#i guess we aren’t inherently bad and good things happen | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hellzyeahwebwielingessays · 9 months

Text

@poke-maniac

I am making this post because it was too frustrating replying in the comments section of the original post.

“ I said that money was a mean to make his company more successful as he himself admits, not just for power's sake.”

Yes, but I wonder what making his company more successful would do to the amount of power he wields. Could it be that it would generate MORE power for him??????????????

“Which is more or less confirmed in sinister war, but since you ignore everything that happens after post OMD as if nothing was canon anymore, I guess you don't see it as a valid argument.”

It’s more than just that I discount it for being post-OMD. From what you have described of Sinister War I do not see how this goes against anything I have said. Norman wanted to money to make his company more successful. But in doing this he makes himself more powerful.

The priority is ALWAYS power. In fact, few people who are rich assholes as you put it are in it for the sake of money alone, but predominantly for the POWER that money grants them.

But even if we argue that there those who really are JUST in it for the money, Norman isn’t one of them as he literally told us that in ASM #40:

Oh look, Norman EXPLICTELY saying that he needed to become wealthy because that was the only way he could become POWERFUL!

“We shouldn't apply real life psychology to fictional people,”

This is, simply put, one of the most astronomically bad takes I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

There is so much to unpack with this, but let’s just get down to the basics. If we aren’t going to apply real life psychology to fictional people what the fuck does the term ‘believable character’ even mean. How are they believable if not in terms of who they are, what they think, what they feel, how they act is psychologically realistic. Because that is what psychology boils down to ‘what is happening inside of a human being to make them behave the way they behave’.

Second of all, there is a GIGANTIC overlap between the mental muscles and psychologists and good writers flex for the very obvious reason that both jobs entail getting inside people’s heads. Its just that for writers those people happen to be fictional.

The proof in the pudding of this is Carl Jung, perhaps the second most famous psychologist behind Freud himself, and indeed was at a time viewed by Freud as his heir in the field of psychology. Jung’s works are massive and complicated to explain but one of the things he often brought up was the connection between psychology and mythology/fairy tales/folklore.

“Like Freud, the psychologist Carl Jung also took myths seriously. Jung believed that myths and dreams were expressions of the collective unconscious, in that they express core ideas that are part of the human species as a whole. In other words, myths express wisdom that has been encoded in all humans, perhaps by means of evolution or through some spiritual process. For Jungians, this common origin in the collective unconscious explains why myths from societies at the opposite ends of the earth can be strikingly similar. ”-

This school of thought is eventually what led literature professor Joseph Campbell to study myths from various cultures and write his landmark book ‘The Hero with a Thousand Faces’. Here is a wikipedia excerpt about the book:

“The book includes a discussion of "the hero's journey" by using the Freudian concepts popular in the 1940s and 1950s. Campbell's theory incorporates a mixture of Jungian archetypes, unconscious forces, and Arnold van Gennep's structuring of rites of passage rituals to provide some illumination.[4] ”-

So psychology and storytelling are inherently intertwined and ALWAYS have been.

Third of all, there is no end of examples of critically acclaimed works of fiction that DO apply real life psychology to fictional people. Breaking Bad is one seasons long epic exploring the realistic psychological change of Walter White into a drug kingpin.

The Sopranos stemmed from creator David Chase’s psychological struggles with his mother and the therapy he went through to try and deal with it. Not only was it applying psychological realism to these fictional gangsters (and their families) but it went so far as to have a psychologist as a main character and make her sessions with Tony Soprano integral to the plot/character exploration of Tony himself.

And, just in case you were trying to say ‘fictional comic book people’, Batman’s villains are regarded as the best villains in mainstream comic book history in large part because because of their psychological complexities. There is literally a podcast hosted by a real life psychologist where they review and apply psychological realism to every episode of Batman the Animated Series:

The fact that she was able to do that at all speaks to how clearly the writers WERE applying real life psychology when writing Batman the Animated Series, the most transparent example being ‘Mad Love’, the origin of Harley Quinn. not only was Harley a psychologist herself, but her origin story stemmed directly fro co-creator Paul Dini's experiences with therapy and includes one of your so called 'Freuduan excuses' for why Harley is the way she is:

"Paul Dini: I’m no stranger to therapy. I was spending some time in therapy and was in my head a lot around that time. Bruce and I were discussing her origin one day over lunch, because I had been approached by DC to do a special issue of the comic, and we were talking about what if there was some sort of surprise to her origin? What if she’s not just a hench girl? We came up with the idea that she had been a doctor at Arkham Asylum and the Joker had gotten into her head and worked her into being his follower. … Then we thought, what if Harley’s in the role of the long-suffering girlfriend?

There was also an element of the fans who write to a prisoner who committed a terrible crime and say, “I understand you… I see the good in you,” and sometimes develop a relationship."

Bill Mantlo literally name dropped a psychological term during one of his 1980s Spider-Man stories. They got the term wrong, but the desire to use it at all when it wasn’t necessary ever so slightly hints that comic book writers frequently DO try to apply psychological realism to these fictional people.

Iconic Iron Man writer/prolific Spider-Man writer/co-creator of Venom and Carnage David Michelinie featured a psychologist character in at least two of his Spider-Man stories and used his insights as a way for Spider-Man to defeat both Doc Ock and Venom.

Bruce Banner/the Hulk is a character who hinges upon psychological realism. The entire premise of the character is that he has disassociative identity disorder and that the famous green savage Hulk everyone knows is an expression of his traumatised inner child throwing a gamma fuelled temper tantrum.

Peter David, who has written MANY Spider-Man stories including the iconic ‘Death of Jean DeWolff’, literally wrote an issue that took place inside Bruce Banner’s mind and where his fragmented identity (Bruce banner, Green Hulk, Grey Hulk) is made whole; an issue outright called 'Honey I Shrunk the Hulk' (as in head shrink).

(Oh look, an abusive father who hit Bruce. Guess the Hulk's origin doesn't make sense and is shit now too).

PAD’s Hulk yarn wasn’t the only Marvel story in the 1990s that literally dives into the head of a fictional person (i.e. the most blatant example of trying to apply psychological realism to them). There was also two stories that did exactly that with symbiotic serial killer Carnage:

One of those characters was Dr Ashley Kafka, a psychologist supporting character introduced for Spider-Man stories.

Hmmm…why would Spider-Man comics introduce a psychologist as a supporting character? Well, there could be various uses for a character like that but perhaps one of them might be to offer realistic psychological insights into these fictional people. Fictional people like Venom.

Or Vermin.

Or the Chameleon.

Hey, who created Ashley Kafka anyway?

It was prolific comic book writer J.M. DeMatteis. I wonder why he was so prolific, I mean what sort of stories has he done over at DC?

Oh…a story that acts as a psychological exploration of the Joker and his relationship to Batman. Fun fact, this story was originally rejects by DC because it was too similar to the Killing Joke…because it was also a psychological exploration of the Joker and his relationship to Batman.

Over at Marvel though, other than creating Ashley Kafka, what did J.M. DeMatteis write?

Oh, that’s right….

And...

He wrote many of the stories we’ve been talking about this whole time. He was the guy who retconned the origin of Norman and Harry Osborn and explored Norman’s childhood in the first place.

Now it is a sad reality that there isn’t a single direct quote from DeMatteis proving he did in fact try to apply psychological realism when writing fictional people…

"We write about the things that obsess us. The themes in a writer’s work are the themes of a writer’s life. The Big Theme that has always obsessed me is the search for meaning, for personal, and cosmic, identity. Who are we? Why are we here? What’s the meaning of it all? Exploring those ideas, from both a psychological and spiritual perspective, is the driving force behind many of my stories, whether they’re more personal projects like Moonshadow or more popular ones like Spider-Man."

"I enjoy reading books about psychology and spirituality, books that explore the shadowed caverns of our psyches and the luminous castles of our souls."

"All the clever plotting in the world won’t help if it’s not grounded in psychologically real, relatable, characters."

"Peter Parker is one of the most psychologically and emotionally real characters in the history of comics"

"Harry and Peter are both very complex people, which meant that while the superhero action played out there was lots of room for psychological and emotional exploration."

…there are MULTIPLE direct quotes proving exactly that.

So YES we categorically should apply real life psychology to fictional people!

“ especially that nothing suggests in canon that his [Norman Osborn’s] dad was beating him to "feel powe[rful]”

I’ve said before and I will say it again, that is EXACTLY what is suggested by Spec Annual 1994 and Revenge of the Green Goblin.

Norman's Dad loses the business and lashes at his son but this had NOTHING to do with him feeling powerless?

What do you think it means when someone feels powerless?

What do you think it means when someone of the old school tries to reaffirm that they are still 'a man'?

It is about power!

“All that's textually said is that he was lashing out on his family, in rage like many people irl when they lose everything.”

Yes but why would someone IRL lash out when they lose everything.

*gasp!*

You don’t possibly think they do that because losing everything makes them feel powerless and bullying someone else in turn makes them feel powerful, do you????????????? Feeling powerful couldn’t possibly be the root cause of why anyone bullies anyone else ever could it????????????????????????????????????????

Its almost like in textually saying he was lashing out because he lost everything it made him feel powerful or something?

Oh and by the way, ever so slightly undermined your own argument there. “We shouldn't apply real life psychology to fictional people,” vs. “…was lashing out on his family, in rage like many people irl when they lose everything.”

Which is it?

(not to mention if we aren’t supposed to apply real life psychology to fictional people why were you doing exactly that with your avatar examples?)

“Yeah the amnesia part never made any sense to begin with. It's said that the formula made him worse yet it doesn't seem to affect "amnesic" Norman all that much. Maybe it does? Because we don't see him all that much during his amnesia periods.”

We see PLENTY of Norman when he has amnesia.

So no the formula does not affect norman when he has amnesia.

But an idea slightly suggested in ASM #40 and then eventually confirmed in Revenge of the Green goblin was that the formula made norman worse because in giving him powers it acted as proof he was superior to everyone else, in other words it sent him on a huge ego trip.

You know what would be interesting? If this Norman Osborn guy who is on a big ego/power trip formed a rivalry with a superhero who began his career on a big ego trip before being humbled. Especially if that hero’s defining philosophy was ‘with great power there must also come great responsibility…

“It honestly looks like a cheap excuse to keep him from telling the truth more than anything”

And as originally written by Stan, it was exactly that. It was taboo for a villain to know the hero’s identity back in the 1960s, or at least for them to go on living with that knowledge. Later stories however addressed this.

“But anyway, it just makes weird that his amnesia would make him a completely different guy if he was the same ashole during this specific time period he remembers (before Harry high school years).”

You haven’t been listening to me at all. You have never once addressed what I have said on this subject.

But I will repeat it again:

WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR MEMORIES! IF YOU CHANGE THE MEMORIES YOU CHANGE THE PERSON!

You want a quick fictional example of this? The Arnie movie Total Recall.

In other words, the ONLY logical explanation for Norman becoming nice is because he DIDN’T just forget his memories after he became the Goblin. He forgot MORE than just that. Which is what happens with real life amnesia. You don’t just forget a set time period.

Yes the narrative has Spider-Man claim it is just everything after the accident that turned him into the Goblin, but how the fuck does Spider-Man know that for sure?

What we have is an objective flashback showing us exactly what Norman was like before the accident, we have objective on the page evidence of what he was like after the accident and we have objective on the page evidence of what he was like post amnesia. Post-accident is basically a bigger jerk of who he was pre-accident. Post-amensia is at odds with both versions.

The ONLY explanation that makes sense is that he didn’t simply forget the last few years, he forgot more than that. he forgot whatever life experiences shaped him into a bad person, or at least he couldn’t remember them clearly. Perhaps he could remember events but not the feelings associated with them.

This syncs up with how IRL amnesia works and reconciles everything, whether you look at the stories in the 1960s on their own or look beyond that decade.

“One could argue that he gradually became more and more neglectful. If Harry is just in denial as he can't see faults in his dad's parenting why did he spot a difference then? If his dad was acting the same as he always did, why would he be only in denial over how his dad acted prior to accident?”

Yeah MAYBE he did become more and more neglectful, but there is nothing on page suggesting that. We just know he WAS neglectful.

But alright, the idea that from Harry’s POV there was a time when things were better but got way worse before the accident, that could fit with the original story.

You know what else could fit just as well? That Harry is in denial. Because he wants/needs to believe at some point he and his Dad had a positive relationship when they actually never did.

Denial doesn’t work on the basis that it is 100% consistent all of the time. Norman was MUCH worse after the accident and Harry was also older and less impressionable and that change occurred within the last few years of his life circa ASM #39. All those factors combined make it entirely possible that he found it harder to deny that his Dad had changed. He’d gone from neglecting him and palming him off to almost entirely isolating himself and become more outspokenly verbally abusive and belittling.

Both were bad situations, but one was much worse.

Oh and be careful, because you almost sound like you are trying to apply real life psychology to counter my points. I thought we weren’t supposed to do that with fictional people?

“Why only complain about his dad's recent outbursts? It's clear that his dad is acting differently towards him. They had some good time together (despite his dad's obssesion over work) before the accident then his behavior towards Harry changed.”

No they didn’t. That’s the point of the story. They DIDN’T have good times together, but by the end of ASM #40 they now hopefully can have good times together.

The ASM #40 flashbacks are the deal breaker on all this. These aren’t simply flashbacks from Norman or Harry’s POV, these are from the omniscient POV as what they are depicting is not in line with what Norman is claiming. And they are not in line with what Harry was claiming in ASm #39 either.

Harry was NOT having a good time ever in those flashbacks and Norman was NOT being a good father.

Thing simply got WORSE after the accident.

Why is it so hard for you to buy into the idea that Harry is in denial?

Your approach is ‘Harry made this claim in a piece of dialogue therefore it MUST be completely true’. Even though the very next issue disproves it. Norman even says ‘I tried to be a pal to Harry’, he uses that exact word ‘pal’. And we see from those flashbacks that, no, he was not being a pal to Harry. He was being a shitty father. He was neglecting him, not talking to him, not engaging him or spending time with him.

So Norman is in denial and that was the point of the scene. BUT Harry, who has his DNA, couldn’t POSSIBLY be in denial also? There simply MUST be these magical phantom scenes we coincidentally never got to see where in fact they were BFFs?

Why is that more believable than ‘both father and son are mentally messed up’.

“Also bad person =/= bad father.”

That lacks nuance. You can be a good parent but in other ways a bad person, that is true.

But if you are a bad parent (specifically abusive, neglectful, putting yourself ahead of your child) you are as a matter of fact a bad person. There is nothing more important than raising a child.

“I'm just arguing about his parenting, not his morality,”

In this situation they are one and the same thing.

The things that make Norman a bad person are in turn what led to him being a bad father. He doesn’t have the ability to be a good father because he is a bad person.

During the Stan run, Norman pre-accident was also a bad parent and a bad person but to a lesser degree. That’s all there is to it. he railroaded his partner. He stole his innovations. He was after money and power. He neglected his son and priotised his pursuit of power ahead of his son’s wellbeing.

That is a BAD person, it just isn’t a total fucking monster which is what the retcons developed him into.

“we don't see much of him during his amnesia period to conclude that he was an all around a good person, just that he was a better dad.”

*pinches bridge of nose*

During his amnesia period (and excluding the period where he was in the process of remembering he was the Goblin) was Norman neglecting his son? No. Was he railroading his business partners? No. Was he stealing their inventions? No.

Oh, he WASN’T doing the things we saw him doing in the pre-flashbacks. But you know what he WAS doing? Being nice to his son. Spending time with his son. Making his son happy.

Hmmmm…its almost as if the things ASM #40 showed us about how pre-accident Norman was a bad person were either absent or directly the opposite with amnesiac Norman.

“But yeah, you're right, this amnesia plot device makes no sense no matter how you look at it but to me it looks like the implications is that his personality was reset before his accident. But to each their own, I guess .”

A story can imply one thing but show another or contradict itself. What is actually happening is more important than implications.

“I agree that Norman abusive background explains why he treats Harry so horribly as it was textually explained, as well as why he's so comfortable with his own darkness, his toxic masculinity but it doesn't explain as well why he became so obsessed with restoring his family's name, wealth, having social power.”

BECAUSE HIS DAD LOST THAT!

Do I actually need to explain that children are heavily influenced by their parents? That they subconsciously look to their parents as role models, that they seek their approval, that how their parents treats them shapes who they grow up to be?

If Norman’s Dad LOST the family’s prestige and was obviously upset about it and that in turn led to him hurting Norman OF COURSE Norman would want to restore it. He would have learned that prestige was important. Thus in restoring on some subcionsious level he’d:

Be making his father proud

Proving himself BETTER than the man who was his physical superior

Avoiding becoming like his father who he saw broken down and rendered weak by losing the company

Making himself powerful and therefore not weak, not like his father who was rendered weak/the helpless weak little boy his father bullied

“It's not about real life psychology, it's all about WRITING.”

THOSE AMOUNT TO THE SAME THING!

You can’t BE a good character writing without applying real life psychology! Because to be a good character writer you NEED to make your characters psychologically convincing, otherwise nobody would buy into them.

See above when I disproved your bullshit about not applying psychology to fiction.

You don’t NEED to have a psychology degree to write good characters but you do NEED to be able to get inside a fictional person’s head and render them as believable. And that would entail making them psychologically realistic.

William Shakespeare never studied psychology. He literally couldn’t have. But he was nevertheless able to write psychologically convincing characters that we CAN successfully apply real life psychology to.

Because writers and psychologists have this gigantic overlap in their respective fields, namely, getting inside people’s heads!

“Writing a proper Freudian excuse that doesn't require ton of meta analysis, real life psychology, conjecture.”

THERE IS NO CONJECTURE! The narrative SPELLS this all out explictely!

“And I'm not denying that it might be one of the factors, but it unlike his abuse of his own son, it's not used explain why he became so fixated on restoring his family's name,”

If Norman’s Dad abused him because the family business was fucked there would obviously be an inherent link between restoring the family business and the abuse he suffered.

This isn’t a Freudian excuse, it is basic bitch literary analysis. High schoolers could grasp this.

Norman didn’t want to be weak as he was when his dad hurt him. Norman didn’t want to be weak as his father was upon losing the business. His dad hurt him because he was upset about losing the business.

Therefore, in hitting Norman, in abusing him, it acted as a powerful motivator later in life to restore the family business.

It. Is. All. There.

“obtaining social power (not just physical) expanding the Osborn legacy”

You need to understand this, not just for the sake of this argument nor for your future reading of fiction, but just plain old navigating through life itself.

Power is power.

If you are made to feel physically powerless you 100% could go on to seek social power.

If a boss makes someone feel powerless at work they could leave work and make themselves feel sexually powerful by having sex with a hooker who they ask to call them ‘boss’ in the bedroom.

If your business is failing and your money is running out so you feel financially powerless and are losing social power there is a strong possibility that you’d hit your own child to feel powerful! Just as Norman’s Dad did.

You keep belligerently REJECTING the idea that there can be a link between social power and physical power but that is the truth of the matter. Not only have I known this for years through, you know, common sense, not only have I read up about this, but just to make 100% certain I am not wrong on this I asked someone I know personally who is a professional psychologist. She confirmed exactly what I’ve been saying.

Norman’s situation is entirely realistic. Which again, is no surprise, since it was written by a DeMatteis who was heavily into psychology and was himself friends with a professional psychologist who he based Ashley Kafka upon.

Oh, but I forgot, we don’t apply IRL psychology to fictional people right? But…if we aren’t doing that…why are YOU insisting that there can be no link between social and physical power??????????????????????????

And furthermore, expanding the Osborn legacy? Yeah, powerful people have wanted to insure they have a legacy to live on after they die since time began. That hasn’t even got anything to do with abuse or psychology. That is just how most animals are wired. We want our offspring to survive us and thrive. For Norman that meant his son and company would be strong

“, why he's a psychopath who loves killing people when we he doesn't get any benefit from it (like this guard's wife) .”

*groans*

He likes killing people because it is an exercise of his power. He is a power addict. He wants more and more power and wants to use it. No one takes power and DOESN’T use it.

Killing people makes him feel powerful.

He wants to feel that way because as a child he was made to feel powerless and saw his dad lose his power.

It is as simple as that.

And you seem to be ASKING for a psychological explanation there? I thought we don’t apply that to fictional people?

Why are you asking why someone is a PSYCHOpath but reject the PSYCHOlogical explanations I’ve been providing for it?

“It doesn't automatically explain IT ALL.”

It literally does. You are just being blind to that reality.

“It's not expanded on.”

There were 3 stories exploring it across nearly 10 years.

That expands upon it pretty well.

“It's not used to explain HOW it shaped his view on power, how it shaped his ruthless and psychopathic, personality (well unless you claim it's unborn ).”

I’m so exhausted at this point. It HAS been used to explain it. It explained it blindingly obviously. I have repeated it multiple times in this post let alone all the other ones I have made during this argument.

I have to ask now if you are trolling or if you are honestly just this blind?

And, again….asking for HOW something shaped someone’s view on power, HOW it shaped their personality? Gosh…that sounds like you are asking for a psychological explanation…but one where we cannot apply real life psychology apparently.

“I just wished that this backstory was more expanded on to show HOW it shaped him”

You literally admitted you haven’t read all the stories I mentioned so how can you possibly complain about all that.

You are complaining that something wasn’t explained when

It was explained IN Revenge of the Green Goblin

RotGG itself was an expansion of Spec Annual 1994, which you said you hadn’t read

“Like, there's so much things going on with him and the authors did the minimum they could,”

They wrote THREE stories exploring Norman and Harry’s childhoods and how those shaped them!

Roger Stern.

J.M. DeMatteis.

Paul Jenkins

Howard Mackie.

FOUR people between 1993-2000 wrote THREE different stories exploring this subject and this is the ‘minimum they could’?

Fucking Hell, what more do you want?

“as if we as readers are automatically supposed to connect all dots just from the knowledge alone that his dad beat him up and that it made him feel weak, so viewed toxic masculinity as "strength" and that it made him accept his own darkness.”

The. Story. Literally. Spells. This. Out!

Go. Read. The. Above. Pages!

But also, I, as a TEN YEAR OLD, understood this from Revenge of the Green Goblin alone. I didn’t even need the Child Within or Spec Annual 1994 to GET it!

It was REALLY obvious.

I’m not saying it should have been subtle…but also it was absolutely NEVER subtle.

To say readers are supposed to automatically connect the dots is saying ‘I have REALLY limited reading comprehension skills and need to be spoon-fed info.’

“Just how are we supposed to expand it to explain his psychopathy, his obsession with restoring his family's legacy which is primary motivation for most of what he does that's not connected to Peter (like the Gathering of five).”

See above. I’ve explained how it is all connected. Better yet read the stories. Though I doubt in this case it will make much difference.

“ This is made even more confusing with Sinister war”

A post-OMD story making things confusing? The shock I have. Its almost as if there was a reason I cut off with 2007

“Not to mention, that most of his much more prevalent roles happen post OMD compared to pre OMD which you entirely reject.”

No they don’t.

His most prevalent roles are his roles as a Spider-Man villain. Most of his appearances as a Spider-Man villain are PRE-OMD to my knowledge.

“Is his backstory still supposed to explain why he acts the way he does post OMD even though you said it made him a different character,”

It is irrelevant to this argument because I was never talking from a post-OMD POV to begin with.

But frankly, if post-OMD Spider-Man was well written (which it isn’t) yes his backstory SHOULD explain whatever he does. Or, more accurately, whatever he does should be written to be consistent with his established backstory in the first place.

The major reason I reject post-OMD is precisely because whether it is Norman, Harry, Venom, Doc Ock, Black Cat, J. Jonah Jameson, Aunt May, Mary Jane or Peter Parker himself, the stories are rarely consistent with their pre-OMD characterisations, whether that’s their backstories or simply older stories they appeared in. Peter doesn’t act like Peter. Mary Jane doesn’t act like Mary Jane. Harry doesn’t act like Harry. And Norman doesn’t act like Norman.

Peter wouldn’t become a paparazzi photographer.

Mary Jane would never break up with him because aunt anna’s life was endangered.

Jameson would never accept Peter upon learning he is Spider-Man.

Black Cat would never want Peter to be her fuck buddy and nothing more.

Doc Ock would never try to rape mary jane.

Harry would never be blasé about not remembering his own son Normie.

Aunt may would never blame peter for abandoning her the night uncle ben died.

These are merely one example for the above characters but you get my point.

If the characters aren’t behaving the way they should be in the context of the situation they functionally are not the characters anymore. And since the characters are the entire point of why we read Spider-Man in the first place, why the fuck should you, me, or anyone factor them into our analysis of those characters? Especially since, last I checked, OMD established that we are literally in a different timeline altogether, one where Peter and MJ never got married, where MJ was never pregnant but somehow, magically, despite this making 0 sense, every 1987-2007 Spider-Man story happened exactly the same way.

“even though it gave another explanation that I won't spoil you (read Sinister war) ?”

In other words Sinister War is bullshit. The new story is obliged to fit with the older one. In other words, if Sinister war has contradicted the origin and the origin doesn’t explain what he does in sinister war, it means sinister war is at fault not the other way around.

Norman in Sinister War SHOULD have been written in sync with his established origin.

“Also Otto was evil even before his ex fiancee died,”

Yes he was, but he WASN’T evil before they broke up. They broke up, he later became Doc Ock and later still she died. I never said otherwise. I said his MOTHER died.

“it only solidified his rivalry with Spider man as he wanted to prove that he's superior foe than Green Goblin.”

Not as originally written he wasn’t. His ex-fiance’s death was originally just AIDs, the idea that Norman infected her with AIDs was a retcon made 20 years later. As originally conceived Norman and Otto had never met face to face before Norman returned in 1996.

But that’s a big tangent that has nothing to do with my point, which was that in one issue it was established that Doc Ock became a villain due to MULTIPLE factors shaping him, not just one thing.

You never addressed my point.

“(Freudian excuse is basically a backstory that's supposed to explain how it shaped a villainous character. Don't know if it's an academic term but It's the term used by tv tropes)”

Then I am complete confusion.

You want an explanation for why Norman is the way he is…but ANY explanation by definition would be a Freudian excuse which is bad????????

But also we cannot use real life psychology?

The only thing I can conclude is you want a reason for Norman being evil that doesn’t involve his Dad hitting him even though in this specific case HOW that shaped him to be evil and twisted his world view is very clearly laid out.

It is just YOU who can’t see it.

But I am not surprised by this if you are also so insistent that we shouldn’t apply real life psychology to fictional characters. Frankly, that alone is a fucking joke of a take

"Norman hating spider man for his amnesia was never expanded on before or after this one throwaway line , that's what I'm saying. His hatred in other comics is never tied to it, directly or indirectly"

That.

Doesn't.

MATTER!

Him saying it ONCE is enough for us to confirm that it IS one of the reasons he hates Spider-Man. And it wasn't even a throwaway line either!

It was him explaining WHY he hates Spider-Man? In a story that was planned to be important, though no one knew HOW important it would go on to become. That is NOT a throwaway line. YOU think it is a throaway line but it is not actually a throwaway line.

You know what line was also only uttered ONCE for over 15 years worth of Spider-Man comic books?

"With Great Power there must also come Great Responsibility"

The most famous line of piece of writing in Spider-Man history, the line that is the defining philosophy of Spider-Man and his universe, was mentioned ONCE at the end of his first appearance in 1962 and was never repeated again until the late 1970s.

So, was THAT just a throwaway line?

Should we discount that as a motivation for Peter Parker?

Why does a line need to be REPEATED or EXPANDED upon to be relevant?

If it was said the once and so long as it doesn't contradict anything else, then it COUNTS. Deal with it.

#my essays #spider man #spider-man #peter parker #green goblin #norman osborn #harry osborn

20 notes · View notes

thisisnotthenerd · 1 year

Text

Neverafter Episode 17 - The Last Wish thoughts & musings

A lot of significant narrative happenings in this one, folks. While we did hit on a few really important conversations between the party and various NPCs, I think this was really Brennan’s way of connecting the dots between many of the separate revelations that have happened throughout the course of the campaign so far.

Knowing that Henry became an adventurer after both Tim and Jack were gone really speaks to the theme of choosing destiny and striving to seek out what you want from your life. While I think it’s sad that the entire family has just been subjected to death and horror at the hands of greater forces, I’m glad that Tim has at least one thing that he isn’t mourning. Also, deeply sad that both Tim’s and Gerard’s spouses found their mutilated dead bodies.

The conversations between the Goose, Rosamund & Ylfa were so good. I admire Siobhan & Emily’s commitment to making sure they examine their pasts and their existing stories as they consider the future. Definitely some personal growth in those conversations.

Pib and Pinocchio’s conversations with Tomas and the Cricket respectively were more aimed towards understanding how to grow from and find out about their stories on a smaller scale. While Pib was figuring out the dimension travel, it still felt more like it was him and the brothers figuring out what happened between their Marienne and this Marienne. In terms of the dimension travel, I think we’re going to maybe get a trickster confrontation, and maybe a confirmation of them as another faction that can be brought to bear against the Stepmother.

Gerard’s convo with Tom Thumb was purely Murph causing chaos, by showing that Gerard has a lot of work to do on himself beyond his relationship with Elody. He’s made progress with the party, but outside of it, hasn’t changed all that much.

I deeply hope that Timothy gets something like a Wish spell from putting the Goose into the book after the final wish was made. The Gander killing the Goose aside, it feels like a similar situation to Ylfa’s relationship with the Big Bad Wolf. The Goose made a sacrifice for Tim to live, just like the Wolf did for Ylfa. Something to contemplate. And Tim has gone ahead with that blessing and tried to protect the party NPCs by booknapping them. I have a feeling that in the end, it’s going to come down to putting the Stepmother into the book and taking everyone else out before they can be devoured.

Since they had mentioned that Elody had had contacted Scheherazade, I really hope that it’s her that had Scheherazade’s book, or maybe Mira. Brennan mentioned rolling high--my guess is that that would determine who they were speaking to. Since they hit a 16, it probably couldn’t be Scheherazade, but could be someone who is more likely to be their ally at the eleventh hour.

The fact that Lou has rolled two incredibly important Nat 20s in the last 2 episodes is so crazy. The Alphonse one was crazy enough; with everything they did to get the Baba Yaga roll to go well, I still can’t believe it. The start of the next episode, at the very least, is going to be insane. Really leaning into the Boy of Destiny thing.

It does feel like we have a much clearer picture than before. We know the Gander was lured intentionally by the placement of the Goose, likely by the Stepmother’s bidding. The Princesses did not stop moving and have found their way to the Lines Between at the very least. It seems that the Stepmother may be targeting both the Auroratory and the Canonade rather than just the Canonade, as the Princesses were wont to do. We still aren’t totally clear on the fairies’ current position, but I think they’re likely to make an appearance in the next episode, as Destiny’s Children parlay with the Baba Yaga, and also maybe confront some fears and the inherent horror of being written as a variation on a multitude of stories. Not to mention the mancala beads. The worst is yet to come indeed.

30 notes · View notes

fierceawakening · 4 months

Text

I am not Jewish, but this kind of story is absolutely what I grew up hearing. Especially the “the reason Palestinians didn’t leave was because other Arab countries didn’t want them,” said in a way that implied heavily that Israel treats them as full citizens which I now know is not true for most. (And assumed they’d agree that it made sense for them TO leave, when many if not most did not.)

It was easy to believe it, for me as an uninvested person. The Jews had just been through the Holocaust and knew what oppression was and why it was bad. Surely they could never oppress others! If they did at all it must be the growing pains of a just democracy.

None of that was true. It kind of makes sense that it wasn’t! In terms of individuals, a lot of traumatized people are a big mess at first. They lash out and mistrust. They see their experience everywhere because they can’t possibly have processed it yet and might not ever.

Why wouldn’t a traumatized country be a cruel one? At least at first?

But we want to think otherwise. We want to think that people learn right away, straightforwardly. That they set immediate boundaries and are unquestionably honorable because they’ve seen the worst.

I don’t know. But I think this was definitely how I was raised to see Israel, that its wars were short because it knew better than the rest of us only to repel its enemies, not take revenge. You war with them they shove you off in A WEEK.

None of it’s true! At all! But it feels bizarre to read “some people just have a colonialist mindset” as if we think the literal reality is okay because some people “are civilized” and others aren’t.

It was, yes, a version of that that we were fed. But it was explained in a way that seemed more plausible than just “Arabs are backward dirty nomads.”

Few people, at least on the political left, would swallow that pill uncoated.

I don’t know. Not sure what my point is here. I guess just that the way I hear people who assume Israel is good described just… seems cartoonish. There’s elements of what we were told in it.

But mostly we were just thinking of it like a story: those people had the plot happen to them, the climax happened last chapter, now they get to eat feta and oranges in peace. They’re happy. They have some bad memories but things are mostly good. That’s how things work.

(This is, by the way, why I agree with a lot of tumblr when it says “Judeochristian” isn’t a thing, that the American right made it up—*but yet, I also* think there’s more to the story.

Judeochristian as I was taught it ALSO MEANT Israel was inherently morally good. That it arose out of the same broad culture as US democracy, so it must be just in ways theocracies were not. It was a beacon of hope, because Judeo meant Like Us. [Ironically this is *true* but not actually *good.* We oppress black people. They oppress Palestinians. Like us, yes. Sigh. Don’t copy that part!]

I think people are going to misanalyze some things if they miss that that’s part of it.

It’s weird looking back on it now really, because Judaism says “this stuff happened” and Christianity says “and then this stuff happened and the sequel was kinda more important” and Islam says “and then THIS stuff happened and THAT sequel was really the big deal.”

So it’s… pretty obviously political that Judeochristian peels off the third book but considers it legit that there’s EITHER one OR two. What. Either iterating is okay or it’s rude. Pick one.)

5 notes · View notes

thornquillthefiendish · 2 years

Text

I’ve come back to the warriors fandom on here to say this.

I don’t get the Nightheart hate.

I mean it. Maybe it’s because all his storylines touch on personal points for me, but I think it’s kind of ridiculous to equate a character having mommy issues to it being a misogyny issue. We can all agree the writers for these books have…things the need to sort out - but isolating Nightheart as a character from that. He’s a realistic portrayal of a child with a strained parental relationship - he’s not always in the right of course but of course he feels like a victim.

I’m not a psychologist but I’m gonna guess via experience that when you lack a parental figure in your life consistently, you tend to feel unbalanced and unsure of yourself - perhaps unguarded in your earlier years when you’re supposed to feel safe. Now I’m not blaming sparkpelt because her reasons for not being involved with her kits early on seem legit - but that doesn’t mean Nightheart just magically doesn’t get the trauma because his mom had good intentions or was going through it. I don’t think a toddler gets that.

What I’m trying to say is Nightheart isn’t the worst fucking example of misogyny or any of the other big bad flaws in warriors nor is he even a notable example - if anything I’ll give the erins a c+ for attempting something slightly more nuanced here - of course they fell flat on their asses but it’s interesting. He’s not the worst thing in the world, he’s - at the very least to me - a more sympathetic version of Breezepelt, a character who while I empathized with, hated his fucking guts. I like Nightheart, I wanna see him pull the stick out of his ass eventually. With Breezepelt I’d come to realize I likely wasn’t getting anything better than what he was as an edgy teen, and I wasn’t inherently wrong; he’s just kinda there now.

I needed to say this cause it just irked me how people are so willing to throw everything at this one character when you know we’ve had better examples recently of not only misogyny but all kinds of fucked up weird tropes within warriors. Nightheart is at the very least realistic to an experience as a character, he’s impulsive and reckless and he’s indulgent in these behaviors because he wants to rebel against everyone around him because HE feels like everyone’s out to get his ass. He feels vulnerable and of course he does - he’s never had a stable support system, so he’s decided during this crisis he’s going through he’s just gonna burn everything down around him and call the wreckage his identity. Sparkpelt isn’t a bad character all of a sudden because HE has issues with her, but that doesn’t mean that his issues aren’t in some way valid; because he does have a right to be upset she wasn’t there even if it wasn’t fully her fault, he’s allowed to feel like she’s hurt him because he’s obviously distressed and going through it - but that doesn’t justify his actions at all. Honestly, this is probably one of my favorite relationship dynamics in warriors as a series, nobody is wholly bad here. Nightheart’s barely even broken into his own adulthood and Sparkpelt suffered through a whole lot of grief which led to this big disconnect. You feel bad for both of them, and I think it’s stupid that everyone wants to put the focus on this being a huge writing problem because you don’t like his character.

No doubt will there always be issues in all of these books, it’s warrior cats, but Nightheart is not as big as an issue as some people have made him out to be. Breezepelt wasn’t as big as an issue as I wanted him to be initially - I just hated him. Comparatively to what was happening around him he was just another poorly written character in a poorly written series of books. Nightheart is honestly no different besides to me being more palatable. You’re just annoyed by his character, man, and that’s fine, you don’t have to find “real” reasons to dislike a fictional character.

#warrior cats #wc #nightheart #rant

30 notes · View notes

hrkrkrwpfrbrbrlablblblblwhitooap · 1 year

Note

i think part of the reason his more recent videos seem to be lacking of charm compared to the early days is down to him becoming a bigger creator and parasocial relationships.

i still enjoy his new videos, it’s evident that he always puts a lot of care into his work to the point that he will amend years old videos over minor mistakes and i have nothing but respect for his dedication. that being said i do definitely prefer the older ones. they feel more friendly, more intimate, it’s like you’re actually in the space with him and he’s talking directly to you (or them for the old techdif) but now it’s hard to feel like anything other than a spectator.

because he’s grown so much he can’t really have that kind of close relationship to his fans anymore even if he wanted, but i think that’s a deliberate choice from him, knowing his stance on parasocial relationships. i guess he feels he has a duty of care to us to not let those things happen, and to him for his own safety, as while parasocial relationships aren’t inherently unhealthy they can very easily become that and can get out of hand (i have personal experience with that so i completely understand his point of view).

i think his new videos feel colder, because they are.

also i know we all hate it but “the algorithm”. to win at the game you can’t always do what you want, make the things you want, he’s fighting a losing battle against an invisible dictator. he’s stated so many times that he doesn’t like how clickbaity he’s having to be which means he’s probably had to turn down so many wonderful ideas because he knows no matter how good they could be, the algorithm won’t treat them kindly. he may not even like the change himself but has to keep up with it to survive.

we don’t know what goes on in his personal life, i noticed recently he’s been looking tired, more so than usual and we know he’s nearly burnt himself out in the past. maybe just needs a break.

maybe he’s had more and more bad experiences with the fandom (i think we can all understand that) and wants to distance himself from us, if i were in his position i’d feel the same and i’m guilty of a lot more than i’d want to admit here.

either way we can’t fault him or be too harsh, he is human after all and he’s going to change, he has every right to not be what we want him to be.

yeah it's worth pointing out that a lot of the time in the early days, he was literally making videos for a couple thousand people who knew him personally. And the algorithm's effect on his content is not helped by the thing I mentioned in the previous post about him making up arbitrary rules - you can bet that if it seems like the algorithm might slightly favor some factor, that's going to turn into an unbreakable law of content creation for him, possibly far past its actual relevance to his success. Case in point - the ridiculous drama with the lateral podcast and his ongoing refusal to provide a full length video version of the episodes. (God forbid we give the podcast a few months to build an audience before we make the decision on whether video works for it or not...!)

Nonetheless, I still think Matt behind the camera made a big difference. He will still come along to film sometimes (obviously, understandably, it can't be as regular as it was in 2016, this isn't a criticism, just an observation) and the difference in Tom's vibe is always noticeable from the moment the video starts.

#note on the lateral drama: I literally do not understand what he is trying to communicate with that update #part of it sounds like he is saying that putting clips on YT doesn't work because it makes people angry they're not full episodes #which would seem to suggest that he should upload full episodes #and part of it sounds like he is saying ONLY clips work on YT #as ads of sorts to push people towards the audio-only main show #I don't get it #but I think he looked a right arse saying ''buy some damn subtitles'' & then turning around and taking months to buy some damn transcripts #that's my OPINION #idk my thought on tom for a while now has been that he's nice to look at and his videos are fun but his personality is kinda jerk-y #with the corollary that [REDACTED]#like he really does seem like [DATA EXPUNGED]#don't tell anyone I said that #whatever #these tags are too long

10 notes · View notes

annalyia · 2 years

Text

get to know me better meme

okay so i got tagged by @hexcore-juggler and i know that if i don’t do this *now* i will simply never do it, so here we go!

Favorite colour: green! specifically the green that you see when you look up at the sun shining through the leaves of the trees above you Favorite food: uh um uhhhhh god it really depends?? like if i’m craving some kind of ethnic food, it’ll normally be either briyani or katsu? but i also love just about every soup i have ever eaten Song stuck in your head: Seattle by Jonah Taylor Last thing you googled: “do cetaceans have hind legs” because i was playing nancy drew: danger on deception island with a friend last night, and one of the info graphics said that cetaceans had vestigial hind legs in their body wall and we were trying to figure out if that included bones or not Time: 11:12AM Dream Trip: for hiking: southern Germany. for nature: either Australia or somewhere in Africa. i’m not super picky, but i’ve never left the continental us so i’d like to go somewhere Last book you read: a book called Rise--it’s by one of my internet friends! i’m currently reading the next book in the series called Stand Last book you enjoyed reading: i certainly enjoyed reading Rise, it was really interesting and i cannot wait to see my favorite character get twisted by her good and noble values into a terrible person in the second book :) Last book you hated reading: those fucking Name of the Wind books by, uh, patrick roethfuss?? or whatever his name is??? i read them on a recommendation of a friend. so, like, the world is really cool and there are a lot of characters to like as well, but there are also some really glaringly awful things about the books that are definitely due in a large part to the fact that it’s written in first person and i HATE the narrator lol. i have other problems with the books as well, but that right there is a really big part of it Favourite thing to cook/bake: cookies! which i know sounds silly, but everyone likes cookies and they’re easy to make and giving them to other people always makes them smile Favourite craft to do in your spare time: i’m cross stitching two different projects right now, does that count Most niche dislike: i...literally have no idea. i can’t even think of a niche thing that i like at this moment, let alone dislike Opinion on circuses now and in history: circuses are not inherently bad--mistreatment of animals, which can happen in circuses, however, is inherently bad. so, i guess, as long as they either don’t use animals or treat their animals very very very very well, they aren’t too much of a problem now-a-days? Do you have a sense of direction and if not what is the worst way you ever got lost: i do have a sense of direction! it’s definitely gotten better as i’ve gotten older, and if i at least have a general idea of where i am. as for the worst time i’ve gotten lost, it was after a party at a friend’s house in college, and it was me and two of my high school friends in the car. we jokingly were like “let’s play the see how fucking lost we can get game!!!” and then, like, proceeded to take a wrong turn on accident and ended up on the other side of the county and all of our phones were either dead/dying or didn’t have signal lol. we did eventually make it home, tho, after some mild panic and then recognition of a landmark or street name

in turn, i tag @jadesabre301, @crimsoncommander, @morgsmorgsmorgsblr, and @mapeslyrup

#diary #about me #have some fun facts #the things i'm cross stitching are a bulbasaur/ivysaur/venusaur and then the name of my choir director's daughter that was just born #jadesabre301 #crimsoncommander #morgsmorgsmorgsblr #mapeslyrup #also i could go off for days about those name of the wind books #do not get me STARTED on when he goes into the fey world

8 notes · View notes

ramblingaboutglee · 1 year

Text

I'm bored and ranking New Direction performances

Sectionals, Regionals and Nationals, all members. My personal taste only. This is going to cover song choice, performance, and general build-up and context. Worst to best. Also I ramble about why I like or dislike each. Because hi, if you’re new here, I ramble.

S4 Sectionals - Gangnam Style - Ahahaha. No. Like, can we all just agree Glee should never do contemporary meme songs? (Especially when they never do Never Gonna Give You Up, like, that is the meme song and we were robbed of Santana going to the front of the class saying she wanted to perform, only to rickroll everyone. Thank you. Yes that's unrelated I just don't want to talk about this song) This should not have been one of Tina's biggest in-universe performances, for all kinds of reasons. Full props to Jenna for learning the whole song phonetically and performing it well, but. No this should never have happened. And then, what really earns this a place at the bottom, is the fall-out. Marley faints on stage because of her ED. Honestly, the first time I saw that, I was interested - EDs can be horrifying, and having it take a real toll on a lead character felt like a worthwhile storyline to do. It had felt like the show was being a bit flippant with the topic, but having it build to the New Rachel pass out mid-performance, with genuinely disturbing foreshadowing, and the New Directions losing sectionals for the first time as a result? That feels like it's going to good Glee-dramedy directions. Spoilers: it does not. NDs are back in the competition with minimal hassle, Marley's ED is cured via magic, and it's never brought up again. It didn't matter. So with a poorly handled Glee storyline on one hand, and Tina's character again being reduced to Asian on the other, yeah this is. Not a good one.

S5 Nationals - More Than A Feeling - America - I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For - Okay there's a lot about this episode that bugs me and I am going to take the opportunity to vent. This is when the S4 newbies were shoved to the sidelines, and the S1-3 characters still in the NDs took centre-stage for a last hurrah. It's also framed as a memorial to Finn, singing his favourite songs as a goodbye. Okay, screwing over the S4 cast rather than trying to make them better (which, after all, is the Glee staple - it's not like the OGs were everything they're known for after just one season, for the most part) that's a bad look for Glee, but given the show's switching gears to NY soon, fair enough I guess. They go out with a whimper rather than a last hurrah, which is dumb, but whatever. This is the last remains of the OG Glee Club putting on a memorial to Finn. And they lose. They don't even lose to Vocal Adrenaline, but to some randoms that never appear again. (And it's not even like VA are written out, they get mentioned in the next couple of episodes when Will's convinced to coach them). It's one of the most baffling decisions Glee ever makes. The New Directions losing, that's not inherently bad - it was where Glee began - but having the goodbye to the S4 cast and the last big performance in the spotlight for the characters that played second-string, their promised chance to showcase themselves, that gets no meaningful follow-up... Yeah, no. And even if we ignore all of that... these aren't good performances? Which is no slight on the singing, for the most part. Most of the best blocks in the show use solos, little things to help distinguish each number and add a sense of pacing to the performance - none of that's here. Instead, the songs just kind of blur together, not helped by the show's insistence on having Blaine, Tina, Artie and Sam all share spotlight-duty. One of the points I'm going to get into ranking my faves, is variation. Especially in S3, we got a Troubletones performance, a group performance, and then something that was much more of a solo. All that to be said, the songs were given a lot more to make them distinct. These, however, are all full-cast New Directions performances. Give Tina a solo, give Blaine and Sam some poppy song with dance back-up, have Artie lead the third. Do something to give each song some sense of identity, and have some better pacing. And have them win. For something that seems like it's trying to showcase the characters, it completely fails to play to their strengths. As it is, this is at the bottom of all the full performance sets for good reason. It's just bland. A last, storyline note - one of the things that does bug me with this episode is how much the NDs are focused on winning. Like, before they explicitly played up competition as friendly, rooting on their rivals. They completely lose that here, and it goes unremarked on. There was a time I thought they'd win the competition and the the NDs would dissolve because it had stopped being fun, but nope, it's just. There.

S2 Nationals - Pretending - Light Up The World - The one word I can think of to describe this performance, and frankly most of this episode, is 'pointless.' One of the flaws of S2 was that the singing competition often felt like a formality, rather than the big deal it was in S1. Gearing the whole finale around something that didn't seem to matter anymore, especially when it ultimately just ends on a repeat of S1's loss, feels ultimately meaningless. It doesn't actively aggravate me the way the above two sets do, it just bores me. The songs aren't bad, but I am grading on a curve when it comes to competition performances - these feel like typical Glee songs, while I expect the competitions to stand out more. If I'm judging a competition, part of the metric is how significant it feels. Here, it feels like something that happens because they couldn't get away with not showing it. The episode feels much more like it's about being in New York, than it does the Nationals performance. This isn't something built up to, this isn't a resolution, it's just something that happens. Like, I could be picky and criticise them coming to New York without their songs written, but that's just Glee. The bigger issue for me is that it's what the build-up is replaced with. It also doesn't help that this is the second competition to be centred on original songs, so it lacks that unique flourish, and as far as a realisation goes, it feels ultimately inferior, to me, to its predecessor. While before, the contents of the songs were built up to as continuations and summations of the show and characters, we very much lack that here. Ultimately, it feels insignificant - it’s set-up, where its only purpose is to make the next season’s nationals a big deal. In of itself, it lacks impact, in my opinion. The songs are fine. Pretending is an okay number, a good Finn and Rachel duet and I can imagine shippers loving it, and it has some character potential. Light Up The World though just feels like a fairly generic song, not what an original song ought to be. For my taste, they lack energy, though I can't put my finger on why - it might be that they feel so consistently at more or less the same level of energy and intensity that there's too little contrast to make much stand out. What we end up with is, ultimately, fine. But for a season finale, fine just isn't good enough.

S4 Regionals - Hall of Fame - I Love It - All or Nothing - The S4 cast deserved better. That's getting to be a theme. This episode has some issues. It's the S4 finale, heralding this storyline continuing into season 5 in a manner that undeniably feels a little overstretched. As a finale, Regionals are going to feel a little unsatisfying after two seasons of Nationals in a row. On top of that, the episode feels regeared at the last minute to serve as a goodbye to Heather Morris as Brittany. So it has issues going in. Acknowledging that it was in a bad place, though, doesn't make the problems go away. Marley has a fantastic voice, along with decent range. Jake is one of the best all-rounders the show's ever had, holding his own in both song and dance. And on top of that, season 4 genuinely, in my opinion, has some of the best choreography across the whole show - that's whether we're talking Jake's dance numbers, or something like Heartbreaker that turns into a full-on music video. Which brings us back to the comparison problem - these songs are fine, but a lot of the performances across the rest of the season took a step up, taking full advantage of New York for staging, so the competitions either needed to do the same, or they suffer. So they suffer. I think if it were in any other season, this would maybe be ranked higher, but surrounded by the general quality of S4 staging and choreography, the competition ends up less impressive than Jake having a solo in the classroom. It’s a similar issue to S2′s Nationals ultimately seeming like a downgrade from that season’s regionals. Hall of Fame is a decent opener, a good atmosphere-builder, but I Love It suffers in my opinion - it's a song that's perpetually at the same level of intensity, so for a competition performance it feels like it stalls. The highlight honestly is just Sugar just doing her own thing in the background. All or Nothing is probably my favourite of the set - it showcases two of the strongest voices, but it feels like it's too little too late. This does double for Marley. Ostensibly, Marley feels guilty for them losing sectionals - her ED isn't her fault, but she deserved a triumphant moment to show herself coming out from that. The fact said triumph is a duet is fine, mitigates it a little, but it could still be solid. The number just ends up feeling too understated for its own good. Some of this likely is the episode's problems - I can imagine it was more Marley-focused before they needed to write in Britt's departure - but it still hurts the story. It's not uncommon for the big performances to cut away from the stage to show reactions of Will/a teacher, and sometimes parents or characters in the audience, people having some actual reaction to what happens on stage. This mostly lacks that. It robs the performance of context that would elevate it to more than, well, ordinary songs. They're good songs, and good performances, but if I'm ranking these as competition performances, it has to end up lower. But this is the last of the performances that are more milquetoast to me.

S3 Sectionals - Survivor/I Will Survive - - ABC - Control - Man in the Mirror - Yes I'm including the Troubletones fight me. (And honestly, yeah, for this particular ND set, the Troubletones should have won so they are giving this a little boost). It's a fun set-up. The NDs have a new set of rivals, as opposed to just the Warblers, led by Mercedes and Santana and Britt (and Sugar Motta just. Making facial expressions in the background). And then Rachel's suspended for the duration of the competition, so the New Directions lack all of their tried and tested powerhouses. It's something of a redo of the S2 sectionals (spoilers for later), but it's a good way to showcase the whole crew. Tina carries ABC, with decent choreography from Mike (We've seen him do fancier, but for a team number, it's good). Control belongs to Artie and Quinn doing the dialogue. And then Finn, Artie, Blaine, Puck and Sam bring it home. There's none of the usual stage-filling ballads that were something of a mainstay before this point, and it's a more low-key affair made by harmonies and timing and it's cosy more than powerful, but it helps exemplify the strength of the team. Also best costumes the New Directions ever get thank you. And then on the other side are the Troubletones. I've seen some people rank it as one of the best performances on the show, and while I wouldn't go that far, the transition from one song to the other is absolutely a spectacular moment that would be up there. For me, the choreography feels a little hectic at points, but there is still a lot of recommend it. Anchoring more is the context of the episode. We have the fantastic idea of all three show choirs being, to one degree or another, known - something Glee really does too little. Harmony begins with Buenos Aires, and then we go to the New Directions and Troubletones with their built-up rivalry. And then there are smaller ongoing story beats - Quinn's dynamic with Shelby comes to a head this episode, and the opening of 'Control' comes with perfect subtext, and it's something of a showcase for Mike in an admittedly very cliche plot. Still, it delivers on actual character for someone that was usually just a minor background character. These aren't my favourite performances, certainly, but it's a damn good set.

S2 Sectionals - I've Had The Time Of My Life - Valerie - This is where we really start to get to the good ones, for me. So let's talk skill. I've seen too many takes that seem to view singing talent as some number from 0 to 10, someone being either good or bad, and I don't think that's true. Every genre of music takes a different skillset. You take someone like Finn - he inhabits old school rock songs, the She's Not Theres, Paradise by the Dashboard Lights (spoiler for later), while he's not as adept at some other genres. That happens, there's a reason singers are often known by genre. Rachel Berry is the best singer on the show. That's not because she's always the best pick for a song - Mercedes will give her a run for her money and often oust her on some - but because she's pretty damn good at almost anything she's given. Over the show's run, she goes from Barracuda to Celine Dion. What makes Rachel stand out is as much versatility as voice. So then we get Sectionals where Rachel doesn't lead, and rather we get Quinn and Sam in a soft, mellower melody, followed up by Santana in an upbeat dance number. And rather than be a set that plays up Rachel's absence, it perfectly depicts the strengths of the rest of the team. Quinn's voice is perfect for the number she has, and her dynamic with Sam is remarkably sweet, and then Santana follows it up with her first real time in the spotlight and her sheer stage presence is impressive, especially alongside Mike and Britt's energetic performance. One of the criticisms I had for songs lower down the list is that they don't feel like events. They felt obligatory, with little time spent making the competitions feel like they matter. S1 handled it the best, with the competitions being at the core of Will's arc, and Will being more central on the show - when the kids took over, and their drama obviously mattered more to them, competitions could begin to feel secondary. This episode might not totally fix that, but it does significantly more in making the event have a point - it shows that everyone in the New Directions has value, and gives the character reactions of the rest in the lead-up. These sectionals existed to showcase the unsung heroes of the New Directions, as it were, and wow did it succeed.

S2 Regionals - Get It Right - Loser Like Me - Original songs are a mixed bag. They're not going to be songs where you already know that people love them, and you're only going to have so much time to work on creating lyrics and instrumentation from scratch. On the other side, you get the ability to have them reflect the characters more than another artist's song ever could. Get It Right is phenomenal. I swear, you get Rachel to stand up and just belt out a ballad, and you've got me. Pair that with the original song making it feel more personal, and it's a gorgeous moment. Loser Like Me is less my thing - lyrics can be a bit clunky, and the put-on voices are clearly a genre-reference which is just distracting when it's an original song, but it's still a good, upbeat melody to round it out. Also, this marks the first time the New Directions actually start on the damn stage rather than at the back of the auditorium. I swear, it took them four tries, but they finally managed it. As alluded to before, original songs come with a lot of potential. In this case, the show delivers - Get It Right feels like Rachel pouring her heart out, and Loser Like Me is something on an encapsulation of one of the show's themes, building on from an ongoing dynamic. Plus the Warblers. Taking the time to build up a rival group was something S1 did with Vocal Adrenaline, to a limited degree, and it's surprising that it isn't done more frequently. Having Kurt on the rival team, too, makes for a good dynamic - it's the same thing I praised the Troubletones for. Everyone involved is a quality singer, and by the internal logic of the show there are competition winners on all sides. Bonus points for the only proper use of props the New Directions do.

S1 Regionals - Faithfully - Any Way You Want It / Lovin' Touchin' Squeezin' - Don't Stop Believin' - Yeah. All about the build-up. Journey were part of the show since the first episode, and Don't Stop Believing closed out the pilot. It might be something of a cliche, but it is a good song, and never underestimate the strength of a good callback. The songs were all selected for a reason, bringing the show full circle in a way that never really happens again, and realistically never could. Faithfully is a slower, powerful build. Finn and Rachel enter, sing a number that fills the auditorium with just their two voices. Then, midway through, the curtain raises and all the New Directions suddenly join the number in a glorious moment. Then, from slow and powerful, it transitions to an energetic, upbeat mash-up so quickly it's almost dizzying. And then, rather than cutting away as S1 did, or ignoring it as S2 did, for the first time we see the full set of three as it rounds it out with DSB, the pilot callback. They're good songs. They go well together, and were arranged wonderfully. The only real criticism I can give is that it's still very much the Rachel and Finn show - though that's more forgivable in season one where most of the cast were less in-focus. Even then, a few get spotlights and moments in the latter two songs. And, yes, I like just seeing Will (at a competition for the first time) just kinda dancing along off-stage. They're cute cut-aways, and it really sells this as what the series has been working towards. And then you add Olivia Newton-John and Josh Groban in the audience and?? What the heck is Glee. This was a spectacular way to close out the season. A deliciously galling loss, a bittersweet kind of closure from Sue, and a medley that makes it clear that if Glee had ended here, it would have gone out on a high. Also, Quinn was minutes away from giving birth that whole performance so. I mean. Gotta respect it I guess. I'll be honest, I generally think a lot of the "Will Schuester is a terrible person," stuff can be overplayed by fandom, but. Okay yeah you have a point here WHY IS SHE ON STAGE

S3 Regionals - Fly/I Believe I Can Fly - Stronger - Here's To Us - The escalation. Fly is a more mellow number, which kicks into a high energy Stronger, building up to Here's To Us and that moment where Rachel holds the note while the instrumentation cuts out still gives me chills. It's a solid set of songs with a fantastic arrangement. And all of that in the episode On My Way, doing what Glee can do so well - juxtaposing the happy and the sad, using the bad to make the good matter. Undeniably, this episode begins as one of the most serious in Glee's run, certainly up to this point. And as a counterpoint, we end with a Regionals with the theme of 'inspiration,' going to a dark place and generally handling that plot well, but replying to it with the firm insistence that people are worth it and there's hope. It's a wonderful thematic conclusion to the episode, using tragedy to uplift. And if we're going to talk Stronger, we have to talk the Troubletones - I love that sense of the New Directions coming together over the seasons, and having that group-within-a-group is a great way to do that. It makes the episode feel earned, feel like a continuation. The same way as earlier episodes that offer more of a build in order to make the competition feel like a culmination, here we have the Troubletones getting a number from within the New Directions, showing the group willing to showcase all their talent. And we have Sebastian's development, on the side of the rivals, as a result of the events of the episode - the competition becomes a genuine celebration on all sides. Also Sugar Motta ignores her team when they win and runs over to hug a vampire. Which is adorable.

S1 Sectionals - Don't Rain On My Parade - You Can't Always Get What You Want - (Somebody To Love) - And here we are in the top three. This may partly be fond memories talking, but this is a heck of a first performance. In a lot of ways, this is the episode that really got me into Glee. I liked some characters, some storylines etc before this point, and there had been good songs before this, but this was the episode where I was first genuinely wowed. And it's got a good build-up. Season 1 of Glee showed each character slowly come to the club, and find their place, and this allows them to all be spotlighted. The episodes begins with Mercedes knocking it out of the park, and Rachel in a bit of character development due to be forgotten about in half a season's time willingly stepping back to let Mercedes sing the ballad. As much as this is the first performance, it's treated as a story in its own right, not just a stepping stone to reach - the last minute hectic planning of the cast figuring out what they want to do, improvising their second number, and off-screen redo of Somebody to Love (the first song they ever sang as a full group), all kicked off by Rachel bursting into the auditorium with her by-now iconic Don't Rain. Like, we're all agreed that's the perfect song for Rachel right? I swear I was just cackling as soon as I heard the opening notes, just for how well it fits - something the show just goes in to prove again and again with the repeated acknowledgements of Funny Girl and use of similar beats. It feels like a finale. Which, honestly, was likely intended, it's hard to imagine a musical TV show being a long-runner, so they really pull out all the stops. So we get a pair of triumphant performances, juxtaposed with Will missing the performance because he took the blame for them an episode prior, and say what you will about Will but Matthew Morrison acts the hell out of him just in tears of pride while listening over the phone. Honestly my only criticism is that it needed Somebody to Love because I'm a sucker for a Queen song.

S6 Nationals - Take Me To Church - Chandelier - Come Sail Away - This might be unpopular. Oh well. One of the strengths of the S6 cast, with how they were much more secondary as characters, was that they got to spend their time singing the genres they were best at - so given a spotlight like this, they nail it in a way few other performances do. And for good measure, there's that thread I keep talking about - how the performance feels like a culmination, from the blazers to the Warblers dancing, to Spencer's injury. The competition matters again. I didn't expect much, honestly. When the S4+5 competitions were all on the lacklustre side to me, and the S6 kids being more secondary as characters, I figured this would be the same, a season that peters out with a mediocre performance before Glee ends. Then Roderick walks out with confidence gained over the course of the season, and fills the stage with a ridiculously good voice, and gorgeous use of a translucent curtain for staging. My jaw was on the floor. The harmonies with Jane are downright heavenly. Then, onto Chandelier, we get fantastic choreography making full use of the more experienced Warblers to show off, Myron just kinda doing Myron stuff in the audience, and Madison getting a chance to show off her voice. And to top it off, Spencer who was injured in rehearsals, and likely unable to join in, appears via getting tied to an actual chandelier and swinging in overhead because why the heck not. Glee is a lot of things and subtle is not one of them. And we finish off with Come Sail Away. It begins quietly, doing the same trick with pacing that so many of my favourite performances do - the first song gets people into it, the second is upbeat and energetic, and here they take a breath to pause - with a wonderful double-act from Mason and Madison - before the song kicks into high gear after the almost reflective moment, and it's just pure celebration. All that paired with Rachel, Kurt and Will in the audience just beaming, and it's easily one of my favourite performances. If I was going to criticise, Jane deserved a number. She killed Tightrope in her debut and then got little else - technically she only really got one song less than the average for the S6 kids, but hey, she had a great voice and stage presence. So, let's talk about how the season built to this. My favourites will always be the performances that feel like culminations. S1 could handle this the easiest, though we saw shades of it elsewhere - but like S1, we got more focus on each of the Newest Directions as they joined, saw the show choir be built up piece by piece. And then the Warblers joined up, offering an extra piece to the performance, and bringing more developed choreography with them. Is it cheesy? Yes. Is it fun? Still yes. And just for the heck of it, the New Directions head out with Warbler-inspired blazers in McKinley red, and it's a good look. I don't always talk that much about costuming, unless it really stands out, but it does here. They bring a splash of colour without resorting to the stock suits and dresses that the more average costumes do. And speaking of the Warblers, the choreography feels like the elephant in the room. I see a lot of criticism of the dancing of the NDs, which is justified, but also unavoidable for meta reasons - the lead characters sing a heck of a lot of songs. That’s a lot of rehearsal time. The reason their rivals get better performances is because people that are only singing a few songs can rehearse them exclusively, rather than hurrying from one episode to the next. So having more minor characters, with such names as Super Gay Warbler, who can afford to dedicate time to just learning the moves, it really helps play up the feeling that this is the finale, and is one of the best performances the New Directions ever do. It feels like the whole season built to this point. And then we have Vocal Adrenaline, under Sue, performing Hey Mickey (am genuinely amazed it took Glee so long to get to that song) and firing students out of cannons, and they're really just throwing everything at the wall. It's pure ridiculous cheesy fun, but backed up by a set of fantastic performances and arrangements. Which, I mean, it's Glee, what more do you want?

S3 Nationals - Edge of Glory - It's All Coming Back To Me Now - Paradise By The Dashboard Light - I feel like this is a cliche first place but eh. Cliches exist for a reason. Just, wow. So let's talk about the build-up. Graduation is soon, this is the New Directions’ last chance to win, Rachel’s chance of getting into NYADA rides on her performance for Reasons... This is, in many ways, the last hurrah of the original cast. Jesse is back as a rival, coaching Vocal Adrenaline, who are led by Unique who’s already proven herself to be a spectacular performer. We get a little drama, overcome by Sue of all people helping the team. And it begins. The Troubletones take the stage with the aptly named Edge of Glory, serving both as a Gaga callback and a chance to showcase more members of the group, and you know by now how much I love having that piece of the performance set up. They set the scene, and we get to Rachel belting out Celine Dion like her life depends on it and it’s one of the best vocal performances in the entire show. Whoopi Goldberg shows up. With Rachel feeling a sense of hope, things feel resolved, and it closes out with a triumphant Paradise By The Dashboard Light - a song that suits Finn’s voice, and that the whole New Directions manage to nail. Even with their limited choreography, they do a lot with the contrasts of their costumes to stand out. It just builds and builds and it’s wonderful. Each song is distinct, each helps build up the larger set, and each one is a fantastic number in its own right. And all of this in an episode that makes it feel like a culmination of everything. They have good rivals, good build-up in the episode proper,and a spectacular performance. I’ve criticised previous entries for feeling like they leaned on Rachel and Finn too much. I understand it in S1 by the nature of the show at that time. Season 3 in general avoids this, though - the first performance lacks Rachel completely, while the remaining dedicate one song to the Troubletones, showcasing the other performers. While the other two do lean much more on Rachel and Finn, Paradise is enough of a group number, and it feels earned to me by the context of the episode. Plus, all else aside, these are spectacular enough performances for it to be forgivable. Mind you, I do have to wonder if anyone read the lyrics of Paradise before picking it. It’s either a not-so-subtle bit of foreshadowing for later drama, or accidentally hilarious. (I like Rachel more than a lot of people seem to, but also building to someone singing to her “I’m praying for the end of time to hurry up and arrive, because if I've got to spend another minute with you I don’t think that I can really survive,” is. Um. I mean I get it, but still).

But anyway yes, that’s where I fall. This is admittedly partly down to my music taste, but hey. Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong!

#Glee #rambles

3 notes · View notes

weabooweedwitch · 1 year

Note

I know you aren’t going to answer this since you aren’t addressing it any further, but I just wanted to say you aren’t inherently responsible for dealing with the consequences of your sisters choices. Of course it’s very unfortunate that what happened had happened, and she did not deserve that- but it’s ignorant to not realize that she put herself in that situation.

You shouldn’t be held responsible to stay for your sister when your going to go on a trip for your own benefit, it’s your life and not hers, and if you don’t put the line down somewhere then she’ll always take priority and you’ll never get to live.

Please take care of yourself, drink some water and take a nap, and try to have a good day.

(Btw I know this isn’t the blog you published it on but your last erasuremic chapter was INCREDIBLE and I’m so glad your posting them again; I think back to your story constantly)

Believe it or not I am unfortunately incredibly two faced at times and I will 100% post things that validate me, to be blunt about it

And thanks ❤️ my friends and especially the ones I visited in Canada really helped inspire me to start trying to exercise more self care and be more productive with my time and I realized writing is a nice healthy outlet for me and I would actually like to write a completely original story someday, maybe self publish it or something, although to be blunt I dunno if I would connect it to tumblr or my ao3 since I'd hate for it to get bogged down by any drama or anything. I hope to get the next chapter out before much longer and there's also other stories I want to do too ❤️

I mean, some folks can complain about my "constant pissing and moaning" , lmao, all they want, but clearly when I write stories about Readers who are dealt a bad hand and struggling mentally, many people relate to that, some people loving my work so much they like to chip in financially when I'm struggling so. Guess I'm just being a normal human being, out here tryna share my heart with others connecting and making friends and really, aren't we all on our own journeys on growing as people and trying to make it through it?

1 note · View note

perpetual-fool · 1 year

Text

Morality

(12/19/22*, 1.5k) I think to resolve my feelings about the past, I need to work out my own understanding of morality. I've never been able to make any coherent sense of what others consider right or wrong. It seems like it's just all wrong. Unless it isn't?

So, what is good? I've tried researching what core values people may have, and found a couple of hypothesis that seem decent: Self-Determination Theory and Consistency Theory. But I was never able to confirm much of anything because I only felt bad. I also got a huge list of stuff someone told me they personally value. But I don't think, biologically speaking, there can be all that many things. Take for instance, the thousand different genres of music. I don't think evolution would have had long enough to give anyone an inherent preference for Korean Jazz Metal or some such. I think there could only be a handful of values, maybe just expressed in a broad variety of ways. Here are some guesses as to what those might be:

Aesthetic? Beauty, but in a broad sense. Could be the way something looks, or possibly how something is organized. What I've noticed: certain types of music I find engaging. Notably, Tool, but generally anything Maynard does is interesting to me. And conversely, it's painful for me to hear people sing badly. And it's offensive to me to hear singing or playing which is competent but ruins some other aspect of the song. And conversely to that, things done badly on purpose in a competent way are enjoyable; Neil C's version of "Fly Away" for instance.

Belonging? Being understood and accepted by others. What I've noticed: when I've believed I was understood I felt better. And when people said they understood but demonstrated that they do not, that was crushing. The magnitude of that being relative to how significant the person was to me.

Competence? Being able to do things. What I've noticed: when I've found information I can actually apply immediately, it was very engaging. When I come across information I can't apply, it doesn't interest me. And when I run across information that I could apply except it doesn't work, that's infuriating.

Understanding? Making sense of things; having a mental model that matches the world. What I've noticed: piecing together theories about the universe is intriguing. For instance, dark matter being an explanation for why, based on our model of gravity, there's too much gravity in the universe. Supposedly. There might be more stuff and we just can't see it, but also it could be our model of gravity is wrong in a way that only breaks on a very large (or small) scale. And conversely, not being able to work out how information fits together is taxing. For instance, trying to figure out the organization of the Linux filesystem.

Security? Thinking things will be okay; anticipating good things and the lack of bad things. What I've noticed: when I've had health problems and doctors who either seemed incompetent or didn't explain things, I would dread what might happen. But when I had one doctor actually explain things and show me a bit about what he was looking at, I felt relieved and comforted about the issue.

These are my fundamental 'goods’. They seem to come in variants of good, false good (which is bad), bad, and false bad (which is good). And then, moral behavior is simply anything that promotes good or hinders bad, immoral being the inverse.

You may have noticed, if you looked it up or were familiar, those theories I mentioned aren't actually about morality. The concepts generally used to refer to moral issues don't seem valid to me. Deception, for instance. Deceiving someone in a relationship is bad, but deceiving someone at a magic show is good. That's not nuance, that's just a bad model. In one instance someone gets hurt, and in the other they're entertained. It's those things that are actually important; deception itself is a neutral party.

So now, I hope, instead of saying to myself "you're a piece of shit" I can ask "was that promoting bad or hindering good?" If nothing else I can at least have an answer as to how what I did was wrong. And I can move on.

---- Edit: okay that's not quite enough.

What makes a person bad? I'm not sure how I feel about this; I've pretty rarely thought a person was in themselves bad. But I've long considered my father to be my personal archetype of evil.

He's not that terrible as far as people go, just had a severe effect on me. And I don't know how you'd go about comparing different sorts of bad. Mostly it was forcing me to do things and yelling at me for being autistic. The stuff wouldn't have been that bad were it voluntary, if I could have done it my own way and had the reason for it been explained to me. For instance: mowing the lawn. If I had been able to go out in the cool of the early morning and do the work with a scythe and a half-moon edger, that would have been comfortable enough. But no, I had to drag that foul-smelling gas mower up and down that hill, balance that stupid heavy edger on two wheels. Choking on dust and the stench of crushed grass, the dirt in my socks grating on my skin. All of this under the heat of the mid-day Texas sun without so much as a hat, and with no reason why any of this has to be done in the first place. The yelling was about stuff like: I didn't read his mind and I did what he said instead of what he wanted; "Why can't you be more like your sister!" And while he was yelling at me I was very uncomfortable, I was fidgeting and not looking at him in the eye, so he yelled at me about that too; "You're not paying attention!" All of this implicitly backed by threat of the belt. Though to be fair, I didn't get hit that often. But I'm told that was only because it didn't work on me.

And what am I to make of this? Causing bad is certainly part of it. Though I don't feel like simply deliberately doing bad is evil. As if bullying is bad choice but not a bad person, for instance. Nor do I feel being wrong is evil; attempting to do good but failing. The only thing I really feel is evil, is doing bad having decided it is good. Perversion? is there a better word for it?

So I'm not evil, I'm just a failure.

---- Still not enough apparently. I think my feelings want to avoid the bad thing in the future. So I need blame.

The issue has been, broadly, saying or doing the wrong things, but being unable to figure out the right things. Even if I could go back and do things better knowing what I know now, I didn't know what I know now. It hurts for some reason, to think I might not be to blame. Other people never gave me what I needed. Even when I was of the state of mind to ask, they either wouldn't or couldn't do it. You came the closest, Morgan. But usually the response was to tell me I'm wrong or to say nothing. There was nothing to work with.

Again, this hurts my brain to even consider: was it their fault? This only seriously crossed my mind once before, when I lashed out at Ash. I think I have to say, yes. I can't figure things out if no one explains them to me. I could have phrased it less harshly but.. well, no, I couldn't have. I was completely overwhelmed, not in control. And my feelings were the very thing I had trusted you with. I needed help and instead I got "you knew it was wrong". I felt guilty because I had been unable to stop my emotions from pushing me into something. It probably was wrong, but I needed to understand it. That night was.. bad. Apparently, I stand by what I said to you. It's your fault?

There's also the possibility that it's purely the fault of circumstance. But people responses are almost universally the same; it would be extremely unlikely that I only happened to run across people who were also broken. Maybe in the sense that other are wired differently, circumstance is to blame. Though that seems like a slippery slope towards "blame is a meaningless concept because we live in a deterministic universe and free will isn't real". Maybe true, but it's missing the point the mechanism.

So, it's not my fault? It's not my fault.

It's not your fault, *Arden.

#Morality #personal #autistic

0 notes

unedited-me · 2 years

Text

Best Case Scenario

I’m reading a book about domestic violence. Thankfully, I haven’t experienced a relationship in which I’ve been abused. Not really. I watched a video on TikTok the other day where a girl said ‘At least he didn’t hit you.’ and the response was ‘When did the best case scenario become verbal abuse?’ I haven’t stopped thinking about that.

Reading this book, I can see everything. Every red flag. Every word he’s said wrong, every character flaw, every time he’s shown controlling tendencies. I can see it all so clearly. And I know part of that is because it’s written that way. So the reader can get the bird’s eye view of all the things that happen inside an abusive relationship, minus the mundane daily good parts. Because there are always good parts. It’s so easy to hate his character. Every time he speaks, my skin crawls. I’m hypercritical because I know she should have left the first time, but as much as I don’t want to admit it, I know why she stayed. I don’t know if I would have, but I can’t say for sure. That thought scares me. That thought keeps me where I am. Because if I can see every red flag and every character flaw, and still justify her staying, maybe I am where I belong. Maybe verbal abuse is my best case scenario.

To be clear, I am not sure that I am in a verbally abusive relationship. He certainly would argue that he’s the nicest person I know. And some days he is. Some days he calls me fat and dumb. Pros and cons, I guess. But I think the real problem for me is...it doesn’t feel like I’m getting abused. It doesn’t leave any visible scars. It doesn’t feel abusive. It almost doesn’t even feel wrong. Like he is right, I am overweight and I do sometimes say dumb things. If he was coming at me with lies, and telling me that I was a whore or something, maybe it would feel abusive. Because I’m not. Or maybe the fact that his insults are rooted in truth is exactly what makes them abusive.

My entire life, someone has always told me what to be. And what I am. The latter is usually an insult, and the former is usually a solution. You look a little chubby in that dress, suck in your gut. Thanks, mom. You’re not really smart enough to work in tech, maybe just stay at your job. Thanks, babe. My dad always kind of just threw insults without many solutions. But because of this dynamic with people in my life, being in this type of relationship feels normal. The ‘you matter more than me’ mentality is ever-present in all of my relationships, especially my romantic one. It may be a little unhealthy. I’m scared to talk to him about it, if we’re being honest.

I’m scared to talk to anyone about it. My friends are on my side, but they almost have to be. They’re my friends. My mom has told me to leave him since basically day 1. My internal voice tells me to run. My dad had no interest in even meeting him. My aunt doesn’t like him or the fact that I’m living with him. Our roommate (my friend) also doesn’t like him for me. But if our relationships are supposed to hold a mirror to us and show us who we are...does that mean I’m inherently abusive too? Am I the bad guy? I’m scared to tell my therapist about it or go to therapy with him because...what if I am the bad guy? What if everything he does is justified and I’m the shitty human? My friends say that can’t be the case because they would know that. They’ve known me a decade or more. Before and during him. But they aren’t with me 24/7. Maybe I was always going to end up this way in a relationship. I don’t want to believe that, but maybe I’m the abuser. Maybe verbal abuse isn’t just best case scenario...maybe it’s the only scenario.

0 notes

downwiththemutantnjnjaturtles · 3 years

Note

Could u also do the four with an S/O that can read them like a book, and just out of no where knows what’s going on and gives random (good) advice? Thank you so much!!

Agh, anon, your requests are a breath of fresh air—feel like I'm going back to my roots with these classic headcanon-type posts 😭💜 I figured this would be a good post to go into some of the problems the boys might have, if you don't mind!

The Boys with an S/O who can read them like a book:

Donatello

• His latest projects, practical and obscure, have not been going well as of late

• He's in a slum and can't seem to get out of it, trying incessantly to fix the various issues to no avail

• It's not often he gets like this but it's here and he's irritable—unable to peel himself away from his projects even late, late into the night when he should be in bed

• You find him up way past the hour in his lab, having heard him tapping his instruments, shuffling around the space, he's not making an effort to be subtle but generally no one approaches him in these times

• Well, except for you

• He doesn't quite notice your presence until he turns around to find you leaned on the doorway

• "You know, all this stuff isn't going to run away from you," you say diplomatically. "It's going to be here when you wake up in the morning. So why don't you go to bed, Donnie?"

• "Because I have to figure out what's wrong," he sighs. "If I don't do it now, I'll..."

• You walk over and take the empty pipette from his hand, setting it down on the counter behind you. "You have all the time in the world to tackle this stuff; you really should go to bed, Donnie. Like I said, your projects aren't going to be gone in the morning, or the next, or the one after that. You shouldn't live life with a constant sense of urgency."

• It may not be what he really wants to hear, but he can't deny that he is impatient at times and tends to prone to anxiety when things keep going wrong.

• "You...may be right. Possibly. Maybe," he says, a hint of defeat. "Okay. I'll go to bed."

• Kisses the top of your head on his way out.

• Someone to understand and give him a gentle perspective without judgement is a very welcome change

Leo

• Leo always has a looming feeling of being unprepared

• What if Mikey won't be paying attention when he needs him to? What if Raph has an explosive episode on the surface and puts their mission on the line? What if Donnie's equipment fails them at the worst moment?

• It's why he's always harking on everyone to make sure everything is in place, pushing for training, trying to avoid creating conflict. He just wants everyone to be safe, and so the micromanaging begins.

• His brothers have been more uncooperative and uncoordinated than usual

• Meditates excessively when these things are on his mind, today being no different—he enters a distant state of mind while doing mundane tasks and his usual practices that makes him feel unapproachable

• You find him doing it yet again, he's cleaning his portion of the lair and re organizing things he's already organized

• "What has you so frazzled, Leo?" you ask.

• He doesn't even respond until he's done setting his books back in order.

• "Nothing," he says. "I'm doing what I always do."

• "You sure?" "Because it seems like you're stressing right now."

• "I'm fine. This is how I relax."

• You take a seat on the edge of his bed. "So you are stressed?"

• Leo hadn't seemed to notice the words he'd used but knows he can't backtrack.

• "You can trust your brothers, you know that, right?" He sits down as well and sighs. "Even when you guys are a little...off beat, you always pull through, don't you? That's why you're so good, it's because you can improv and adapt. There have been times where you are totally not on the same page and still managed to make it out, and pretty successfully, might I add."

• He contemplates for a minute. You're right; with or without all of his excessive efforts, they always found a way.

• "Hearing it from someone else makes it easier to see, I guess. Thank you, (Y/N), I'll keep that in mind."

• The surprise advice is unexpected but appreciated, as no one can make him relax like that besides Splinter

Mikey

• He doesn't realize just how obvious he is when he's bothered

• Genuinely confused when point out his fiddling with random stuff, going back and forth to the kitchen more than normal, a little quieter than you're used to. Weirdly enough, he gets a bit lethargic when things like this crop up because he thinks so much

• Like now. He's used to being low-key criticized for his natural behavior and mindset, but a guy can only take so much, can't he?

• He doesn't want to feel like a kid and like he's incompetent, yet he feels that way at times due to how people talk to him

• He's fidgeting with some trinket on the couch when you approach him and seems unenthusiastic

• "Oh, what's up babes?"

• "You're doing the thing again," you say with a chuckle, "being told you're doing something wrong feels pretty bad, huh?"

• He's a little confused

• "What do you mean?"

• "I mean that sometimes your family doesn't understand that you function a certain way and, there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but at the same time, we have to be conscientious, don't we? Not every criticism is a personal offense, so try not to take it to heart too much, babe."

• He takes a moment to process, but you know he's got it when his eyes light up and he puts down whatever he's messing with

• "How come you like...always know what to say, angelcakes? You're so smart!"

• Will end up coming to you instead when he's got a problem if Leo or Donnie's a part of it, because they used to be his go-to, but telling it to his partner just hits different

• Your words actually stick with him and he's not too stubborn to take them in stride

Raph

• To be honest, Raph doesn't do well with being confronted while he's angry in general...

• Tends to blow steam off in his gym or practicing with his sai (or, if he's in a REALLY bad mood, knitting) though can only spend so much time doing that

• Not before you say something, at least

• Raph is a highly emotional person, not limited to anger. But this of course makes him an accident waiting to happen at times because of his intense disposition, so his attitude can be shit-starter, especially with Leonardo because he envies his position leader

• So, he's been clearly fuming and you've decided it's time to say something

• He's at his weight bench repping it out

• "Have another argument with Leo?"

• "Something like that."

• "You understand he's under a lot of pressure, right? That being team leader isn't that easy?"

• "What would you know?"

• "It's not hard to figure, Raph, you guys are being actively hunted and the responsibility's on him to keep you safe when Splinter can't be there. Yes, that's you too. Try putting yourself in his shoes and think about how that would make you feel. It's hard? Yeah. I know it's not what you want, but you have your own special place in the family, and no one can replace you. Think about how much Leo and the rest of your brothers would flounder if you weren't there. They need you where you're at, just like you three need Leo. You're their big guns, big guy."

• Of course, he doesn't want to admit that you're right, that hurts the pride

• But deep down he knows that it's true.

• "I'll tell y what, baby girl, you've got the nerve, I guess. I ain't saying you're right or anything, but..."

• He's always going to remember this, but unfortunately, he won't always heed your advice. It gets lost in the moment and it's his personal problem that he must deal with himself.

#tmnt #teenage mutant ninja turtles #tmnt x reader #tmnt donnie #tmnt mikey #tmnt raph #tmnt leo

506 notes · View notes

maverick-werewolf · 3 years

Text

On Werewolf Antagonists/Evil Werewolves

It’s that time of year when the things I love the most get noticed and celebrated at least a little by everybody else (even though corporations still hate creating typical Halloween products that actually include werewolves; seriously go check your local department store, it’s been this way since I was a tiny tiny child)...

Happy Howl-o-ween! Time for a special Halloween post!

(finally grabbed this game in a sale. Guess I’ll play it soon)

First off - welcome (again), new followers! I had a big ol’ followers flux, in part because my werewolf masterlist made the rounds and in part because of Overly Sarcastic Productions’ new video on werewolves! I communicated a lot with Red about research for it; be sure to check it out. You’ll recognize pretty much everything in there, if you’ve spent a lot of time on this blog (and if you’ve read my latest book, too)!

For a while now, I’ve been getting lots of messages and asks about werewolf stories and character concepts (and I always enjoy those!), but a lot of them have a something in common... an antagonistic or generally evil werewolf/werewolves or discussions thereof - or asking how to make a werewolf who isn’t an antagonist.

While villain werewolves are great and can be totally awesome, they are generally terrible, and on average, we do not like those or support or encourage them here on this blog. My goal with werewolf (and wolf) education is to encourage the creation of sympathetic and not evil werewolves and wolf-related characters. This doesn’t mean they have to be “cuddly” by any means (I’m not a fan of that, either), but it would be great to see werewolf characters that aren’t one-note villains.

Using them as villains is great, but I would so much rather see werewolf and wolf villains be done sparingly instead of the overwhelmingly “almost always” that you see today and have always seen throughout the history of entertainment.

Historically, werewolves (and wolves in general) are always cast in a bad light and as villains, often being pure evil and menaces that must be stopped (read: killed), and that needs to stop for so many reasons. If you want to hear more about that, though, you should read my book on how werewolves in folklore are not what they are in pop culture, how werewolves are nothing but misconceptions today, and why that isn’t a good thing.

All that being said, let’s move on to the meat of this post...

How do you make werewolves not evil?

There are many characters in stories. Not all of them have to be protagonists or antagonists. They do not have to be good or evil. Werewolves fit perfectly into shades of grey, whether they are directly cast as heroes or villains or not.

I want to emphasize something here: Werewolves are characters first and werewolves second. Essentially, werewolves are people, too.

It’s like any other character creation. If you create a character specifically to be “a female character” or “the love interest” or whatever, they are inherently going to suffer from that. If you make “the werewolf character” instead of making a character and then making that character happen to be a werewolf (or whatever other template you are applying), your character will never be as good as that character who was created as a character first and then the other element second. Do not let “being a werewolf” (or whatever other element is at play) dictate the character.

Almost all werewolf characters in media are werewolves first and characters second. They suffer for that. They aren’t really people - they’re just plot elements.

Werewolves are so much deeper than throwaway villains. At their core, werewolves are sill human, and they have problems and motivations and hopes and dreams like everyone else. Their lycanthropy affects that, not destroys it.

If you do not want the werewolf to be a primary hero or working with the primary hero, they do not necessarily have to be the villain, either. Werewolf characters can come and go like any other characters. Their motivations can be a mystery - they themselves can be part of that mystery. They do not necessarily have to be good or evil, but characters with their own motivations.

Being a werewolf does not have to impact them being good or evil at all. They could help the hero(es) directly or indirectly or only now and then, or they can be a looming threat the heroes hope they never have to face. They can be something that only helps the hero in their greatest moment of need due to the potential risks of doing so.

Werewolves can be a mysterious hermit, the wandering loner, the person who never lets anyone get close. They can drift in and out of a story and help the protagonists in only minor ways. They can be the Gandalf.

They can be literally anything in any story, if only horizons would be expanded. Werewolves are not a villain or antagonist, throwaway or not, by nature. They are characters, like everyone else. They just happen to also be werewolves, which only adds yet another very interesting layer to their characters - a layer that offers endless possibility and exploration, with so much character growth and development.

Werewolves are generally assumed to be villains. The natural line of thought is to make them such. That is exactly what I want to change.

The uncontrollable werewolves do not necessarily have to be the type to come charging out of nowhere, wanting to kill the protagonist and their friends for no reason at all. Give their animal side more depth, too. Why would it behave in such a way? What motivates it? Do you really want your readers to se your protagonist thinking that anything animalistic is an evil plague that must be destroyed, instead of just a part of nature that is trying to keep to itself? Or what if that werewolf was a hero, whether a hero or an anti-hero, instead of a villain - like all those other werewolves?

There are so many things one can do with werewolves. They can be enigmatic heroes, they can be the shades of grey. They could be a force of nature, they can be guardians, healers, sages, seers, shamans - they can be the thing that goes bump in the night, the thing you never see but know is there. They can be knights in shining armor with a dark side (my favorite and also my primary werewolf protagonist), they can be the absolute perfect anti-heroes - the possibilities are endless!

Werewolves do not inherently represent a force of evil or something to oppose the protagonists. They can take up any role in a story. Turn to folklore for ideas and inspiration! Read about them as great warriors, as heroes, healers, as simple wandering travelers - and as that friend you never expected could turn into a wolf and bring you a deer to eat when you got too hungry on the road.

Werewolves are not something that always has to be “fought” in a story. They can simply be a part of the world and part of the environment, a character someone sees in passing. They don’t have to be at the forefront as heroes and villains. They don’t have to be “faced” and “dealt with” in some way every time they are encountered. The fact that so many people write stories in which the werewolf must be immediately dealt with and is “evil” only highlights further the fact that werewolves have been put in this evil light because humanity feels it must destroy and restrain the forces of nature instead of letting the wild be free.

And if you want to have a werewolf who isn’t a hero (not all stories need werewolf heroes, either, after all), a great role for a werewolf is a red herring, since everyone does naturally assume a werewolf will be evil - but maybe that werewolf just wants to be left alone instead.

Werewolves are often at their best when they are only under suspicion - when the characters are wondering and worrying about it. Wonder if that thing behind them is the werewolf. Is the werewolf evil? Is it going to kill me? Are they even a werewolf? Like any horrific creature, werewolves are at their strongest when they are not front and center and tearing up everything, but when they are mysterious and a source of fear - when they are more characterized and less a monster encounter action scene that comes and goes in a hurry. When they are too powerful to be fought directly and are best just avoided.

This is why werewolves make for such great horror and mystery - and that can also help characterize them.

Maybe the protagonists cannot be sure if the person is a werewolf or not - and if that person is on their side or not. Maybe the werewolf doesn’t specifically help or fight them. And maybe ,at some crucial moment, the werewolf will appear and offer aid. Werewolves make for great enigmatic characters, especially when they are trying to hide their nature.

Most folklore werewolves are not necessarily heroes or villains (though they often came in a more heroic variety before the Renaissance, of course). Werewolves can take so many different roles, depending on what story you want to tell.

My favorite werewolves will always be those that have a dark side, not those that are sweet and cuddly. To me, if a werewolf is not in some way dark, it isn’t actually a werewolf (especially if they are just dog-people, which isn’t werewolves at all, but you’ve all heard me rant about that before). But that absolutely does not make them inherently villains - it makes them extremely interesting characters with endless depths to explore. Giving a character lycanthropy only gives them that much more substance. It should never take substance away - which is what tends to happen with a lot of werewolves in media, especially those one-note villain ones or the simplistic ones that are just a plot point in a mystery (and then are generally killed anyway).

So do not fall into that trap of making werewolves the villain(s) in your story/setting/etc. Think of them as you would both individuals and a force of nature - the most dangerous wild animal of them all... but not in any way inherently “evil.”

I hope this provides food for thought about making a character first and putting the werewolf element second - having that character you created react to being a werewolf the way a real person would, instead of existing solely as a plot element and/or a villain.

Expect more in-depth writing advice posts on this topic in the future!

And in conclusion... Happy Halloween!

(If you like my werewolf blog, be sure to check out my other stuff!

Patreon --- Wulfgard --- Werewolf Fact Masterlist --- Twitter)

161 notes · View notes

lorenfangor · 2 years

Text

so I guess today IS the day for an Auximorphs examination

with the prospect of a live action adaptation looming large (at this point I’m dreading it thanks to Jeffrennifer Bezoar and the Billion-Dollar Fanfic) I find myself considering the Auxiliary Animorphs and their fate, and how it’s sort of nebulously agreed upon to be horribly ableist that they were introduced only to die

because I pride myself on being contrarian, and because Nothing About Us Without Us etc, I feel compelled to offer up a competing argument - namely, that the Auxiliaries aren’t inherently ableist, and that tragedies can feature disabled characters or focus on a largely disabled cast and still be worth telling in some way. so I thought about it for a while, and I figured I’d hammer out a list of expectations/wants/do not wants/etc for a hypothetical movie or TV series that included the AAs.

(obligatory disclaimer: I am not a monolith representing all disabled people any more than I’m a monolith representing all indigenous people, my voice is really only my voice. I’m very interested in additional thoughts or critiques from others in the community largely because I know that this is an issue where consensus is basically impossible, and the more we talk about it and respect all our collective views I think we can achieve better intracommunity understanding)

so this is going to be a bullet point list, with explanation/details as needed. it’s not really in any particular order, just stream-of-consciousness stuff

I don’t think the Auxiliaries need to be introduced earlier. These are kids who’ve been institutionalized in long-term care for a substantial amount of time - James has been in there since at least 1987, if he’s the same age as the other kids, and possibly 1986 if he’s a year older. The tragedy of their story to me is that they could have been a substantial presence and a force for good, they could have been friends to the main cast, they could have been around and made everyone feel less alone, but societal ableism stopped them from doing that! It’s heartbreaking but it’s a real thing that still really happens!

on that note I think there’s a lot of debate to be had on the question of, like, competing access needs in this story specifically? I was warned as an adult doing my first proper series readthrough (I didn’t read all the books as a kid) that there was a horribly ableist plotline as part of the end battle, and I was braced for something awful based on what I’d been told, and I found a story that was genuinely empowering despite some clunky ideas about magical cures and that inspired me deeply. I wasn’t horrified, I wasn’t upset, I was honestly angry that I’d been told “hey this is ableist” when I didn’t think it was. of course other disabled people are going to have different opinions, which is why when I recommend the books I also warn for ableism, but I think dismissing the fact that there are disabled people who see all of this series as Good Representation would be a mistake in an adaptation process

continuing on in that theme, emphasize the societal ableism. Especially if this is an adaptation that includes Mertil and Gafinilan + Ax as Very Special Episode Learner (one thing I really think can’t be said enough is that often in VSEs it was fan favorite characters who expressed bad/offensive/unwoke opinions, to encourage audiences to challenge their viewpoints by watching people they cared about work through prejudices; that’s probably why Ax is the one who’s talking about vecols and acting ableist alongside the Star Trek Metaphor aspect). The human kids need to be held to account here, they need to make it explicit that despite saying “we value disabled people,” the reality is that disabled people were and are often isolated from their families and kept out of school. this is taking place in 1999, which is less than a decade after the Americans with Disabilities Act passed, and James has been in this institution since before the ADA. Despite the push to create spaces that are disability-friendly, these kids have been left behind. the parallels between “the isolation of the vecol” and the isolation of the disabled cannot be overstated.

introduce more internal conflict in their group, and more discussion that includes explicitly questioning whether or not Jake and the other Animorphs are recruiting them just to have them be cannon fodder. disabled people, including cognitively and intellectually disabled people, aren’t children, and we can make decisions for ourselves, and seeing people like Colette and Kelly raise questions that counter James’s “oh fuck yeah count me in!” enthusiasm will be realistic and will portray a broad spectrum of opinions that also fleshes out the cast and makes them feel like real people

make the Auxiliaries’ participation in the war about their own agency, not about how awful it is that the Animorphs recruited them. at the end of the day these are human beings with free will, and they say yes or no. Jake didn’t hold their hands down to the box or to various animals and force them to take part. true, they did want to back out and Jake told James it was his job to get them to their places, but James motivated them himself, he won their loyalty and respect himself.

keep James’s insistence that he’s part of a team and have him still stay at the facility with the others. his decision to align himself with disabled people despite having recovered is powerful and important and demonstrates serious solidarity. these are his friends and family and that doesn’t change just because his circumstances change.

I’d really like to see complicated feelings toward morphing-as-a-cure. I want at least one character who hears the explanation of how demorphing requires picturing yourself as yourself and who decides to opt out completely because they like their body as it is even with its problems, and I want people who choose the opposite. I want someone who cures themself and then feels ambivalent about it, or someone who can’t cure themself because they have a genetic disorder and who decides it’s actually fine. I don’t want everyone who has this option to feel the same way about it because not every disabled person feels the same way about it, and with a large disabled cast like we get with the Auximorphs there’s no reason not to engage with these concepts.

also, I want clear explanations of morphing’s inability to cure genetic disorders, and a link drawn between morphing-as-a-cure and self-perception. instead of making morphing something weird and nebulous with very few clear rules when it comes to deformity and disability, something as simple as “the reason Alloran has scars is because he likes having them” or “the reason Loren doesn’t have scars is because when she imagines herself she doesn’t include the scars, since she’s never seen them”. this will enable more conversations about preserving aspects of the self like pierced ears as well as form a better foundation for disability discussions

make it clear that the plan did not involve the Auxiliaries being sent off to die. Jake might have said some people would die and he couldn’t afford to care in his big inspirational speech, but his own internal narration doesn’t back that up. he even calls himself out for his hypocrisy and inability to hold firm to that ideal. keep the plan going wrong because the ship is in the air, keep Jake’s frantic begging, make their deaths tragic, make their deaths mean something. I don’t agree with the idea that their massacre is For The Manpain - deaths happen in war. This is a sad war story where all our heroes either die or possibly die. The Auxiliaries aren’t different here from the mains.

this is more of a request for the creatives going in, but I’d love it if people could interrogate the idea that the Auxiliaries’ deaths are inherently extra-sad or extra-tragic because they’re disabled. disabled people deserve to fight for our own liberation just like anybody else, and dying in battle because someone valued us as soldiers for the first time and enabled us to strike blows against fascist oppressors isn’t automatically a bad ending. many, many disabled people have died or been medically abused at the hands of family/guardians/the state/etc, and those people don’t have the chance to shoot a fascist in the head or maul a would-be invader who absolutely 100% will have them and everyone like them killed for not being genetically or physically or mentally good enough. this is a fight that disabled people have a right to be in, and dying in battle isn’t automatically a horrible ending that must be resisted at all costs because it’s inherently and irrevocably ableist.

obviously make the Auxiliaries count as characters for the short time they’re onscreen. cast disabled actors, including people whose disabilities are invisible! work with sensitivity groups and advocacy organizations that aren’t fronts for hate groups (no Autism $peaks) to ensure that the people who are being written about feel realistic! just because they’re only around for a little bit doesn’t mean they’re not memorable!

this is a very petty bitch but call out Walter and Michelle for acting like Cassie and the others have done something horrible. their “oh, honey, that’s wrong” commentary always felt infantilizing as hell coming from people who thought the Hork-Bajir were just very intelligent animals. if they’re gonna keep those views they need to interrogate them and grow from them, or else they need to be updated to have better perspectives

anyway those are my thoughts and I would LOVE further commentary. this is something I know we’re all going to have a lot to say about because that’s how we are, disabled people in fandom are incapable of shutting up about disability in fandom.

#animorphs #animorphs meta #auxiliary animorphs

74 notes · View notes