Honestly that trope kinda reads to me like they either don’t care about Duke, or just don’t wanna let him have fun too? (ok adding this but I don’t wanna sound hypocritical or anything bc I know I hardly talk about Duke either. I just.. don’t have any strong opinions on him? I feel kinda bad but also,, i can talk about what i want. That being said i will talk about how he gets the sh*tty end of the stick which homeslice doesn’t deserve)

With Damian, it’s not even disguised, just plain racism. Nothing I can say more than that regarding his villification based on his backstory and ethnicity. The whitewashing though... uh okay so listen closely. Lisght skinned Arabs do exist but is it proper representation to depict him as white passing? no. I’m not Arab but lemme explain it to you in terms I know. In India, colorism is a really BIG problem. Most Bollywood stars you’ll see are very fair skinned for an Indian, and they’re praised for that specifically. Sometimes when I tune into whatever program my Mom is watching, ads for skin whitening treatments come on and it’s so strange. Like, as a more overt example, dark skinned people are considered “dirty” in some castes. (note, I didn’t grow up in India, that is from my parent’s accounts) Soo rounding back to Batman, a lot of Damian’s whitewashing is also rooted in colorism. Which is why I feel like drawing him with darker skin is much more fair representation.

This is getting really long but I really wanna mention this just to kill (what? 5) birds with one stone. But i feel like some of the fandom’s racebends are pretty... sus. the Latino!Jason headcanon in particular kinda feels not right to me. It’s just, did they decide he was Latino because he was a street kid? because he’s more rough and violent? Guys that’s kinda stereotyping... Also that one hc with Tim as an asian? I’m lukewarm on it. obviously riffing on the “smart asian” thing (and i’ll admit it’s not wholly inaccurate this coming from a rather unintelligent indian) but it’s still really i dunno... it’s based on racist stereotypes. And look. Racebending is great! I do it too! (Tim Kon and Dick are drawn with darker skin sometimes cuz ur local brown girl is feeling self indulgent haha) but I feel like if you’re gonna racebend, maybe don’t do it in an obviously racist way maybe?

Anyways the true takeaway from this crazy long wall of text is that fandoms are racist sometimes. And problematic in a bunch of different ways. The Batfandom is no exception apparently, and that should be called out. which I just did. great job me! and you too anon

#I was a little worried about this one tbh #it's hard for me to put my thoughts together on topics like this #cuz they upset me #anyways was this a good take? #hope it was #ask #spicy ones from the inbox #fandom #fandom racism #long post #like way long

[jgnico]

preach to your post about gojo's portrayal within the fandom and his mischaracterization when shipping him with other characters!! i'm white myself so i don't think it's my place to speak about this, just going to add my my thoughts because your text brushed on this as well and hope it's not offensive somehow because it isn't my intention but it also bothers me quite a bit that fanartists usually draw anime characters as white by default (or at least the artists I have been in contact with that have a more realistic art style). especially when they don't have dark hair, dark eyes or those japanese/asian common characteristics, that's kind of used as an excuse to not draw these characters with the traces from their actual ethnicity. as if these stories aren't fictional and they can't have made up features or ones that just simply aren't as common. and gojo is one of the characters where this is really evident, even nanami who gets pictured this way solely because he has blonde hair. do you think, for example, the way noses or faces are drawn in manga and anime is a reason for typically white features in fanart? (genuine question) in general I think only black anime characters tend to have very obvious features and the line between asian, white or any other categories also tends to get blurry. but most of us also aren't kids and we understand (or should) the context of these stories and the identity of these characters. and in jjk we see very prominent characteristics of the japanese culture in every character so there doesn't seem to be an excuse, really. so yeah would love to hear what your thoughts are

So there's two things that I just wanna throw out there at the beginning of this answer.

1. Of the 7 billion people in the world, 2/3rds of our global population live in Asian countries.

2. There are around 125.8 million people in Japan alone, which puts it in 11th place out of 195 total countries when it comes to population size.

Asian features are in no way uncommon. People just tend to stick to the features that they're familiar and comfortable with when they draw and everyone has their own personal art-style. Manga and anime also has a very specific art-style, but you can almost always tell when a character isn't Japanese or at least mixed. The mangaka will make it pretty obvious, so genuinely, no, its not a matter of lines being blurred between white and Asian characters when it comes to features.

African Americans being portrayed in anime and manga is also a pretty sore subject because of this. We tend to have a lot of harmful stereotypes and depictions perpetuated when it comes to our ethnic characteristics (big lips, unflattering brow-lines, wide noses, etc) that only just recently started being combatted by more positive and genuine approaches to conveying our features in that medium. Bleach actually did a fantastic job of this, but if you want to stick to JJK, I'd urge you to compare Yuuta's bully in the first chapter of Volume 0 to what Yaga and Hakari look like in Gege's later work. They're all Black (or at least Blasian) characters, but Gege's original drawings of those kind of features weren't kind or tactful.

Another thing that poses a big issue is colorism. Historically (and currently) almost every poc and non-poc community that I know of has an issue with this because the world spent such a long time being told that lighter skin is more desirable. For white dominated countries, this often translates to white features (straight hair, light eyes, light skin) being considered more attractive than poc features, but I know that the Asian community goes through this kind of bias as well.

Going back to JJK, Nanami is part-Danish (1/4ths) so he'll obviously have different features than characters like Gojo or Geto, and if you actually look for those features, they're easy to spot.

Nanami has a wide and prominent browbone that extends out from his face before dipping into a long and straight nose ridge. He also has a more square jawline and a rounded chin that doesn't end in any kind of point. These are features that are more common among white people, as most Asian faces tend to be smaller and rounder.

In comparison, Gojo has a pointed chin and an angled jawline, which gives him a shorter, more compact face. His nose is also shorter and smaller (a button nose, if you will) with a browbone that curves softly into his nose ridge instead of angling out from his face.

For Geto, he still keeps that soft brow and short nose, but his face is wider and his eyes are have a more hooded almond shape, which gives me the impression that he has a mixed (most likely Chinese) ancestry. His face is also longer than Gojo's, but shorter than Nanami's with an angled jaw and a soft, rounded chin that isn't as square as Nanami's or as pointed as Gojo's.

All that being said, if artists are trying to portray the characters respectfully and accurately, even within their own art-style, these are the features that they'd want to pay attention to. It doesn't all just boil down to skin tone, which is something that they should be depicting accurately anyways.

Note: Asian people will have a warmer skin tone with a red or yellow undertone, while white people will have a cooler skin tone with a pink or neutral undertone.

If an artist is having a difficult time with portraying these differences in features in more realistic art-styles, then I'd suggest that they look into resources for drawing Asian (specifically East Asian) people and incorporate that into how they approach making fanart.

#thank you for the asks #sorry if this came off as rude or anything #i know that making fan content isnt easy #jujutsu kaisen #gojo satoru #geto suguru #nanami kento #answers

[dear-wormwoods]

may I ask for a style fanfic rec list? 🥺🥺🥺

I have a couple of requests for this and I’ve been thinking about how to respond, because to be honest, I very rarely read fic these days. And by ‘these days’ I mean like, since 2014. I always have things I intend to read, but then time goes by and I don’t get around to it. So nothing I’m going to rec is new and you’ve probably already read them fkjds.

Anyway, sorry to be predictable by just being like “read Hollycomb’s fics” but...

The Scenic Route - 116k words, should be rated E for the final two chapters (I literally have no idea why it’s rated T on AO3, it was definitely M when I first read it on ff.net years ago)

Summary: The boys embark on a six day road trip to California before separating for college. Cartman is a pain in the ass, Kenny has no future, Butters is in crisis, and Kyle doesn't know how he'll say goodbye to Stan.

Why you should read it: The yearning. This fic is written entirely in Kyle’s POV, and Holly does such a brilliant job of getting into his head and really capturing that feeling of already mourning a friendship/relationship before it’s even over and kind of intentionally setting the bridge on fire to make what is (seemingly) inevitable hurry along, as if that will make it hurt less (it doesn’t). The first six chapters, the actual road trip portion of the fic (where the T rating actually does apply), are where it is at its strongest, and Kyle’s gradual descent into panicky, angry desperation is painfully real. I can’t stress enough how in character everyone is, each retaining recognizable mannerisms and dynamics from canon while still clearly being grown people entering adulthood. There’s a reason this fic is THE Style fic. 

Leave the Pieces - 251k words, rated E (though that rating only represents a small portion of such a long fic)

Summary: Stan and Kyle meet as strangers in their mid-twenties, shocked to encounter someone else who can't remember the first ten years of his life. They form an instant connection, but only one person in South Park remembers them, and Kenny can't explain why they disappeared or why the rest of the town forgot them.

Why you should read it: It’s a lengthy epic with supernatural elements, a complicated plot that fits right into the show’s universe, and the kind of love that quite literally transcends time, space, and memory. I can’t explain it much further without giving away the plot, but this behemoth is gut wrenching and powerful. It is equal parts a story about Stan and Kyle finding each other as adults and falling in love despite not remembering who they are, or each other, and a deep exploration into Kenny’s character and his curse. Kenny is really the MVP of the story, despite it initially seeming like “just” a Style fic, and his relationship with Wendy is written beautifully and convincingly. One caveat, though: some parts of this fic... I’m not a fan of. I greatly dislike Cartman/Butters just as a concept, and there were times, particularly in the first half of the fic, where I almost quit reading because of their scenes. I also feel like this fic fell victim to fandom’s earlier tendency to mischaracterize Craig as borderline sociopathic (but in contrast, he’s absolutely perfect in Holly’s oneshot Other People’s Tupperware). However, I’m such a sucker for supernatural memory loss not being able to sever soul connections, and Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Wendy’s respective journeys more than make up for my reluctance to stomach Cartman/Butters or other comparatively minor issues. And honestly, everything does fall into place as the plot unfolds, so all I can say is... if you hit certain scenes and think ‘wtf IS this??’, just stick it out, the payoff is worth it, especially if you’re looking for high quality Kenny content.

Amalgamation - 78k words, rated T (but should be rated M imo, because there are sex scenes, though they aren’t very explicit, just intimate)

Summary: In 1862, Kyle's family is forced to move from New York to a tiny mining settlement at the foot of Pike's Peak in Colorado. Kyle is sixteen years old and miserable until he meets Stan, a fellow transplant who has been in town for three years. Their feelings for each other are shadowed by the town's haunted history, and for Kyle the local legends begin to feel more like real nightmares.

Why you should read it: I know ‘1860′s gold mining settlement AU’ doesn’t sound very fascinating, but it is. This is another one that’s written in Kyle’s POV and again Holly does a wonderful job of expressing his emotional turmoil, the guilt and shame he feels, his self-righteousness, and the depth of his love for Stan. Everyone is as they would be if the clock was turned back 150 years, made different by the time period and the demands of their circumstances but still obviously recognizable. The old-timey atmosphere and world-building are so seamless and never feels unrelatable. There are also supernatural/ghost/mystery themes in this one and the fear is palpable.

From the Queen of England to the Hounds of Hell - 170k words, rated E, includes major character death (aside from Kenny)

Summary: Ten years after the execution of Terrance and Phillip, the war with Canada has not ended. Stan and most of Kyle's friends are planning to join the army after high school graduation, bound to be drafted anyway. Kyle doesn't believe in the war, but he's not willing to let Stan go without him.

Why you should read it: This is.... a perfect fic, and I don’t say that lightly. It is quite possibly the ONLY perfect fic I have ever read, in any fandom. I can’t actually describe all the ways in which it’s perfect without giving the plot details away, but, God, if you commit to reading just one of the long-ass fics I’m reccing on this list, make it this one. Please. It honestly makes me mad that this one never got the same attention as like, The Scenic Route, or ‘Night School’ did, because it so deserves to be up there. Only Holly could take the concept of the fucking movie and turn it into a completely devastating, bittersweet, epic romance. There is no caveat here, no ‘I loved it except for this and this’, just thorough, soul-crushing perfection. Just... Kyle. God, Kyle. I can’t elaborate, my heart isn’t up to the task. This fic will haunt me for the rest of my life.

The Ascent of Stan - 32k words, rated E, though it is like 95% domestic fluff

Summary: Stan sells his small pest control company and Kyle thinks they should use some of the money to go to Hawaii, where he proceeds to grill Stan about the mid-life crisis that Stan claims he's not having while their kids frolic nearby.

Why you should read it: This one is everything a domestic fic should be. It basically just chronicles the events of a week-long vacation to Hawaii that nearly-40 Stan and Kyle take with their two kids. This one is written fully in Stan’s POV and it works so well... he’s exactly the kind of dad that I imagine he would be, doing his best to provide for and protect his family’s little bubble and resolving to be better than his father while quietly fighting the lingering shadow of his alcoholism and cynicism. There’s no real conflict in this one, just 30,000 words of a very typical family vacation: not exactly blissful, irritating at times, but ultimately the foundation for perfect memories. 

Never Change - 115k words, rated E

Summary: Thirteen years after his high school girlfriend's pregnancy upended his life, Stan is still in South Park, working with his partner Bebe as a local cop. They're in the process of investigating a series of possibly connected murders when FBI agent Kyle Broflovski returns to town and informs his old friend Stan that this is his investigation now.

Why you should read it: This is equal parts a murder mystery and a romance. It features exactly the kind of Stan/Kyle situation I hate to think about - a decade-long estrangement of their own making that comes to an abrupt end due to extenuating circumstances. It hurts because of how likely it is to happen that way, and it works especially well in this fic because of Stan’s reluctance to embrace his own bisexuality until he’s nearly 30 and Kyle’s tendency to put up walls to protect himself. Also, Bebe features prominently in this fic, which is always a huge bonus.  

Bonus Oneshot Rec:

The Reformation of Fart Boy - 7k words, unrated but probably T, just barely

Summary: Five times South Park has brought Kyle to the brink of sanity and Stan has brought him back.

Why you should read it: I love thinking about the ways in which canon-typical nonsense continues to impact the characters in the long term on a serious psychological level. Kyle has suffered a lot in canon and it’s obvious even in the show that it is gradually changing him and wearing him down, so I really love this fic for focusing on his responses to some of the more traumatic moments, as seen through Stan’s eyes. 

I feel sort of guilty only reccing one author for right now, because there are other fics out there that I liked and am planning on revisiting, but this post is long enough as it is. Chances are you’ve already read some or all of these, but they’re my favorites. I reread all of them while making this list, and they still hit me hard after all these years. 

#asks #south park #sp style #stan marsh #kyle broflovski #fic recs

[teenitinygod]

Hello, Hello, this is the person who did the last submit. Thank you for the offer but I don’t have a discord account, Idon'thaveanyfriendswhouseittowarrantmakingone.

Although, if you liked my previous submit, I thought you might be interested in hearing me out when it comes to mischaracterization since I didn’t go into detail in my previous submit since that’s a whole rant of its own. I’ll be taking inspiration from neutinya’s haikyuu mischaracterization post but give it a BSD twist. My intention isn’t to call specific people out, I’m simply going off what I’ve seen within the fandom. Which in turn leads to diluting or mischaracterizing a character until they’re nearly unrecognizable or portraying them in a bad light that they don’t deserve. There may be a few tw instances, so you’re free to edit this post as you see fit and add any necessary warnings.

So to begin with. Let’s get the big one out of the way real quick.

- Dazai -

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen Dazai being portrayed as nothing more than a twofaced lying bastard, I wouldn’t have to work anymore. Most of these support it by saying that he doesn’t actually trust the ADA since he didn’t tell them about his past and doesn’t inform them of every little thing. Basically, they portray him as being 100% an act who doesn’t care about anyone. And then berate him by saying that they refuse to take his mental health seriously until he’s shown to have a breakdown.

I believe anyone who has suffered from depression or any other kind of mental health issue has felt the need to act happy all the time when in public and then quiet down when they’re alone. That doesn’t make them a fake. They are under no obligation to tell every single thing going across their mind to their friend and that same logic applies to Dazai.

Moreover, we also have to take into consideration Dazai’s past. He simply can’t afford to make himself vulnerable. There’s literally a list of people out for his head. Additionally, of he were to tell everything to the ADA, he would be potentially dragging his new friends into his own mess and put them in unwarranted danger. Sure, the ADA already deals with a lot of dangerous stuff but I doubt he would purposely put them in harms way because of what he would consider his own selfishness.

Now in the terms of romance. A lot of people just mark him as the one who could never be faithful. I believe a romantic relationship with Dazai would be completely trust based. Ergo, a “love at first sight” scenario would definitely lead to it becoming nothing more than a one-time fling. To go off your last Dazai scenario, I actually do believe that if Dazai felt like he was getting too attached to someone, he might try to push them away out of utter self-loathing that he could never give them what they want. Essentially, fearing a scenario like that in No Longer Human where Yozo got together with Yoshiko and she ended up getting raped because of his involvement with her.

Atsushi isn’t just a crybaby. He’s brave simply because of the fact that he’s willing to do his best despite his fear. Moreover, his initial fear of being seen as a burden to the ADA is completely valid when you take into consideration his past treatment. A lot treat him as dull and boring character and go on about preferring his Beast counterpart. It’s fine to have a preference but I don’t think this is a reason to hate on him since the point of Beast was to elaborate on how alike Atsushi and Akutagawa are by putting them in the other’s shoes. And we see in even Beast, Atsushi is just the ultimate good boy cinnamonroll.

In romance, I keep seeing him being forced to portray the badboy roll and being just terrible to whoever is his partner within the story. Do people really think that he would so much as even consider berating his partner after all he’s been through?

- Kunikida -

He isn’t just some emotionless asshole. He cares. He’s just doesn’t show it in the most conventional way some are used to. Perhaps this is because the anime caused confusion by changing the time setting of the Azure Disciple event— But within the novel you can tell that he cares for and eventually starts to think highly of Dazai as the story progresses. He doesn’t express it since Dazai would tease him to the ends of the earth. But there were moments like in the embassy in which he mentally admired how talented he was. Or how elaborated that his way of knowing when something was wrong with Dazai was when he starts acting “normal”. As the novel put it, basically, weird is normal for Dazai while normal is weird. So when Dazai starts acting “normal” that’s his way of knowing that something is up.

In terms of romance… I swear I want to fight someone. The majority of Kunikida content I find usually involves him be pedophilic by having this thing for schoolgirls or just has whoever is his partner constant cry at him that he doesn’t love them since he doesn’t show his affection the conventional way. Then, the story goes on about how the partner keeps trying to change them. For starters. There is nothing wrong with having the thought of an ideal partner. Most of have twisted the idea of him having an ideal partner as him having this list of physical traits he wants them to have or some crap like that. Do people really think he’s that shallow? Having an ideal partner just means that you know what you want in a partner. Like how they treat you, if they’re neat and polite, etc. Moreover, we’ve seen time and time again that despite what he says, Kunikida is still willing to bend a little. Obviously he will hold his ground if you berate his ideals. But it’s possible to change his mind if you respect his ideals and offer alternatives and are willing to work with him.

- Chuuya -

Look. I don’t care what you ship. But Chuuya is way more than just that one guy who is constantly yelling about Dazai. He has every right to be portrayed as his own character without the need to involve Dazai around the line.

He may be angry when Dazai is involved but he’s the nicest grump you’ll ever see towards everyone else. In the spin-off novel, there’s a scene where he talks to Tsujimura, for example. He still kept this badass aura but spoke to her with the dignity and presence of a respectable mafia executive. Moreover, I noticed this why checking. Kyouko really did make sure he drank his respect-women dose every day since I noticed he never actually curses at female characters. With the Tsujimura scene, for example, he kept his usual rude speech but didn’t start to actually curse until Ango was brought up. With the battle against Yosano, he never pulled the “oh, you’re just a woman” crap when they appeared.

In the terms of romance. I swear I feel the need to break someone’s nico-nico-kneecaps for the outrageous amount of fics I find with Chuuya straight up raping his partner. Like, the man didn’t even want to fight against his sheep friends when they literally and figuratively stabbed in him in the back. It’s hard for me to imagine him as someone who wouldn’t treat his partner with the utmost respect in the world.

- Higuchi -

People seriously need to stop hating on her just ‘cause she’s “getting in the way of ships.” The gal clearly cares about Akutagawa and I don’t think it’s fair to hate on her just because of that. On that note, the whole idea of hating on female characters under the pretext of them getting in the way of ships seriously needs to stop. The fact that a female character cares for a guy, be it romantically or not, isn’t an excuse to antagonize them and treat them as an eyesore. She’s funny, she’s goofy, She’s just an ordinary lady who might be momentarily blinded by affection and get carried away. Which surely must happen to anyone who has experienced some kind of crush.

In the terms of romance. I haven’t read much fics with Higuchi as the main love interest. However, I have seen the AkutawagaxSomeoneElse types who just blatantly portray Higuchi as this terrible and wicked woman who is trying to ruin Akutagawa’s partner’s life. Sure, Higuchi may be heartbroken that she couldn’t be the chosen one but I doubt she would stoop as low as to ruin Akutagawa’s potential happiness. The most she would do is perhaps investigate if they’re a spy who intends to harm or use him.

- Yosano -

She’s a strong independent woman, enough said. I feel like a lot of people interpret her dislike for weak men as her either disliking physically weak men or disliking men altogether. Naturally, a strong woman would want and deserve someone who is equally as badass as them. So what I interpret her saying when she says she dislikes weak men is that she dislikes mentally weak men who bend over backwards easily and men who are so petty that they feel the need to look down on women just because of the fact that they’re a woman. The anime did her dirty by sexualizing her during her first introduction. We all know that one scene where she strips off her shirt before treating Tanizaki. Heck, I remember when I first saw that scene without knowing much about BSD I legit thought her healing ability involved her having sex with the guys. It was only until I read the manga some time later that I realized that wasn’t the case.

In the terms of romance. Again, she has every right to have someone as strong as herself. A badass would want someone who is just as badass standing as their partner. Moreover, I haven’t seen it to the degree as Higuchi’s case but I have seen the occasional hate on her under the pretext that she’s getting in the way of ships. To which I say again: We seriously need to stop antagonizing female characters who so much as exist in the same panel as a male character that’s involved in a popular fandom ship.

——–

Well then. Those were the most prominent ones that came to mind, so I surely left out some characters who have been mischaracterized just as badly.

Thank you for your time.

Ok quickly, our discord (dazai simps) is open to having you. We love new friends and meeting people, so an open invite is available.  i couldn’t agree with you more- i hate how Dazai is portrayed sometimes, his emotions are complex and he’s not as simple as an angsty suicidal flirt. Especially went the reader comes into the picture and it turns into a “love at first sight” thing. They may be fictional characters but i care that the characters i write for are as close to accurate as i can

I’ll go deeper into this later but i agree

Also I love when you send me these, i love reading them and you’re so sweet <3

[elizasvintagemoviesblog]

Montgomery Clift: the untold story of Hollywood's misunderstood star

In a new documentary, myths and assumptions about the Oscar-nominated heartthrob who struggled with his sexuality are replaced with the little-known truth

Jim Farber

 Mon 29 Oct 2018 08.00 GMT

or over 30 years, scripts have floated around Hollywood promising to tell the story of Montgomery Clift, one of the most innovative and handsome actors in history. Tellingly, they’re always pitched under working titles like ‘Beautiful Loser’ and' ‘Tragic Beauty’. Guided by the key biographies of Clift, they reliably parrot a narrative which paints the actor as a startlingly attractive and prodigiously gifted man who, according to one notably overheated tabloid TV show “became a drug-addicted alcoholic living in a self-imposed hell because he had a secret he couldn’t live with”.

That “secret” – that Clift was gay during an impossible era (the 1930s through the 60s) – led many interpreters to conclude that the actor must have led a life riddled with fear and shame. It hardly helped lend nuance to that reading that Clift was a well-known and long-time abuser of pain killers and alcohol, actions which likely sped his death from a heart attack at 45 in 1966. Yet, according to a new documentary, titled Making Montgomery Clift, the star’s substance abuse had nothing at all to do with his sexuality. In fact, the attitudes he and his family held towards his relationships with men were strikingly modern.

The movie, which plays at the LGBTQ movie festival NewFest in New York, refutes scores of oft-repeated assumptions about Clift’s life, from his motivations as an actor, to his relationship with his mother to the characterization of his later years. It also stresses Clift’s crucial role in changing the power balance between actors and studio chiefs in Hollywood, as well as the advancements he brought to film acting. More, it analyzes the new view of masculine beauty he helped introduce to the screen.

To help build their case, the film-makers had rare access to the actor’s archives, as well as to the family’s story, courtesy of a special connection: the doc was co-directed by the star’s nephew, Robert Clift, and his wife, Hillary Demmon. “For us, it seemed there was this big difference between what people thought about Monty in the public sphere and what people that knew him would say,” said Clift. “I wanted to figure out why there was such a difference.”

A deep trove of never-before-revealed evidence makes that disparity bracingly clear. For somewhat mysterious reasons, Robert Clift’s father Brooks taped endless conversations with his famous brother, as well as with their mother and other figures relevant to the story. (The director himself never met his famous uncle, having been born eight years after his death). In one tape made by his father in the 1960s, we hear the star’s mother tell him, with untroubled candor, that “Monty was a homosexual early. I think he was 12 or 13.”

https://youtu.be/4vD1dsBm5K8

“It’s obviously a non-issue for her,” co-director Demmon said. “That’s not what people would expect from a mother in that period.”

Then again, nothing about Clift’s life was expected. Born in 1920 in Omaha, Nebraska, Clift was raised like an aristocrat, with a private tutor and frequent trips to Europe. While he never excelled at school, his extraordinary abilities as an actor showed early. By 15, Clift made his Broadway debut in Cole Porter’s Jubilee. Over the next 10 years, he earned prominent roles in plays by Tennessee Williams and Thornton Wilder, opposite stars like Fredrick March and Tallulah Bankhead. Hollywood repeatedly came courting, but he put off offers for nearly a decade, even turning down roles in classic films like East of Eden and the co-lead in Sunset Boulevard.

Taped interviews with his brother reveal that the actor felt those roles weren’t quite right for him and he didn’t want to make the wrong first impression. He also didn’t want to sign a contract with a studio, then the only viable way into the business. “He didn’t want the studios to dictate the kinds of roles he would play,” his nephew said. “He wanted to be a free agent, and he did it successfully. The old Hollywood system was breaking apart and he was a major part of that.”

{John Wayne and Montgomery Clift in Red River}

The first role Clift took, opposite John Wayne in Red River in 1948, offered a stark contrast in masculine presentations. Clift detested Wayne’s antiquated male constraints. He also detested the man. “Monty brought a different masculinity to the screen,” said Demmon. “Here was someone who was vulnerable and sensitive - and who actually listened to women.”

He wasn’t the only one who challenged such norms at the time. Contemporaries like James Dean and Marlon Brando also did. Like them, Clift was comfortable with the full contours, and consequences, of his beauty, playing “the object” in a way previously preserved for female stars. He also helped bring a more natural acting style to film. “That’s why his work doesn’t feel dated,” Demmon said.

He advanced a collaborative approach with his directors, working over scripts and making suggestions for edits. “He wasn’t solely an actor,” she said. “He had a holistic view.”

A fellow actor asserts that Clift was equally confident in his sexuality. Jack Larson, famous for playing Jimmy Olsen in the hit 1950s TV series Adventures of Superman, recalled how Clift gave him a full mouth kiss the first time they casually met. “He was not worried [about being gay],” Larson asserts in the film.

Another confidant said “his personal life didn’t bother him”.

{Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift in A Place in the Sun}

Observers also point out that Clift had sexual relationships with women. But, in general, his relationships with men had more to do with sex than with a deep emotional connection. A seeming exception was one in his final years with a man named Lorenzo who had been hired to help him. “They went to London to see Laurence Olivier together, ate together, sat in front of the fire together,” Clift said. “Lorenzo came into the picture when Monty was at his lowest. He got him going again. He still drank, but not as heavily. Lorenzo was one of the reasons.”

Clift asserts that the actor’s use of alcohol and prescription drugs stemmed, primarily, from a near-fatal car accident in 1956. He used them to numb his physical pain. The accident changed his appearance, and many biographers assumed Clift felt ruined by it and, so, drank more. But the documentary notes Clift made as many movies after the accident as before, and that those projects included some of his most acclaimed performances. Ex-lover Larson said in the film that Clift actually preferred his work after the accident to his performances before.

Many of the myths surrounding Clift sprang from two biographies: a salacious one by Robert Laguardia and another flawed work by Patricia Bosworth, titled A Life. The film-makers interviewed Bosworth extensively for the movie, but they contrast her words with old taped conversations she had with the actor’s brother. He pleaded with her to make changes to her book to correct the mischaracterizations. While she sounds apologetic, the changes were never made.

As to why Bosworth drew on the gay-self-hate narrative, and why that view took hold, the directors blame the homophobia of the time the book was written, in the 1970s. “The view then about queer people was that they would be inherently conflicted or tormented about their sexuality,” said Demmon. “If you have a story that tracks along that line, that will feel true to people. Which gives that narrative a lot of traction. Now we’re at a historical point in mainstream queer discourse where that story seems less viable.”

Though the film aims to update, and to fairly contextualize, the actor’s story, the directors stress that they don’t want to simply swap one image of Montgomery Clift for another. “We’re not trying to give a definitive version of who Monty was,” added Clift. “Part of honoring someone is being open to that person not being just one, reductive thing.”

source: theguardian

#MC #montgomery clift #masculine beauty #making montgomery clift #documentary

[our2ndstreet-blog]

Bohemian Rhapsody: You’re Bad, Not Problematic

Bohemian Rhapsody: You’re Bad, Not Problematic If there's one thing that can be agreed on about Queen, it’s that their frontman, Freddie Mercury, is an icon of his era and his life and legacy are a story most certainly worthy of being told. So when I sat down to watch Bohemian Rhapsody a couple of weeks ago, I was ready to enjoy a movie mainly focused on just that, despite some negative press I had heard a while back about the state of this movie's production. Unfortunately, I left the theater with the negative press confirmed rather than debunked. Not only did I spend 134 minutes watching a frustratingly inaccurate retelling of Queen and Freddie Mercury's history, I watched a movie that was clearly robbed of its potential by obvious sanitization of the band’s past (perhaps accentuated by the surviving, active members of Queen having a hand in the production of the film). If you went into Bohemian Rhapsody hoping for a heart-wrenching tale of a fascinating musician taken too soon, you were probably as disappointed as I was, if not more. That is not to say the movie didn't have its moments, nor that it wasn’t completely unenjoyable. Rami Malek's performance as Mercury was fantastic and easily the most admirable aspect about the movie at all times other than the soundtrack. However, Malek's embodiment of the legendary singer could not save this movie in its entirety. These two aspects of the film, while undeniably important, are not the only ones. Aside from a few moments of humor, the nice things about this movie end here. Unraveling this fun trip of singing along to Queen in the theater, you get just about nothing of substance. The movie suffers from a lack of dramatic impact, with the only moments where you are supposed to feel tension being fabricated for the purpose of this film’s story, which is, of course, not appropriate if one is trying to create a biopic. Bohemian Rhapsody centers around Queen's formation in 1970, their rise to prominence, and the “struggles” of the band, culminating with their astounding performance at the Live Aid benefit concert in 1985. This means that the film must also cover these years of Freddie Mercury’s life, from his meeting Roger Taylor and Brian May when they were part of the band Smile, to his romantic relationship with Mary Austin, the end of their physical relationship due to his series of male lovers (and not his AIDS diagnosis, as the film would have you believe). Mercury and Mary Austin remained friends for the remainder of his life, often referring to her as his “common law wife” and his “only friend.” Bohemian Rhapsody shows promise of solidly developing Austin and Mercury’s relationship (perhaps even to the point wanting to see a movie dedicated solely to the premise of how the pair's relationship evolved over time), but throws this away as soon as the film starts to dwell on Freddie's sexuality. When he comes out as bisexual to Mary Austin, she automatically concludes that Mercury is gay and the question is never highlighted again in the movie, aside from passing moments where Mercury is visibly hurt that Austin has moved on after they split up. Their continuing relationship after he came out to her, and giving more weight to the idea that Mercury likely was bisexual is pushed away in exchange for focusing more on the band’s story, which in itself would have been fair enough if they had not been so lackluster in telling both stories, because the exchange made is not worthwhile. However, before covering the relationship to the band in terms of just Mercury, I feel it necessary to first discover the point where all three major flaws of the film converge: Paul Prenter, the film’s de facto antagonist, a former manager/lover of Mercury, who, to be fair, is cited as the influence on Freddie that caused most of the internal conflict over the sound of Hot Space. In reality, that is where Prenter's purview of the era covered by the film would end. However, in the film, Prenter is responsible for far more than he can really be held accountable for in the real world, and the way he is portrayed gives way for the most heinously inept parts of the movie. Prenter is the culmination of “taking liberties” with the history of the band and mischaracterization. Bohemian Rhapsody does a lot with Prenter, and being professionally and romantically involved with Mercury as he was, it’s somewhat believable that he could have done certain things mentioned in the film as things he did (with a certain event being a distorted version of something he actually did). However, he is simply everywhere in the film. He is simultaneously Mercury's lover, manager, and so obsessed with keeping him to himself that he does comically “evil” things. He is the one to notify Freddie of the possibility of a solo record deal, double-crossing Mercury's former manager (leading to the former manager's firing), he's also the one that keeps Mercury away from the band once they “break up,” staying with him in Germany throwing extravagant parties filled with promiscuity, drugs, and alcohol, he also keeps Mary Austin away from Freddie by intercepting phone calls and lying to Freddie, as well as intercepting a phone call about the Live Aid concert, effectively trying to keep Queen from getting back together for the concert. This mountain of tasks, I remind you, all fall on Prenter as he is represented in the film, despite there being little proof that any of these things were Prenter's responsibility. It is after all of these cartoonishly ridiculous acts of villainy that Mary Austin flies to Germany to bring Freddie home, with him then catching wind of Prenter's duplicitous behavior, deciding to fire him there, leaving him in Germany in 1985, leading a fuming Prenter to out Mercury on national television. The problem, as with most of Prenter’s representation (and most of this part of the film) is that in the real world, the events mentioned did not happen as they are portrayed. Mercury actually fired Prenter in 1986, after Live Aid. Prenter would then out Mercury to the tabloids the following year, in 1987, also disclosing Mercury’s relationship with Jim Hutton. While it is clear that the real Paul Prenter was by no means a “good guy,” the film chose to portray him as a villain for all the wrong reasons, again conveniently dodging further discussion of Mercury’s sexuality by pinning all sorts of other deeds to the antagonist, rather than highlighting the more than suspicious things he actually did (including blackmailing Mercury with the threat of outing him). However, while Prenter crystallizes many of the problems of Bohemian Rhapsody, he isn’t all of them. The rest of the major problems come in with the bulk of the interactions of the band, specifically Freddie’s interactions with the rest of the band, or, seemingly, against them. In covering the majority of Queen’s history, the film has a lot to go through, including but not limited to, 11 albums, 12 tours, and key moments in the band's road to fame, such as their first television appearance, the massive success of the titular song, and their internal conflicts relating to the 1982 album Hot Space. Obviously, the film cannot do all of this in its runtime, so it understandably covers at length the key moments with tours and album publishings serving more as intermediate segments to blast music in and sing along to. This decision in the film is not the problem, the problem is the decision to move certain events in the band's history around in attempts to kind of magic plot points out of nowhere. Much of the band's early history is also glossed over, aside from their first success in Killer Queen and the making of Night at the Opera and consequently, the making of Bohemian Rhapsody. In terms of the band's relationship with Mercury (which constitutes most of the movie), many missteps are made in both the characterization of Mercury relative to the band, as well the bulk of the “liberties” taken with the band timeline coming into play here. In the scenes leading up to and including the band’s (non-existent) break-up over Hot Space and Mercury’s solo deal, Mercury is increasingly portrayed as the only diva of the group, consistently making snide remarks at his bandmates while they are supposedly calm and level-headed, completely inoffensive. Am I expected to believe that for a second, especially in a movie that Brian May and Roger Taylor took part in producing? The idea that Freddie Mercury is the only divisive member of the band at this point in time is a thinly-veiled attempt at sanitizing and deifying the rest of Queen, perhaps in a failed effort at amping up the embattled state of Freddie Mercury, or perhaps in a genuine effort to make the rest of the band look good. This becomes even more unbelievable when taking into account the next big slip-up in terms of continuity: Freddie’s solo deal. The way Bohemian Rhapsody makes things seem, you would be well within your right to believe that Queen’s frontman was being a self-centered snob when he threw an outburst over being confronted about the lackluster sound of Hot Space and decided to sign his own solo album deal without telling the other members, and that the rest of the band was taken aback by the blatantly underhand move, leading to differences that in that moment could not be settled, ending in a “break-up” of Queen for the next 2-3 years. However, as per the pattern of Bohemian Rhapsody, this is not at all what happened. Yes, the band was conflicted about the awkward-sounding album they were working on, but there was no split over it, and certainly not over Mercury going to work on his first solo album, Mr. Bad Guy. In fact, both Brian May and Roger Taylor had begun successful solo careers by the time of the film’s “break-up,” with no issue from the band, as was the case when Mercury went to work on his solo debut. Unfortunately, this is not where the diverging timeline created by Bohemian Rhapsody converges back into the main timeline. After the film’s Queen break-up, the series of events in Germany happens, and we are brought to a meeting in manager Jim Beach’s office (Beach became the band’s manager in 1978), where Mercury apologizes for his actions towards the band, and expresses interest in performing at Live Aid with them. In actuality, the band got right to work on their 11th album, The Works, right after Hot Space, and was touring for the former when they were contacted about Live Aid. The lead up to Live Aid produces the most egregious inaccuracy created, and left me frustrated through much of the otherwise enjoyable recreation of the iconic concert. ​Freddie Mercury’s AIDS diagnosis being moved up to 1985 for the sole purpose of giving extra weight to his performance at Live Aid is an appalling, enraging decision that should have been shot down immediately, but alas, it made it into the final, theatrical cut of Bohemian Rhapsody. There was much negative press around the film when it was revealed that the era covered would (in an accurate representation) not extend to Mercury’s battle with AIDS. What was the production team’s answer to this, you ask? Instead of deciding to cover the 6 years of Mercury’s career they cut off, or simply emphasizing other, related struggles of the singer (such as his SEXUALITY) in the set time to still construct an accurate story, they decided to lazily throw in two scenes in sequence where Freddie gets diagnosed and reveals it to the band, with the band then giving condolences and deciding to throw their full support behind him and help him keep it under wraps, and add a few slides at the end of the film saying Freddie Mercury died due to complications from AIDS in 1991, and don’t forget to donate to Jim Beach’s AIDS charity! It is apparent that the team behind Bohemian Rhapsody added the AIDS scenes as an afterthought to save face with the public, and the way it is incorporated into the rest of the film is transparently without effort or skill. The story of Farrokh Bulsara ceases to be gripping or emotional (if any other inaccuracies didn’t do this already). In trying to fit within the time frame the makers of the film set for themselves, they completely miss any of the thematic depth of Mercury’s legacy and diverge off a much more compelling and believable storyline. Of course, the famous Live Aid concert closes out the movie and we end on the dreaded aforementioned end cards, but the concert does close the story rather excitingly, again leaving me to wonder what potential was lost when they decided to mix facts with fiction in Bohemian Rhapsody, and leaving me both, craving a movie focused on Freddie Mercury’s relationship with Mary Austin, and more Queen music (and judging by the film’s soundtrack bringing Queen back to the charts, it seems more clear that the movie’s financial success was all that was in mind when creating it). In conclusion, Bohemian Rhapsody is a failure as a biopic retrospective of one of the greatest bands in rock history, but if you just want to sing along to Queen songs for 134 minutes, this movie is absolutely the one for you. Watch this with friends who will be just as frustrated as you are about the lapses in storytelling, but will also sing with you at the top of their lungs, and you’ll have a good time. ----END---- P.S.: This next part is a bunch of things that don’t totally fit in with the big blocks of criticism, but still observations I had about the film. ​Freddie’s identity and family life are minor subplots of the film, with half-hearted emphasis during early Queen days and Live Aid (with just about nothing in the middle). It’s cute that Freddie and his father reconcile after many years of conflict and disagreement over Freddie “rejecting his heritage,” and much like the relationship with Freddie and Mary, it’s things like this that should have been more prominent in Mercury’s story. Also, a truly comedic emphasis is put on Freddie Mercury’s passion for cats, to the point where I questioned whether they focused on the cats more than they did Freddie himself. This problem brings to light the other relationship that Freddie was in, you know, the gay one. Jim Hutton does appear in Bohemian Rhapsody, and his relationship with Mercury is present, but for a rather small amount of time, as Hutton becomes involved with Freddie in 1985, at the tail end of the movie. Also, songs in the film come about a little too conveniently. Brian May has everyone and their wives in the studio, and in an effort to create a song “that the audience can participate in” (this part is somewhat true, an oddity for this movie), gets everyone together to do the iconic stomp-stomp-clap of “We Will Rock You,” and Freddie walks in late to the recording session (cue canned cheering), listens to the beat, and asks if May has written the lyrics. Boom, “We Will Rock You” exists.There’s another scene where the band is in a heated argument, and John Deacon hushes everyone from the corner as he strums the bassline to “Another One Bites the Dust.” Classic made. While these scenes of serendipitous song creation fit with the film’s general tone, they only help in making the film feel more disconnected from reality, and it’s a shame that the songwriting process for some of the more thought provoking Queen songs is glossed over in exchange for moments of musical magic in writing the immediately recognizable hits.

#Freddiemercury #bohemianrhapsody #dec102018fun #dec102018 #fun #danieldiaz

[theconservativebrief]

As someone who tries to follow progressive policy development trends pretty closely, I was struck to see Thursday morning that Kevin Williamson had an article in National Review describing “Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything.”

Williamson turns out to be referring to Warren’s proposed Accountable Capitalism Act, which I wrote about on Wednesday and which does not involve nationalizing anything at all.

Her proposal would, in fact, be a large change in how the American economy works. And the impact of the change would almost certainly be negative for the 10 percent of the population that owns 80 percent of the value of the American stock market. So it’s natural that the plan will provoke intense opposition, and very much worth considering the possibility that it’s a bad idea.

But Williamson, who every conservative I know regards as one of the movement’s top minds, reaches his conclusion based almost entirely on mischaracterizing Warren’s program.

According to Williamson, Warren’s plan would make corporations “accountable to politicians, who desire to put the assets and productivity of private businesses under political discipline for their own selfish ends” in pursuit of “the wholesale expropriation of private enterprise in the United States, and nothing less.”

He means this quite literally.

His view is that Warren’s proposal is to essentially nationalize industry — putting business enterprises under the direct supervision of the federal government — to the extent that he views Donald Trump being in office as a knock-down argument that should convince everyone on the left that Warren’s proposal is bad.

To those on the left who look at Senator Warren’s proposal and think that giving the government a stronger whip hand over American businesses is just the ticket, I would like to present four questions: Who is the president of these United States? Who is the majority leader in the Senate? Who is the speaker of the House? How would you evaluate the composition of the Supreme Court, either as it stands or after President Donald Trump has the opportunity to nominate another justice or two? The power you give the federal government will be there during Republican administrations, too. Any future populist demagogue who finds his way into the White House will have access to the same power. No one should be trusted with that kind of power.

I think this is a reasonable argument against the wholesale nationalization of industry in the United States. It’s true that Norway has had a great deal of success with an economic system in which the state controls an incredibly large share of national wealth, but it seems unwise to me to leave so much up to the vicissitudes of the electoral process.

But conveniently, Warren’s plan does not in any way resemble Williamson’s description.

Under the existing legal status quo, it is already the case that if you want to start a corporation you need to get permission from the government in the form a corporate charter. Currently, charters are issued by state governments, which has tended to lead to a race to the bottom. Delaware ends up being the paper home of a huge share of businesses thanks to its shareholder-friendly laws.

Warren’s proposal is that the federal government should halt that race to the bottom by requiring large businesses with more than $1 billion in revenue to obtain a federal charter. These businesses represent a large chunk of overall economic activity in the United States. But contrary to Williamson’s rhetoric, the vast majority of American businesses are small and would be totally unaffected by anything in her legislation.

The federal charter for large businesses would have the following stipulations:

Company directors would be explicitly instructed to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders — shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates — when making decisions.

40 percent of the directors would be elected by the company’s workforce, with the other 60 percent elected by shareholders.

Corporate executives would be required to hold onto shares of stock granted to them for at least five years after they were received and at least three years after a share buyback.

Corporate political activity would require the specific authorization of both 75 percent of shareholders and 75 percent of board members.

In other words, under this plan no businesses would be nationalized. And neither Donald Trump nor any executive branch official would gain any new discretionary authority over any business. Congress would, of course, be able to change the law in the future, but Congress can already change laws — which is why we are talking about a senator’s proposal to change the law — so there’s no change there either.

Williamson alleges that under this bill “the federal government would then dictate to these businesses the composition of their boards, the details of internal corporate governance, compensation practices, personnel policies, and much more.”

That’s simply not the case. Williamson employs the rhetorical trick of insisting that because Warren is not stupid she must be dishonest to have put forward such a transparently bad idea.

I don’t personally know whether or not Williamson is stupid, so I won’t speculate on why exactly he has misdescribed the proposal so badly, but he has done an extremely poor job of describing the proposal. Then having misdescribed it, he raises a number of practical concerns without any regard for the relevant evidence.

Warren is proposing, essentially, that large American companies adopt an economic system known as “codetermination” in which management of the enterprise is the joint responsibility of workers and shareholders. This is not the historical practice in the United States or in other English speaking countries, but it’s common in continental Europe and often takes forms that are quite a bit stronger than what Warren proposes.

In Denmark, for example, any company with 35 employees needs worker representation on the board. In Germany, any company with more than 2,000 employees needs a board that is half elected by workers.

Reasonable people can disagree about the strength of the Danish or German economy, obviously, but when assessing the likely impact of adopting a codetermination system in the United States, one should start with some awareness of the functioning of comparable systems abroad.

Williamson, who does not seem to realize this, warns that if America adopts codetermination all its companies will leave:

Businesses historically have chosen to locate in the United States for a number of reasons: It was long the world’s largest market, and businesses had faith in American law and the American dollar. It’s still a big market, and the dollar is still the world’s favorite currency. But if American law or American lawmakers are going to treat profit-seeking enterprises as an Enemy of the People — Zurich is pretty nice. Lots of places are. There are a lot of big American businesses with targets painted on their backs, and those that do not already have a Plan B are doing their shareholders a disservice.

The idea that making the US legal system less friendly to shareholders will to an extent deter investment in the United States is not crazy. But it’s also obviously not the case that the entire German corporate sector has departed for Zurich despite it being a German-speaking city that is physically close to Germany and that is part of the same European Common Market as Germany.

One reason this doesn’t happen, as Williamson could probably have figured out for himself, is that since German workers control half the board seats on big German companies, it would be nearly impossible for a German company to gain board approval to abandon Germany.

One underlying issue here is that American conservatives seem hopelessly confused as to what it is that’s happening in Northern Europe and what, if anything, they want to say about it.

For several years now, Bernie Sanders has been prominently describing himself as a “socialist” and more specifically praising the social model of Denmark. Denmark’s prime minister (who leads a conservative political party) stridently disagrees that this social model amounts to “socialism.” And for the specific purposes of dunking on Sanders, most American conservatives are inclined to agree with the prime minister.

Two years ago, for example, Williamson himself praised Denmark, noting that “our friends at the Heritage Foundation rank its economy the eleventh most free in the world, one place ahead of the United States, reflecting Denmark’s strong property rights, relative freedom from corruption, low public debt, freedom of trade and investment, etc.” Sanders and his ilk, according to Williamson, “do not understand Denmark, or America, or much of anything.”

The libertarian Cato Institute agrees with Williamson that Denmark should be understood as a free market success story that happens to have a generous welfare state attached to it.

The claim that Denmark is somehow proof that a gentler socialism is preferable to free-market capitalism simply doesn’t hold water. Denmark has quite a free-market economy, apart from its welfare state transfers and high government consumption. https://t.co/KF1YIcOZws pic.twitter.com/Oghj6QluPf

— Cato Institute (@CatoInstitute) August 14, 2018

But guess what?

Denmark has some of the strongest codetermination laws in the world with employee representation on corporate boards kicking it at a much lower threshold than Warren proposed.

Yet even though Cato regards Denmark as an example of a successful free market economic system, Scott Shackford at the libertarian magazine Reason writes that Warren’s proposal to adopt a version of Danish-style codetermination would “destroy capitalism.”

Williamson, who a few years ago was scornful of Sanders’s lack of appreciation of the high degree of economic freedom in Denmark, now writes scornfully that Warren’s proposal to adopt a version of Danish-style codetermination would destroy the American economy.

There’s a weird quirk in conservative ideology in America: Since it’s knowable from first principles that policy action to create a more egalitarian economic system is undesirable, editors and writers can assign negative takes on something like Warren’s proposal without anyone taking the time to actually assess whether or not it’s a good idea.

But since it’s clear that the people working on this subject so far don’t actually know anything about it, it might be helpful to everyone concerned for Warren critics to slow down and do a little research first.

Warren is proposing a large change, and it might be a bad idea. But it’s simply not the case that codetermination systems lead naturally to tyranny or imminent economic collapse. And it’s simply not the case that she is proposing the nationalization of all American business. (Or of any American business.)

Indeed, a critical part of the appeal of the idea is precisely that it directly empowers middle- and working-class employees without asking them to trust the wisdom or competence of a large new government entity.

Reforming corporate governance is an idea that polls extremely well so it’s probably true that conservatives’ best tactic for defeating it is to wildly mischaracterize it. The audience for conservative media deserves better than this.

Original Source -> Kevin Williamson’s unhinged attack on Elizabeth Warren’s corporate accountability bill, explained

via The Conservative Brief

#IFTTT #The Conservative Brief