#this isn’t a criticism of either author because i love to see both perspectives | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thebibliosphere · 3 years

Note

So I'm currently unemployed because I got fired for taking too much sick leave (it was legally sketchy blah blah blah but in the end I just can't work and take care of myself and investigate my mystery health problems at the same time). So I've been spending more time writing!

I really admire your writing and loved Hunger Pangs. I'm looking forward to the poly elements developing and I'm wondering if you have any advice for writing about poly. I've made one of my projects a snarky take on "write what you know" ... Apparently what I know is southern gothic meets Pacific northwest gothic, chronic illness pandemic surrealism, and falling back-asswards into threesomes.

I know this is a very open-ended question and I don't expect an answer, I'm just curious about it if you have the energy. As a writer, trying to write honestly / realistically about polyamory/enm, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on what's different about portraying monogamy or nonmonogamy in books, romance or erotica or otherwise.

I'm trying to read examples but it's hard to find examples that fit the niche I'm looking at. Excuse me if this question is nonsense, it's the cluster headaches.

I'm sorry to hear you've been dealing with all that and solidarity on the cluster headaches. But I'm glad you're finding an outlet through writing! And I hope you're happy with an open-ended ramble in response because oh boy, there's a lot I could talk about and I could probably do a better job of answering this sort of thing with more specific questions, but let's see where we end up.

There's definitely a big difference between writing polyamory/ENM (ethical non-monogamy) and what people often expect from monogamous love stories.

Just even from a purely sales and marketing standpoint, the moment you write anything polyamorous (or even just straight up LGBTQIA+ without the ENM) you're going to get considered closer to being erotica/obscene than hetero romances. It's an unfair bias, but it's one that exists in our society. But also the Amazon algorithm and their shitty, shitty human censors. Especially the ones that work the weekends. (Talking to you, Carlos 🖕.)

So not only do you start out hyper-aware that you're writing something that is highly stigmatized or fetishized (at least I'm hyper-aware) but that you are also writing for a niche market that is starving for positive content because the content that exists is either limited, not what they want, or is problematic in some fashion i.e. highly stigmatized or fetishy. And even then, the wants, desires, and expectations of the community you're writing for are complex and wildly varied and hard to fit into an easy formula.

When writing monogamous love stories, there is a set expectation that’s really hard to fuck up once you know it. X person meets Y. Attraction happens, followed by some sort of minor conflict/resolution. Other plot may happen. A greater catalyst involving personal growth for both parties (hopefully) happens. Follow the equation to its ultimate resolution and achieve Happily Ever After.

But writing ENM is... a lot more difficult, if only because of the pure scope of possibilities. You could try to follow the same equation and shove three (or more) people into it, but it rarely works well. Usually because if you’re doing it right, you won’t have enough room in a single character arc to allow for enough growth, and if ENM requires anything in abundance, it’s room to grow.

And this post is huge so I’m going to put the rest under a cut :)

There's also a common refrain in certain online polyam/ENM circles that triads and throuples are overrepresented in media and they may be right to some extent. Personally, I believe the issue isn't that triads and throuples are overrepresented, but that there is such minuscule positive rep of ethical non-monogamy in general, that the few tiny instances we have of triads in media make it seem like it's "everywhere" when in actuality, it's still quite rare and the media we do have often veers into Unicorn Hunter fetish porn. Which is its own problematic thing. And just to be clear, I’m not including this part to dissuade you from writing "falling back-asswards into threesomes." If anything, I need more of it and would hook it directly into my brain if I could. I'm just throwing it out there into the void in the hope that someone will take the thought and run with it, lol.

I’d love to see more polyfidelitous rep in fiction, just as much as I’d like to see more relationship anarchy too. More diversity in fiction is always good.

Another thing that differs in writing ENM romance vs conventional monogamy is the feeling like you need to justify yourself. There's a lot of pressure to be as healthy and non-problematic as possible because you are being held to a higher standard of criticism. Both from people from without the ENM communities, and from the people within. Granted, some people don't give a shit and just want to read some fantastic porn (valid) but there are those who will cheerfully read Fifty Shades of Bullshit and call it "spicy" and "romantic," then turn around and call the most tooth-rottingly-sweet-fluff about a queer platonic polycule heresy. That's just the way the world works.

(Pro-tip for author life in general: never read your own reviews; that way madness lies. I glimpsed one the other day that tagged Hunger Pangs as “ethical cheating” and just about had an aneurism.)

And while that feeling of needing to justify yourself comes from a valid place of being excluded from the table of socially accepted norms, it can also be to the detriment of both the story and the subject matter at hand. I've seen some authors bend so far over backward to avoid being problematic in their portrayal of ENM, they end up being problematic for entirely different reasons. Usually because they give such a skewed, rose-tinted perspective of how things work, it ends up coming off as well... a bit culty and obnoxious tbh.

“Look how enlightened we are, freed from the trappings of monogamy and jealousy! We’re all so honest and perfect and happy!”

Yeah, uhu, sure Jan. Except here’s the thing, not all jealousy is bad. How you act on it can be, but jealousy itself is an important tool in the junk drawer that is the range of human emotion. It can clue us in to when we’re feeling sad or neglected, which in turn means we should figure out why we’re feeling those things. Sometimes it’s because brains are just like that and anxiety is a thing. Other times it’s because our needs are actually being neglected and we are in an unhealthy situation we need to remedy. You gotta put the work in to figure it out. Which is the same as any style of relationship, whether it’s mono, polyam or whatever flavor of ENM you subscribe to* And sometimes you just gotta be messy, because that’s how humans are. Being afraid to show that mess makes it a dishonest portrayal, and it also robs you of some great cannon fodder for character development.

Which brings me in a roundabout way to my current pet peeve in how certain writers take monogamous ideals and apply them to ENM, sometimes without even realizing it. The “Find the Right Person and Settle Down” trope.

Often, in this case, ENM or polyamory is treated as a phase. Something you mature out of with age or until you meet “The One(tm).” This is, of course, an attempt to follow the mono style formula expected in most romances. And while it might appeal to many readers, it’s uh, actually quite insulting.

To give an example, I am currently seeing this a lot in the Witcher fandom.

Fanon Netflix!Jaskier is everyone's favorite ethical slut until he meets Geralt then woops, wouldn’t you know, he just needed to find The One(tm). Suddenly, all his other sexual and romantic exploits or attractions mean nothing to him. Let's watch as he throws away a core aspect of his personality in favor of a man.

Yeah... that sure showed those societal norms...

If I were being generous, I’d say it’s a poor attempt at showing New Relationship Euphoria and how wrapped up people can become in new relationships. But honestly, it’s monogamous bias eking its way in to validate how special and unique the relationship is. Because sometimes people really can’t think of any other way to show how important and valid a relationship is without defining it in terms of exclusivity. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how ENM works for a lot of people and invalidates a lot of loving, serious and long-term relationships.

This is not to say that some polyam/poly-leaning people can't be happy in monogamous relationships! I am! (I consider myself ambiamorous. I'm happy with either monogamy or polyamory, it really just depends on the relationship(s) I’m in.) But I also don't regard my relationship with a mono partner as "settling down" or "growing up." It's just a choice I made to be with a person I love, and it's a valid one. Just like choosing to never close yourself off to multiple relationships is valid. And I wish more people realized that, or rather, I wish the people writing these things knew that :P

Anyway, I think I’ve rambled enough. I hope this collection of incoherent thoughts actually makes some sense and might be useful.

----

*A good resource book that doesn't pull any punches in this regard is Polysecure by Jessica Fern. It's a wonderfully insightful read that explores the messier side of consensual non-monogamy, especially with how it can be affected by trauma or inter-relationship conflicts. But it also shows how to take better steps toward healthy, ethical non-monogamy (a far better job than More Than Two**) and conflict resolution, making it a valuable resource both for someone who is a part of this relationship style***, but also for writers on the outside looking in who might have a very simple or misguided idea of what conflict within polyam/ENM relationships might look like, vs traditional monogamous ones.

** The author of More Than Two has been accused of multiple accounts of abuse within the polyamorous community, with many of his coauthors having spoken out about the gaslighting and emotional and psychological damage they experienced while in a relationship with him. A lot of their stories are documented here: https://www.itrippedonthepolystair.com/ (warning: it is not light material and deals with issues of abuse, gaslighting, and a whole other plethora of Yikes.) While some people still find More Than Two helpful reading, there are now, thankfully, much, much better resources out there.

*** Some people consider polyam/ENM to be part of their identity or orientation, while others view it as a relationship style.It largely depends on the individual.

#long post #writing #ethical non-monogamy #relationship styles #relationship models in fiction #also that kindle link is an affiliate link #because fuck giving amazon free recs

496 notes · View notes

supercantaloupe · 3 years

Text

okay yeah actually, i’ll bite. i’ve got some of my own thoughts about the unsleeping city and cultural representation and i’m gonna make a post about them now, i guess. i’ll put it under a cut though because this post is gonna be long.

i wanna start by saying i love dimension 20 and i really really enjoy the unsleeping city. i look forward to watching new episodes every week, and getting hooked on d20 as a whole last summer really helped pull me out of a pandemic depression, and i’m grateful to have this cool show to be excited about and interested in and to have met so many cool people to talk about it with.

that being said, however, i think there is a risk run in representing any group of people/their culture when you have the kind of setting that tuc has. by which i mean, tuc is set in a real world with real people and real human cultures in it. unlike fantasy high or a crown of candy where everything is made up (even if rooted in real-world cultures), tuc is explicitly rooted in reality, and all of its diversity -- both the ups and downs that go with it. and especially set in new york of all places, one of the most densely, diversely populated cities on earth. the cast is 7 people; it’s great that those 7 people come from a variety of backgrounds and identities and all bring their own unique perspectives to the table, and it’s great that those people and the entire crew are generally conscious of themselves and desire to tell stories/represent perspectives ethically. but you simply cannot authentically represent every culture or every perspective in the world (or even just in a city) when your cast is 7 people. it’s an impossible task. this is inherent to the setting, and acknowledged by the cast, and by brennan especially, who has been on record saying how one of the exciting aspects of doing a campaign set in nyc is its diversity, the fact that no two new yorkers have the same perspective of new york. i think that’s a good thing -- but it does have its challenges too, clearly.

i’m not going to go into detail on the question of whether or not tuc’s presentation of asian and asian american culture is appropriative/offensive or not. first of all, i don’t feel like it’s 100% fair to judge the show completely yet, since it’s a prerecorded season and currently airing midseason, so i don’t yet know how things wrap up. secondly, i’m not asian or asian american. i can have my own opinions on that content in the show, but i think it’s worth more to hear actual asian and asian american voices on this specific aspect of the show. having an asian american cast member doesn’t automatically absolve the show of any criticisms with regard to asian american cultural representation/appropriation, whether those criticisms are made by dozens of viewers or only a handful of them. regardless, i don’t think it’s my place as someone who is not asian to speak with any authority on that issue, and i know for a fact that there are asian american viewers sharing their own opinions. their thoughts in this instance hold more water than mine, i think.

what i will comment on in more depth, though, is a personal frustration with tuc. i’m jewish; i’ve never really been shy about that fact on my page here. i’m not from new york, but i visit a few times a year (or i did before covid anyway, lol), and i have some family from nyc. nyc, to me, is a jewish city. and for good reason, since it’s home to one of the largest jewish populations of the country, and even the world, and aspects of jewish culture (including culinary, like bagels and pastrami, and linguistic, like the common use of yiddish words and phrases in english colloquial speech) are prevalent and celebrated among jews and goyim alike. when i think of nyc, i think of a jewish city; that’s not everybody’s new york, but that’s my new york, and thats plenty of other people’s new york too. so i do find myself slightly disappointed or frustrated in tuc for its, in my opinion, rather stark lack of jewish representation.

now, i’m not saying that one of the PCs should have been jewish, full stop. i love to headcanon iga as jewish even though canon does not support that interpretation, and i’m fine with that. she’s not my character. it’s possible that simply no one thought of playing a jewish character, i dunno. but also, and i can’t be sure about this, i’m willing to bet that none of the players really wanted to play a jewish character because they didn’t want to play a character of a marginalized culture they dont belong to in the interest of avoiding stereotyping or offensive representation/cultural appropriation. (i don’t know if any of the cast members are jewish, but i’m assuming not.) and the concern there is certainly appreciated; there’s not a ton of mainstream jewish rep out there, and often what we get is either “unlikeable overly conservative hassidic jew” or “jokes about their bar mitzvah/one-off joke about hanukkah and then their jewishness is never mentioned ever again,” which sucks. it would be really cool to see some more good casual jewish rep in a well-rounded, three-dimensional character in the main cast of a show! even if there are a couple of stumbles along the way -- nobody is perfect and no two jews have the same level of knowledge, dedication, and adherence to their culture.

but at the same time, i look at characters like iga and i really do long for a jewish character to be there. siobhan isn’t polish, yet she’s playing a characters whose identity as a polish immigrant to new york is very central to her story and arc. and part of me wonders why we can’t have the same for a jewish character. if not a PC, then why not an NPC? again, i’m jewish, and i am not native, but in my opinion i think the inclusion of jj is wonderful -- i think there are even fewer native main characters in mainstream media than there are jewish ones, and it’s great to see a native character who is both in touch with their culture as well as not being defined solely by their native-ness. to what extent does it count as ‘appropriative’ because brennan is a white dude? i dunno, but i’m like 99% sure they talked to sensitivity consultants to make sure the representation was as ethical as they could get it, and anyway, i can’t personally see and glaring missteps so far. but again, i’m not native, and if there are native viewers with their own opinions on jj, i’d be really interested in hearing them.

but getting back to the relative lack of jewish representation. it just...disappoints me that jewishness in new york is hardly ever even really mentioned? again, i know we’re only just over halfway through season 2, but also, we had a whole first season too. and it’s definitely not all bad. for example: willy! gd, i love willy so much. him being a golem of williamsburg makes me really really happy -- a jewish mythological creature animated from clay/mud (in this case bricks) to protect a jewish community (like that of williamsburg, a center for many of nyc’s jews) from threat. golem have so often been taken out of their original context and turned into evil monsters in fantasy settings, especially including dnd. (even within other seasons of d20! crush in fh being referred to as a “pavement golem” always rubbed me the wrong way, and i had hoped they’d learned better after tuc but in acoc they refer to another monster as a “corn golem” which just disappointed me all over again.) so the fact that tuc gets golems right makes my jewish heart very happy.

and yet...he doesn’t show up that much? sure, in s1, he’s very helpful when he does, but in s2 so far he shows up once and really does not say or do much of anything. he speaks with a lot more yiddish-influenced language than other characters, but if you didn’t know those words were specifically yiddish/jewish, you might not be able to otherwise clock the fact that willy is jewish. and while willy is a jewish mythological creature who is jewish in canon, he isn’t human. there are no other direct references to judaism, jewish characters, or jewish culture in the unsleeping city beyond him.

there are, in fact, two other canon jewish characters in tuc. but...here’s where i feel the most frustration, i think. the two canon jewish humans in tuc are stephen sondheim and robert moses. both of whom are real actual people, so it’s not like we can just pick and choose what their cultural backgrounds are. as much as i love stephen sondheim, i think there are inherent issues with including real world people as characters in a fictional setting, especially if they are from living/recent memory (sondheim is literally still alive), but anyway, sondheim and moses are both actual jewish people. from watching tuc alone you probably would not be able to guess that sondheim is jewish -- nothing from his character except name suggests it, and i wouldn’t even fault you for not thinking ‘sondheim’ is a jewish-sounding surname (and i dislike the idea/attitude/belief that you can tell who is or isn’t jewish by the sound of their name). and yeah, i’m not going to sit here and be like “brennan should have made sondheim more visibly jewish in canon!” because, like, he’s a real human being and it’s fucking weird to portray him in a way that isn’t as close to how he publicly presents himself, which is not in fact very identifiably jewish? i don’t know, this is what i mean by it’s inherently weird and arguably problematic to portray real living people as characters in a fictional setting, but i digress. sondheim’s jewish, even if you wouldn’t know it; not exactly a representation win.

and then there’s bob moses. you might be able to guess that he’s jewish from canon, actually. there’s the name, of course. but more insidious to me are the specifics of his villainy. greedy and powerhungry, a moneyman, a lich whose power is stored in a phylactery...it does kind of all add up to a Yikes from me. (in the stock market fight there’s a one-off line asking if he has green skin; it’s never really directly acknowledged or answered, but it made me really uncomfortable to hear at first and it’s stuck with me since viewing for the first time.) the issue for me here is that the most obviously jewish human character is the season’s bbeg, and his villainy is rooted in very antisemitic tropes and stereotypes.

i know this isn’t all brennan’s fault -- robert moses was a real ass person and he was in fact jewish, a powerhungry and greedy moneyman, a big giant racist asshole, etc. i’m not saying that jewish characters can’t be evil, and i’m not saying brennan should have tried to be like “this is my NPC robert christian he’s just like bob moses but instead he’s a goy so it’s okay” because...that would be fuckin weird bro. and bob moses was a real person who was jewish and really did do some heinous shit with his municipal power. i’m not necessarily saying brennan should have picked/created a different character to be the villain. i’m not even saying that he shouldn’t have made bob moses a lich (although, again, it doesn’t 100% sit right with me). but my point here is that bob moses is one of a grand total of three canon jewish characters in tuc, of which only two humans, of whom he is the one you’d most easily guess would be jewish and is the most influenced by antisemitic stereotypes/tropes. had there been more jewish representation in the show at all, even just some neutral jewish NPCs, this would not be as much of a problem as it is to me. but halfway through season 2, so far, this is literally all we get. and that bums me out.

listen, i really like tuc. i love d20. but the fact that it is set in a real world place with real world people does inherently raise challenges when it comes to ethical cultural representation. especially when the medium of the show is a game whose creatures, lore, and mechanics have been historically rooted in some questionable racial/cultural views. and dnd is making progress to correct some of those misguided views of older sourcebooks by updating them to more equitably reflect real world racial/cultural sensitivities; that’s a good thing! but these seasons, of course, were recorded before that. the game itself has some questionable cultural stuff baked into it, and that is (almost necessarily) going to be brought to the table in a campaign set in a real-world place filled with real-world people of diverse real-world cultures. the cast can have sensitivity consultants and empathy and the best intentions in the world, and they’ll still fuck up from time to time, that’s okay. your mileage may vary on whether or not it’s still worth sticking around with the show (or the fandom) through that. for me, it does not yet outweigh all the things i like about the show, and i’m gonna continue watching it. but it’s still very worth acknowledging that the cast is 7 people who cannot possibly hope to authentically or gracefully represent every culture in nyc. it’s an unfortunate limitation of the medium. yet it’s also still worthwhile to acknowledge and discuss the cultural representation as it is in the show -- both the goods and the bads, the ethically solid and the questionably appropriative -- and even to hold the creators accountable. (decently, though. i’m definitely not advocating anybody cyberbully brennan on twitter or whatever.) the show and its representation is far from perfect, but i also don’t think it ever could be. still, though, it could always be better, and there’s a worthwhile discussion to be had in the wheres, hows, and whys of that.

#sasha reviews #sasha speaks #the unsleeping city #unsleeping city #long post #dimension 20 #gd i stayed up way too late to write this #tuc #the unsleeping city chapter 2 #the unsleeping city 2 #tuc2 #antisemitism

155 notes · View notes

missmentelle · 4 years

Note

What does a good, healthy adult relationship with your parents look like?

A healthy adult relationship with your parents means mutual respect, mutual trust and healthy boundaries.

Once you reach adulthood, your parents need to accept that you are an adult now, and that their days of disciplining you and having control over your life are over. They should transition from an “authority figure and guardian” role to more of an “adult mentor” role. This transition won’t necessarily happen right at the moment you turn 18, but as you reach your early 20s and beyond, your parents need to be relinquishing control and accepting that you are an adult with a right to make your own choices and keep things private from them if you choose. In a healthy relationship, parents don’t see you moving away and becoming independent as a threat or an insult to them - they see it as proof that they did a good job raising you, and they are happy to see you succeeding on your own.

In a healthy adult relationship, parents still offer advice and guidance, but that advice is clearly given from a perspective of “I love you and want to help you do well on your own”, rather than “you’re not capable of surviving without me and you need to do what I say”. If you’re struggling with your living situation, a healthy parent might say something like “just remember that you can always come back here and stay with us if you need to while you figure out your next move”, while an unhealthy parent might say something like “see, I told you that you weren’t capable of making it on your own, I’m moving you back home and I’m not letting you live on your own again until I decide you’re capable of it”. Parents can and should speak up if they feel that their adult kids are making unsafe or unwise decisions, but healthy parents know their limits - if they see that your partner is abusing you, for instance, they should express their concerns, but if they simply disapprove of your job, that’s an instance where they should probably understand that their input is not necessary. Healthy parents should not punish you for not taking their advice; screaming at you or giving you the silent treatment if you don’t listen to them is manipulation, and it’s not healthy.

Healthy parents also respect boundaries. They don’t demand access to your bank accounts or a key to your apartment, and they don’t insist that you install location-tracking apps on your phone. They don’t go over your head to contact your job, your partner or your friends to get information about you (except in extraordinary circumstances, like if you are genuinely missing or in danger), and they understand that there will always be aspects of your life that you just don’t feel the need to share with them. When they are at your apartment or house, they respect that it is your home and not theirs - they do not show up unannounced to check on you, and they do not go through your personal belongings without permission. Healthy parents do not see boundaries or a desire for privacy as an insult against them - they understand that they just don’t need to know things like what brand of condoms you keep in your nightstand or whether or not you have a yeast infection right now, and they understand that you just need to keep some information to yourself.

In healthy relationships between parents and adult children, there is also a shift in how you solve conflicts - you need to be able to have mature discussions about things you disagree on, and find ways to either resolve the issue, or reach an understanding that you need to agree to disagree. Your parents need to understand that “you aren’t allowed to disagree with us, ever, because we’re the parents and we say so” is no longer a legitimate argument, and you need to remember that you no longer get a pass on saying hurtful things to your parents like you might have when you were a teenager. You both need to get a sense of which issues are worth arguing over and which issues you are better off just letting go of. If there are lingering issues from your childhood and adolescence, those need to be resolved in a healthy way - if your parents were overly harsh and critical, they need to understand that that’s not okay, and if you were cruel to your parents as a teenager, you also need to understand that that’s not okay. Ideally, major fights or arguments between you and your parents should be quite rare once you’re an adult, and you both need to figure out how to walk away when things are getting heated. Healthy parents also respect your partner, and take your romantic relationships seriously. If they are concerned about possible abuse in the relationship, they should speak up, but otherwise they should be making a genuine effort to try to connect with your partner and to support you in the relationship. If they don’t like your partner, that’s something that they need to deal with for themselves - it’s not acceptable for them to be rude or hostile to your partner, or for them to constantly express their disapproval and urge you to end the relationship. Likewise, if you have children of your own, it’s not okay for them to undermine you as a parent. They can be a loving and doting grandparent who is highly involved in your child’s life if you’re comfortable with that, but they need to be deferring to you on important decisions about the child and not undermining your authority as a parent. If you have decided that your child is going to be raised in a certain religion (or lack thereof) and that your child is going to be raised with certain values, it’s not okay for your parents to go behind your back and defy you on that.

On the whole, I would say that I have a fairly healthy adult relationship with my parents. It took them a while at first to fully accept that was I an adult who could make my own choices, but I’m 27 now and they’ve finally gotten the hang of it. We talk regularly and I see them fairly often, but they also respect that I need my space and that me choosing to live far away from them and have my own life is not a personal attack against them, it’s just something that I need to do for myself. My youngest brother and I have both been in our fair share of unhealthy relationships, and they did a good job of expressing concern without overstepping. I think they’ve done a good job of striking a balance between trying to offer me guidance and support, and recognizing that I’m pretty capable of making my own choices. Healthy relationships between parents and adult children are ultimately a two-way street - you both need to be putting the work in to make the relationship what you want it to be. If your parents aren’t willing to meet you halfway, sometimes that means that a healthy relationship just isn’t possible at this time. Hope this answers your question! Miss Mentelle

#Anonymous

1K notes · View notes

faelapis · 4 years

Text

so. while this was confirmed a year ago, new tweets by ian jq have reawakened the discourse about humans being the first intelligent life gems encountered. note intelligent life, not organic life. alien animals still died from previous invasions, but humans are the first intelligent creatures gems encountered.

apparently, the party line on twitter (where nuance goes to die) is that it’s too “convenient” that humans are the first other intelligent species gems met.

i take a few issues with that assessment:

a) “it was pink’s first colony, isn’t it convenient the diamond concerned with organic life owns the first planet populated by intelligent organics? wouldn’t they have died if any other diamond got them? isn’t that super lucky?”

no. we know rose/pink was very interested in organic life from before earth. she always thought aliens were cool, interesting, fun, and liked learning about them and keeping some as pets - such as the rainbow worms. we know she visited the others’ colonies, even if she doesn’t own them. she’s the only diamond who is simultaneously “selfish” enough to visit colonies up-close on a whim because it’s fun AND doesn’t see herself as too good to play with local organics.

so, then, why on earth (hah) wouldn’t she care if there had been intelligent life on any of the other planets? she didn’t fight for earth just because she “owned” it. she cared because she was able to form connections to humans... which she would have done regardless of which diamond’s colony it was. if anything, ownership is a hindrance to her usual romps, because blue & yellow expected her to stay put in her moon base. smile and wave. be a “leader”.

b) “how is it realistic that humans are the first intelligent life gems have met?”

the SU universe as a whole is not a universe filled with life. it has been framed as cold, animalistic, overall lifeless, purposeless, and one in which you gaze at an empty sky and beg for an authority figure to give your life meaning. this works much, much better if life, especially intelligent life, is incredibly sparse. they are small flickers in a cold void. it adds to the feeling that both humans and gems feel of loneliness and pointlessness, where you create these intricate structures of organized almost-religion to feel devoted to a purpose. this existentialism, which we will explore further below, is a huge part of SU’s themes.

c) another theme - and this one is important - is that gems and humans have been treated as this mirror parallel of life, people, and society (tm) for the entire runtime of the show. hence, steven as the bridge. a bridge, usually, connects two sides, not five. they are more similar than they are different - to the point where you can use gemkind to comment on how humans are like, and see some of the horrors and tragedy of what humanity looks like “from the outside”. not once has there ever been implied to be any other intelligent species to disrupt this elegant, thematic dichotomy. ever.

d) unlike fanon speculation, the show has always been very careful about never implying there were any previous rebellions. SU is not a star wars-esque universe populated with a million different intelligent species and cyclical rebellions + alliances between them. it is a big, cold, empty void, with tiny pockets of fragile life. which is part of why the connection between two alien species is so remarkable. it is the exception, not the rule.

e) many of us who looked at homeworld in a not-badfaith light already came to the conclusion that humans are probably the only intelligent life they’ve met. (based on what we know about the universe, its logic, the themes, the implications of other colonies, pink diamond’s personality, no other species ever bonded with enough to fight for, etc etc,)... and those of us who did, including myself, have (lovingly!!) compared the crystal gems to hippies or eco-terrorists. this 100% holds up to how homeworld gems generally, and the diamonds specifically, see them.

this is why blue thinks a “solution” to pink being sad about the invasion is to create the zoo. it’s a petty conflict, from her perspective, of environmentalism vs conservationism. like how, if a capitalist is kinda sad about a rainforest being bulldozed, you might as well just take some pretty toucans and panthers and stick them in a zoo. they’re preserved for humans to enjoy. problem “solved”. it worked with the kyanite colony & rainbow worms, why not here?

this is part of why lapis accuses the CGs of not caring about gemkind. they put this silly little dirtball above gemkind, starting a war that hurt (”real”) people?

this is also why pink, mocking the other diamonds, says “you wish to save these life-forms at the expense of our own? ha! don't be absurd!”. gemkind needs resources to create more gems. so, to the diamonds, of course that’s more important than Making The Bees and Monkeys Sad. they’re not even directly killing them, they’re just taking resources. it’s not “””their fault””” they need ‘em too, gems are more important. the same way, to us, humans are always the most important. many of us don’t give a damn about how we hurt animals.

f) it galls me that anything but the darkest possible interpretation, even when it makes perfect sense with what we know, is always seen as “convenient” by people who watched nostalgia critic once and think they’re now great media critics. i saw similar comments to jasper being brought back to life, even though it made perfect sense with what’s implied about the powers of the diamonds. most of that, too, was woven together by paying close attention to implication, not outright stated in a lore dump - but that doesn’t make it “convenient” in the bad way. it makes it the logical outcome of this world, if you paid attention.

like jasper coming back to life, it also told us something thematic about the diamonds’ absolute power over life & death. steven is kinda horrified, even if it’s a good thing, that things can ever be fixed. he still feels like he needs to be “punished”. he holds this toxic mindset that punishment is more important than healing, because of the pit of self-harm he’s fallen into... which is kind of how some people see the diamonds, and the world as a whole.

even if things can get better, it doesn’t matter. at least not as much as punishing and distancing ourselves from the “bad people”. even though, actually, things CAN get better, and that’s more dependent on systemic change than it is on punishing “bad” individuals... that doesn’t fascinate them. it’s a fucked-up idea of “consequences” that is sadly prevalent in fandoms: they’d rather the world be doomed if they get to kill the bad people for it, than the world being slowly healed in this bittersweet way that includes everyone.

and i’m tired of that. on the whole, fiction is a reflection of this very dour, justice-oriented view of the world where we can only gain satisfaction from punishing the bad guys responsible. SU’s response to that is, that actually, just this once... no! the world gets better, and the “how” doesn’t revolve around individual punishment. it’s trying to heal everyone.

g) it seems to me that for a substantial amount of people, “convenience” has less to do with the themes and logic of the world than it does with wanting canon to live up to their fanon image of homeworld and the diamonds. even if that means a ton of offscreen intelligent life dying Just for the sake of a 1-v-1 earth-vs-gems conflict, with no agency in the story. i don’t understand how that would make it better. all other life we’ve seen have been animals. pink was around for other colonies - even if she didn’t personally “own” them - yet didn’t care deeply enough to fight for them. because she couldn’t bond with worms the same way as humans. (yknow, unfortunately, for the worms :’<)

also, you don’t NEED other species of intelligent life to have been made extinct to still have a somewhat cynical interpretation of the diamonds’ intentions here. even if it makes the world less grimdark in praxis. it’s not enough to be aware of humans in the abstract, blue and yellow still won’t listen. you need to actually interact with humans in order to learn about / care for organics that don’t serve a purpose in your system. this was just the first chance gemkind had to do so. it makes sense that some would be curious, while others more jaded and dismissive, after encountering a universe mostly made of the lifeless & animals.

to give the other diamonds some credit, they’ve probably encountered plenty organic life, and thus have built up a bias that everyone but gemkind are aimless, animalistic life forms, and its up to them to give themselves purpose. why should humans be any different? oh wow, they live in groups? big whoop. so do ants. they build nests? so do birds. they babble? so do parrots and rainbow worms. they still serve no purpose. they still die if you breathe on them.

it’s only when blue meets greg - thousands of years later - that we see even the tiniest of cracks, in which blue is made aware of some level of emotional intelligence, but is still firmly entrenched in the view that he’s just a Slightly more advanced organic than others. like... puppies comforting you. she was surprised he could even do that much. this was a slow process for rose as well!

but anyway, at the point of the war, to many gems, they are concerned first and foremost with gemkind. life matters because of your singular, gem-oriented “purpose”... but some gems, like pink, who never saw herself as a justified goddess, take the opposite approach. they don’t see themselves as “above” other life out of either lack of awareness of the capabilities of intelligent life forms or a self-appointed Higher Purpose. they’re curious, and then, willing to fight for life they can bond with, once they learn to love.

which brings me to...

h) how a big theme of the show as a whole is selflessness vs selfishness.

here, the crystal gems as a whole have actually been on the side of selfishness, from homeworld’s perspective. the end of gathering resources would mean they would no longer create more gems. which, to HW, is selfish. which... of course it is, if you think you’re the only intelligent life out there.

the way homeworld gems express themselves is through an elaborate system of self-perpetuation and creation, in which the emergence of more gems is a higher purpose for the collective. the individual doesn’t matter. to them, the random creatures they find on other planets do not matter. they’re just organics.

humans matter to pink because she’s, like i said, curious about alien life, and less convinced about her own purpose... but also more personal, relationship-driven, and cares about what happens the specific individuals she subjectively bonds with, rather than prioritizing the overall “needs” of her species, like a good queen bee is “supposed” to do.

homeworld thinks that no individual feelings - even a diamond’s - is more important than perpetuating of the system that gives their species meaning. most gems are happy to be shattered for that cause, because they’ve never formed those “selfish” relationships that makes life worth living without purpose. so actually, yes, this works with pink’s motivation, and blue and yellow not being as easily swayed works with theirs.

(all of this is extremely relevant to the arc steven has in “future”, btw. he needs a reason to be needed, purpose. and pearl’s arc, white diamond’s arc, jasper’s arc, etc etc - living for purpose vs living for relationships and selfish exploration of the self is a massive theme of the whole show!! at leaast if you pay attention to anything more subtle than merely “here’s a lore dump!”, which the show has always avoided. it’s more sublime than that. you, too, are supposed to only have a small, subjective understanding of the world, like steven does, which teaches you to value subjective perspectives. your purpose is not higher than the agency of others, and you shouldn’t control the world.)

i) it makes dramatic sense, actually, to center the conflict around the first time gems have met another species that stand a chance of understanding them! hence steven is a bridge. that’s a good basis for mirroring two species, a conflict that raises interesting questions about how we, too, see non-human life, the premium we place on emotional connection vs “purpose”, and how even when we learn to value humans that are different from us, we might still fuck around and bulldoze a rainforest, if it’s convenient and we can justify it internally.

and again, it’s more logical. as we know it, the story went “long ago, gems took resources all over the universe, until pink found a species intelligent enough some of them learned to bond with on a deeper level than Cool Pet Worm”, NOT “long ago, gems zapped a bunch of intelligent species - which we will not mention ever, or give any agency in the story - and pink just ignored that, until she randomly decided humans were more important than all those, for no reason, even though she’d met countless intelligent species before”.

the former makes more sense in ~every reading of canon, be it thematic, logical, personal, character-driven, etc~... except the one most favored by SU’s most badfaith of critics, which is that the only “logical” way for the story to go is one in which we can safely label the diamonds as inhumanly, unchangably bad, rather than having base assumptions, motivations and logics that aren’t so different from many non-dictator humans.

i think for some, they protest not because that makes more sense on a thematic, logical or character level, but simply because they want to. they’re USED to being fed that narrative satisfaction has to do with seeing the bad guys face comeuppance, in place of inclusive, welfare-oriented healing. faced with storytelling that rejects their view of justice while also openly being subjective, sublime, and loving of all of its characters, not just the “nice” ones, they see it as a “failure” to be what they’re used to.

if the world CAN systemically heal in a way that includes people you personally don’t forgive, that must be a “flaw”. if those “bad guys” haven’t actually killed hundreds of intelligent species offscreen who have no chance to heal, that doesn’t fuel your justification for the most cynical interpretation of justice possible, so that, too, “must” be a “flaw”. if it’s framed as possible for them to work towards undoing their harm, that deprives you of the satisfaction of edgy punishment for unhealable hurt, so that, too, is of course a “flaw”. any world where healing is possible for everyone, and the perpetrators can contribute, must be a “flaw”, to a mind only concerned with the validity of vengeance.

even when the story is perfectly candid that you’re personally allowed to be hurt and traumatized (like steven - and most characters, really), you’re still allowed to feel... you just can’t expect society as a whole to abandon its “inclusive healing” model and function on your logic; that your pain is solved by vengeance. it isn’t.

in short, cry about it.

#steven universe #homeworld #the diamonds #rose quartz #pink diamond #rose diamond #jasper #su theory #su future #su analysis #and by 'a few issues' i mean 'let me write you a novel about why this was always canon'#i know it must be a big blow if you've decided you're morally superior for hating SU based on fanon assumptions #but that's kinda on you fam. stop listening to bad youtubers. and do indeed cry about it - it's healthy

479 notes · View notes

papers4me · 3 years

Note

Stop hating kagura! Tohru needed a slap to wake up & stop being emo. We all do. Kagura's violence is how she react with others. She loves kyo so much & she hits him plenty. She's strong because she's giving up on kyo for his own good.

hi.

First, I don’t think ppl need to be hit to “ wake up”. kindly, don’t take kagura’s behavior as an example. Also, tohru isn’t emo, she’s a traumatized child with issues not lesser than yuki’s or Isuzu.

Secondly, I don’t hate kagura at all. hating fictional character is a wasted energy cuz they’re not real. They are the product of the writer’s imagination. These characters ( especially secondary characters) are created to either further the plot, convey a theme, as a parallel to another character, side love interest, to push the MC into action). I might not like what the author intends to do with them but I don’t hate the characters themselves , nor the author themselves.

It is fine to call a character’s behavior out. Calling them out depends on the way you digest the fiction or your interest, or your own real life principles or even your preference! you can like a character that contradicts your real life principles & make them your ultimate fave character cuz fiction is where we escape to. Fiction is what you as a person wants it to be. This is why, I never understood when fans ask others to shut up & appreciate the fictional story without personal preference whether anime, film, novels or series. ppl consume & digest fiction differently cuz we are individually different despite our similarities & that's part of why human are amazing. Back to kagura:

Viewing others from personal perspective vs being compassionate:

Kagura looked at tohru as someone who has what she she can’t: kyo’s love. from her perspective tohru shuld be grateful for the bless of having reciprocated love as kahura is suffering from the pains of one-sided love. Kagura’s pain won’t go away simply cuz kyo said: thank you, but I don’t feel the same, sorry. It is logical that she needs time to heal & watching kyo & tohru in a relationship would help her to move on. Kagura’s whole journey was abt being selfish & looking at kyo to feel better abt herself. If I’m with the monster, then I’m not a bad person, She wanted to be Beauty & the Beast. Her confrontation with kyo, helped her move on from that, she ended yo loving him for himself, but alas, he doesn’t see her as a lover. Kagura pushing tohru to love kyo is supposed to be kagura learning to be selfless & caring for others than herself. Her words are excellent but her attitude isn’t. Hitting tohru takes kagura back to step one again: seeing ONLY her own pain. from kagura’s eyes, tohru being with kyo is a bless that would make them both happy. So, be together already, you fools~ I’ll make you even if I have to hit you. Problem: Tohru’s pain isn’t exclusively romantic pining pain like kagura’s. It is a complex trauma that many don’t appreciate how deep it is (thanks anime for making tohru’s background story super quick! -_-’’). She has a huge crippling fear of forgetting her mom. She’s been lonely since childhood! her first friends are Arisa & hana when she was a pre-teen in Junior high school. Moreover, being hit by kagura, didn’t heal tohru, she tried to confess to kyo & guess what stopped her? Her mom’s memory. Meaning Tohru has issues that love can’t heal magically. Also, violence shouldn’be be a character’s trait. I wish kagura has a sub-plot to learn to master it! perhaps in the manga? =D. That would be awesome!

-Violence In furuba:

I treat fiction as what it presented itself to be. School Rumble is solely comedy, so its violence doesn’t bother me. Harima gets hit every ep & I laugh at him. Furuba is part comedy, yes. but it wants its characters trauma’s to be taken seriously. Violence is used to make you feel for Kisa, Isuzu, yuki, & others. But it is also fun & light comedy when it comes to kyo being hit or the fanclub girls bullying tohru. laugh~ laugh~. Suicide is presented in furuba as tragically as it really is. Kyo’s mom did it & it wrecked kyo. but it also a comic gag with Ritsu & the editor lady. I can’t accept both presentations in one fiction. Either Violence is bad or comic gag. Presenting both ways, lessen the other. & don’t get me started on violence heals! if love can’t magically heal, why should violence?

It is okay to criticize this writing aspect in furuba. It doesn’t mean the writer is bad. It means the writer is human with their own perspective on things. I share some & despise others. Yes, with violence double usage in furuba, I’mma use the words despise. It fits how I feel abt violence. Still, I adore furuba so much. Some of the writing elements are extraordinary to me! such as its realistic depiction of trauma & child abuse, the heart tugging depiction of romantic slow burns! seriously the last time I felt this much for a slow burn romance was in Pride & prejudice! You scream, get together already!!!! but it is amazing cuz they logically can’t for reasons bigger than pining love! it is hella entertaining!

Thank you for the ask! I enjoyed it<3

#Fruits Basket #asks #Anime Only #anonymous friends #responding paper

31 notes · View notes

princesssarisa · 3 years

Text

A defense of the ending of “Wuthering Heights"

@astrangechoiceoffavourites, @theheightsthatwuthered, @wuthering-valleys, @heightsandmoors, @incorrectwutheringheightsquotes

I’ve been reading other people’s opinions on Wuthering Heights this past year, I’ve noticed a small recurring theme.

It’s the idea that the ending feels out of place; tacked on; anti-climactic; too tame compared to the rest of the book. That it feels wrong for Heathcliff to simply lose interest in his revenge and then lose the will to live, or for the surviving characters to have any kind of happy or hopeful ending after so much brutality.

One book I read excerpts from on Google Books (I don’t remember the title or the author) suggested that maybe Emily Brontë originally wrote a very different, more brutal and Gothic ending, now lost. The author proposed that the final ending was probably the result of Anne and/or Charlotte urging Emily to tone down the book’s “immorality.” Of course this is pure conjecture. This same author also speculated that in the novel’s first draft, Heathcliff was explicitly Mr. Earnshaw’s illegitimate son, but that Anne and/or Charlotte persuaded Emily to change it. I’m not at all convinced by that theory, since @astrangechoiceoffavourites has argued very eloquently that to make Heathcliff and Cathy’s love forbidden because of the incest taboo rather than because of social class and race would go against the plot’s main themes and make nonsense of Heathcliff’s revenge on the Lintons and Earnshaws.

Still, this theorist isn’t the only person to think the ending (and possibly the whole second generation storyline) feels like the work of a different author than the rest of the book. Just recently I read a comment on Facebook arguing that a more cohesive, consistent Wuthering Heights would have had “a much darker and more explosive ending.” I assume a similar mindset is why some theorize that Branwell wrote the novel’s first half and Emily wrote the second. (I think I hate that theory even more than I hate the theory that Branwell wrote it all – “He didn’t write the whole book, but he did write the part everyone likes best.”) And if we compare the various adaptations’ endings to the ending of the book, there’s definitely a trend of giving Heathcliff a more brutal death.

I understand all of this. The ending of the book is ironic. Heathcliff himself knows it’s ironic: “It is a poor conclusion, is it not?” he asks Nelly, “an absurd termination to my violent exertions?” We don’t expect a towering, terrifying yet fascinating Byronic anti-hero like Heathcliff to become apathetic and ineffectual in the end and then die quietly (albeit mysteriously and eerily) in bed. We’d sooner expect him to freeze to death chasing Cathy’s ghost through a blizzard, or to be shot by his worst enemy, or to be lured by Cathy’s ghost to commit suicide by gunshot.

But I know I’m not the only person who thinks the entire book is fully cohesive and who sees nothing wrong with the ending whatsoever.

As far as I’m concerned, Heathcliff’s “absurd” end is more interesting than anything “darker and more explosive” would have been, precisely because it’s unexpected and yet makes perfect sense. Revenge never makes Heathcliff truly happy or brings him peace of mind: we know that all along. It might distract him from his pain, but it can’t cure it. While initially surprising, in hindsight it’s not surprising at all that, with no out-of-character repentance or remorse, he eventually loses the will to seek any more revenge. At heart it was never what he really wanted most; his real greatest desire is and always has been to be with Cathy.

Then there’s the strongest factor in his loss of his will for revenge: his grudging empathy for Hareton. Again, as far as I’m concerned, this is fascinating irony. Heathcliff has purposefully set out to shape Hareton into a copy of himself. Ultimately, that scheme “goes horribly right,” because he sees too much of his younger self in Hareton to hate him as much as he wants to, or to have the will to separate him from Cathy II the way he himself was separated from Cathy I. Then there’s Hareton’s resemblance to his aunt, Cathy I; even though Heathcliff’s passion for Cathy has been the motive for all his revenge on the two families that separated them, in the end it’s what makes him unable to ruin the lives of her lookalike nephew and her daughter, even though they’re also the children of the two men most responsible for taking Cathy from him. Again, it works because it’s handled delicately and without sentimentality. He still shows no remorse or regret for his past actions, and never shows any real kindness or fondness to Hareton or Cathy II, but despises the conflicted feelings they stir in him. But the fact remains that, despite all his efforts to be a monster over the years, he’s still a human being, capable of some empathy for people in whom he sees aspects of himself and of his beloved Cathy. I think it’s fascinating that this humanity, and not his monstrous actions, is what undoes him in the end.

Also, as some critics have pointed out, the very fact that Heathcliff receives no punishment for his sins (apart from his inner torment) makes the ending subversive by Victorian standards. If he had died a brutal death, it could easily have been viewed as his comeuppance, demonstrating God’s justice. From a moral and religious perspective, it might be all the more disturbing that instead he gets to die as close to a peaceful death as his character allows, with a devilish smile on his face.

Moving beyond Heathcliff’s death, I don’t see anything wrong with Hareton and Cathy II′s ending either.

First of all, it isn’t necessarily a straightforward happy ending. It’s definitely bittersweet if we have any sympathy for Heathcliff, and not just because he dies. This penniless, abused, disdained orphan of color defied the classism and racism of his society by clawing his way to wealth and status and by bringing down the two families who once oppressed him, but in the end, it’s all for nothing. Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange go back to the Earnshaw and Linton heirs and the only trace left of Heathcliff is a single name and death date on a tombstone. He’s just as much of a “nobody” in death as he was as a homeless child. Of course it’s tempting to cheer for this fact because of his cruelty and because Cathy II and Hareton are sympathetic, basically innocent young people whom he unfairly punished for their parents’ sins. But in a way at least, especially in Marxist readings of the book (which I don’t fully agree with but do see validity in), the ending can be viewed as the triumph of the classist and racist status quo.

Nor, as some critics have argued, is it guaranteed that Cathy II and Hareton will live happily ever after. First of all, the fact remains that Hareton loved and loyally served Heathcliff to the end, and to please Hareton, Cathy had to stop speaking out against Heathcliff even though he had horribly abused her. There’s also the fact that Hareton once hit Cathy himself; only once, and before they were even friends, let alone lovers, but in the real world it rarely bodes well for a woman to marry a man who once slapped her. A few critics have wondered if Hareton is really permanently “tamed” in the end, or will eventually revert to the roughness Heathcliff bred in him and abuse his new power and status the same way Heathcliff did. On the flip side, there’s the fact that apart from her conceding not to criticize Heathcliff, Cathy seems to rule over Hareton almost as much as her mother did over Heathcliff when they were children. She educates him, he craves her esteem and does her bidding, and in his lessons she meets his mistakes and inattention (however playfully) with “smart slaps” and threats of hair-pulling. Some critics have wondered if we should view these as red flags; if Cathy II is destined to be an emotional abuser like her mother was.

But even if you don’t subscribe to those darker interpretations of the ending... even if you view Cathy and Hareton as fundamentally good people who genuinely grow and change for the better, find a healthy balance between the worlds of Thrushcross Grange and Wuthering Heights, and will be truly happy together... well, what’s wrong with that?

Is it really so impossible to believe that sometimes the cycle of abuse can be broken, or so “out of place” to show it being broken at the end of a book that shows its horrors? Is it just naïve delusion to hope that, with effort, children can avoid repeating their parents’ mistakes and opposing social structures like the Heights and the Grange can be reconciled? That at least one young couple might manage to combine the good aspects of both worlds while discarding the bad, rather than combining the worst of both worlds the way Heathcliff did? Just because the book is dark as a whole, do we really need to be so cynical when reading it that we can’t allow it to end on a note of hope?

Besides, I’ve written before about the mirror-image character arcs of the two Cathys. Cathy I is born and raised at Wuthering Heights, but eventually leaves it for Thrushcross Grange when she marries the latter household’s heir; she initially loves the rugged dark-haired Heathcliff and wanders the moors with him, but then gains snobbery, treats Heathcliff with increasing disdain, and shifts her attentions to the prissy blond-haired Edgar, whom she marries; as a result, her life ends in misery. Cathy II is born and raised at Thushcross Grange, but eventually she leaves it for Wuthering Heights when she marries the latter household’s heir; she initially loves the prissy blond-haired Linton, whom she marries, and treats the rugged dark-haired Hareton with disdain, but eventually she loses her snobbery, learns to love Hareton, and wanders the moors with him. In no way is Cathy II’s positive ending “tacked on” – her entire character arc is structured to be the opposite of her mother’s tragedy.

I understand why some people don’t care for the ending and think it feels anti-climactic or out of place. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s a thoroughly effective ending and fully consistent with what came before.

#wuthering heights #meta #emily bronte #heathcliff #catherine linton #hareton earnshaw #tw: death #tw: abuse #literature

85 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 4 years

Note

How do we handle art made during times were everyone was problematic? Should we ban old offensive art? I've seen birth of the nation. It's as racist as people say, but still a important film for cinema history. Snow White was 14 while the prince is 31. Tons of propaganda and racist depictions exited in early cartoons. Lovecraft made a new horror genre, but was very racist by today standards. Is it wrong to sell those or make them easily available? Do we just use disclaimers?

A peer of mine once summed up this issue in a helpfully succinct way: “My daughter really wants to read Little House on the Prairie so I’m taking time to talk to her about the racism in it.” Now, this woman has a doctorate in English so she’s well versed in the impact fiction can have and I personally agree that education is the best way to go about this. Her parenting technique (and the much longer conversation we had about it) acknowledges a couple of things:

Straight up denying access is never the way to go, both because that feeds into censorship (who gets to decide what’s bad “enough” to withhold?) and, frankly, the more you tell people they can’t engage with something the more they’ll want to. Saying “There’s no circumstance in which you’re ever allowed to read this” doesn’t help anyone

Ignoring such stories doesn’t help anyone either. As you say, a hundred years from now we’ll have currently beloved stories that are now unacceptable, so beyond acknowledging that everything has the potential to be problematic and we can’t simply forget about huge swaths of our culture, that culture itself is important - even the bad parts. History is important. Not to get all cliche, but those who don’t learn history are doomed to repeat it. Racism, ableism, homophobia, etc. all exist in our fiction and moving forward doesn’t mean pretending that those stories never existed by hiding them away, but rather acknowledging that problem overtly as a way to say, “We can’t do that anymore.” That’s how people learn - especially kids - and that’s most safely done through something like a novel

That learning requires overt education. Teach people to think critically about the media they consume and listen to different perspectives on it. Note that my peer doesn’t just let her daughter read this series, she does so with plans to discuss the problems she already knows are in the text

All that being said, giving kids access to these books doesn’t necessarily mean we should continue to uphold those books in places like the classroom. There is a very complicated conversation going on regarding which books are worth giving our limited time to. Reading a racist book might teach a student something, but it’s better to simply give them access to books by black authors and have that conversation alongside the benefit of the non-racist literature itself. As said, deciding which texts are still worth our educational time is a huge conversation and everyone has a different opinion about whether what the literature might otherwise provide is worth its problems. That’s not something I alone can decide

(As a non-literature example, we’re seeing this now with BLM: there’s a massive difference between acknowledging Columbus in something like a history book and keeping a statue that acts as a means of upholding/praising him. Books work in a similar manner. Having them remain accessible in bookstores/a library is not the same thing as upholding/praising them in a classroom. Putting the books in that space and in that context presents them in a more positive light than many are comfortable with.)

However, if you do continue to teach such books you (again) want to have those conversations - which includes letting students be upset about this. Don’t tell the woman in your class that she shouldn’t be pissed off over how misogynistic a text is. Don’t tell a queer student their reading of a text isn’t possible. I believe that it’s often less about what we read than how we read it. If a student despises a text and thinks it was a waste of time... that’s the spark of a very important conversation. Teasing out the “why” of “I hated it” teaches just as much as teasing out the “why” of “I loved it.” Of course, there’s also mental health to consider. As said, there are texts we may not want to teach anymore. There are texts you’ll want to warn people about before they buy it in a bookstore. There are texts someone may need to step away from halfway through reading it... these are all things that need to be negotiated on an individual basis

Finally, not all texts are the same. A Disney film where the ages aren’t obvious (Snow White) isn’t the same thing as a text actively grappling with pedophilia (Lolita). In a world where “everything is problematic” it’s important to make those distinctions because though every story will have its flaws, those flaws are not made equal. Acknowledging that is necessary for having those conversations and having them mean something. Like the white person going, “Everyone has to deal with hard stuff in life!” while the black person is trying to talk about institutional racism, pretending that all texts’ problems are on an even level doesn’t do us any good

#fiction #teaching #Anonymous

190 notes · View notes

letterboxd · 3 years

Photo

Careful How You Go.

Ella Kemp explores how film lovers can protect themselves from distressing subject matter while celebrating cinema at its most audacious.

Featuring Empire magazine editor Terri White, Test Pattern filmmaker Shatara Michelle Ford, writer and critic Jourdain Searles, publicist Courtney Mayhew, and curator, activist and producer Mia Bays of the Birds’ Eye View collective.

This story contains discussion of rape, sexual assault, abuse, self-harm, trauma and loss of life, as well as spoilers for ‘Promising Young Woman’ and ‘A Star is Born’.

We film lovers are blessed with a medium capable of excavating real-life emotion from something seemingly fictional. Yet, for all that film is—in the oft-quoted words of Roger Ebert—an “empathy machine”, it’s also capable of deeply hurting its audience when not wielded by its makers and promoters with appropriate care. Or, for that matter, when not approached by viewers with informed caution.

Whose job is it to let us know that we might be upset by what we see? With the coronavirus pandemic decimating the communal movie-going experience, the way we accommodate each viewer’s sensibilities is more crucial than ever—especially when so many of us are watching alone, at home, often unsupported.

In order to understand how we can champion a film’s content and take care of its audience, I approached women in several areas of the movie ecosystem. I wanted to know: how does a filmmaker approach the filming of a rape and its aftermath? How does a magazine editor navigate the celebration of a potentially triggering movie in one of the world’s biggest film publications? How does a freelance writer speak to her professional interests while preserving her personal integrity? How does a women’s film collective create a safe environment for an audience to process such a film? And, how does a publicist prepare journalists for careful reporting, when their job is to get eyeballs on screens in order to keep our favorite art form afloat?

The conversations reminded me that the answers are endlessly complex. The concerns over spoilers, the effectiveness of trigger warnings, the myriad ways in which art is crafted from trauma, and the fundamental question of whose stories these are to tell. These questions were valid decades ago, they will be for decades to come, and they feel especially urgent now, since a number of recent tales helmed by female and non-binary filmmakers depict violence and trauma involving women’s bodies in fearless, often challenging ways.

Emerald Fennell’s Promising Young Woman, in particular, has revived a vital conversation about content consideration, as victims and survivors of sexual assault record wildly different reactions to its astounding ending. Shatara Michelle Ford’s quietly tense debut, Test Pattern, brings Black survivors into the conversation. And the visceral, anti-wish-fulfillment horror Violation, coming soon from Dusty Mancinelli and Madeleine Sims-Fewer, takes the rape-revenge genre up another notch.

These films come off the back of other recent survivor stories, such as Michaela Coel’s groundbreaking series I May Destroy You (which centers women’s friendship in a narrative move that, as Sarah Williams has eloquently outlined, happens too rarely in this field). Also: Kata Wéber and Kornél Mundruczó’s Pieces of a Woman, and the ongoing ugh-ness of The Handmaid’s Tale. And though this article is focused on plots centering women’s trauma, I acknowledge the myriad of stories that can be triggering in many ways for all manner of viewers. So whether you’ve watched one of these titles, or others like them, I hope you felt supported in the conversations to follow, and that you feel seen.

Weruche Opia and Michaela Coel in ‘I May Destroy You’.

* * *

Simply put, Promising Young Woman is a movie about a woman seeking revenge against predatory men. Except nothing about it is simple. Revenge movies have existed for aeons, and we’ve rooted for many promising young (mostly white) women before Carey Mulligan’s Cassie (recently: Jen in Coralie Fargeat’s Revenge, Noelle in Natalia Leite’s M.F.A.). But in Promising Young Woman, the victim is not alive to seek revenge, so it becomes Cassie’s single-minded crusade. Mercifully, we never see the gang-rape that sparks Cassie’s mission. But we do see a daring, fatal subversion of the notion of a happy ending—and this is what has audiences of Emerald Fennell’s jaw-dropping debut divided.

“For me, being a survivor, the point is to survive,” Jourdain Searles tells me. The New York-based critic, screenwriter, comedian—and host of Netflix’s new Black Film School series—says the presence of death in Promising Young Woman is the problem. “One of the first times I spoke openly about [my assault], I made the decision that I didn’t want to go to the police, and I got a lot of judgment for that,” she says. “So watching Promising Young Woman and seeing the police as the endgame is something I’ve always disagreed with. I left thinking, ‘How is this going to help?’”

“I feel like I’ve got two hats on,” says Terri White, the London-based editor-in chief of Empire magazine, and the author of a recently published memoir, Coming Undone. “One of which is me creating a magazine for a specific film-loving audience, and the other bit of me, which has written a book about trauma, specifically about violence perpetrated against the body. They’re not entirely siloed, but they are two distinct perspectives.”

White loved both Promising Young Woman and I May Destroy You, because they “explode the myth of resolution and redemption”. She calls the ending of Promising Young Woman “radical” in the way it speaks to the reality of what happens to so many women. “I was thinking about me and women like me, women who have endured violence and injury or trauma. Three women every week are still killed [in the UK] at the hands of an ex-partner, or somebody they know intimately, or a current partner. Statistically, any woman who goes for some kind of physical confrontation in [the way Cassie does] would end up dying.”

She adds: “I felt like the film was in service to both victims and survivors, and I use the word ‘victims’ deliberately. I call myself a victim because I think if you’ve endured either sexual violence or physical violence or both, a lot of empowering language, as far as I’m concerned, doesn’t reflect the reality of being a victim or a survivor, whichever way you choose to call yourself.” This point has been one many have disagreed on. In a way, that makes sense—no victim or survivor can be expected to speak to anyone else’s experience but their own.

Carey Mulligan and Emerald Fennell on the set of ‘Promising Young Woman’.

Likewise, there is no right or wrong way to feel about this film, or any film. But a question that arises is, well, should everyone have to see a film to figure that out? And should victims and survivors of sexual violence watch this film? “I have definitely been picky about who I’ve recommended it to,” Courtney Mayhew says. “I don’t want to put a friend in harm’s way, even if that means they miss out on something awesome. It’s not worth it.”

Mayhew is a New Zealand-based international film publicist, and because of her country’s success in controlling Covid 19, she is one of the rare people able to experience Promising Young Woman in a sold-out cinema. “It was palpable. Everyone was so engaged and almost leaning forwards. There were a lot of laughs from women, but it was also a really challenging setting. A lot of people looking down, looking away, and there was a girl who was crying uncontrollably at the end.”

“Material can be very triggering,” White agrees. “It depends where people are personally in their journey. When I still had a lot of trauma I hadn’t worked through in my 20s, I found certain things very difficult to watch. Those things are a reality—but people can make their own decisions about the material they feel able to watch.”

It’s about warning, and preparation, more than total deprivation, then? “I believe in giving people information so they can make the best choice for themselves,” White says. “But I find it quite reductive, and infantilizing in some respects, to be told broadly, ‘Women who have experienced x shouldn’t watch this.’ That underestimates the resilience of some people, the thirst for more information and knowledge.” (This point is clearly made in this meticulous, awe-inspiring list by Jenn, who is on a journey to make sense of her trauma through analysis of rape-revenge films.) But clarity is crucial, particularly for those grappling with unresolved issues.

Searles agrees Promising Young Woman can be a difficult, even unpleasant watch, but still one with value. “As a survivor it did not make me feel good, but it gave me a window into the way other people might respond to your assault. A lot of the time [my friends] have reacted in ways I don’t understand, and the movie feels like it’s trying to make sense of an assault from the outside, and the complicated feelings a friend might have.”

Molly Parker and Vanessa Kirby in ‘Pieces of a Woman’.

* * *

A newborn dies. A character is brutally violated. A population is tortured. To be human is to bear witness to history, but it’s still painful when that history is yours, or something very close to it. “Some things are hard to watch because you relate to them,” Searles explains. “I find mother! hard to watch, and there’s no actual sexual assault. But I just think of sexual assault and trauma and domestic abuse, even though the film isn’t about that. The thing is, you could read an academic paper on patriarchy—you don’t need to watch it on a show [or in a film] if you don’t want to.”

White agrees: “I’ve never been able to watch Nil by Mouth, because I grew up in a house of domestic violence and I find physical violence against women on screen very hard to watch. But that doesn’t mean I think the film shouldn’t be shown—it should still exist, I’ve just made the choice not to watch it.” (Reader, since our conversation, she watched it. At 2:00am.)

“I know people who do not watch Promising Young Woman or The Handmaid’s Tale because they work for an NGO in which they see those things literally in front of their eyes,” Mayhew says. “It could be helpful for someone who isn’t aware [of those issues], but then what is the purpose of art? To educate? To entertain? For escapism? It’s probably all of those.”

Importantly, how much weight should an artist’s shoulders carry, when it comes to considering the audiences that will see their work? There’s a general agreement among my interviewees that, as White says, “filmmakers have to make the art that they believe in”. I don’t think any film lover would disagree, but, suggests Searles, “these films should be made with survivors in mind. That doesn’t mean they always have to be sensitive and sad and declawed. But there is a way to be provocative, while leaning into an emotional truth.”

Madeleine Sims-Fewer in ‘Violation’.

Violation, about which I’ll say little here since it is yet to screen at SXSW (ahead of its March 25 release on Shudder) is not at all declawed, and is certainly made with survivors in mind—in the sense that in life, unlike in movies, catharsis is very seldom possible no matter how far you go to find it. On Letterboxd, many of those who saw Violation at TIFF and Sundance speak of feeling represented by the rape-revenge plot, writing: “One of the most intentionally thought out and respectful of the genre… made by survivors for survivors” and “I feel seen and held”. (Also: “This movie is extremely hard to watch, completely on purpose.”)

“Art can do great service to people,” agrees White, “If, by consequence, there is great service for people who have been in that position, that’s a brilliant consequence. But I don’t believe filmmakers and artists should be told that they are responsible for certain things. There’s a line of responsibility in terms of being irresponsible, especially if your community is young, or traumatised.”

Her words call to mind Bradley Cooper’s reboot of A Star is Born, which many cinephiles knew to be a remake and therefore expected its plot twist, but young filmgoers, drawn by the presence of Lady Gaga, were shocked (and in some cases triggered) by a suicide scene. When it was released, Letterboxd saw many anguished reviews from younger members. In New Zealand, an explicit warning was added to the film’s classification by the country’s chief censor (who also created an entirely new ‘RP18’ classification for the Netflix series 13 Reasons Why, which eventually had a graphic suicide scene edited out two years after first landing on the streaming service).

“There is a duty of care to audiences, and there is also a duty of care to artists and filmmakers,” says Mayhew. “There’s got to be some way of meeting in the middle.” The middle, perhaps, can be identified by the filmmaker’s objective. “It’s about feeling safe in the material,” says Mia Bays of the Birds’ Eye View film collective, which curates and markets films by women in order to effect industry change. “With material like this, it’s beholden on creatives to interrogate their own intentions.”

Filmmaker Shatara Michelle Ford is “forever interrogating” ideas of power. Their debut feature, Test Pattern, deftly examines the power differentials that inform the foundations of consent. “As an artist, human, and person who has experienced all sorts of boundary violation, assault and exploitation in their life, I spend quite a lot of time thinking about power… It is something I grapple with in my personal life, and when I arrive in any workplace, including a film set.”

In her review of Test Pattern for The Hollywood Reporter, Searles writes, “This is not a movie about sexual assault as an abstract concept; it’s a movie about the reality of a sexual assault survivor’s experience.” Crucially, in a history of films that deal largely with white women’s experiences, Test Pattern “is one of the few sexual-assault stories to center a Black woman, with her Blackness being central to her experience and the way she is treated by the people around her.”

Brittany S. Hall in ‘Test Pattern’.

* * *

Test Pattern follows the unfolding power imbalance between Renesha (Brittany S. Hall) and her devoted white boyfriend Evan (Will Brill), as he drives her from hospital to hospital in search of a rape kit, after her drink was spiked by a white man in a bar who then raped her. Where Promising Young Woman is a millennial-pink revenge fantasy of Insta-worthy proportions, Test Pattern feels all too real, and the cops don’t come off as well as they do in the former.

Ford does something very important for the audience: they begin the film just as the rape is about to occur. We do not see it at this point (we do not really ever see it), but we know that it happened, so there’s no chance that, somewhere deeper into the story, when we’re much more invested, we’ll be side-swiped by a sudden onslaught of sexual violence. In a way, it creates a safe space for our journey with Renesha.

It’s one of many thoughtful decisions made by Ford throughout the production process. “I’m in direct conversation with film and television that chooses to depict violence against women so casually,” Ford tells me. “I intentionally showed as little of Renesha’s rape as humanly possible. I also had an incredibly hard time being physically present for that scene, I should add. What I did shoot was ultimately guided by Renesha’s experience of it. Shoot only what she would remember. Show only what she would have been aware of.

“But I also made it clear that this was a violation of her autonomy, by allowing moments where we have an arm’s length point of view. I let the camera sit with the audience, as I’m also saying, as the filmmaker, this happened, and you saw enough of it to know. This, for me, is a larger commentary on how we treat victims of assault and rape. I do not believe for one goddamn minute that we need to see the actual, literal violence to know what happened. When we flagrantly replicate the violence in film and television, we are supporting the cultural norm of needing ‘all of the evidence’—whatever that means—to ‘believe women’.”

Ford’s intentional work in crafting the romance and unraveling of Test Pattern’s leading couple pays off on screen, but their stamp as an invested and careful director also shows in their work with Drew Fuller, the actor who played Mike, the rapist. “It’s a very difficult role, and I’m grateful to him for taking it so seriously. When discussing and rendering the practice and non-practice of consent intentionally, I found it helpful to give it a clear definition and provide conceptual insight.

“I sent Drew a few articles that I used as tools to create a baseline understanding when it comes to exploring consent and power on screen. At the top of that list was Lili Loofbourow’s piece, The female price of male pleasure and Zhana Vrangalova's Teen Vogue piece, Everything You Need to Know about Consent that You Never Learned in Sex Ed. The latter in my opinion is the linchpin. There’s also Jude Elison Sady Doyle’s piece about the whole Aziz Ansari thing, which is a great primer.”

Sidney Flanigan in ‘Never Rarely Sometimes Always’.

Even when a filmmaker has given Ford’s level of care and attention to their project, what happens when the business end of the industry gets involved in the art? As we well know, marketing is a film’s window dressing. It has one job: to get eyeballs into the cinema. It can’t know if every viewer should feel safe to enter.

It would be useful, with certain material, to know how we should watch, and with whom, and what might we need in the way of support coming out. Whose job is it to provide this? Beyond the crude tool of an MPAA rating (and that’s a whole sorry tale for another day), there are many creative precautions that can be taken across the industry to safeguard a filmgoer’s experience.

Mayhew, who often sees films at the earliest stages (sometimes before a final cut, sometimes immediately after), speaks to journalists in early screenings and ensures they have the tools to safely report on the topics raised. In New Zealand, reporters are encouraged to read through resources to help them guide their work. Mayhew’s teams would also ensure journalists would be given relevant hotline numbers, and would ask media outlets to include them in published stories.

“It’s not saying, ‘You have to do this’,” she explains, “It’s about first of all not knowing what the journalist has been through themselves, and second of all, [if] they are entertainment reporters who haven’t navigated speaking about sexual assault, you only hope it will be helpful going forward. It’s certainly not done to infantilize them, because they’re smart people. It’s a way to show some care and support.”

The idea of having appropriate resources to make people feel safe and encourage them to make their own decisions is a priority for Bays and Birds’ Eye View, as well. The London-based creative producer and cultural activist stresses the importance of sharing such a viewing experience. “It’s the job of cinemas, distributors and festivals to realize that it might not be something the filmmaker does, but as the people in control of the environment it’s our job to give extra resources to those who want it,” says Bays. “To give people a safe space to come down from the experience.”

Pre-pandemic, when Birds’ Eye View screened Kitty Green’s The Assistant, a sharp condemnation of workplace micro-aggressions seen through the eyes of one female assistant, they invited women who had worked for Harvey Weinstein. For a discussion after Eliza Hittman’s coming-of-ager Never Rarely Sometimes Always, abortion experts were able to share their knowledge. “It’s about making sure the audience knows you can say anything here, but that it’s safe,” Bays explains. “It’s kind of like group therapy—you don’t know people, so you’re not beholden to what they think about you. And in the cinema people aren’t looking at you. You’re speaking somewhat anonymously, so a lot of really important stuff can come out.”

The traditional movie-going experience, involving friends, crowds and cathartic, let-loose feelings, is still largely inaccessible at the time of writing. Over the past twelve months we’ve talked plenty about preserving the magic of the big screen experience, but it’s about so much more than the romanticism of an art form; it’s also about the safety that comes from a feeling of community when watching potentially upsetting movies.

“The going in and coming out parts of watching a film in the cinema are massively important, because it’s like coming out of the airlock and coming back to reality,” says Bays. “You can’t do that at home. Difficult material kind of stays with you.” During the pandemic, Birds’ Eye View has continued to provide the same wrap-around curatorial support for at-home viewers as they would at an in-person event. “If we’re picking a difficult film and asking people to watch it at home, we might suggest you watch it with a friend so you can speak about it afterwards,” Bays says.

Julia Garner in ‘The Assistant’.

But, then, how can we still find this sense of community without the physical closeness? “It’s no good waiting for [the internet] to become kind,” she says. “Create your own closed spaces. We do workshops and conversations exclusively for people who sign up to our newsletter. In real-life meetings you can go from hating something to hearing an eloquent presentation of another perspective and coming round to it, but you need the time and space to do that. This little amount of time gives you a move towards healing, even if it’s just licking some wounds that were opened on Twitter. But it could be much deeper, like being a survivor and feeling very conflicted about the film, which I do.”

Conflict is something that Searles, the film critic, knows about all too well in her work. “Since I started writing professionally, I almost feel like I’m known for writing about assault and rape at this point. I do write about it a lot, and as a survivor I continue to process it. I’ve been assaulted more than once so I have a lot to process, and so each time I’m writing about it I’m thinking about different aspects and remnants of those feelings. It can be very cathartic, but it’s a double-edged sword because sometimes I feel like I have an obligation to write about it too.”

There is also a constant act of self-preservation that comes with putting so much of yourself on the internet. “I often get messages from people thanking me for talking about these subjects with a deep understanding of what they mean,” Searles says. “I really appreciate that. I get negative messages about a lot of things, but not this one thing.”

Michaela Coel in ‘I May Destroy You’.

* * *

With such thoughtful approaches to heavy content, it feels like we’re a long way further down the road from blunt tools like content and trigger warnings. But do they still have their place? “It’s just never seemed appropriate to put trigger warnings on any of our reviews or features,” White explains. “We have a heavy male readership, still 70 percent male to 30 percent female. I’m conscious we’re talking to a lot of men who will often have experienced violence themselves, but we don’t put any warnings, because we are an adult magazine, and when we talk about violence in, say, an action film, or violence that is very heavily between men, we don’t caveat that at all.”

Bays, too, is sceptical of trigger warnings, explaining that “there’s not much evidence [they] actually work. A lot of psychologists expound on the fact that if people get stuck in their trauma, you can never really recover from PTSD if you don’t at some point face your trauma.” She adds: “I’m a survivor, and I found I May Destroy You deeply, profoundly triggering, but also cathartic. I think it’s more about how you talk about the work, rather than having a ‘NB: survivors of sexual abuse or assault shouldn’t see this’.”

“It’s important to give people a feel of what they’re in for,” argues Searles. “A lot of people who have dealt with suicide ideation would prefer that warning.” While some worry that a content warning is effectively a plot spoiler, Searles disagrees. “I don’t consider a content warning a spoiler. I just couldn’t imagine sitting down for a film, knowing there’s going to be a suicide, and letting it distract me from the film.” Still, she acknowledges the nuance. “I think using ‘self-harm’ might be better than just saying ‘suicide’.”

Mayhew shared insights on who actually decides which films on which platforms are preceded with warnings—turns out, it’s a bit messy. “The onus traditionally has fallen on governmental censorship when it comes to theatrical releases,” she explains. “But streamers can do what they want, they are not bound by those rules so they have to—as the distributors and broadcasters—take the government’s censors on board in terms of how they are going to navigate it.

“The consumer doesn’t know the difference,” she continues, “nor should they—so it means they can be watching The Crown on Netflix and get this trigger warning about bulimia, and go to the cinema the next day and not get it, and feel angry about it. So there’s the question of where is the responsibility of the distributor, and where is the responsibility of the audience member to actually find out for themselves.”

The warnings given to an audience member can also vary widely depending where they find themselves in the world, too. Promising Young Woman, for example, is rated M in Australia, R18 in New Zealand, and R in the United States. Meanwhile, the invaluable Common Sense Media recommends an age of fifteen years and upwards for the “dark, powerful, mature revenge comedy”. Mayhew says a publicist’s job is “to have your finger on the pulse” about these cultural differences. “You have to read the overall room, and when I say room I mean the culture as a whole, and you have to be constantly abreast of things across those different ages too.”

She adds: “This feeds into the importance of representation right at the top of those boardrooms and right down to the film sets. My job is to see all opinions, and I never will, especially because I am a white woman. I consider myself part of the LGBT community and sometimes I’ll bring that to a room that I think has been lacking in that area, when it comes to harmful stereotypes that can be propagated within films about LGBT people. But I can’t bring a Black person’s perspective, I cannot bring an Indigenous perspective. The more representation you have, the better your film is going to be, your campaign is going to be.”

Bays, who is also a filmmaker, agrees: representation is about information, and working with enough knowledge to make sure your film is being as faithful to your chosen communities as possible. “As a filmmaker, I’d feel ill-informed and misplaced if I was stumbling into an area of representation that I knew nothing about without finding some tools and collaborators who could bring deeper insight.”

Carey Mulligan and Bo Burnham in ‘Promising Young Woman’.

This is something Ford aimed for with Test Pattern’s choice of crew members, which had an effect not just on the end product, but on the entire production process. “I made sure that at the department head level, I was hiring people I was in community with and fully saw me as a person, and me them,” they say. “In some ways it made the experience more pleasurable.” That said, the shoot was still not without its incidents: “These were the types of things that in my experience often occur on a film set dominated by straight white men, that we're so accustomed to we sometimes don’t even notice it. I won’t go into it but what I will say is that it was not tolerated.”

Vital to the telling of the story were the lived experiences that Ford and their crew brought to set. “As it applies to the sensitive nature of this story, there were quite a few of us who have had our own experiences along the spectrum of assault, which means that we had to navigate our own internal re-processing of those experiences, which is hard to do when we’re constructing an experience of rape for a character.

“However, I think being able to share our own triggers and discomfort and context, when it came to Renesha’s experience, made the execution of it all the better. Again, it was a pleasure to be in community with such smart, talented and considerate women who each brought their own nuance to this film.”

* * *

Thinking about everything we’ve lived through by this point in 2021, and the heightened sensitivity and lowered mental health of film lovers worldwide, movies are carrying a pretty heavy burden right now: to, as Jane Fonda said at the Golden Globes, help us see through others’ eyes; also, to entertain or, at the very least, not upset us too much.

But to whom does film have a responsibility, really? Promising Young Woman’s writer-director Emerald Fennell, in an excellent interview with Vulture’s Angelica Jade Bastién, said that she was thinking of audiences when she crafted the upsetting conclusion.

What she was thinking was: a ‘happy’ ending for Cassie gets us no further forward as a society. Instead, Cassie’s shocking end “makes you feel a certain way, and it makes you want to talk about it. It makes you want to examine the film and the society that we live in. With a cathartic Hollywood ending, that’s not so much of a conversation, really. It’s a kind of empty catharsis.”

So let’s flip the question: what is our responsibility, as women and allies, towards celebrating audacious films about tricky subjects? The marvellous, avenging blockbusters that once sucked all the air out of film conversation are on pause, for now. Consider the space that this opens up for a different kind of approach to “must-see movies”. Spread the word about Test Pattern. Shout from the rooftops about It’s A Sin. Add Body of Water and Herself and Violation to your watchlists. And, make sure the right people are watching.

Brittany S. Hall and Will Brill in ‘Test Pattern’.

I asked my interviewees: if they could choose one type of person they think should see Promising Young Woman, who would it be? Ford has not seen Fennell’s film, but “it feels good to have my film contribute to a larger discourse that is ever shifting, ever adding nuance”. They are very clear on who can learn the most from their own movie.

“A white man is featured so prominently in Test Pattern as a statement about how white people and men have a habit of centering themselves in the stories of others, prioritizing their experience and neglecting to recognize those on the margins. If Evan is triggering, he should be. If your feelings about Evan vacillate, it is by design.

“‘Allies’ across the spectrum are in a complicated dance around doing the ‘right thing’ and ‘showing up’ for those they are ostensibly seeking to support,” Ford continues. “Their constant battle is to remember that they need to be centering the needs of those they were never conditioned to center. Tricky stuff. Mistakes will be made. Mistakes must be owned. Sometimes reconciliation is required.”

It is telling that similar thoughts emerged from my other interviewees regarding Promising Young Woman’s ideal audience, despite the fact that none of them was in conversation with the others for this story. For that reason, as we come to the end of this small contribution to a very large, ongoing conversation, I’ve left their words intact.

White: I think it’s a great film for men.

Searles: I feel like the movie is very much pointed at cisgender heterosexual men.

Mayhew: Men.

White: We’re always warned about the alpha male with a massive ego, but we’re not warned about the beta male who reads great books, listens to great records, has great film recommendations. But he probably slyly undermines you in a completely different way. Anybody can be a predator.

Searles: The actors chosen to play these misogynist, rape culture-perpetuating men are actors we think of as nice guys.

White: We are so much more tolerant of a man knocking the woman over the head, dragging her down an alley and raping her, because we understand that. But rape culture is made up of millions of small things that enable the people who do it. We are more likely to be attacked in our own homes by men we love than a stranger in the street.

Mayhew: The onus should not fall on women to call this out.

Searles: It’s not just creeps, like the ones you see usually in these movies. It’s guys like you. What are you going to do to make sure you’re not like this?

Related content

Sex Monsters, Rape Revenge and Trauma: a work-in-progress list

Rape and Revenge: a list of films that fall into, and play with, the genre

Unconsenting Media: a search engine for sexual violence in broadcasting

Follow Ella on Letterboxd

If you need help or to talk to someone about concerns raised for you in this story, please first know that you are not alone. These are just a few of the many organizations and resources available, and their websites include more information.

US: RAINN (hotline 0800 656 HOPE); LGBT National Help Center; Pathways to Safety; Time’s Up.

Canada: Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centers—contacts by province and territory

UK/Ireland: Mind; The Survivors Trust (hotline 08088 010818); Rape Crisis England and Wales

Europe: Rape Crisis Network Europe

47 notes · View notes

posthumus · 3 years

Text

hullo boys, today i’m writing about my thoughts on the Dickie incident in Maurice. (potential content warning for sexual assault and pedophilia — if you’ve read the book, though, it won’t get more graphic than that)

i’ve actually always appreciated the Dickie scene, controversial though it is. i first read the book when i was fifteen — the same age as Dickie himself, iirc (EDIT: I did not, in fact, recall correctly; see here) — and i feel like i got it instantly: to me, it serves to highlight the extremely fucked-up attitudes towards sex society helps to internalize. that said, your mileage may vary on how much discomfort you’re able to withstand, and i think it’s completely fair to feel that the incident makes Maurice — the character and/or the book — irredeemable. i’m able to forgive a lot of the more problematic elements of Maurice because i think they’re adequately criticized in the text (at one point Forster literally calls Clive and Maurice misogynists). however, i don’t blame anyone for feeling uncomfortable with them. mostly, i’m trying to explain why i personally like the function of Dickie within the story, and why i think the whole episode requires a nuanced approach.

first up: i’ve seen the whole Dickie thing’s presentation interpreted as completely uncritical, which i think is pretty misinformed. i’ll certainly admit that at the start of the chapter, it’s quite ambiguous as to which way the novel will frame Maurice’s feelings. it’s extremely uncomfortable to read, especially in a modern context: there’s an element of suspense as you try to guess whether or not an author of this time period would have endorsed sexual assault. but the catharsis comes at the end of the next chapter, when the horror of the whole situation snaps into sharp focus: “was it conceivable that on sunday last he had nearly assaulted a boy?” for the previous chapter, Maurice had been kidding himself about the whole thing, and it doesn’t seem quite as rapey as it actually is; but then we’re thrown the word assault, and it becomes clear that we are, in fact, meant to understand that this was a horrible thing to even think of doing.

in my opinion, the book in no way endorses Maurice's thoughts — i actually think that, for his time, Forster was taking a pretty noble stance. the introduction to my copy of Maurice, by David Leavitt, includes a quote from Lytton Strachey, who wrote to Forster, “you apparently regard the Dickie incident with grave disapproval. why?” like, pederasty was still celebrated amongst a lot of gay men at the time. the fact that the Dickie thing reads so uncomfortably at all is a testament to Forster's (correct) stance on the issue; i think you're meant to be grossed the fuck out by Maurice's thoughts. (also, not that this exempts him from criticism, but Forster himself was assaulted as a child; i think he very much understood the gravity of what he was suggesting.)

secondly, Maurice is an EXTREMELY flawed character, and it seems ludicrous to suggest that we're expected to sympathize with all of his thoughts and actions. he's an asshole for most of the book. much emphasis is placed on the fact that Maurice is an entirely average man within his time, location, and class; his opinions and actions fall in line with that, which is why i’m personally okay with his misogyny (even though i’d throw hands with him in real life).

the big misunderstanding with a lot of Maurice’s flaws, i think, is that he isn’t a self-insert character, either for the reader or the author (consider the terminal note: “in Maurice i wanted to create a character who was completely unlike myself”). none of Forster’s characters are blank slates, to my mind — they all have extremely specific personalities; we’re not meant to be following them wholeheartedly the way we would with, say, Harry Potter. i worry some people read the book expecting to be able to back him 100%, but i think we're supposed to be observing Maurice, not putting ourselves in his shoes. (the omniscient narration helps with that, as we're told about elements of his psyche that Maurice himself isn't aware of. also, i’m no expert, so don't quote me here, but i think the concept of a self-insert protagonist is a sort of newer one? i feel like most books pre-mid-twentieth century have characters you're supposed to observe and criticize, and not wholly empathize with — Nick Carraway comes to mind.)

lastly on his flaws, i think the genre you place the book in influences how angry you are at Maurice. if you see it as a romance novel, which is certainly a fair reading, his sudden moments of insane fucked-up-ness make it much harder to root for him. i’ve come to see it as more of a bildungsroman, so i think the point is Maurice's mistakes; he has to reckon with a lot of his actions, including the Dickie incident.

the part of the whole Dickie debacle that’s the most fascinating to me is its context within Maurice’s discussion of sexuality. i think the Dickie incident showcases how sexual repression and internalized homophobia can pervert your perspective on all sexual relationships. within the novel, sex in general feels like something criminal (certainly in Maurice’s case this is true for sex between men; however, there are also the diagrams on the beach at the start of the book, and Anne’s complete lack of knowledge about sex when she marries Clive). if you view all sexual relationships as immoral, though, pedophilia and sexual assault become no more unethical than consensual sex. it’s interesting in that light, then, to compare the Dickie incident to the moment with the man on the train two chapters later: one absolutely should be illegal, but they are both interpreted by Maurice as obscene, and both (if acted upon) would have been criminal offenses. i also think it’s interesting that the man on the train is perhaps the closest comparison to Forster himself within the novel, as Forster, in middle age, cruised London’s public spaces in the hopes of finding someone to hook up with. while Maurice loathes the man on the train (David Leavitt’s introduction, again, discusses how Forster wrote a love story that deliberately excludes himself), i don’t think the reader is meant to.

personally, the Dickie scene resonates with me as someone attracted to women. being told that your own desires are inherently predatory doesn’t dispel those desires, but only makes you ashamed of them, and warps your perception of healthy sexuality. i tend to interpret Maurice’s feelings about Dickie more as intrusive thoughts than actual, tangible want — this kind of obscenity, to his mind, is inevitable for him. i don’t think Maurice would have actually assaulted Dickie. i think he was cracking under the pressures of an openly hostile society, while grappling with his own repression and unmet needs.

TL;DR — Maurice is a flawed character and Forster is critical of his actions. further, the Dickie incident gives us a striking picture of Edwardian society’s attitude towards all sexual relationships, which still has applications today; the episode also gives us insight into Maurice’s mental state. it’s uncomfortable, but in my opinion necessary to the core message of the book.

#swinging the bat at the hornet's nest huh #honestly though this was kinda fun to write #it's the first complete essay i've done in a while #idk. like comment subscribe maybe?? again this is just my opinion #i don't wanna go around acting like only my interpretation of the book is correct #just also like. stop trying to cancel classical literature for being classical literature #idk... the question is do i want this showing up in tags #maurice #em forster #my posts

40 notes · View notes

thewhizzyhead · 3 years

Note

Hey, your misfits musical thing sounded super super interesting! Any other details about it that you're willing to share? Minor plot points? Gay Relationship stuff? :0

oh boy this is gonna be long *cracks knuckles* here we go

SO FUN BACKSTORY BEFORE I GET TO THE PLOT PARTS TJXJJS: my sunday school has a tradition of um holding productions of christmas musicals every december. My teachers would find american christian christmas kiddy musicals productions on youtube and then basically um translate all the dialogue to Filipino (the songs stay in English) and have us um reenact the whole thing and ngl it was a lot of fun! I even acted as some of the main roles there when I was like 10-13 so um I can kinda say that I have some experience with musical theatre YAYYY (jk jk that doesn't really count djsff).

When I was around 12-13 years old, I became obsessed with A Very Potter Musical and wondered what it would be like to make AVPM but Christmas so that my church could perform it (very silly idea but shh i was 12 and I was obsessed) and then over time a plot that Was Definitely Not Harry Potter started to form and them um here we are fjsjd so thank you Starkid for making me go down this hellhole

Oki backstory over, now here comes the very long part:

(Also um warning this musical concept involves a lot of religion talk since majority of the thingy is me criticizing a lot of the hypocrisies in religious institutions here based on my experience so um yea proceed with caution if ur sensitive to religion-related stuff)

p.s. ari i am so so sorry but this is so fucking long and definitely more than what you asked for so um yea goodluck fjxjsjf

SO BASICALLY Misfits is about 5 "narrators" - these guys serve as the "floor directors" of the show and um yea they make sure that the plot actuall happens and everything goes exactly according to the script given by the church higher ups or "producers" - who have to bring 3 teens branded by their church as "Misfits" back to Bethlehem 1 CE in order to "teach them a lesson about God" aka convert them to Christianity thus removing the "Misfits" branding. (Also they can only go back once they successfully arrive at the manger because um that's how the producers want it to be tjxjs)

I have to emphasize that although this tackles a lot of stuff related to Christianity and religion as a whole, this really isn't a Christian Musical and that this very morally questionable mission (through the power of Stage Magic and Super Powers, the Narrators essentially bring the Misfits back to the past against their will for the sake of completing their mission) goes horribly, horribly wrong very very quickly.

Throughout the course of the musical, the 5 Narrators struggle to stick to the given script and get their mission done as the 3 Misfits prove to not only be very freaking stubborn but also quite insightful as well as they bring up really good points in regards to religious hypocrisies and socially questionable, prejudiced and backward views commonly held by most religious institutions here i.e gender roles, homophobia, the demonization of science and technology at times, elitism and classism, etc etc (i can only speak in behalf of the Philippines so um yea Philippines). Overall, this is kinda a case study on as to how religion can influence and shape people's mindsets for either the better or the worse and how it is often used by the authorities to simultaneously give hope to the people (especially those of the poorer sectors wherein because of how hopeless the present seems here because a very flawed system kept in place by the exploitative privilged here, they choose to just trust in God instead and also hope that the afterlife is much much better than this shit) while also keeping them in line and like preventing them from rioting. (Church and politics undeniably go hand in hand here even though we have legislations enforcing the separation of the church and state and um yEA THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN VERY PROMINENT THROUGHOUT PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND WE CAN ALL THANK THE SPANIARDS but um anyways that'll be a rant for another day)

On a more personal and emotional aspect, this thingy also tackles a lot of stuff I find rather common among kids my age, especially those who had a very Christian upbringing (aka 99.9% of the philippine population tjxbdbf). There's a lot of questioning involved in regards to one's faith, sexuality, perspective and purpose in life and all that fun stuff and how oftentimes said questioning is discouraged due to the church (and ph society overall) wanting us to just like um sTICK TO THE STATUS QUOoOoO and just comply with what is seen as appropriate and godly cause anything out of the ordinary is ngl treated like it's heresy. (YES THERE WILL BE A LOT OF SELF PROJECTION HERE)

One final and important thing to note is that the show is essentially a musical-inside-a-musical in a way fjsjf I originally designed this thing to be like um produce-able on my church's stage (because they were supposed to help me produce the first version of misfits which um yea that's def not gonna happen now tjxjdv) which um kinda looks like the OG Spring Awakening Stage (and yes Misfits is very much inspired by Spring Awakening God I love that show) which is why the show is kinda stylized like a concert with handheld mics and all wherein um the 5 narrators are aware that they are putting on a show to the point of even directly addressing the audience a lot while the 3 Misfits (except for 1 which i'll get to in a bit) aren't aware that they are in a show. The three do eventually find that out and that's when all hell breaks loose to the point that the "producers" (represented by Hades-ish voices) have to intervene by literally changing and manipulating the show's setting and plot to make sure that their script gets followed and that's when the characters really try to break the show to get out of it bUT THE POINT I WANNA MAKE HERE IS THXJD keeping in mind that I had initially planned for Misfits to be produced by my church prior to the many drastic changes, the show the narrators were putting on (aka the musical-inside-the-musical) was made with the intention to pander to a Very Religious Audience. Successfully convincing people to convert to Christianity, especially those of the youth, is what many religious audiences want to see and that is exactly what the "producers" have written for the 5 "narrators and floor directors" to enact. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian and preaching the Gospel and bringing in new believers isn't essentially a bad thing; if they want to believe in the religion then woo good for them! But, such preaching becomes detrimental when you take away one's agency and basically force them into Christianity by means of guilt tripping and manipulation which is sadly very much a reality here (again, a rant for another day) and a representation of such is shown here in the show where um the 3 Misfits were basically forced into this show that 5 Narrators are putting on and, through the influence of the 5 Narrators, the 3 Misfits have to decide to become "good Christian youths" for the show to conclude because that's show the "producers" have written. So when the 3 Misfits stubborness goes to the point that even the 5 Narrators start questioning the morals of their mission, that's when the show starts to go off-script and that's when the production starts to like umm "break" and whenever that happens, the "producers" start speaking to the Narrators, reminding them that they have an audience that they need to please and a message that they need to convey.

So while the Misfits (2 of them, at least, cause um the third one has um yea i'll get to him in a bit) mainly focus on figuring out what in the everliving fuck is going on (while also dealing with their um unfortunate circumstances, childhood trauma, a shit ton of guilt and the concept of salvation and self-forgiveness), the Narrators are tasked with the burden of carrying the show and making sure that the audience finds it appealing while trying to convince themselves that what the church wants them to do is "right" and what the Misfits keep telling them is "wrong" ala um Holier-Than-Thou mindset. Once they eventually start becoming more willing to see the true nature of both the Misfits and the Producers despite the fear of disappointing everyone who's watching, that's when the Narrators and Misfits all start breaking the show by going off-script and completely destroying the plot and production that the Producers have made for the audience - thus making a statement of refusing to comply with a flawed system for the sake of audience approval while also making the first step to fixing that system for the good of all.

Also fun fact: Although it'll make my job a lot harder because I am more fluent in English than in Filipino, i wanna write the thingy in both English and Filipino fjxjdf the dialogue can be Taglish but um the songs that are "part of the script" aka what the Producers want the characters to sing are in English while the songs that aren't part of the script are in Filipino; songs that are both in Filipino and in English are um i guess indicative of the struggle to follow the script while also trying to do what you believe is right (an example of a song with that style is Interpretasyon - which means Interpretation and um Ezekiel (one of the Misfits) sings in Filipino while Joshua (leader of the narrators) sings in English and um just imagine Wallflower cuz IT IS VERY MUCH LIKE WALLFLOWER GJDJNF) and um yea i kinda imagine it to be some sort of rock-pop musical concert thingy so um woo thank you pma for once again influencing my work

SO ANYWAYS UM THAT WAS LONG SO LET'S GO TO THE GAY SHIT

Okay so far 4/8 of the characters here have queerness directly related to their individual plotlines here but um yea honestly i'm tempted to make all of them queer CAUSE IT'S FUN oki so um anyways on to the character dynamics (I won't be able to include more in depth descriptions because im hungry and GOD THIS IS LONG so um yea)

June & Anna (Narrator 2) - oki so June here is one of the Misfits and she's from the poorer sectors (i'm still working on her backstory to make it more believable but um yea) and she isn't able to go to school due to having to prioritize providing for her family first. Due to a very unfortunate childhood event (one that involves Zack, another Misfit), she had to grow up fast and now appears to have a rather jaded view of the world. Anna, one of the Narrators, is the very opposite of that - she's privileged and wealthy-as-fuck and seems to be very optimisitc and friendly. However, ever since she has been blackmailed by her own churchmates for merely questioning her sexuality (true story), she became a more reserved and emotionally closed person despite her very friendly and cheerful demeanor. So when she finds out that June's music carries a lot of beautiful insight and hope in spite of her unfortunate circumstances (the two girls bond over music btw that's how Anna got June to trust in her), she becomes confused because how can June, a girl who has nothing, not even faith, still have hope that she'll be able to find some semblance of happiness while Anna, who has everything, has such a downtrodded view of the world? So um basically their dynamic will also consist of Anna checking her privilege, June explaining how good people turn against the world when the world turns against them (YES A LOT OF TALK ABOUT POVERTY AND HOW THAT IS A RESULT OF CAPITALISTIC EXPLOITATION) (yes June will talk about that a lot), and um what it means to hope with or without faith and what it means to trust another and oneself again. Oh and also lots of philosophy talk and emotional expression through music wie

Zack and Mikael (Narrator 3) - Zack, another Misfit, is a childhood friend of June and a younger stepbrother of Ezekiel (the third Misfit). After Zack and June lost contact after the 'unfortunate childhood event' (i am not sure on what exactly it'll be but in the earlier drafts a fire burned both of their homes and killed both of their dads and rn I have a song concept describing that called "Umaapoy" which means "Burns" but i dunno i'm still working on it), he became best friends with Mikael and um yea said best-friendship was Definitely Not Platonic. After a picture of them kissing was sent to not only the school principal but to basically everyone in the school, both of their parents were called to the principal's office which led to both of the boys moving to different schools to um mitigate the damage i guess gjdjd while Zack's mom eventually learned to accept her son's sexuality, Mikael um wasn't so lucky - I'd say he went through um a lot of religious intervention almost akin to conversion therapy which then um yea has caused him a lot of internalized homophobia and um yea Mikael and Zack haven't been able to talk or even chat in about 3-4 years so imagine Mikael's surprise when he found out that his mission involved Zack - who does not and cannot recognize Mikael because welp not part of the script. Zack, a bit braver now, takes a liking to Mikael and wants to at least be friends with him partly because he somehow finds him really familiar while um Mikael tries to maintain a strictly professional demeanor out of fear that Zack will recognize him and out of fear that he'll fall in love with Zack again. Their dynamic will also include um learning to trust one another and oneself again (like June & Anna's dynamic), to learn how to be brave and be sure in one's beliefs (Mikael um doesn't really speak up that much out of fear while Zack is not only outspoken, but is also an activist - this is another one of the many reasons why Zack is branded as a "Misfit" aside from the fact that he's gay and um yea Ezekiel spends almost 2 minutes berating Joshua for this out of pure anger and disgust), and what it means to reconnect with the past and to forgive oneself (although that is much more expounded upon with June & Zack's dynamic).

Ezekiel and Joshua (Narrator 1) - SAY HI TO THE RILEY AND CAIRO DYNAMIC WOOOOOOO but yea ari dude your analysis on Riley and Cairo (and Kate) being the Main MAIN characters and everything about cheerwives gave me a lot of think about and SO I PUT IT IN HERE WOOOOOO so basically um Ezekiel is the older stepbrother of Zack and the first of the 3 Misfits to figure out that they are in a show. He figures this out because he recognizes Joshua aka the leader of the Narrators aka his former churchmate and ex-bestfriend. He also realizes that they are in a show because he recognizes their tricks which he knew about because he had participated in these missions before as one of the Narrators (Joshua and Ezekiel are older than the rest of the cast and the other narrators don't know that Ezekiel was once a Narrator as well). Due to an Unfortunate Incident (that i'm still working on) 3 years prior to the events in the show, Ezekiel cut off all ties to the church but he is still viewed as this "perfect role model golden boy" which is why the 4 Narrators were shocked to find out that Ezekiel was part of their mission. Joshua, knowing that the real reason to his sudden involvement is due to "producers" somehow finding out their secret about the Unfortunate Incident, lied and told the others that he was just included to make converting his brother a lot easier, which they believed. Out of all the narrators, Joshua is the one who tries his best to stick to the script the most because he knows that if he doesn't, the true nature of that Unfortunate Incident will not only be revealed to his companions but to everyone else watching. Meanwhile Ezekiel, who doesn't know that him being involved in this mission is some sort of um penance for his involvement in that Unfortunate Incident, tries his hardest to sabotage he show by being the most outspoken when pointing out a lot of hypocrisies within religious institutions and in ph society in general (he refuses to tell the other two that they are in a show though because if that happens, he knows the Narrators, Joshua especially will um get very heavily scolded by the producers and despite everything, he still cares for Joshua a lot). I'd say that these two are the ones that push the plot the most - one wants to push the show accordingly to plan in order to please the audience and the producers and in order to not let his and Ezekiel's secret go out while the other wants to push the show off-script in retaliation against the producers (and yes the Unfortunate Incident involved the time travelling thingy which is why he really wants to sabotage this). In fact, these two have 2 duets that are basically them trying to convince the other to go along with their plan ("Interpretasyon" which means Interpretation and "Sikreto" which means secret). This dynamic involves um yea trying to convince the other to switch sides gjxjd and um reconciliation, responsibility out of guilt, and what it means to forgive oneself (forgiveness is a common theme here) and to start to heal from trauma and to not deny the existence of said trauma any longer.

NOW ORIGINALLY I REALLY DID NOT INTEND THE JOSHUA AND EZEKIEL DYNAMIC TO BE GAY BUUTT WHEN I WAS THINKING OF THE LYRICS, I REALIZED THAT OUT OF CONTEXT, IT SOUNDED VERY GAY SO UM HERE'S AN EXCERPT OF SIKRETO (still not finished writing the thingy)

Joshua: (singing to Ezekiel) (this is also the first time Joshua sings a Filipino solo so this is him breaking the script for the first time) (also um yea the translations aren't direct translations cause I wanted to make them rhyme fnxnf) (So to those who know filipino i am terribly sorry cause yup this isnt an accurate translation fjfjd)

Ang natitirang alaala ay aking binura (I have scrubbed away all the memories that may have still remained)

‘di ko na sila kilala (I don't know them anymore)

Kinalimutan na kita (I have forgotten about your name)

Ngunit ang bigat ng pagsisisi ang aking dinadala (But the weight of regret, I carry all the same)

Ang sakit sa balikat, lagi kong dinarama (I constantly feel the sting of my shoulders' pain)

Pero masasabi ko pa rin na sinusubukan kong itama (But at least I can say, I tried to right-)

Ang aking mga pagkakamali (all that's wrong)

Ikaw, saan ka pumunta? (What about you? Where in the world have you gone?)

Tumakbo ka lang at iniwan mo ako (You ran, you just ran, and left me behind)

Sa pagbubuhat ng kasalanan at sikreto (In carrying the sins and secrets, and you paid me no mind)

Pero pinapanatili ko paring malinis ang ating munting kwento (But I stillade sure I kept our little story clean)

Patuloy na sinisigurong ‘di nila malalaman ang totoo (I kept on making sure the truth would never be seen)

Alam na natin ang kwento (We already know the story)

Alam na natin ang kwentong kailangang itago (We know the story that we need to hide)

Itong munting sikreto ay kailangan burahin (This little secret that has to be erased)

Ating pagkakamali, patuloy na bubuhatin (We will have to always carry, our sins and our mistakes)

Alam na natin ang kwento (We already know the story)

Alam natin ang katotohanan ng nakaraan (We very well know the truth of the past)

Ito'y nakabakas sa isipan, ‘di natin malilimutan (We'll never forget what will remain ingrained in our minds)

At sa Diyos na lang natin mahahanap ang kapatawaran (And from only God could we find forgiveness for what we left behind)

Habang buhay bubuhatin ng konsensiya (Forever will our consciences bear the weight and carry

ang ating pagkakasala, ang kwento't sikreto nating dalawa (our sins kept in secrecy, the story of you and me)

Pero ngayon, ‘di ko alam paano pero nalaman nila (But now, I don't know how, but somehow they know)

At ngayon, dinedemanda na nila ang penitensya (And now, penitence is what they demand)

Kaya ngayon, naghihingi ako ng pasensiya (So now, patience and forgiveness is what I ask)

Sa iyo at sa kanila (From you and from them)

Sa aking gagawin at mga nagawa (for what I'll do and I've done)

Baka nga (Perhaps)

Tama nga mga sinabi mo (What you've said all this time is right)

Na ‘di tayo ang tanging may sala rito (That we aren't the ones only at fault here)

Pero ‘di ko matatakasan ang aking naging tungkulin (But I can't really escape my little role here, because)

Sana ‘di mo nakalimutan: lahat sila nakatingin (God I hope you haven't forgotten: they're all looking at us)

Lagi silang nakatingin (Always looking at us)

Kahit ano man ang iyong gawin (No matter what we do)

Tayo'y mananatili sa entablado (On the stage we shall stay)

At lahat sila nakatingi- (And the stares still won't go awa-) (He then realizes that he's on stage and Should Not Be Having A Breakdown In Front Of The Audience Because Duh and Because That's Not Part Of The Script)

SO UM YEA IN RETROSPECT SOME OF THOSE LYRICS COULD ALSO REFER TO SOME SECRET NOT-PLATONIC RELATIONSHIP THAT THE AUDIENCE DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT YET (because the Secret doesn't get revealed til much later) WHEN IN ACTUALITY IT'S ABOUT THE TRUTH BEHIND WHAT HAPPENED 3 YEARS PRIOR TO THE EVENTS IN THE SHIW AND NOT GONNA LIE,,, THEM BEING IN A NOT-SO-PLATONIC RELATIONSHIP KINDA ALSO WORKS SO I'M CONSIDERING MAKING THEM HAVE SOME ROMANTIC HISTORY TOO JDHXBSJF

Oki that's all for today hdhdh there are two more characters (narrators 4 and 5) but i'm still working on them and i kinda wanna make the both of them not cis cause WHY NOT also i have been typing this for like 6 hours now and i'm tired and hungry so tjjxjs anyways if you read to the end, I'm sending you carbonara-

#I HAVE TYPED THIS #FOR 6 HOURS #I AM SO FUCKING TIRED GJXJSJJD #ARI I AM SO SO SORRY I WAS NOT EXPECTING FOR THIS WHOLE THING TO BE THIS LONG #but i guess thats what happens when you work on a thingy for 4 years fjsjf #FBZJSJJF ARI MY DUDE UM GOODLUCK AAAAAAA #God i hope you make it to the end gjxjdjf #um feel free to like reblog this in the tags if you wanna express ur thoughts there! i'd love to know what you think about this clusterfuck #the same goes for anyone woo feel free to rb if u wanna!!#SO ANYWAYS I AM TIRED AND WILL NOW EAT CARBONARA #once again ari i am so sorry jfhxhf #ari! (wattblr tag rambler yay!)#ask me stuff #izzy's rambles and shit #religion tw #ask to tag

14 notes · View notes

redrosesartcabin · 3 years

Text

Self indulgent series: Part 2.1

Life: Part 1

(Kenji x female reader, authors perspective) (the reader is a singer) (also: Some angst in here. I dunno why, but I just love writing some angst with fluff endings xD)

“So, let me get this straight”, the interviewer said, bewildered by the story the singer and songwriter Red Rose had brought up, “you met your now husband, Kenji Kon no less, on Jurassic World as one of the kids who got stranded for five months?”

“That’s correct”, she said. She had answered that very question a million times, but she couldn’t fault them for it: It was an unbelievable story (though she started to wonder how not everyone was aware by now that she was one of the teens back than).

“It was in December of 2015. I was thirteen years old and exited to be one of the first teens to visit Camp Cretaceous. I have to admit, I wasn’t and still am not, maybe even less than before, the biggest fan of dinosaurs. I’m not particularly interested in facts about them, but I definitely was interested in seeing some Dino action! So when I won first place at the talent show of my school-“

“Unsurprisingly”, the interviewer interluded at which the audience gave a collective chuckle.

“-I was still very excited about going to Jurassic World. My parents never wanted to go and in retrospect I can understand why. But you know: I was a naïve thirteen-year-old and didn’t think much about the consequences of the past. What happened at Jurassic Park you know? I was convinced Jurassic World was different and all worked out. Boy was I wrong! We all know it now! But at least I can say that I got, besides trauma, lifelong friends and my amazing husband out of it”

“That definitely can’t be disputed”, the interviewer agreed. Red Rose found him quite pleasant. Although he was a chatterbox, he was still very respectful and didn’t poke too much into the Jurassic World story: Although she was, for the most part, over the trauma, it was still a work in progress and it’s not a time she always remembers fondly. On most days she remembers the good moments she had with her newfound friends there, but sometimes she could feel the adrenaline rush through her as she thought of dinosaurs trying to eat her and her fellow campers. She saw flashes of sharp teeth and could feel hot, stinking breath and hear growls drawing shivers down her spine. Red Rose liked to focus on the human part of the experience, so she preferred being able to tell the tale of Jurassic World the way she wanted without being asked too much…

“So, Kon helped you reach fame if I remember correctly?”, he asked.

“Definitely! Though, I mean: I was able to do most of what I’m doing. Teaching myself how to use certain programs. I taught myself how to sing and I’ve always written my own stuff…But I certainly wasn’t good at marketing myself or making myself grow.

Kenji and I became boyfriend and girlfriend when I was sixteen and he was eighteen. That same year we went on vacations for three weeks in the Caribbean’s. And “, she let out a laugh. The camera closed up on her and caught a smile and a glance that looked so touched by love anyone could feel how much she adored her spouse, “I remember how we went on the private part of the beach Kenjis father had purchased. I sat down on a hammock and a guitar and just started improvising and singing. Little did I know my boyfriend -gosh that sounds weird to say now- was filming me. He put it up on Instagram, and he already had quite a following back then, so it gained quite some attention. Though not necessarily because it was a nice scenery or any of that: But because people genuinely liked how I sing and the melody I had come up with. And well… it got wild from there. People soon requested I make my own Instagram page for making music.

A year later I was asked if I would like to produce some music and well… then my career started”

“That’s honestly such a cool and sweet story. Though how about an even sweeter reunion? Please welcome: Kenji Kon”

Red Rose got up from her seat with a wild jump, not as the eccentric, elegant yet kind of crazy minded artist, but as y/n Kon. As the wife who hadn’t seen her husband in person for a month because of the production of yet another movie starring him as the protagonist.

The crowd clapped in awe of him, as fans. She wanted to clap because her heart was clapping too. Her heart was dancing a tango inside of chest as though she was seeing her middle school crush in the hallway. His dark eyes, ridden with depth met her y/e.c. ones and all they could read in each other’s eyes was happiness and love.

This happened within miliseconds, but it passed by in slow motion for her, so she perceived herself running towards him with calm. For the rest of the world however she was perceived as looking like a golden retriever who had missed his owner whilst they were at work and were ready to play.

It was adorable. It was downright touching how the couple met each other halfway and gave each other a long, passionate yet gentle kiss (so that it wouldn’t be too inappropriate for life TV).

“Not to be giddy, but you really are a couple to die for”, the interviewer said. The audience half chuckled half yelled in agreement. She felt her cheeks blush in a deep dark shade of red and heard her husband chuckle in embarrassment. She looked down to her and whispered “Hello love”

Kenji had, unsurprisingly, had found joy in being actor. Being dramatic and showing his face on camera all the time? Perfect!

And he honest to god was a great actor. Though it did get annoying from time to time that he was casted as either the pretty faced villain or the charming, perfect love interest. Sometimes he was even both.

Y/n didn’t like to admit it, but she was quite jealous at the beginning when she saw him kiss other men and women on screen. It took a big fight for her to admit that.

She wasn’t proud of that fight at all. She had been, without wanting to, been very critical of her then fiancé (it was about six months before they got married). She would call him several times a day when he was on set of a particularly spicy rom com and observe his socials every couple of minutes. Y/n remembers her friends teasing her about it in the beginning and then eventually scold her. “Don’t you trust him?”, they had asked and she had answered, “I do….”, and they knew she was telling the truth, yet there was more behind it.

Kenji soon caught up and noticed her strange clinginess.

“What is up with you, Y/N? You know I have work to do! You can’t call me that often on set!”, he had yelled when the topic came up. He had been visiting for the weekend before he would go back on set.

“Why not? Can a girl not talk to her fiancé?”, she had asked with a sharp undertone

“Of course, you can darling. But twenty times a day is simply too much!”, he argued, yet he tried keeping his tone softer.

“I don’t call that often”, she pouted

“Oh YES you do!”, he put his phone out and showed her the times she had called just the other day. She counted about thirty, “I was nice with that number!”

“And? So what? You can just put your phone on silent”

“Yes, of course I can. This isn’t about solving the notification issue it’s about solving your trust issues towards me. Why don’t you trust me?”, as he asked the question his anger had subsided and genuine hurt showed in his eyes in his voice, “you monitor me like I’m an inmate”

“I…”, she was only able to say, her throat suddenly seemed dry, “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to… I…”, she couldn’t find the right words to explain it. It hurt too much to admit. She thought she had been over that thought pattern a long time ago, but it had returned to her.

“What? What have I done to deserve this?”, he asked, “Why are you even with me, if who I am disturbs you so much?”

And that… that sentence had hurt her more than that ugly thing inside of her she hadn’t wanted to face.

“You fool!”, she screamed in fury as the sentence he had uttered stung, her eyes filling with endless tears, “How could you ever think you disturb me? You are the most beautiful, wonderful human being I know, inside and out. And on top of that you are incredibly kindhearted. And that’s why I’m like this… I don’t want to lose you. And it’s not that I don’t trust you: I highly doubt you’d ever cheat on anyone. You are too kind for that. But I fear… I feared when you are together with all these good-looking actors you might not find me enough anymore. I know it’s stupid, but you see: The past haunted me again. When I was called fat. When I was called not-good-enough. When I read social media comments saying you’re out of my league and I don’t deserve you. Ugly words that ate me up inside when I was a child and young teen. I thought I was past that but I…I…”, now the tears were too many and her words died with hiccups. She felt his form surround her in a hug that felt so warm and yet sharp as knifes. She loved his touch but felt guilty for not opening up about this sooner. She had never wanted to be like this, but alas she had been too much of a coward to burden him or herself with this.

“Love”, he whispered after comforting her for a couple of minutes, “Look at me”

She lifted her head. Her eyes were red and puffy, her lips were dark pink, and tears had run streaks across her cheeks. It broke Kenji to have hurt her so deeply, yet he also knew that it wasn’t his fault. It was however his responsibility, to clear this up once and for all.

“Love listen”, he started, “I completely understand your jealousy. But we’ve been together for almost ten years and in all that time, I’ve never encountered a woman more incredible, deeply fascinating and intrinsically beautiful as you. No acted kiss could bring me away from you, no sexy actor could keep my mind from ever wishing for more than to be by your side. I’ve been by your side for almost six years: What should change now?

The monster from your past is, as already stated: Past. Their words were untrue. These people were in pain themselves when they caused you pain. You were a target to unleash the inner turmoil of others. It’s no excuse but it is the explanation. Those who feel they must hurt others are those who seek the most attention and power because they’d be devoid of having a self. I should know: I used to be similar to that. And I had my phase of jealousy as well, you know?”

“Really?”, y/n managed to ask

“Oh yes! I was in rage every time I heard you talk about any of your guy friends back in high school. Difference is I could hide it better because we were apart a lot of the time. I feared you would find someone who had more of a personality than me. I was no longer sure looks would cut it”

“Gosh love”, she answered, her voice love drunken, “you burst of personality. You aren’t just a pretty boy or well… pretty man. You have so much spirit and energy to give to the world. You are the definition of happiness and sunshine. And on top of that you are an incredibly talented man with so much to show. You wield the human mind and emotions so well you can convert yourself to be something other than yourself convincingly-”

“See?”, he asked, “and just like you love me like that and see all that good I sometimes don’t recognize, I see it in you… I always love you”

“I love you too. I’m sorry”

“Don’t be sorry. I’m so happy we had this talk. It was much needed”

“Yeah”, she hummed as her lips almost touched his and within seconds the couple found themselves passionately kissing

Ever since then they hadn’t had any of these kinds of self-worth problems. They’d say I love you on a daily basis and gave each other compliments whenever they could.

One thing the fans found especially cute was that, without fail, Red Rose would comment on each of Kenji’s selfies and comment “hey gorgeous, you single?” and he’d answer every single time, “Sure Sugar. Meet me at seven on your favorite street-corner”

One time they took a picture of each other on a nice-looking street corner. Kenji had called the picture “finally found the street corner. Been waiting to meet this lady for a while, apparently her name is ‘your wife’, which is peculiar but otherwise she seems nice”.

The picture even went viral and became one of the all-time favorite celebrity pictures of 2026.

After the talk-show they flew back in his helicopter.

They were in New York city and y/n looked at the city landscape with a fascinated gaze as she observed the flickering lights of the big apple.

Kenji looked at her with eyes shining almost as bright. He loved her love for everything new she sees. He had noticed that the first time she had seen the watering hole. He wasn’t really interested in her that way yet. He was fifteen and she thirteen, that makes quite a difference at this age. But still he couldn’t but smile as she looked at the dinosaurs with big eyes. And he loved that she hadn’t lost that spark, even as she got older, even as they came together and grew and changed together.

Y/n noticed his gaze and shifted hers to look at him.

‘What a beautiful man. I’ve missed him so’ she thought to herself.

“I missed you”, he said as though he had read her mind just now. Maybe he had. They had been together for so long they were often able to read each other’s subtle shifts in expression. Quite a beautiful thing.

“I missed you too”, she simply answered, “did you plan this talk show surprise?”

“Yes and no”, he admitted, “I was meeting up with Donavan O’Connor, the director of the ‘Elaine, the one?’ series. When calling Donavan, he told me had been to talking to Ray (the interviewer) and he was casually pointing out the funny coincidence you were meeting up for and mention the funny coincidence, that you’d have an interview with him that same day I come to the city and well… needless to say I called Ray and arranged things... I just had to. Couldn’t miss the opportunity to surprise my beautiful wife”

She smiled at that. A shy and flattered smile that reminded Kenji of when they were teens.

They landed on the roof of a nice-looking hotel. They had decided to stay the night here in New York before travelling back to Ireland… yes: Yes Ireland.

Most celebrities lived in L.A., but Kenji and y/n had preferred living a bit apart in an old mansion near the coast of south Ireland, close to the northern border. Although Kenji was a people person, he didn’t like the dishonesty and lying in the industry and wanted to get away from that with his wife who thought the same.

Besides: It was a beautiful country.

As they entered the room, they felt peace and happiness as well as a certain kind of tension arise.

Needless to say, there was another kind of reuinion going on that night...

(Sorry about that short ending, I had to heavily edit that ‘cause it originally was a... well... non Pg scene xD)

#kenji camp cretaceous #kenji x reader #kenji kon #kenji kon x reader #camp cretaceous #camp cretaceous fanfiction #jw cc #jurassic world camp cretaceous #self indulgent #self indulgent af

28 notes · View notes

kuroopaisen · 3 years

Note

not to throw my two cents /now/ but for shows like aot (I personally stopped after s2 and i havent rly considered picking it up again yet), there definitely are problematic elements and depictions that should be called out when necessary—and we need to especially listen to those whose identities were unfairly treated. anime and manga aren’t innocent of problems, as are the artists behind it :,)

I won’t lie, japan still continues to be sketchy w how they teach and treat their history, but ig we as watchers/readers these media can remain critical of what we consume ? the act of watching smth w fascist elements doesn’t mean you condone it ! and choosing not to watch or support (i find these to be different things) bc of those problematic elements is also valid.

oH and I personally don’t rly like aot either from what I’ve been seeing LMAO as a person who dedicated 2 years of high school to extensive studying of history it’s just :\\\\\\ I think all the points have been made by ppl before me, and by you!!

hello miss yuki!! first of all, i think the idea that people can’t consume Problematic Media is. is stupid because. humans are capable of critical thinking DJLSDALKJ that’s like... our thing. and just because something’s ‘problematic’ doesn’t mean there’s nothing valuable to draw from it? and by that, i mean... sometimes i specifically seek out things i know i’ll disagree with so i can actually talk about it properly, instead of relying on heresay.

i guess it’s like the jk r*wling thing. do i think people who enjoy harry potter are militant transphobes? no! do i think it’s a bit shifty to spend money on harry potter merch that isn’t secondhand and is therefore putting coins in miss transphobes pockets? yes! there’s difference between consuming and supporting for sure.

people have complicated relationships with media and internet discourse tends to make things too black-and-white. where do we draw the line? does resonating with shinji’s story in neon genesis evangelion mean you now support sexualising underage girls? does enjoying harry potter mean you condone fatphobia? does enjoying my hero academia mean you hate the lower classes?

but at the same time, if someone wants to steer clear of something because of those kinds of things, they absolutely have a right to and neither them nor their intelligence should be insulted for that. a lot of people like to throw around “oh you just don’t understand” as an insult and honestly, Shut Up. leave people be.

ANYWAY aot

yeah a lot of my problems with aot come down to isayama using a metaphor that isn’t even his to draw on. even if the pernicious aspects are unintentional, they’re still harmful. and also, it’s pretty obvious that isayama’s done his research? with how well the story emulates certain facts in history (and even referencing the madagascar plan hh), there’s no way isayama doesn’t know what he’s talking about. and you can’t really brush up on your knowledge of wwii without the whole antisemitism thing, so...

but i think an issue i have with a lot of the criticism towards aot is that it comes from a very Western perspective; and i get that to a degree, but it’s also important to think about where the author comes from and who he’s writing for. that doesn’t exonerate any of the problematic aspects to any degree, but context is. well, sometimes it’s everything

for example, i don’t think the question is so much “is isayama a nazi” as it is “is isayama trying to justify japanese expansionism” because while both are awful, one question is more relevant to what he’s likely to believe (even in the infamous twitter screenshots, he pretty staunchly seems anti-holocaust). i think ethnocentric criticisms muddy the water.

i’m a dual major in anthropology and history, and while that absolutely doesn’t give me authority, it means i tend to focus more on this sort of thing? there’s no way isayama could’ve known that attack on titan would become so... global? and an issue with episodic things of any nature is that it’s almost impossible to analyse them in their whole until it’s finished. aaaand in most cases, that takes years.

so regardless of what isayama intended, that means there are still right-wing groups that love aot and see it as a metaphor for the great replacement, or there’s people who see it as a justification to abandon pacifism, and so on. but there are also people who see it as a staunchly anti-war story, or a narrative about the cycle of hatred.

YEAH w the watching vs. supporting, i’ve actually been streaming aot on gogoanime because i didn’t know what i’d think of it when i started, even though i have an animelab and crunchyroll subscription. the question is, am i giving it social capital by discussing it online? some would say yes (i’ve got a platform, and just talking about it in general gives it affluence), some would say no (even if i have a platform, it’s small in the grand scheme of things, and how many people are actually reading my mini essays?)

ANYWAY this is largely incoherent i’m so sorry sdalkjfslfkdj look after yourself!!

#I'M SO SORRY THIS GOT LONG #yuki 🌸#rowan watches attack on titan #awanggan #rowan replies

13 notes · View notes

homestuckexamination · 3 years

Text

Canon, Outside Canon, or Non Canon?

That canon anon is saying partly what I was trying to say. And yes, both interpretations can coexist in meta works like HS, but whether that’s your cup of tea or not depends on whether you prefer canon compliance, non canon compliance, or in-between.

asfsaf, honestly I’m so sorry, this seems interesting, and well put, but I am not able to read this atm and I don’t want to hold this essay on my asks until like, tomorrow or Sunday, soooo if any of y’all wanna check it before I do, here:

People who lean more towards canon tend to favor concrete info and develop something already established.

In-between is tricky. It’s a fragile balancing act that if you don’t scale it fairly (however “fair” means to you), a writer may face backlash from either parties. Fanfiction generally are outside canon unless confirmed or firmly denied that it would happen by the authors of the original work themselves.

Others that choose non-canon compliance are very comfortable with/pick creativity and freefall with ideas not stated or implied within canon. AUs usually are in this category unless the concept of alternate universes exist as a concept in the story.

Note: This is a case of “it’s a continuum, not a binary”.

A sort-of comparison can be made to this:

It’s the main reason why people who lean towards canon compliance more are quick to spot inconsistencies. Sudden changes are annoyances- like a timeskip of a character suddenly “acting OOC” because of something that was never thoroughly implied or outright stated previously. Unintended continuity errors are a pet peeve.

“…divergent thinking concentrates on generating a large number of alternative responses including original, unexpected, or unusual ideas. Thus, divergent thinking is associated with creativity. Convergent thinking involves finding only the single correct answer, conventional to a well-defined problem."

Homestuck^2 went on a drive with Divergent Thinking in the front & Non-Canon Compliance in the backseat, downed at least 6 bottles, and went on an excursion to crash a lot of previously established facts and ran with it. While the story serves as an encouragement for fans to make their own Homestuck continuation, it did irk some readers for the reasons above. For readers who prefer to lift off gradually from the canon, it doesn’t matter whether a character is turned into a refreshing symbol for a number of people- it’s usually not what the change represents, it’s the sudden change itself. However, for people who are okay with these have the advantage of enjoying them by being more flexible by a large margin. (Note: I’m using these as examples with objective readers in mind. I neither condone the toxic side of the fandom nor exempt how some of the creators lashed out.)

Some things to think about whether a work is canon, outside canon, or non-canon:

How do you draw the line between character development and OOC?

How would you know it isn’t simply just the character having experienced a vast amount of time for that person to change a core element of who they are or were? Look closer. Maybe you’ll find hints that this character is undergoing something. Do you see any faint connection for the alteration? If not, it may be a case of OOC-ness handled wrong. After that, go back and think ”What makes this character xir own and not somebody else?“. There’s canon Roxy, there are outside canon Roxys. Roxies. Whichever.

A way to avoid the readers splashing in cold water is to make the development happen on-screen. Otherwise, it’ll be like one of those episodes where the MC wakes up to find his loved one suddenly confessing that xe’s not who xe really is. Making a character simply explaining that "people change overtime” feels more like a cop-out when, from a reader’s perspective, is done so swiftly and in-your-face.

Is it ever justified that a character is OOC?

This is a risky question to even answer. It highly depends on the character’s mentality. It’s like seeing someone known for patience to suddenly snap. Or a normally upbeat person to have a single moment of quiet forlorn. Or a pacifist having promised to fight someone. Sometimes, characters experiencing this type of OOC-ness is a writer’s way of saying “hey, this person has extra dimensions & limitations”. OOC Is Serious Business.

Whenever Batman displays emotions, it’s an indicator of who Bruce is inside despite rarely letting them show. How do we justify that outside of said display? Through his actions. We know beforehand that he’s a caring but jaded person, but he still fights for what good is left in the city of rampant crime. And when we do get that in retrospect, that’s when we see that perhaps that character’s never been Out-Of-Character at all. It’s when it serves as a hint AND a callback to a character’s past that resonates with them that it’s enough to let it happen from time to time- usually when the psyche’s at a critical point. It compliments the usual personality as a contrast. It doesn’t even have to be anything crucial. Can be as simple as not liking a music genre anymore.

Another reason for OOC-ness is when the character is transferred to a different place for several months. Different culture, different accents, different dialects, different other things. People tend to mimic what’s around them when steeped long enough.

*Headcanons are OOC by nature of it not existing in the first place. Even if it’s connected to a personality trait, it’s still something that hasn’t been entrenched in the original framework of reference. These are often the most biased and it’s usually done for readers to see themselves or other people in those characters. Headcanons can also be creative and shouldn’t be forced on others/stated as fact. It also shouldn’t be shot down just because it’s just an idea from someone else or your own.

Is deconstruction of a trope/archetype/stereotype even necessary when it’s something that most people already enjoyed?

First, by necessary, I mean, has it been done over and over already to the point that it’s repetitive? Have you tried giving your own twist to the deconstruction to make it unique (e.g. a mean girl who’s only kind to animals)?

Why do you deconstruct it? What purpose does it serve to the message or theme of a story?

Once you’ve mulled it over, how about a reconstruction?

__________________________________

If anyone has something to add, feel free. All of this is spontaneously typed in a matter of… I don’t know how many minutes before I sleep. Probably several errors and typos by the time it’s shared. It’s like trying to understand Light & Void, Heart & Mind, and Hope & Rage simultaneously on one topic. G'day. Night. Whichever.

#submission #long post #longpost #canon #fanon #hse #hs^2 #homestuck^2

13 notes · View notes

sepublic · 4 years

Text

Luz and the Winds of Change

For Season 2, I’d LOVE to see Luz find a Wind/Air Glyph, because... The thing I’ve noticed with Luz Noceda is that she is very much an active force of change; That she brings about the winds of change to people’s lives! Obviously part of the reason for this is Plot, but at the same time… People like Eda make a point about how their lives felt stagnant, meaningless even, until Luz arrived. Emperor Belos himself even acknowledges this, saying that Eda’s life to him was meaningless, until Luz showed up…

Without Luz’s appearance, a lot of characters were set on a certain trajectory; Eda was going to keep being a loner and an outcast and eventually succumb to her curse. Lilith would’ve been more desperate for Belos’ approval, King would be both lonely and a bit selfish, Willow would’ve succumbed to self-loathing and shyness… Amity would become even colder and more miserable, the Twins wouldn’t bother self-reflecting, Boscha would continue to be a bully without ever considering her relationship with her friends, etc.

But then comes Luz; Like the winds of change, she changes the trajectory and paths of these characters. She’s like a sudden gust that allows a ship to change course, or a ball to change its path mid-flight. Her mere presence alone inspires people to be better, and not from a preachy and judgmental “I think I can do better and tell you why” sort of way like Belos is, a way that tells people there’s something inherently wrong with them. No, Luz is someone who respects boundaries and wants to see others be the best they can be… That she’ll let others approach her instead of forcing herself onto them, do things at their own pace!

I think part of what makes Luz so compelling is that her kindness and giving nature is so unconditional; That it’s not out of a sense of obligation like she HAS to take care of people, but simply because it makes her happy to see other people happy! That nobody asked Luz or implied she needed to do things for them, she was just allowed to be herself (which is what the Boiling Isles does in general for her), and that means Luz can self-actualize as a person who wants to help OTHERS self-actualize as well!

It’s about learning to be yourself, and to Luz, this is something that means a lot to her considering she never got that chance for so long! And obviously, it isn’t like helping people is the only thing she can do, nor does she place all of her self-worth into this concept as a role/duty she’s bound to… Luz is still allowed to be a kid, still allowed to have her own desires and wants, such as wanting to learn magic, be a powerful Witch like Azura, etc.! She’s in an environment where she can flourish!

Not to mention, Luz has some personal stake in a lot of people’s issues as well; Like with Viney and the Detention Kids, fixing their problems is also fixing HER issues with the school system as well! Or in Understanding Willow, how helping Willow and Amity be better friends also helps Luz, because those are her friends and them being happy makes her happy as well!

Obviously episodes like Wing it like Witches also remind Luz not to vicariously live out her fantasies and issues, nor project them, through her friends, and to set a fine line between that and helping people… But it’s not a draining relationship. Contrary to what some characters believe, they’re not takers and they don’t need to provide more, nor compensate and justify their friendship; That what they’re already doing and got going on… is pretty good.

In general, Luz is someone who inspires others to make a change. That her illuminating Light allows those such as Principal Bump to make an active choice on what road they’re going down, now that they can see what’s ahead… And to choose differently. Luz is somebody who reinvigorates, who re-instills passion into existence as someone who is VERY passionate over things as part of her ADHD hyperfixations, which is also another beautiful thing to see for a neurodivergent viewer…

It’s funny, really; Many characters were set down paths that could’ve easily led to a LOT more misery, or at the very least towards them not truly feeling fulfilled like they are now. But Luz changedthat, she makes a difference because she’s different as a foreigner and an outsider, but not an invader the way Belos possibly is…

And I also love how it’s such a different take on the White Savior trope in that our Dominican, dark-skinned protagonist is the one who helps enlighten the European-inspired culture… In a way that is VERY respective of others’ boundaries while still allowing her to have her own personal desires and be her own person, and NOT be defined by what she does for others in a co-dependent sense.

Like the show makes it clear Luz isnotresponsible for these people, tying into the idea that many characters also still have their own personal guilt in wrong actions and how they DO acknowledge this and make a change… That Luz offers help but it’s also on people to take personal initiative and accept this help as well, that she’s not a bad person if she doesn’t fix EVERY person she comes across!

She isn’t your personal caretaker, she’s a kid and the show focuses on how adults are responsible for the impact they have on children and ensuring the best for them, hence the emphasis on Eda as a motherly figure and what she does for Luz, it’s why Luz chooses to stay in the first place! Like a lot of adults are compelled to be better at their responsibility to care for the young generation, like the Bat Queen not projecting her trauma onto Owlbert, or Principal Bump letting kids study in multiple tracks! But at the same time Luz doesn’t feel entitled either, like the world or people owe her something…

Luz being an outsider means that she’s another perspective, and THAT makes people ask themselves; What does my situation, and/or the way I treat others, look like to an outsider? Is this who I am, is this who I’ll be? Reflections are made of Light, and Luz can provide a mirror, without that being her only identity of course; She’s a FUNKY mirror all right!

But, yeah… Luz really DOES represent the Winds of Change! She’s a new opportunity not just for people but for the Boiling Isles, and in a darker sense she’s a new opportunity for someone like Belos given the implications of her arrival and how she got there… But regardless. Luz is someone who is antithetical to the idea of stagnation, she helps flourish and inspire growth in characters like plant-motif Willow, while changing the destructive and hurting Fire of Amity into one that provides warmth and nourishment!

She is energy, which relates well to her ADHD-coding, as well as movement… And THAT all feeds back into the idea of Luz being Wind as well as Light, as someone who compels others to move but not in a forceful way, simply giving them a well-needed push to change their current course and trajectory. Belos’ reign is recent, and not solid… But up until now it was on a trajectory towards becoming more powerful, more dictatorial, and more controlling. But then comes Luz, and she helps people realize that NO, this system is messed up, that we CAN make a change…

And this ties back into how the moral is not, “I can fix this,” nor “You can fix this,” it’s “We can fix this together!” Luz brings people together, just as the winds bring things together! And honestly, an Air-motif makes sense, given Luz’s own relation to Owls, and how those are creatures who are very sensitive and dependent on the air currents, in the paths of the wind, and use it to propel themselves! While at the same time teaching others –usually their own children- how to use that wind to fly, soar, and find a different place and home… A way to leave an unpleasant situation and go somewhere safer.

Obviously Luz isn’t perfect, and she’s not meant to be the fix-all solution for others to rely on. She’s got her past issues that she’s worked upon, and I think she can be overly-critical of herself when it comes to hurting people, as someone who’s been hurt; Which makes Luz’s relationship with Amity, who is ALSO self-critical, very fascinating! But in the end, Luz is still a fundamentally good person.

Luz helps reinvigorate others, giving them a ‘Second Wind’ which also ties back to Wing it like Witches and its Sports tropes… And THAT episode also involved Amity, who has a flashback of being overly-critical of herself for hurting others, telling Luz not to do the same; That she doesn’t have to single-handedly shoulder the burden of the forfeit, even if Luz DID mess up by hurting Willow and Gus by accident, that she shouldn’t over-compensate for her failings and feel like she has to! Not when Luz taught Amity the same…!

Wind is the antithesis to stagnation in that it’s defined as something that moves, and Luz is SUCH a dynamic character in the way she interacts with others! Wind can only be seen by how it moves others… Clearly there’s more to Luz than just that, she has more emphasis on a Light motif for a reason. But the way Luz changes others and compels them to take a different path is VERY obvious and visible, and one can best notice Luz’s bright personality through her effects on people; That, and because Luz is just such an utter goober as well! Like, even the audience is affected towards and endeared by her!

Wind is not something you hold onto, and it’s not something that is itself when it’s in a box. It’s meant to be free, flying, soaring… Which represents how Luz is a character not to be stifled by a system nor conformity, that her Light is meant to shine and be seen by others, and help illuminate the path… But mainly so SHE can shine for herself, and be her own person! Air is associated with Freedom, which given this show’s themes of anti-authority, is VERY appropriate too…!

#the owl house #owl house #the owl house luz #luz noceda #meta #character analysis

68 notes · View notes