#it's great that a lot of people are quick to point out instances of racism and misogyny etc in books. we need that | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

jamr0ck83 · 4 years

Text

If Nobody is Racist, Then Who Exactly is Keeping Systemic Racism Going?

Everybody seems quick to insist that they’re not the ones who are racist. So, then who is? If it’s only the people you say, then why are we like this as a country?

Recently, someone with which I somewhat briefly attended grad school for education (And no, I don’t want to talk about what happened with that whole endeavor) posted the following image to their Facebook profile.

On its face, it seems like a completely reasonable and acceptable statement, and as such, it was generating some likes. At the time I first saw it, I think there were 6. But before I, too, submitted my approval of this image, I thought a little more about it, and its implications. And I realized that I didn’t really agree with it. I knew the person who posted it had no ill intentions, and I think they even found the image on the profile of another POC. But the more I reread the sign featured, the more I was sure that it was not a true statement. I knew that my stance was not going to garner nearly as many likes or other accolades as if I had posted a phrase like “Black Lives Matter”, which at this point, it seems like all reasonable people are able to agree that they do (or at least it’s the obvious appropriate thing to say in this moment). I knew I might receive some pushback or criticism, and while that did admittedly make me nervous, I knew that I needed to speak up in this way and in this moment. And I was willing to deal with whatever consequences came my way. I decided it was that important for me to make a case for a diverging opinion. So, I typed out the reply below and posted it.

I want to agree with this, but I'm not sure if I do. Please hear me out. It is entirely possible to be a Trump supporter and not be a person who has ever uttered a racial epithet or been otherwise explicitly or overtly racist. However, I do believe that there are degrees of racism, and if you're someone who has responded that "all lives matter" or "blue lives matter" when another person asserts that black lives matter, I would argue that you are on the spectrum of holding onto or entertaining some form of racist ideology. If you watched the video of George Floyd having his life choked out of him and then watched the footage of riots from that first night in Minneapolis and thought "It's a shame that guy died, but what they're doing now is uncalled for", this might indicate that you prioritize law and order (no matter how unjustly they are being enforced) over the life of a man whose only transgression was that he was black, and that, too, places you on that spectrum of racism. Racism isn't always waving a confederate flag and yelling at POCs to go back to where they came from. Sometimes, it's knowing that the politician you support will turn a blind eye to or even praise people who march around with tiki torches yelling, "Jews will not replace us" and wanting to vote for him anyway. Sometimes, it's hearing black people beg to have full access to the citizenship rights that are due them but deciding it's more important for you to vote for the guy who advocates for you to keep your semiautomatic rifle. If you are deciding that your wants (not needs) have priority over the humanity of POCs, then I would argue that you are on the spectrum of racism. And that demands some self-reflection. Complicity is part of what makes racism so destructive. What's the point of knowing better if you refuse to hold others accountable for doing better?

And then I waited. I waited for blowback. I waited for pushback. I waited for agreement. I waited for literally anything anybody might feel compelled to say. But the only feedback I received was a single “like” whereas the post itself had garnered six additional since the posting of my comment. So, people obviously disagreed with my stance but couldn’t bring themselves to make that known in any kind of direct fashion. And frankly, that concerns me. A great deal, in fact. And there are a couple of reasons why.

Firstly, and this is something of which I was starting to become more aware even months before the death of George Floyd and these subsequent protests, white people are very quick to assert that they, themselves, are not racist. They are also quick to assert that most people who look like them are not racist. According to them, hardly anybody is really, truly racist. But if that’s actually true, then why is this country such an absolute mess, and why have we been that way for centuries? It’s as if the term “racist” is being reserved for truly egregious and over-the-top cases. And everything else is just the way people are. White people seem to have a very specific and narrow idea of what racism looks and sounds like, and that allows them to never truly have to consider whether they, themselves, might be racist. Or if their family members are racist. Or if the politicians they actively support are racist. Under their definition of that word, it barely applies to anyone. And as a black woman who considers herself knowledgeable of both history and current affairs, I will confidently say that this is wrong.

I have had people who cloak themselves under the banner of liberalism say some things to me that would make me raise an eyebrow if I knew at all how to move that particular facial muscle. And no, it’s not the times when the racial epithets and slurs are used that I feel compelled to do this. It’s actually the times when I’ve made some sort of assertion about the impact of oppression on the lives of black people today, and I am met with sentiments such as “It’s not fair that we keep getting blamed for everything” or “You weren’t a slave, so the legacy of that institution doesn’t create any modern-day problems for you” or “Slavery ended over a hundred years ago, so why do you keep wanting to bring it up? Why can’t we all just move on? Life is hard enough”. (That last phrase is a direct quote from a white woman who replied to something I said on Instagram regarding the role that white women have historically played in the role of oppressing black bodies. She objected to my assertion that this is an issue that is rarely discussed, because dwelling on it would cause white women to feel discomfort, and that is in direct opposition to this silent societal code we all seem to follow that says that we must do whatever we can to prevent white women from feeling uncomfortable. Ironically, she was shutting my argument down, because it made her uncomfortable.) Also, I’ve been told that the ways in which I have experienced oppression throughout my life just aren’t true, that I must be mistaken and that I am making something be all about race when it’s not about race at all. And finally, I’ve been told the oldie but goodie “I don’t see color; I just see people”.

To the people that are brave enough to read this right now, I will submit to you that these statements and sentiments all reek of racism. Every single one of them. And every single person who uttered these phrases would have gone to the grave denying that they could be considered racist. And sorry, people who made these statements, but this assertion by you would be wholly incorrect. By so narrowly defining what racism is, we have given many people permission to absolve themselves from any responsibility for how it continues to thrive in American society. Nobody needs to look inward; nobody has to come to terms with any mindsets they might harbor that are truly problematic. And if nobody is willing to deal with anything or even acknowledge it, how are we going to change anything? If we can’t even recognize and talk about what racism is, how are we going to put an end to it? And the short answer is, we’re not.

My second concern is that, while it seemed like almost no one who saw my comment agreed with it, no one felt compelled to say anything, give any sort of reason for WHY they disagreed with it. Maybe it’s because I’m black that they felt like they should just let me get on my soapbox and say what I needed to say, and that would be their form of allyship (even though at the end of the day, them doing this was just a dismissal of everything I said so they could go on with their lives, which kind of flies in the face of being an ally). When these protests first started, I think many black people were reasonably skeptical about the degree to which we could rely on non-black allyship for the duration of however long we needed it. We wondered if the outrage and fervor exhibited was sustainable. And we wondered if white allies, specifically, were truly willing to endure discomfort if it would eventually lead to the advancement of our movement. And I hate to say it, but I feel like the instance of this post about racism and who it applies to gave me substantial reason to believe that they are not. The fact that there are people aligning themselves publicly to the BLM movement who are already seemingly unwilling to settle in their discomfort in order to be a more effective agent of change greatly concerns me. It indicates to me that for some people (not all, but some) a lot of what’s going on right now is an exercise for them in anti-racism theater. To put it simply and bluntly, they are not “in it to win it”, because “winning it” requires that they sacrifice more comfort than they are ready to do. And while that’s certainly not everybody who calls themselves an ally, I worry that it represents a substantial number of people who we are currently relying on as allies who really aren’t. And when they start drifting away from the protests and the posting of hashtags because this movement is no longer the fun, new thing we’re all doing, the people who remain are going to have to pick up the slack and work even harder to account for their absence.

To be clear, I’m not trying to knock anyone who wants to be an ally or make it seem like I want to nitpick at everyone and that there isn’t anything that any non-black ally can do that would truly please me. If that’s what you are thinking now as you read this, I would implore you to reconsider. Because that perspective is one that stems directly from the notion that we are trying to hurt people’s feelings. It stems from this idea that it is our responsibility to make our white allies feel good about what they are doing right now so that they will continue to feel encouraged, or else they will walk away. But this movement is not about pacifying white people’ feelings, whether they consider themselves to be allies or not. We are not here to make you comfortable. We are here to seek the justice that we are due. We are here to seek the rights of citizenship that we have been routinely denied. We are here to put an end to systemic racism. Catering to allies’ feelings is nowhere on that list. It’s not even a close fourth. We need people to put their own individual feelings aside (discomfort, guilt, or whatever else) and help do what needs to be done.

And I realize this might be a harsh reality check, I do, because I know that many black Americans have spent a significant portion of their lives doing whatever they could to make white people comfortable. During slavery, we performed their backbreaking hard labor so they wouldn’t have to but could still reap the financial benefits. In modern times, many of us deliberately hold back a lot of ourselves in white people’s presence, because it’s always been an expectation that successful black people who have properly assimilated in the larger American society need to make sure that nothing we do resembles anything that might make them remember that we are not the same color. For many black women, this means stifling their voices and hiding their frustrations, because nobody wants to deal with an angry black woman. For many black men, this might mean being keenly and constantly aware of their physical stature and proximity to other people, because they don’t want anyone to find them intimidating in any way. I think white people take these acts for granted because we’ve always done them, but they are not “just the way we are” or “just the way we like to be”. They are a series of survival skills that we have been forced to adhere to, because to refrain from doing so would allow others to perceive as people they’d rather not deal with, if possible. That means, we wouldn’t be the ones who get into the good school or get the good job or even get to keep our lives.

I have been deemed a quiet person my entire life, and while some of that is due to my genuine introverted nature, the majority is supplemented by the fact that, in most situations, if I am given the choice between being the quiet and unassuming black girl who nobody really has a problem with or the more vocal and passionate black woman that asserts herself but then has to deal with the consequences of nobody really wanting to be around her, I choose the former. And I started choosing it at a very young age; I was definitely still in elementary school. It starts that early. Because we know that early. We know that this country was not designed with us in mind unless it was to depend on our labor or our ability to entertain. We know that the system is literally rigged against us in such ways that, if we were to inform white people of all those facets of oppression, they would accuse us of being paranoid. Actually, that is precisely what happens when we try to tell people about our experiences of being black in America. There are a lot of people out there who are masterful at gaslighting and being utterly dismissive of our struggles. And that is a response that is literally for the sole purpose of driving the other person to the point of insanity. So, for the most part, we stopped telling you things, because you weren’t really listening, anyway. And we realized that, if we were going to make it in this country, then we really did have to work twice as hard, be twice as amiable in demeanor, and twice as resilient. Was that fair, for that to be put on us? Of course not. But we shouldered that burden. Because what was the alternative? So, we did it, and we’ve done it fairly quietly for a very long time.

But we’re tired. And we’re angry. Because no matter what we do, people keep killing us for little to no reason and then justify it to say that we must have done something to deserve it. “Well, you should’ve known that wearing a hoodie makes you look threatening.” “A toy gun could look a lot like a real gun, so that’s an honest mistake on the officer’s part.” “Oh, wait. You were minding your own business sitting in your apartment when somebody shot you? Well, were you really living beyond reproach and therefore entitled to keep your life? You sure you’ve never done anything wrong? Don’t you smoke weed sometimes?” These are the ways people have justified our deaths. And I would argue that all those statements and sentiments are couched in racism. All of them. None of it is okay, and it all needs to end. And we need everyone we can get to commit to joining us in this fight. But if you’re really going to sit there and maintain the party line that racists are really few in number and that you, the non-black ally, don’t need to consider the ways in which you might harbor some racist ideology, then you’re not ready to be an ally. And you can’t help us. And you won’t help us. Because as soon as things get a little less trendy or a little more uncomfortable, you will prioritize that over our humanity. And that, in itself, is pretty damn racist.

#blacklivesmatter #angryblackgirl #therandomthoughtsofmybrain #racism #allyship #ThisIsHowYouAlly #America #womanist #womanism #whitefragility #NoTimeToPlacateYourFeelings

47 notes · View notes

kidsofcolourhq · 3 years

Text

Aleisha (20): Growing up in Scotland: Where Racism is Often Overlooked

Growing up in a small town in Glasgow, I’ve experienced both outwardly obvious racism and more covert racism. I grew up in an overwhelmingly non diverse area, and looking ‘different’ had its difficulties. All forms of racism I’ve experienced are tied to the systemic racism that is prevalent in Scotland and is often overlooked due to the small minority ethnic population.

The first time I remember experiencing racism was at school, with kids mocking me and shouting racial slurs. I remember when I reported this issue to a teacher and she completely brushed it off. She did not try to explain to the kids that made the remarks why this was wrong and she completely invalidated my experience by telling me that kids can ‘just be like that sometimes’. At the time, I didn’t think much of it because my teacher, an authoritative figure, told me to brush it off. Looking back I see how wrong this was. This should never be allowed, I feel that many teachers across Scotland do not know how to properly deal with issues concerning racism. I believe that racial awareness training should be made mandatory for teaching staff and educators across the country.

Myself and my family have had a few racially motivated incidents of vandalism living in the house we currently live in. We have had our car windows smashed, and the n-word written outside of our home. We have had kids throw stones at our house, shouting racial slurs. As a family, we have reported these incidents to the police. When explaining how we feel these incidents were racially motivated, police would often be quick to justify how they were ‘nothing to do with race’ and would try to justify the incidents by telling us that the area we live in is just ‘a bit dodgy’. This type of gaslighting is very common where I live. People do not recognise, understand or acknowledge the experiences of people of colour, because they themselves can never experience racism. I think educating people may be difficult, but very worthwhile. If people were given the opportunity to properly listen to people of colour share their experiences, I believe they would change their mindset. I have also experienced racist microaggressions growing up in Scotland. Often, when people ask where I am from and I tell them Glasgow, they will proceed to ask where I am really from, as if it is not possible I’m Glaswegian because of my skintone. I’ve also dealt with a lot of other instances including people touching my hair unwillingly and people laughing at my African surname.

In my experience, a lot of people, particularly in Scotland are very defensive when you point out racism, and insist that Scotland isn’t a racist country. A lot of Scots don’t understand or know what systemic racism actually is, and I think that is a huge problem that I am working towards addressing. Scotland is often sold as a welcoming haven, where everyone is welcome, when this is not always the case. Many people in Scotland are unaware of the country’s long history with slavery and colonialism. This history is not taught in Scottish secondary schools, which I find ridiculous. If people were made aware of this history from a young age, taught how racism and unconscious bias still pervades Scottish institutions today, I believe it could encourage them to be actively anti-racist. We need to open the conversation about race and racism.

With the Black Lives Matter Movement taking hold in Scotland and being supported to a great extent, I feel more positive about the future. People of all ethnic backgrounds, including white and privileged people, are pushing for change together, it has been so encouraging to see such solidarity in this time. Among the movement, people have been made aware of several street names in Glasgow being named after slave owners and there has been talk of the names being changed to those of anti-racist activists and prominent protestors, celebrating their lives and history instead.

It is my hope that the movement can keep momentum, that Scotland will continue to recognise and reckon with its past and start to implement reparations in the near future.

#racism #anti racism #scotland #glasgow #young people #black lives matter

1 note · View note

chibivesicle · 5 years

Text

Is Asirpa’s character trying to be too many things for GK readers?

As I have been reading GK and having a great dialogue with many other people about the series, I have had a few ideas stewing in the back of my mind. When I first started watching the anime, Asirpa was really my fav character b/c she was interesting and seemed to go against a lot of bad tropes that could be applied to her. I like strong and independent female characters, so I was glad to read about her. I started reading the manga and I really liked her character and began to have mixed feelings about how the anime had decided to depict her. I have already written about how I was disappointed in the second season of the anime here: https://chibivesicle.tumblr.com/post/181363749182/do-you-like-golden-kamuy-anime

I’ve been putting a lot of thought into how I’ve wanted to construct this argument. I’ve decided to tackle this by examining different aspects of Asirpa.

1.) Asirpa as a representative of the Hokkaido Ainu

When Asirpa is first introduced as a character in the manga, we have Sugimoto looking up at her as he thinks “An Ainu!” when they fight the bear that had not gone into hibernation and was a fallen kaumy.

She then takes him to her kotan and introduces him to her Huci, uncle Makanakkuru and her cousin Osoma. At the beginning of the manga, Asirpa is the readers guide to all things Ainu. She explains things like how her father made her menomakkiri for her. The concept of these personalized knives will come back in regards to Kironranke’s makkiri as “evidence”.

I obviously can’t speak for all other readers of the series but I perceive Asirpa’s character to be the guide to all things Ainu at the beginning of the manga. This likely was due to the fact that her character is Ainu and before the series was stable enough to not worry about being cut. Keep in mind that reader reviews and polls do make or break a manga series. I don’t think Noda was going for tons of other characters (Japanese or Ainu) at beginning to not overwhelm people.

She explains natural and weather events as well as hunting skills to Sugimoto (who really would have died many times over). For example the sudden temperature change with a drop of 30 degrees C here:

Explaining tureunpe for Sugimoto here with her Huci.

I really don’t want to dwell on this first point a whole lot. I think it is pretty clear that Asirpa is the reader’s introduction to the Hokkaido Ainu and she explains things to Sugimoto (and in turn to the reader).

What Asirpa’s character does not do, is explain racism or forced cultural assimilation. The random man from the whore house tries to threaten her by selling her into prostitution here, pointing out that she doesn’t have a tattoo yet (which were already banned by the Meiji government). Thankfully, since she is a strong female character she is able to defend herself and even gets extra comments from the girls stating that she showed the man who is the boss at that moment.

When Sugimoto and Asirpa catch Shiraishi with their modified squirrel traps, Shiraishi refuses to talk as Sugimoto questions him. This then leads Shiraishi to make the common racist remark that Asripa is a ��pet” of Sugimoto’s likely in reference to the comment by Japanese that the Ainu were dogs (Ainu sounding similar to Inu (dog)).

Sugimoto is quick to attack Shiraishi’s racist remark as he physically threatens to break Shiraishi’s jaw but Asirpa simply states the following:

But other than these two early instances in the manga - most of the depictions of the Ainu are in the context that they are just doing Ainu things in the background. They live in their kotans and they are still hunting and fishing as they always have. This is clearly misleading since many of their practices were already being attacked by the government including the arrow traps but likely depending on locations this was difficult to enforce. Various info boxes in the manga report historical records of certain cultural practices still happening much past the time period when the government had already banned them.

To make a manga that would appeal to a wide audience one would have to walk a fine line of being historically accurate in regards to the terrible suffering faced by Asirpa and her community at that time and not making that the major aspect of the manga. The story is supposed to be about their quest for the gold not generations of cultural genocide. I don’t want to just ignore the historical injustices but at the same time the author is writing a story for a major reader base who likely don’t their own history in this area so . . . . yeah. I can’t tell how much of this is a result of the cultural context that the manga exists in where Japanese would not be a blunt about this topic even if many of us readers would want it to be much more upfront about these issues.

2.) Asirpa as a Leader

Throughout the manga, there are characters who have different skills and roles as leaders. In previous posts, I have used the terms large L, Leader vs small l leader. This has been my person way to distinguish between characters who have the ability to lead small groups of people vs those who have grand ideas or the gift to really inspire and lead many people for a cause that is far greater than they are.

The big L leaders that are adults in the series to date are:

Wilk/Noppera-bo/Asirpa’s father - he was a Russian Partisan, the child of a Polish political prisoner and a Sakhalin/Karafuto Ainu. His goal was to create a confederation of the different cultural groups in the Northern Far East to fight colonialism and imperialism.

Tsurumi/Hasegawa - former Japanese spy operating in Russia, turned military commander. de facto commander of the 27th. He wants to make Hokkaido an independent military state, that he is the dictator of as well as to manufacturer arms and medical supplies for WWI. He is a very charismatic leader and acts as a second father to many of the “lost” members of the 27th.

Hijikata - the not actually dead, former Vice commander of the Shinsengumi. Looking for a battle to truly fight and die in? Does he also want to establish another longer lasting Republic of Ezo? Will he take the concerns of all of the people on the island into consideration or was his relationship a marriage of convenience between him and Wilk in prison. Yet he can inspire men to follow him to death with little effort and is clearly charismatic as a leader.

Sofia - Wilk and Kiroranke’s partisan leader. Mastermind of the the assassination of the Tsar in 1881. Respected leader of Russian revolutionaries. Likely still looking to overturn the Tsarist government. Perhaps, she will shift her focus to Hokkaido now . . . .

The small l leaders that are adults in the series to date are:

Ogata - tactically astute and observant sniper formerly of the 27th and traitor to Tsurumi. Works well in tricky combat situations; e.g. Nikaido as his spotter, sniping and directing yakuza in Barato, defending against the 27th in Yubari, aiding Sugimoto against Koito, saving everyone on the mountain pass, rescuing Tanigaki in the swamp, shot out at the onsen etc. Sadly, no one takes him seriously even though he as been a good team member.

Tsukishima - the “mom” of the 27th. Tsurumi’s right hand man from Niigata, does some of his dirtiest deeds, and current leader of the small expedition team to Sakhalin/Karafuto. Tsukishima is intelligent and hardworking and knows some of his men well, for example Koito, so he was able to find underhanded ways to motivate him (those bromides of Tsurumi) but at times really struggled how to command and as a result control both Sugimoto and Tanigaki on Sakhalin.

Yulbars/Kiroranke - the only Ainu male character who was referred to as Kiroranke Nispa by Asirpa. He planned the stealing away of Asirpa at Abashiri with his cat partner in crime, Ogata. He leads the journey to Karafuto/Sakhalin with Asirpa, Shiraishi and Ogata so that Asirpa can remember the key to the gold as he educates her about her father’s past and also introduces her to Sofia. His background and skill in explosives as well as having the goal to free Sofia shows some leadership skills but made both Shiraishi and Ogata uncomfortable and ultimately neither of them trusted him but Shiraishi still cared about him as a friend.

Between these two groups of leaders, Asirpa clearly falls into the first, the big L Leader group. She throughout the story thus far has mediated and shaped the various teams and groups that she has been a part of. She respects most of the characters (she does care about Shiraishi but I worry about her copying Sugimoto’s bullying of him). With all of the Japanese male characters, she does not refer to them as Sugimoto-san or Shiraishi-san etc, she just calls them by their last names which says a lot about her personality. Only Kiroranke was spoken to with respect keeping the Nispa title, which is in part likely to the fact that Kiro was Wilk’s best friend and almost an uncle to her.

Asirpa was able to get anti-social characters like Ogata to participate in her “team building” activities and she always praised him when he assisted in hunting related things. Even if most of the other characters either stayed away from Ogata or fought with him (Sugimoto) she always treated him fairly.

I think her best example of persuasive leadership to date was with her ordering Ogata to protect Tanigaki in the swamp. Now other people will argue that Ogata didn’t do this b/c Asirpa told him to and instead will read it as an Ogata-Sugimoto conversation. But I will always see this as an order coming from Asirpa. Why? Asirpa is the one who orders Ogata to protect Tanigaki.

Ogata is in a very powerful position, he’s atop the grain silo, he’s in a very relaxed position with his body language, and he’s got his rifle at ready. Everything about this shows that Ogata is the one in the safe position. Yet, Asirpa is the one who says this. Sugimoto wouldn’t think to ask Ogata to protect Tanigaki, later even when they are looking for Anehata in the swamp, Sugimoto tells Asirpa never to order someone like Ogata to save him in a similar situation since he doesn’t trust he would nor does he think he would do it. Ogata retorts back that he needs a reason to protect him and he correctly states that Tanigaki is following them on Tsurumi’s orders.

Sugimoto fills in part of the background that Tanigaki did not kill Tamai and co as Ogata has concluded and that they were killed by a bear (set into motion by Sugimoto’s actions). I find Sugimoto’s lines to Ogata to be self-projection. At this point, Ogata has not willingly ate brains so Sugimoto thinking of an Asirpa punishment that he would not want to have but Ogata is likely not swayed by this. He later does eat reindeer brains and nods that they indeed taste like Yuk with Asirpa on Karafuto/Sakhalin.

Instead, there is a panel of a very firm looking Asirpa, she’s got a sweat drop but the entire time you can see that she’s kept eye contact with him. She also explained that Tanigaki just wanted to go back to the Matagi and was healed by his time with her Huci. Ogata does a major cat stare down at Asirpa, but he does state that his options are limited. Asirpa only breaks eye contact with Ogata after she follows his gaze to the group of Ainu men who are certain Tanigaki is the culprit, and she realizes that they need to hurry to save them.

Yet, despite his stand off with her, he ultimately saves Tanigaki just as she had requested and did not harm anyone in the process and even sacrificed his cloak and his rifle case with his decoy. That is saying a lot for a man who hides himself in the cloak and was likely already thinking about where he will get another case to cover the rifle. . .

The key point is that Asirpa was able to convince Ogata to do something and she didn’t need to manipulate him or bait him with something. He followed her orders. Flashbacks seem to indicate that Tsurumi was in part likely ordering Ogata to perform certain actions but with a reward attached, Asirpa’s lack of manipulation was likely a factor that convinced him to follow her request.

3.) Asirpa as an innocent

The cast of GK is full of grown men who are broken to varying degrees and dealing with the impact of PTSD in the first major event of what we would now call modern warfare. Sugimoto survived by fighting with a level of brutality that made him seem like a demon. Tanigaki ran away from home in a quest for revenge and as a tondouhei in the 7th fought in the war. Ogata is a man who was damaged from his very birth and somehow ended up in the 7th (we still need to know his reason for enlisting or if he was drafted). Kiroranke passed himself off as an Ainu volunteer but once his Partisan past is revealed, it shows he’s been though countless traumatic events. Tsukishima had a similar background to Ogata with a broken home and was on death row after the Sino-Japanese war. Hijikata is a ghost of the former shougante and missed his chance to die at Hakodate. All of these men have killed others and none are dealing with ways to heal, instead they’ve all thrown themselves in the hunt for the gold since many of them are good at killing. Recent events revealed that Kiro truly was attempting to acquire the gold for the future of the native peoples. However, Sugimoto is doing this for the money (and the woman he loves), Tanigaki is doing it to run away from facing his problems and revenge, Tsukishima is doing this b/c he feels likely trapped by Tsurumi, and Ogata, well, his still unclear motives changed on the the ice but a part of him likely figured he’d be good at this b/c he thinks he’d be good at it since Ogata thinks he is broken.

The entire time, Asirpa has been traveling around Hokkaido with these men who have killed and will kill again while she has kept her vow to not kill anyone in the process. Again, I’ve already pointed out that Asirpa has occasionally drawn her bow at other humans in the story making her walk a fine line. This finally comes to ahead when she accidentally shoots Ogata in the right eye. She is “saved” by Sugimoto’s quick thinking even though his scream is the event that startles her and causes her to shoot him in the first place. . . .

Sugimoto wants to keep Asirpa’s innocence in the whole situation but the longer this quest goes, the more and more chances she will have to either violate her “no kill” policy. The entire concept is hypocritical and likely we as readers are supposed to wonder how she maintains her own personal values in such a dangerous game.

There are other innocent characters in the series; Shiraishi, Inkarmat, Cikapasi, Enonoka and Ryu I guess. I mean Ryu is a dog so it is hard for him to do evil human deeds. Shiraishi, while not a morally upstanding member of society, is one of more innocent adults, he has not harmed another person and he has become loyal and dependable. Inkarmat also has not killed anyone (as far as we know) and instead thought she was acting with the best intentions for Asirpa and Wilk; but she is a trickster so her methods are similar to Shiraishi. Cikapasi is younger than Asirpa and is being forced to take care of himself and others. His encounter with Enonoka has been positive for him, he’s seen a more mature peer and she’s gently getting him to become more responsible for his own fate. I think the character growth for all of the above is that they have much easier tasks to achieve; learn to help and care for others, let go of the past and how to become more responsible.

What is different between these innocent characters and Asirpa is that no one is as driven to uphold their moral code as she is. Asirpa wants to understand who her father was, why he entrusted the gold to her, and what she will do with the “power” derived from it. Asirpa doesn’t just have to uphold her personal values, she has to do it in the context of a quest where her father designed it so that you would have to murder and skin a man to get the answer you are looking for.

Asirpa’s innocence also puts her relationships with other characters in an unequal balance. Ogata wanted to release her from the stress of being the key to the gold, Sugimoto is lying to her to protect her from the very same thing. These characters are seeing the need to protect her innocence as a reason to not be honest and straightforward with her.

4.) Asirpa as mixed race

So Asirpa is first introduced as a Hokkaido Ainu character. But very quickly it is revealed that her parents are both dead and that she has a unique appearance, where she has blue eyes - like her father. When Sugimoto first meets Hijikata, he makes a comment about how she must have some Russian blood in her background. Slowly it unfolds that Hijakata knew that Noppera-bou was not a Hokkaido Ainu, revealing to Nagakura, Ushiyama, Ienaga and Ogata that he is a Partisan fighting against the Russian government and that he likely has other comrades that are hiding among the Hokkaido Ainu [Kiroranke].

Her eye color is frequently referred to - when she first meets Inkarmat, she mentions that her eyes are just like her father’s.

All of this is linking Asirpa to her father and how her eyes are a direct physical trait to him and how she is to inherit his legacy. In chapter 73, Asirpa has her dream about her time with her father and he speaks of how she is mixed race and that this is beautiful and important. Interestingly, he refers to his blood as being different (as a Polish-Karafuto Ainu) with that of her mother a Hokkaido Ainu. The mixing of these different people resulted in her and that she will be a new woman for the future and she will lead the Ainu b/c of the strength that she has from this combination.

This is the first half of the flashback that she will finally remember as they are attempting to reach Russia with Kiroranke, Sofia, Shiraishi and Ogata. What is most important though is that Wilk is a person who saw strength through diversity and that this would be the best way to save their people from the imperial and colonial powers and the death of their cultures and absorption into these empires as minorities lacking the rights of the ruling majority.

Wilk’s link to Russia is very subtly mentioned here as Sugimoto, Shiraishi and Ogata are crossing over the Daisetsuzan mountain range. Asirpa sets up a small rodent trap and explains that it is used by a small indigenous group in Russia uses to catch squirrels.

Asirpa is a Hokkaido Ainu, there is no way she would have learned about a trapping method used by a native group in Russia from her community. Only one person would have taught her that and from the very beginning of the manga we’ve known that she was taught by her father. I wonder if this is a reference to Kiro being a Tatar who grew up on the Amur river or another group as well. . . .

All of these events are subtle clues to Wilk’s backstory and what he was hoping to achieve for the native peoples of the region.

Besides Wilk being a mixed race character, Kiroranke is another main character who is mixed race as well. When he is trying to convince Inkarmat that they are on the same “side” he states that his son are Hokkaido Ainu and therefore their causes are the same. Only much later does he explain his background as a Tatar on the Amur River with Karafuto Ainu heritage as well.

As Kiro reveals more about Wilk’s past for Asirpa, the revolutionary trio of Wilk, Kiro and Sofia emerges, a team that drew from the strength of each of their commitment to the cause as well as making a very effective team. Their team shows that women can be excellent leaders, that the unique background of each one of their lives brings out the best possible result and that they are a prime of example of diversity = strength.

Therefore, it couldn’t be any more obvious that Asirpa falls into this group where she will be a successful person and leader b/c she has the background to do so. If she just lived a simple life in her kotan, never learned to hunt, was not educated by her father she would not be a character with the ability to change things far beyond herself.

5.) Asirpa as an “idol”

As the story unfolds, the two main male characters, Sugimoto and Ogata independently figure out what her father’s plan for her future is; that she was being trained to be a populist revolutionary with a skill set to fight imperial powers through guerrilla warfare in the “frontier”.

This first comes out in chapters 136 & 137 when Sugimoto finds Wilk at Abarashi and confirms his identity by showing him her menomakkiri. Sugimoto then asks him why he set her up to be a major player for the gold.

Sugimoto wanted to avoid having the two meet since he doesn’t want Asirpa to come to terms with the fact that Wilk tattooed all of those prisoners and hid the gold and he killed his fellow Ainu comrades.

Wilk trained Asirpa from the start to become a partisan, or a Hokkaido version of a partisan at least based on the info that is revealed at this point. Wilk working with HIjikata, leads Sugimoto conclude that Wilk wants to use Asirpa the face and the leader of an Ainu independence movement and aid in the creation of an independent Hokkaido. He accuses him of setting her up to be an Ainu Joan of Arc.

Sugimoto is clearly upset with this as he sees Asirpa as a little sister and he has made it clear through his actions that at times, he feels that as an adult he gets to make decisions that are good for her even if it means withholding information or protecting her.

After Ogata shot and killed Wilk and injured Sugimoto as well, he continues to journey north under Kiro’s leadership for Asirpa to remember the key to the gold based on Wilk’s past and also the goal to break Sofia out of prison. Ogata has been observing Asirpa for a long time by this point, he immediately figured out who Asirpa was in Yubari, one of the few times he’s hand an internal dialogue.

As they travel north, Ogata has his fever dream flashback involving Yuusaku and the hypocrisy at the heart of Yuusaku’s philosophy instilled in him from their father. Asirpa and Ogata are both linked to their father’s visually by inheriting their eyes and the fact that both of their fathers had high expectations for their children. The irony is that Asirpa is supposed to become a leader like her father and up until this point she has been successful in being a leader and having the skills to lead in the future. In contrast, Ogata is the abandoned son, who likely has the skill set to be a military leader that his father so desperately wanted which was clearly lacking in Yuusaku. This leads to the awkward conversation in chapter 187 that he has with her as he loses it after she rejects him. . . What is most important about this is that unlike Sugimoto, Ogata bluntly calls out Asirpa. She has sworn that she will not kill anyone in the fight for the gold. But as their group learns more and more about Wilk’s unwavering dedication to the creation of a confederation of indigenous peoples of the far North East, it becomes clear even to Asirpa that she was trained in more than just hunting animals as any Ainu would.

Where Ogata likely gets his mental wires crossed is when he thinks that Wilk told Asirpa that she should not kill other humans. Thus, he sees Asirpa as just like Yuusaku, keeping his hands clean b/c Hanazawa told him that he alone must remain pure and not kill.

To date in the story there has been no scene or flashback where Wilk has told Asirpa that she must not kill others. As far as we know, Asirpa’s no killing policy is both an Ainu policy but also her own personal moral code. Until other evidence is revealed in the manga, I’m going with that. When she and Sugimoto first met, she made it very clear that she won’t kill in the quest for the gold and that she saved Ogata from Sugimoto b/c he promised her that he wouldn’t kill him in that instance.

Both Sugimoto and Ogata think that her father was setting her up to be an idol/martyr for the Ainu cause, but both are projecting their own problems onto her in this idol position. It is true that Wilk raised Asirpa to be a leader with an obvious partisan/revolutionary slant but he also instilled in her sense of the importance of her cultural identity and heritage and how they should preserve it against greater powers.

6.) Asirpa as a female character with agency

The cast of gk is dominated by male characters and definitely fails the Bechdel test, as Asirpa’s motivations are about her father (a man) and she is working with a man who she has a kid crush on, Sugimoto, and is interacting with very few women such as her Huci, her cousin Osoma and Inkarmat. Inkarmat only becomes involved with her b/c of a man, Wilk, so until the moment on the roof of the prison that Inkarmat realizes it is about Asirpa and not about Wilk.

The good thing is that Asirpa is a female character with agency and there are other female characters also with agency in the cast. She sees herself as a partner with Sugimoto and they have been reunited and have re-established their partnership. When Sugimoto abandoned her in Otaru, she rescued him and then punished him with the sutu.

I’ve stated in other meta that their partnership is still unequal and Sugimoto is “protecting” her by not telling her the full details but he at least isn’t treating her like a complete inferior in the partnership. But Asirpa entered this partnership viewing it as an equal so we know that her own approach to it has to do with her own involvement.

Asirpa has been able to order various adult men to do as she has asked, she gets them to pitch in to the cooking duties, saying citatap, and contributing to the team which is another remarkable skill.

This overlaps with another concept where Asirpa acts as a mother to all of these lost boys. She is always looking out for everyone and she has all of them obeying her like little chicks lined up for citatap feeding time here in chapter 119.

She has lost her family, so it is clear that one of her roles is to try to reform a family, just her family consists of a bunch of emotionally damaged Japanese war vets, a petty criminal and Inkarmat and Cikapasi to an extent. This is not exactly the best family to have but is what is happening with the people she encounters. One could write a lot more about Asirpa as a mothering character but I don’t want to dwell on that concept here.

Asirpa is not a character with agency in a vacuum, instead her decisions are being influenced by the adults around her. She was whisked away to Karafuto/Sakhalin by Kiro and Ogata to contribute to the Partisan cause but this really gave her distance from Sugimoto to realize that he was also influencing her decisions more than she was aware of which is good. The sad part is that Kiro died and she almost killed Ogata to get this perspective. In some ways this is very realistic, everyone influences each other through relationships and encounters. A good way to approach her agency is that she is almost like a child ruler. She inherited the secret to the gold and now adults are trying their best to use her for their own self interest. This in part has forced her to face issues the average kid wouldn’t have encountered at her age but this is part of the role her character is playing in the manga. I also try to remind myself that the concept of kids being immature and not little adults is a very new concept for most socieities so even though we as readers know that she is being asked to make decisions on things she shouldn’t, at the time it is less unusual. Yes, research has shown that kids and teens are different physiologically compared to adults with a lot of that in their brain development. But that was not known at the turn of the century so treating her more closely to an adult isn’t unusual or odd. Keep in mind Kiro became involved with the Partisans only a few years older than she is. . . .

Thankfully she isn’t the only female character with agency. Inkarmat wields a high amount of agency in the series, she is a drifter and uses that to her advantage. Unfortunately, she is motivated by her memories of her time with Wilk as a child and has spent too much of her adult life chasing after him or perhaps the memory of him . . . she wears his mother’s clothing and keeps using her divination to try to give her an answer about Wilk’s fate than what the facts have told her. But she does her best as a woman in a society where she lacks a lot of power to try to influence the hunt for the gold. It really is a shame that she and Kiro were unable to find something to unite them, but Tsurumi worked hard to make sure she would doubt him as much as possible.

Enonoka is another female character with agency. She is a business savy Karafuto Ainu girl who is also very good at ordering others to do things for her. She uses her knowledge of Japanese to help with this and I like that she is a strong character as well. I love the scene where she makes the deal with Koito for the use of the dogsleds and shakes his hand.

Sofia is another female character who is the leader of the Russian Partisans. I was hoping for more from her character with her introduction and brief time with Kiro, Ogata, Shiraishi and Asirpa. But she will be back, Asirpa said she would fine her when she needs to and I think that will be the case.

Last but not least, Umeko, Sugimoto’s love also is a character with agency. She chose Toraji and when Sugimoto returned, she supported Toraji and pretty much showed that she would support him not matter what happened even if Sugimoto beat his ass.

Out of all of these women, Asirpa is the woman with the most possible power and agency. This leads into my last point.

7.) Asirpa as the future.

Asirpa is supposed to represent the future of the Ainu. This is embodied in the name that Wilk gave her. She would be a new and innovative leader for her people. She was trained in the ways of hunting like a boy would have been but is a girl. Based on the previous 6 points, they all combine to make Asirpa a character who is set to inherit the “future” and the power that comes with it. She hasn’t been as damaged as the adult characters but she will be altered due to this entire experience. She is the one who ultimately is the key to finding the gold and the decision to find it will likely come down to her.

Will she fulfill her father’s goals for her? Likely not, as she learned from the journey but will continue to question if the gold is something that should be found.

So I just described many of the roles that Asirpa is playing in the manga. What does this all mean and how do I as a reader feel about this?

I think that Asirpa’s character is doing too much in the manga in the context of the story.

I don’t think it was done intentionally, but as the story developed she got more roles and events tied to her. I personally think this is a disservice to readers b/c she’s too multifaceted and I fear many readers will simplify her role as to not find all of these angles to be too confusing.

The anime took this approach - Asirpa became an Ainu girl who is super cute and is tied to a man who is a former Russian revolutionary who wanted her to have the secret to the gold to lead the Ainu.

This is something that I really have been thinking about seriously since it is hard to get a grasp of how her character is being understood in the context of this being a Japanese manga. Do Japanese readers look at Asirpa the same way that I’ve listed above? Do they see beyond the fact that she is cute? I was talking with a friend of a friend in Japan who is Japanese and he simply saw Asirpa as a cute spunky female character. Did he see her as a girl torn between her culture and the forced assimilation of her people and lost of her culture and racial discrimination? Likely not.

In dialogue with American Ainu, I have also learned that Asirpa is being used as a cute mascot for cultural tourism where her family is from in Hokkaido. It seems like a misuse of a character who is playing all of these complex roles in the manga to be reduced to a friendly cute native welcoming you to be a cultural voyeur as you eat Ainu cuisine and say “Hinna hinna.” You can visit her culture but she can’t actually practice her culture. This seems to be a quite the difference from what her character is doing within the manga.

I wonder if she makes a good icon b/c she is a cute, nonthreatening native welcoming you to enjoy her culture but not fighting back for her rights? I keep dwelling on the idea that a lot of readers in the English language fandom did not like Kiroranke’s character. Is this b/c he is a threatening man who was fighting back against the government and imperialism? What if Asirpa were actually a male character? Would a male Asirpa being fulfilling all of these roles in the manga that she is? Likely not. One part of me likes the fact that Asirpa is mixed race, this is a good thing to bring up to Japanese readers who still struggle with their own approach to mixed race people and still stick to the idea that they are a homogeneous people and nation forgetting that they have a poor history with native peoples that have been oppressively ruled by them for centuries. The other part of me would have preferred she be a normal Hokkaido Ainu and instead be linked to Wilk being a Partisan Ainu native who worked with Sofia and Kiro as a non-mixed race Karafuto Ainu. By having Asirpa, Wilk and Kiro as mixed race it still leaves non-mixed race Ainu out of the story as having less power and agency.

#golden kamuy #gk meta #asirpa #asirpa as an ainu #ainu #sugimoto saichi #wilk #kiroranke #sofia #tsurumi tokushirou #ogata hyakunosuke #inkarmat #fighting imperialism #lone female leader #girl among men

48 notes · View notes

brightlilies-a · 5 years

Text

headcanons i’ve written before but get to repost/rewrite 1/??: 1.0 gridanian politics and your local keeper boy’s childhood.

this deals a lot with racism and xenophobia, because both are very prevalent in 1.0 gridania. if that bothers you, please don’t read this! it’s not something i slap into my interactions, but it is something i find necessary to address with regarding albi’s character because it is in his upbringing.

i’m gonna start with a mini-history lesson that really is a massive watering down of the actual subject. there’s entire chunks of the history missing, 1.0 didn’t do the greatest job of explaining it as it was & 2.0 only barely scratches at it since the game started moving away from conflicts between the playable races.

specifically before the calamity happened, keepers of the moon were essentially persona non grata to the gridanians. some lived within the city for some number of various reasons, including finances, inability to hunt, lack of a tribe, need of medicines, etc., but many chose to live within the twelveswood proper according to their cultural lifestyle. those of whom lived in gridania proper, though, alongside the duskwight elezen, were often subject to a considerable amount of racist commentary and beliefs that did not extend to their seeker or wildwood counterparts.

of course, their conflict with keepers really stems from hunting laws. under the elementals’ watch, hunting was only allowed within select regions of the twelveswood, and this was formally recognized through laws that restricted hunts to those lands. hunting outside of these selected regions was considered poaching, and seen as an act that would upset the elementals’ will. which seems reasonable when you’re a group of hyurs and elezen that actually deal with the elementals on a regular basis and have similar views of society, but the keepers migrated in much later by following the hunt, and their lifestyle is wildly different. as a result, gridanians tried to force their laws and way of life on the keepers, the keepers refused because it infringed on their freedoms and culture. therefore, gridanians and keepers do not, for the most part, get along.

some tribes, like albi’s, would acquiesce and accept the gridanian hunting laws in a show of good will and in the interest of maintaining harmony/avoiding conflict, but for the most part, gridanians would see keepers in general as poachers and threats to the elementals’ will. it didn’t help, either, that a keeper-based gang known as the coeurlclaws rose on the back of the gridanians’ mistreatment of the keepers who lived in the city proper/keepers who had nowhere else to go, and began attacking twin adder/wood wailer sentries and poaching with the intent of making quick coin that was more often than not used to help their own families.

among the many, many ways the gridanians made their dislike of keepers very evident, though, is in referring to them as savages, and otherwise treating them like they’re uneducated or disloyal to gridania itself. best example really comes from the archer quests with silvairre and leih’s interactions, such as

and albi had to deal with that a lot once he moved into hyrstmill after the calamity. hyrstmill is a hamlet mostly populated by wood wailers and their families. after all, as it is a supply outpost for the god’s quiver. which means a forestborn, tribal keeper moving into their home was generally not seen as a good thing, and due to the distance from the main city, the calls from the seedseer made to accept the keepers who had been displaced by the destruction done to the twelveswood were more often than not simply ignored since few were of the interest of calling the behavior out.

he never quite got used to the insults slung at him, much less to the number of times that, if he found himself cornered by the other children in the hamlet, the very real fear that he might actually die would settle in if he couldn’t find other ways to immediately escape. far be it from him to tell an adult such was occurring, though, since they’d likely not believe him or insinuate worse of him for saying their children were capable of it——not to mention their ability to live in hyrstmill as it was relied on them not being problematic, so very often, for his mother and sister’s sakes, he’d take the blows in silence.

as such, he takes considerable, real offense to being called a savage. (consider it a slur for him and his people, basically, because it is used a lot like one.)

which is, coincidentally, the empire’s favorite word to call the eorzeans in general. so most dealings with the less open-minded of their rank involve a lot of albi biting his tongue. however, the treatment he endured also fits into why albi doesn’t consider himself gridanian, and how he, if asked, will say he’s a forestborn from the black shroud.

--- bonus, because this headcanon is on a related subject so i can smash it in easily even if its a weird transition.

however, for much of his childhood (well, up until the age of 14), these are things he had the blessing to never really come into contact with. his tribe, prior to the calamity, was from the peacegarden, which is a region of forest located in the north shroud near the hamlet of hyrstmill as of 2.0, but in 1.0, it existed in a slightly different area (pictured below). currently, it’s not accessible as the land changed considerably after the calamity, burying certain regions while exposing others (cough,palaceofthedead,cough).

still near hyrstmill, but a sizable distance compared to the stone’s throw it becomes after the calamity happens. which means albi lived outside of society’s reach, actually within the twelveswood and a part of a small tribe of fellow keepers. and being that far out came with its own benefits—many of which were that he rarely encountered other people and therefore didn’t have to deal with the prejudice outside of the twin adder units and wood wailers dispatched to survey the area—but also with its own problems. as of 1.0, the peacegarden was located in an area riddled with strong monsters, but it also featured one other problem: its proximity to the ixali beast tribe. in fact, the ixali were close enough that there was an unused dungeon designed and intended to be placed within the peacegarden littered with their banners. in later patches, these ixali would even be poised to invade hyrstmill from time to time (much like one of the existing FATEs today, but on a far larger scale), and so the threat they posed to a small keeper tribe was great, indeed.

so, to recap, albi grew up in a small, isolated tribe that consisted of three families: his own (the mahzu), his cousins’ (the fhorga), and another family (the rutkhu). and important to keep in mind is keepers are traditionally raised without fathers present, so the only males in the tribe (who would be exiled upon their reaching adulthood) were actually albi’to, his older brother albi’a, and the rutkhu son, kahli’a, which means the keeper philosophy regarding males was instilled into him pretty early on.

in other words, to dream of anything grand as an adult was literally only going to be just that: a dream. but as long as he remained young enough to still be considered a child, he could make himself useful to the tribe and learn the skills he’d need for later on when he was forced to wander by his lonesome. the idea of expecting gratitude or respect was squashed altogether – and he heard it plenty growing up as the youngest of the tribe, often in the form that he didn’t know anything because he was a boy or because he was a child.

despite this, he never really had a strained family life. he was attached at the hip with his brother, but his relationships with his sister and his mother were rather close as well. he was friendly and on good terms with his twin cousins, sehye and tohsah, as well as the tribe chieftain’s youngest daughter, ahte. the chieftain, kahli, and her eldest daughter, pahje, were less friendly, but in the end, it was only on matters that required counsel that he was shunned out, to which albi never really took to heart.

returning to the point i made earlier, the threat of ixali attacks was relatively high, but being from a tribe meant that inquiring assistance from the wood wailers or the twin adder simply wasn’t feasible. they had to manage to be self-sufficient, even in the matters of their own defenses, which led to a focus on matters of stealth and, among other things, a proficiency for climbing trees to get out of the flightless ones’ reach. it didn’t keep them wholly away from conflict with the birdmen, as one such instance would claim the lives of both albi’s father and his aunt when he was only two moons, but ultimately, their ability to hide, as well as living a somewhat nomadic lifestyle managed to keep the number of casualties to a bare minimum.

remaining on the topic of those not in his tribe, when it came to the hyurs and elezens that ventured far enough into the wood to find the keepers, there weren’t many. occasionally, their tribe would venture out with the specific interest of trading with merchants to get materials they otherwise couldn’t, but talking was done by those older than he was. his job was always to carry things back, to not speak, to not prolong their time among strangers. the cost of this, though, is that he never got enough practice to learn how to speak well among people outside the tribe, hence his use of contractions and lack of enunciation… only strengthening some individuals’ opinion that he was just another savage wildling of the wood.

but he did occasionally, out of curiosity, wander near hyrstmill with his brother to observe things — try to understand the people that were so quick to talk down to him. hyrstmill at the time was busy and full of adventurers. it still lacked a proper aetheryte, yet people would still appear, oftentimes offering to help the hamlet against the threat of the ixal, which was… a strange concept to the miqo’te. gridanians accepting help from outsiders? it seemed unlikely, yet it was happening.

for every adventurer that would make it to hyrstmill, however, was another that would find themselves utterly lost within the labyrinthine structure of the shroud. and those who find themselves lost tend to find themselves marked with woodsin and a target for the elementals, which only makes things harder for the denizens of the wood as the beasts get enraged and lash out. so, very often, and without telling anybody, and without talking to these stranded peoples, he’d take a page from his brother’s book and go out of his way to guide them back to the gates of civilization —— back to where they could be cared for without endangering themselves or others.

so, y’know, he’s a strange boy. he wholly understands they don’t like him, but he feels compelled to help since they’re, well, helpless.

#🏶: bloom in the dark. ( headcanon. )#[ oof im sorry mobile users this readmore is long #i forget how long ago this was originally posted on the first blog. its gotta be closer to 10 months at this point #but yeah. it's a rough subject matter i know and if im at all being insensitive like.......... educate me on how to do better !!#bc id love to talk about this better but theres no guides on how to talk about fictional oppression very well so i gotta wing it ]

1 note · View note

theav0cadobaby · 5 years

Text

Podcast Recs cause I'm listening to too many of them. I listened to most of these in a month.

WOLF 359:

I literally couldn't recommend this podcast enough it's a ride of excitement and stress; twists and turns that is a rollercoaster of an experience. Basically it's about this crew of three plus a friendly AI orbiting the dwarf star Wolf 359, it seems like a fun comedy until shit gets real.

This podcast has frequent stressful situations, a lot of violence, and a lot of near death experiences. It's hard to tag everything.

WE FIX SPACE JUNK:

This podcast so far is really interesting in world building and characters. It's about these two mechanics held in debt by this intergalactic corporation that go around and fix space junk.

This podcast has violence, body horror in one episode, and alien plagues.

KING FALLS AM:

This is kinda like a mix of Gravity Falls and Welcome to Night Vale. The show is told completely through radio broadcasts of the Sammy and Ben show. Though mysterious things (more mysterious than all of the other paranormal shenanigans) start happening and it's just... Great. All of the characters are wonderful and honestly hilarious, I really recommend this one it's sooooo good.

There are depictions of Gaslighting, violence, alien abductions, intense racism from one character though it's very clear that that character is a bad person and it is comedic, homophobia in later episodes, violence against sugar gliders specifically (no I'm not kidding), and one murderous elf on the shelf.

THE INFINITE NOW:

I honestly don't know what the hell goes on in this podcast but like it's pretty cool time stuff so like yeah. Its two hours tops to get through it.

This story is a bit trippy and I honestly barely remember it so I don't have much in the way of trigger warnings

JANUS DESCENDING:

This podcast is good technically I'd say but it's kinda thick if that makes sense. It feels like a chore to watch cause I don't care that much for the characters and they don't talk like normal people which is annoying. But it's still something I think is good. It's about these two scientists going to an alien planet and getting their shit fucked up thoroughly. It's genuinely terrifying at times.

There are trigger warnings in the show notes but this podcast has a lot body horror, violence, and is kinda fucked up sometimes.

TIDES:

Honestly this podcast is the next big thing in my opinion. I really liked the first season it's so interesting and it's like Janus Descending but a lot cooler and more interesting and funny. I'm really looking forward to it's next season! Basically this Xenobiologist (space animal scientist) is stranded on alien planet with intense tidal activity and the podcast is a mix of her complaining about her co-workers, surviving, and talking about the ecosystem. It's super interesting.

This podcast is kinda icky but I love it. There are depictions of small spaces and people who don't like water might not like this podcast.

EOS 10:

This is one of the big ones. It's about doctors, a cook, and an alleged space terrorist on this space station. It's really funny and I love the characters to death. The third season got a bit tricky though cause they kinda had to retcon a character out of the story cause they apparently fired his voice actor. And it gets like.... Super confusing. But still please watch it it's so good.

This story deals with alcoholism and drug addiction, along with violence, terrorism, grief, sexual interactions (though these are brief.) And medical stuff in general.

STAR TRIPPER!!!:

It's like We Fix Space Junk but 100x more positive (not saying that WFSJ is inferior, that's not true at all) and honestly it's like so sweet to watch. Things can get a bit unclear but that's okay. Also apparently the main character is nonbinary so that's great. It's about this fellow Feston who decides "fuck it" and fucks off away from their office job and goes to explore the universe with their ship (who I love btw, she's really nice)

There are occasional moments of violence and implications of sexual situations but overall it's pretty safe I think.

THE PENUMBRA PODCAST:

I haven't listened to the other storyline yet but basically it's about this private detective on mars. It's really gay like... REALLY GAY. This is the epitome of the "podcasts are really gay" posts. This podcast is what they're talking about. Aside from that is has a really interesting plot, stellar voice acting and great characters!

This podcast has depictions of violence, body horror at some point, guns (laser guns though) and abuse (there is a warning before those episodes however.

WELCOME TO NIGHTVALE

This is a genre defining podcast. All of the podcasts I just listed proably wouldn't exist without this and it's actually so good. It's fucking trippy, and it's so much fun. You can tell the creators put so much love and thought into the podcast and it's just amazing. Basically it's a radio show about this incredibly weird town. And if I have to explain it to you, that means you need to listen to it.

This podcast is very existential, and since it's just so weird and all over the place in what's weird it's hard to really tag anything, I apologise, plus it's been a while since I've listened to it.

THE ADVENTURE ZONE:

This podcast is so fucking good, you've probably already heard of it, and definitely of the producers, the McElroy family. It's these three brothers and their dad playing DnD (initially) together and I can't even describe it. But it literally made me cry so hard that I got a sinus infection.

There are depictions of violence, torture during the suffering game arc, there's an instance of bury your gays which I'm not gonna elaborate on cause of spoilers but don't worry about it. And sometimes some innuendos and sexual stuff ("hey thug what's your name I'm about to tentacle your dick" is an iconic line and a good example of that)

UNDER PRESSURE:

This podcast is about a philosophy student going to live in a underwater station and it's a lot of fun and the atmosphere of wet and uncomfortable is really excellently communicated. It's another really diverse podcast (which seems to be a trend with Procyon podcasts)

This podcast is not for people who like small spaces and deep ocean.

THE STRANGE CASE OF STARSHIP IRIS:

Maybe I'm just stupid or this one's hard to keep up on. Nevertheless I really liked the characters and it's just really fun. It's about this crew of ragtag smugglers trying to find out what's up with the former ship of their new crewmate. Featuring a lot of diversity (This is a Procyon podcast) and good voice acting.

BEAR BROOK

This is actually a true crime / nonfiction podcast about the Bear Brook murders. It's rather gory and disgusting at times but really interesting.

This podcast is not for the faint of heart though, it is a true crime podcast, and it does talk about the horrible things that a serial killer can do.

THE BRIGHT SESSIONS:

Basically therapy sessions for those with abnormal abilities. It's really good and the characters are actually so amazing. This podcast does a lot of interesting stuff that really interests me. I haven't finished it but I'm currently pretty far in. I think this podcast has the potential to actually help people with their problems.

This podcast has depictions of gaslighting, manipulation, panic attacks, mentions of torture and isolation, attempted kidnapping, actual kidnappings, depictions of war (this has trigger warnings though), and violence

TIME:BOMBS:

I'm actually sad that this is just a three part series. It's so much fun, and so good. It's by the same people who made Wolf 359 and it follows a bomb squad on New Year's Eve. Highly recommend it cause it's a really quick listen.

This podcast has bombs.

LORE:

This podcast deals with true crime and supernatural stuff and is presented in the classic podcast way. It's also really triggering cause of the true crime aspect but I seriously recommend this. It's genuinely really informative.

This podcast like Bear Brook is not for the faint of heart.

MYTHS AND LEGENDS:

This is a really interesting take on various legends it's a mix of storytelling in a very nonfictional sense that slips into dialogue that's rather interesting. I haven't listened to a lot of the episodes but it's good.

This podcast does discuss myths that were a product of their times so there are depictions and mentions of misogyny, rape and violence, even if I haven't listened to all of it.

MYTHUNDERSTOOD:

Has that same kinda switches in storytelling as Myths and Legends but a lot less coordinated and a lot funnier. Its a lot of fun to listen to the podcast and the hosts are really funny.

These also have the same tw as the podcast before this.

ALICE ISNT DEAD:

This is by one of the co-creators of WTNV it's about a trucker trying to find her lost wife. Ive only listened to the first part but it's really good and I highly recommend it. It's actually like amazing and really captivating. Also terrifying.

This podcast has depictions of intense violence, existentialism, and body horror. And probably more I haven't even finished it.

I'm sorry if I didn't include something in the trigger warnings about these podcasts, but I hope it helps. I've been listening to a lot of them and it's so much fun!

#podcasts #ella rambles #podcast recommendations #im not tagging all of them

13 notes · View notes

ivanaskye · 5 years

Text

So, for reasons that had a lot to do with being unceremoniously kicked out of where I was living on mostly-false pretenses that were mostly thinly-veiled ableism… I had a pretty notable depressive bout lately. And to make matters worse, because I didn’t have a stable place to live, I couldn’t play KH3 yet.

So I turned to mobile games.

Thus, as follows, here is a SUPER DEFINITIVE IVANASKYE RANKING of mobile games that are good (or less good) for entertainment when you’re depressed and hiding from bigots in an airbnb.

1) ALTO’S ODYSSEY. This absolutely takes the cake for an actually freaking good mobile game that can be replayed essentially indefinitely. It’s like a skateboarding game, but in the desert, for some reason, where also lemurs live and like to chase you.

It’s good.

It’s very, very pretty, with a variety of desert backgrounds, day and night. Although you might hit a rock if you look at the scenery too long. There’s an actual skill level involved in this game (unless you’re playing zen mode, which it conveniently has), and when you die, well, that’s a decent enough time to put the game down if that’s what you’re going for.

This is an actually-paid game that I got on sale, and was super worth the one entire dollar it cost on that sale, but it would also be worth the full five dollars. The good thing about paid games, of course, is that they don’t try to sell you things.

2) GODUS. I’m… not sure this is a good game per se, but it basically consists of exactly what would happen if someone went up to my id, asked what it wanted in a mobile game, and then made exactly that.

Anyway, you play a god, trying to wrangle your (very stupid) followers into constructing buildings, generating worship for you, and even (gasp!) learning how to farm. Also you can go on boat voyages that are basically mini games where you have to lead your followers to specific points and not get them killed. (I don’t like these mini-games that much, but hey, two types of game in one game is good.)

Unfortunately, it is also a free game which is trying really, really hard to get you to spend actual money on upgrades. For that reason, your people’s growth also kind of stops being exponential at a point—yeah, they’ll still build new things and expand, but the game really wants you to spend money. Sigh.

CW for some racist and sexist stuff (because, of course). For instance, your followers are at first grouped into two categories—blue color-coded “builders” and pink color-coded “breeders”. Yes, really. On the other hand, later you get individually named farmers and miners who often have female names, so??? I don’t even know.

3) MONUMENT VALLEY and MONUMENT VALLEY 2. These have… such a great concept. It’s puzzle-solving that involves decidedly non-euclidean geometry (amusingly called “sacred geometry” in the game itself), much as if you’re wandering around an Escher painting.

But… and there’s a big but here… there really aren’t that many levels, all things considered. And given that it’s a puzzle game, it’s not really that replayable—once you’ve figured out the puzzle, you’ve figured out the puzzle. And it’s paid, so all in all, you’re spending 4 or 5 dollars on… only a few hours of entertainment.

Also, it’s trying really hard to have a deep and/or emotionally resonant story, but I think it doesn’t do very well at that. The most emotional moment for me in the game was when this adorable cute totem guy looks like he might be dead (he isn’t)… buuut, according to interviewers with the developers, they were shocked that so many people had such an emotional reaction to an adorable tower of blocks with a single blinking eye? Have they even met people?

Anyway what I’m saying here is that the things that are supposed to be emotionally resonant aren’t, and the things that aren’t supposed to be are.

And the second game, as I posted about before, has a surprise sub-theme of child abandoment?

Anyway, play for the puzzles and the totem, not the story… but maybe only when it’s on sale, because it really doesn’t have quite enough content for the price.

4) BONZA. This is a… pretty run-of-the-mill mobile word game, this time in crossword form. It’s not, like, great, but it’s not terrible either. (I know, what a rousing endorsement).

One of the best things about this particular game is that you can pick it up for a quick puzzle while trying to avoid using your brains and eyes for 1) actually working or 2) looking at social media and getting really angry at people. And then you can set it down. And if you can’t set it down, that might be because you need a hint for the puzzle… which requires watching an ad… which you don’t actually want to do, so you’ll probably be setting your phone down while the ad plays! Win-win! I think.

5) THE TRAIL. Boy, I really liked this game at first, even though it’s definitely got at least 5000 weird colonialism and also racism vibes. But you can play as a brown-skinned person, so I Guess It’s Okay. Anyway judging phone games for wokeness probably isn’t ideal, especially if you’re not giving money to them anyway.

Anyway, about the gameplay—it starts out as this thing where you walk along a trail, collecting random items with telepathy, Like You Do, in some cases giving them to a very disappointed-looking bird, also Like You Do, while your guide cheerfully informs you that “you might even have shoes someday!”

My issue is mostly that once you hit a town, the gameplay kind of changes—you can still wander trails and collect items, but a lot of your goals suddenly become town-related, and somehow this made it feel less fun to me. Ymmv.

6) POLYSPHERE. This… is an interesting concept… that sure tries really hard to get you to buy things. Basically, you look at a bunch of weird shard-looking bits of color from different angles, until they become a picture. Which is a cool visual-spacial challenge, but also as far as I can tell, spinning the shards fast enough can also cause them to flip, which is required to complete certain puzzles, and makes it feel more random than it should be.

I also found that this game didn’t bring a lot of joy—just a slight endorphin rush every time I finished a puzzle, but sort-of annoyance otherwise, and chasing that rush. The bad kind of addictive. Not recommended.

Bonus) GOROGOA. I’m not ranking this alongside the rest of them because I played it a couple months ago, before this Depression Mobile Game Binge, so therefore it’s kind of in a different category.

This, like Monument Valley, is a puzzle game that only has so much content in it before you’ve solve everything, and costs like four whole dollars or something, so might not be worth it—

—But, it’s like, really cool. You solve puzzles by basically manipulating frames of images around, so that one thing frames another, and… actually, it is kind of hard to explain. But it’s really gorgeous, and legitimately challenging, and I’ve never seen anything like it. I highly recommend it, even if it is shorter than I’d have wanted it to be.

#this sure is a long post

5 notes · View notes

traitor-boyfriend · 6 years

Note

why do you think kyman is so popular? (ew)

okay so this has been sitting in my inbox for about a week or so now and i really just need to answer it and get it over with. really i think this is the most i’m ever going to say at length about kyman so here we go. also i’ve been drinking a little so i apologize in advance if my thoughts aren’t as cohesive as they could be lmao

to answer the initial question, i honestly have no idea. i have a few theories, but no real concrete answer as to why kyman as a ship is so popular; i’m speaking as someone who has had an intimate awareness of this fandom from the time i was ten, which is literally half of my life. i can’t recall kyman being a big ship, or even one of the more common rare-pairs 10 years ago – back then the major ships were style, creek, and k2 (almost pretty much in that order).

kyman, as i know it and have observed it since i’ve re-familiarized myself with the show and its fandom, is more a development that’s largely happened within the past five years and i think the main contributor to this is that, within that same time period, there’s been a noticeable shift with how kyle and cartman’s dynamic has been written; in the beginning seasons, kyle and cartman are shown to equally despise each other. the cartman of seasons 1-4 isn’t exactly the cartman we know now – he started off as kind of a stereotypical fat little neighborhood bully, but he’s always been narcissistic, racist, selfish etc. just not to the same extent he is now. and back then, kyle and cartman interact as enemies would; they argue and fight constantly, openly express their disdain for each other to anyone who will listen, and actively conspire against the other. kyle and cartman were direct foils to each other.

this has changed in the recent past. cartman and kyle aren’t really considered enemies anymore, but instead as rivals which i think is an important thing to note. now, they’re even occasionally on the same side of a conflict or event (such as tfbw). there has been a lot of focus in the past five or six seasons in the ways kyle and cartman are similar; they’re both temperamental and very angry people, incredibly competitive, both very driven and committed when they set their mind to something. kyle, to a lesser degree, also shares one of cartman’s worst traits; they’re both over-reactive and allow themselves to think the world is out to get them. obviously – and i cannot stress this enough – kyle has in no way the victim complex cartman has, but it is there nonetheless. the running theme with season 21 has been self-victimization, and while i don’t entirely agree with their idea that the potential destructive effects of habitual othering and alienation is, like, a concept of personal responsibility or individual desire to be a victim, other than heidi, kyle is a great example of this. for the last three seasons kyle has been the whipping boy in that no one wants his speeches, no one wants his moral lesson; no one wants his opinion. and kyle indirectly and without meaning to spearheads canada being bombed because he allows his emotions to dictate his action. there’s too many instances of cartman doing this exact thing with obvious malicious intent, but “the list” is another notable episode where kyle does the same thing; he feels slighted and estranged when everyone thinks he’s ugly, and instead of listening to reason from either stan or abraham lincoln, he decides the best choice of action is to burn down the school. my point is, kyle and cartman share quite a few personality traits and their interactions in recent seasons tend to highlight and expand on this rather than to treat them as divisive, opposite characters.

they’ve done a lot more as well to show that kyle, unlike his very early characterization in-series where he couldn’t give less of a shit if cartman died, now cares for him on – at the very least– a humanistic level. whereas kenny and stan are still mostly indifferent to cartman and what happens to him, kyle now often objects to directly conspiring to hurt or let cartman put himself in danger, even if he still despises him as a person. this started around season 8 or so with “up the down steroid” and i think this quote from kyle when he goes to cartman’s house best sums up what i’m talking about:

“I know that I often have serious moral objections to the things that you do, but… this time I think you really need to reconsider. Because if you do this, I believe you will go to hell. So I feel it is my responsibility, as your friend, to tell people what you’re doing, and to put a stop to it.”

kyle’s constant drive to put a stop to cartman’s increasingly deranged and morally depraved antics are largely driven by a dedication to his ethics, yes, but this also shows that kyle does consider cartman a friend and objects to his behavior as such because he cares about what happens to him despite kyle routinely being repulsed and disgusted by who cartman is. he also is the only one to initially object to destroying cartman’s stuff in season 20, even though kyle is cartman’s most vocal and frequent critic, and is also shown to feel an inordinate amount of guilt than the other boys comparatively; this is a combination of kyle’s generally guilty personality as well as remorse for having done something to hurt a friend. there’s also the jewpacabra episode where, even after being pathologically belittled again for the millionth time on the basis of his being jewish by cartman, kyle still goes out in the middle of the night to unchain cartman, take him home, and put him in his bed. i worry this is beginning to sound like rationalization or even evidence on the kyman ship’s behalf that kyle has feelings for cartman in anyway, because it isn’t; it’s just elaboration on kyle’s character. kyle is a very sympathetic person, and that extends even to someone who he doesn’t like. there are plenty of examples of kyle being absolutely thrilled to see cartman be delivered a comeuppance or get the shit kicked out of him or be proven wrong, and more often than not, kyle genuinely hates cartman – there just are not as many recent examples, which is the time-frame i’m trying to stick to while talking about this ship.

there’s a lot to be said of cartman as a character. like, a lot. he’s incredibly complex, and while it makes him interesting as a character study, it makes him insufferable to watch. he’s always been terrible. that’s his appeal, i think, and what makes him so popular. cartman is the complete and utter embodiment of human id; he has no sense of the world outside himself, no remorse, and acts consistently in his own self-interest with little to deter him. and part of it is satisfying sometimes to see just how far cartman is willing to denigrate himself and others in pursuit of what he wants, because it’s that same morbid desire a normal person might occasionally feel but suppresses because of their conscience – something cartman does not have.

i’d argue, given the inherent chaos and destruction and amorality the universe of south park exists in, that all of the main boys are traumatized to varying degrees. but i don’t think it’s all that controversial to say cartman exhibits the most outward signs of childhood trauma. plenty of people much more observant and intelligent than myself i’m sure have written about this before so i’m going to keep it brief, but a lot of cartman’s behavior can be explained this way. there’s been a few allusions to his having been sexually abused, inappropriate sexual contact with family members, the fact that he wets his bed or cries at night b/c he doesn’t have a dad are all things we learn when he can’t control what he says in “le petit tourette.” his physical and verbal aggression, emotionality, distrust of others, conniving behavior etc. are all common symptoms of adverse childhood experiences. he’s controlling and insecure, and cartman thrives off any and all attention – positive, which he often gets from his mother, or negative, which is usually provided by literally everyone else, especially kyle, which is what i think makes him so infatuated with kyle in that he’s an easy, reliable source to match his own aggression, to feed that desire for attention. unlike what a lot of kyman shippers think, it’s pretty obvious that this is why he goes to such lengths to save kyle in “smug alert”. butters doesn’t fight or push back against cartman the way he does, therefore cartman isn’t receiving the attention or reaction he wants.

there’s also the matter of cartman’s racism and anti-semitism. and to deny that cartman does not possess genuine confidence in his own deluded beliefs, or to excuse it b/c of his age is a major cop-out. he’s had moments where his racial hatred is founded in classic white-supremacist talking points, so he clearly espouses this shit of his own volition. because he’s attracted to power cartman idolizes conservative christian figureheads in pop culture (mel gibson ring a bell to anyone) and authoritarian dictators, of which racism is often a major component of such ideology, and this only emboldens his bigotry. there’s a couple instances in the very early seasons (i’m talking, like, pretty much exclusively 1 and 2) where cartman alludes to his racist tendencies stemming from liane, but i don’t really consider it fair to cling to that as a canonical source b/c one, it’s almost always for shock value as a quick joke, and two, they have since done a complete 180 on liane. they don’t harp on the joke about her being a whore the way they used to, and instead she’s shown to be a single mother who works two jobs and who loves her son unconditionally. but she’s also very lonely, and treats cartman as her friend instead of her son; she has no boundaries set with him and often entertains his schemes or delusions; she’s a classic over-indulging parent. which does a lot of harm without her meaning to.

honestly, the entire relationship between cartman and his mother mostly just makes me sad, especially after the “tsst” episode; it’s the only time we see liane disciplining cartman in a firm but loving way, acting as a parent and not a hostage, and we see, in my opinion, what was the only instance wherein which cartman was capable of any meaningful or permanent change. and it’s all destroyed when liane realizes cesar and her’s relationship was purely professional and nothing more. even in group of moms, liane isn’t really considered one of them. her only friend is cartman, so she defaults to giving in to his every whim b/c she’s terrified of him resenting and leaving her as well. it’s like.. a really tragic situation. but that episode is important as it exemplifies the fact that, unlike the other boys, cartman incapable of change. his transformation is mostly superficial and incredibly short-lived. there’s a lot to be said of the nature of evil – whether some people are born that way, if it’s entirely nature vs. nurture – but cartman is obviously a combination of both; no one who doesn’t have some kind of genetic pre-dispostion to incalculable levels of cruelty and disregard for the suffering of others could plot to have someone’s parents killed, steal their bodies, grind them into chili and feed it to the child of those parents over sixteen dollars.

and this is what makes the cognitive dissonance that surrounds thinking kyman isn’t an abusive ship is astounding to me, because cartman is an inherently abusive person. he is incapable of the vulnerability or the selflessness or the compromise a relationship requires. i mean, christ, we just got an entire season that highlights how he acts within the confines of a romantic relationship with heidi – an entire season of cartman manipulating, gaslighting, and machinating events to have someone he supposedly loves killed or abducted. there’s an argument made pretty often among kyman fans that this wouldn’t happen to kyle, that kyle is capable of fighting back against cartman and would refuse to make himself vulnerable the way heidi did, but i have no idea how someone could says this after “ginger cow.”

kyle is by far the most frequent recipient of the proverbial short stick (passion of the jew, le petit tourette, tonsil trouble, pee, humancentipad, imaginationland, cartman’s incredible gift, etc b/c the list goes on and fucking on) and though cartman is not always the one directly spearheading the events that lead to kyle being put in those situations, he usually is. but the way he treats kyle in ginger cow differs so greatly from past events – a lot of cartman’s mistreatment of kyle can be viewed as him feeling he’s delivering punishment or retribution to a someone who he feels (wrongly) deserves it, but “ginger cow” just really epitomizes cartman’s complete and utter sociopathy. what he does to kyle in that episode is so far beyond mere humiliation; it’s dehumanization. cartman actively derives joy from breaking kyle down as a person, forcing him to be submissive, causing kyle to lose any sense of self. the kicker comes at the end of the episodes when stan’s misguided attempt to help ends up backfiring, but not really, because the prophecy of the red heifer had actually been true all along! yet cartman refuses to tell the truth; kyle’s suffering means nothing. and cartman, in true cartman fashion, makes a snide joke, farts into his hand, dollops whip cream in his palm and smears it in kyle’s face, walking off very satisfied with himself. even thinking about the episode makes me viscerally ill.

i think just as troubling for me is the culture that surrounds people shipping the two of them; there is so, so, so much casual anti-semitism – people who think it’s cute when cartman accosts kyle for being jewish, people who use the word “jew” in a flippant, casual way as if it’s a term of endearment while completely ignoring the historical context of disparagement in a non-jewish person calling someone “a jew.” people who excuse cartman’s anti-semitism, who act like he hasn’t repeatedly been shown to adore hitler and emulate him, going as far as to rally the town behind him to lead in the effort to exterminate the jews and shouting nazi rallying cries. not to mention the fact that not only does there exist any one singular kyman fic centered around kyle being a holocaust victim during world war ii, there are a ton! which is so disgusting and disrespectful and so obviously amoral i can’t believe i just had to type that! and in the same line as fiction, it is so upsetting to me a prominent trend that occurs w kyman fics is cartman basically hatefucking kyle through the entire thing, physically and verbally abuses him and gets off on it, and kyle is this submissive, simpering slave to him – not to mention the plethora of straight up rape/non-con kyman fics. it a lot of either that, or kyle is some conduit for a shitty cartman redemption arc, and. ugh.

anyway, this is the most i’m ever going to say about kyman. the tl;dr version of this is that i think kyman is so popular b/c recent seasons have focused more on amplifying the ways in which kyle and cartman are similar as well as quite a few jokes being made about some weird sexual tension between the two of them. and not to harp on this, but i don’t ship kyman, and i don’t support it or even remotely tolerate it, really. the entire concept of those two together makes me quite literally physically ill lmao.

#i have no idea what to tag this as tbh #south park #kyle broflovski #eric cartman #little tip: if you're a diehard kyman shipper about to come in my inbox let me save you the trouble: don't!#:-)#anonymous

102 notes · View notes

bellblakes · 7 years

Text

In defense of Bellamy Blake: A response to this post.

“They took all that growth and development and threw it out of the window.” I firmly believe that the writing in season 3 was racist towards Bellamy. I understand why Bellamy did what he did, but him siding with Pike and the way it was done were undoubtedly bad storytelling. He was villainized to prop up white characters. I’ll elaborate more in the next points.

“The writers didn’t even own up to the horrible choices they made: instead, they tried to salvage the situation by backpedaling on everything and by using every possible cheap or awful device to make Bellamy likable again." Bellamy isn’t the only character to have done bad things, and I really don’t get why he’s the only one who has to be made “likable” again. I have a lot to say about this and how it all ties into racist writing and double standards from the fandom, but, again, I’ll leave to discuss it further in the next points.

“Which means: to save one character, they sacrificed other characters and cohesive writing. Which is why it’s not Season 3 that made me give up on ever liking Bellamy again, it was season 4, the finale in particular. My issue isn’t with the character, it’s with the writing.” This is where I really started to have a problem with your post, and I think it’s an appropriate section to go into detail about the racist writing I mentioned above. It’s funny how perspective works, because to me it’s clear as day that they brought down BELLAMY to prop up other characters (white characters). For starters, it’s exceptionally racist that Bellamy and Pike, a brown and black man respectively, were chosen by the writers as the faces of xenophobia, while white characters were the voices of reason. According to Jason Rothenberg the storyline was supposed to be a commentary on the US post-9/11. Bellamy, Pike and other characters of color were portrayed as violent racists, Clarke, Octavia, Abby and Kane as sensible and peaceful, and white grounders such as Lexa as victims (black grounders, Lincoln and Indra, were actually the worst victims). The show wanted the audience to hate Bellamy and Pike, and root for Clarke, Octavia and Lexa.

“What I want to say is that I don’t think there is anything really wrong with the idea behind Bellamy’s season 3 storyline. Someone who learned to be a hero but suddenly has a fall from grace. There is potential for great storytelling there. But you have to be careful. If you have decided that you are going to put a beloved character in a tricky situation, you have to be meticulous about everything. The base to justify this turn has to be solid, the character’s reasons must be clear and understandable (understanding is different from agreeing with), there has to be a final intent, whether that being character growth or destruction. All this by staying true to the character(s) and maintaining consistency in the storytelling. With Bellamy, the 100 did none of that.” I understand that Bellamy would feel betrayed by grounders after learning to trust and work with them. I understand that Bellamy is impulsive. I understand that Pike manipulated Bellamy while he was vulnerable. To some extent, I even believe that Bellamy wasn’t completely in the wrong, after all grounders attacked the hundred from the moment they landed, and Lexa sent three hundred warriors to kill them in season 1. In the aftermath of the Mount Weather attack, his past experiences with grounders were at the forefront of his mind and he felt guilty and stupid for ever trusting them despite the warning signs. As a highly empathetic person, he saw each of those deaths as if they were personally caused by him. I GET that. I GET that he wanted to do something about it. He’s a protector, and wanted to make sure that nobody would ever get hurt again because of him. But he decided to support Pike after less than a day. He listened to Pike over his friends. He trusted Pike because he felt alone and scared, and Pike was the only one by his side, giving him a purpose. Why do you think the writers kept Raven away from Bellamy? Because if Raven was there, she would bring him back to reality pretty quick and this storyline would never happen. Raven knows pain. She was Gina’s friend. She understands and inspires Bellamy. Raven would never leave him in that moment. This is another instance of bad writing, and characters being out of character or getting removed from the plot altogether to fit the story they want to tell.

“First, they rewrote the narrative and made Bellamy dependent on Clarke to make good decisions, so that his choice to back up Pike would feel more justified because she wasn’t there to be a positive influence.” It’s racist as hell.

“We’re supposed to root for this character, to understand him and justify him and eventually believe in his redemption.” I already said this, but I’ll say it again: this storyline was supposed to reflect the US post-9/11, and Bellamy and Pike were The 100′s equivalent of “racists wanting to kill every brown person in sight”. We absolutely weren’t supposed to root for Bellamy. He was literally portrayed as a villain. He opposed Clarke, the one we should root for, and ruined the peace she and Lexa achieved.

“But the writing is so downright awful and keeps being so ugly that it has ruined the character for me forever, even now that he has undeniably come back onto the right path again in season 4.” Here’s the thing: bad writing can either benefit or damage characters. On The 100, bad writing props up white characters at the expense of characters of color. A good example of this would be Bellamy relying on Clarke to make good decisions. It’s bad writing, but it paints CLARKE in a positive light (capable of rational thinking, superior person and a good influence for her friend), and BELLAMY in a negative light (incapable of rational thinking, inferior person and dependent on his friend). He’s a victim of the racism of the writers.

“You know how this storyline could have worked? If the writers had truly committed to it. Gone all in and portrayed Bellamy’s actions as nothing other than what they were: wrong. You got your fallen hero who fully realizes the consequences of his action and you follow him in his path towards redemption, real redemption.” As I said before, they definitely portrayed his actions as wrong. In fact, I would argue that they went TOO far in villainizing him. I think you’re being unfair. Why do you have to single out Bellamy, when no other character on this show had a good redemption arc? I honestly think you’re holding Bellamy up to higher standards than other characters. Kane was responsible for the culling of three hundred and twenty innocent people, but he felt bad about it, started being a better person from that moment on, and it was okay. Other characters weren’t screaming in his face about every single bad thing he ever did and he didn’t have to beg for anyone’s forgiveness. We barely saw him struggle with his own morality. Octavia has been physically abusive of her loved ones since season 2 (and we should note that the characters she abused, Lincoln, Indra and Bellamy, are all characters of color), and in season 3 she became a killer. The narrative used her hurt and grief to justify her violence. Throughout season 4, Clarke (who was previously a morally ambiguous character, but clearly had good intentions) was straight up evil: She decided that her “friend” Monty didn’t deserve to live, experimented on grounders, left her “friend” Octavia outside the bunker to die, and kidnapped and shot at her “friend” Bellamy. The narrative didn’t even acknowledge that she was wrong. We’re still expected to root for her. We’re supposed to feel SORRY for her, for "having” to make all these hard choices (despite the fact that she fought to be a leader from day one. Clarke LOVES having power). Throughout season 1, Lexa actively tried to wipe out the hundred, and she was never sorry. She never needed redemption from being responsible for the deaths of dozens of teenagers.

“The massacre isn’t shown, we only see the bodies of the people that were killed, because they aren’t what’s important, Bellamy’s shock and pain is what we should focus on, and it would be hard to bring the audience to root for him if we saw him participating in a cold-blooded massacre.” I’m gonna say it, this makes zero sense. Bellamy’s pain is literally the farthest thing from the focus here. Those scenes barely show him. Instead, the focus is on Kane and Abby’s reactions to seeing Pike’s group return, and Octavia, Clarke and Lexa’s reactions to seeing the result of the massacre. They look shocked and horrified. Clarke and Lexa are enjoying the peace they’re bringing to Arkadia together, when their happiness is interrupted by finding the bodies that Bellamy helped kill. We’re supposed to feel for them and be ANGRY at what Bellamy did. The message of those scenes is that everything was okay due to Clarke and Lexa’s hard work, and BELLAMY ruined everything by starting a war. The writers wanted the audience to hate him and sympathize with Kane, Abby, Clarke, Lexa and Octavia, there’s no question about that.

“And then another thing, possibly the worst in my opinion: Bellamy faces no consequences whatsoever.” He got beaten up by his own sister while chained to a rock. No other character has faced a punishment like this. I honestly don’t know what kind of consequences he should face. At this point people wouldn’t be satisfied with anything but his death.

“Conflict isn’t allowed in Bellamy’s storyline because the characters are reduced to expository devices who are there to tell us we Must forgive Bellamy. His redemption doesn’t work because it comes at the expense of other characters and cohesive storytelling.”

“Every single person Bellamy interacts with (with one exception that I’m gonna touch on very soon) either don’t comment on what Bellamy has done (or has been strategically removed from the narrative/episode when they could have been there to stop him, make him change his mind or simply to tell him what he was doing/planning to do was wrong, e.g. Raven being absent in 304) OR they’re extremely understanding and keep repeating that Bellamy is good and he doesn’t have to blame himself and he has to forgive himself. Kane’s words are the most blatant evidence of what the writers are doing. “Turn the page and don’t look back.” Yeah, he’s talking to Bellamy, but most of all, that’s a message for the audience. We’re supposed to turn the page and forget what Bellamy did.” Have you considered the fact that Clarke, Kane and Jaha also struggle with guilt, and by forgiving Bellamy they’re attempting to forgive themselves for the bad things they also did? Clarke still struggles with the Mount Weather genocide, and Kane and Jaha with their decisions on the council. The kill count between Clarke and Bellamy is extremely close (Clarke at 905, and Bellamy at 1,003), and we don’t know how many deaths Kane and Jaha are responsible for, but, as the chancellor and a member of the council, they certainly executed many innocent people. “If you need forgiveness, I’ll give that to you. You’re forgiven.” - Bellamy to Clarke. “You’re not the only one trying to forgive yourself. Maybe we’ll get that someday.” - Clarke to Bellamy. And why is it okay to forget what other characters did, but not what Bellamy did? What is it about his actions that make them worse than the actions of other characters? When Clarke and Lexa kill, their actions are shown as necessary, and the narrative doesn’t hold them accountable. Clarke and Lexa let a bomb drop on Tondc, killing two hundred and fifty people. Abby initially saw Clarke’s actions as wrong, but Kane actually DEFENDED Clarke and Abby ended up agreeing with him: “Because she grew up on the Ark. She learned what to do from us. […] She made a choice. Like executing people for stealing medicine and food. Like sucking the air from the lungs of three hundred parents so they could save their children.” - Kane to Abby. “Like floating the man you love to save your people.” - Abby to Kane. Lexa sent warriors to kill teenagers because they were a potential threat. Bellamy helped killed the grounder army because they were a potential threat. If people can understand what Clarke and Lexa did for their people and move on, why can’t they get over what Bellamy did as well? Why do other characters get to be redeemed within a few episodes, or get no redemption arc whatsoever and their actions are simply justified or glossed over, but Bellamy has to spend entire seasons trying to earn his redemption? The truth is that Bellamy will NEVER meet the fandom’s standards. He has to be absolutely perfect or everyone will call for his death, and on the moment he messed up, he started being treated as an unredeemable trash bag. Even now that he’s trying to be better, people are mad that he’s being portrayed as a better person than Clarke. No matter what he does, people will find a reason to hate him.

“And to do this, of course, the nature of the other characters is damaged. Take Clarke. Stubborn, confident, ready to challenge anyone. From season 3 on, she switches between being Bellamy’s punching bag, his emotional crutch, or being obscured and worsened to prop up his character. In season 3 he lashes out at her, sneers at her, belittles her. And she doesn’t react at all, but instead stays there to offer her support when he’s done being angry and needs a shoulder to cry on. In season 4 we even have a role-reversal of sorts, wherein Clarke makes a wrong choice (stealing the bunker) and Bellamy is shown to be the moral compass of the situation, and the season 4 finale is all about Bellamy, with Clarke being relegated to plot tool and deprived of any emotional resolution.” I’m also having trouble with this part. I know that I’m starting to sound annoyed, and that’s because so far I’ve been able to mostly at least understand where you’re coming from even though I disagree, but this right here? It’s the same coddling Clarke while shitting on Bellamy bullshit that I see all the time. Honestly, the idea of Clarke being Bellamy’s punching bag is… laughable, because since season 2, there’s clearly been a power imbalance and princess/knight dynamic between them. Literally what the fuck did he do to her? He handcuffed her once and tried to take her to Pike. This was ONE occasion, but the way you say it makes it sound like it’s some sort of constant abuse where he’s repeatedly lashing out at her. In season 4 she kidnapped him and shot at him when he tried to escape, and he LAUGHED IT OFF. Bellamy has a right to be angry at Clarke, but he’s rarely allowed to be. She often treats him and his sister like shit and he always forgives her because the writers see him as the loyal knight to her princess. The only time after season 1 where I can remember him being angry at her was when he called her out for leaving Arkadia and leaving Octavia to die in Tondc. I also find interesting that you have a problem with Bellamy being the moral compass of the situation as opposed to Clarke. Why should she be inherently morally superior? Why didn’t you have a problem when Bellamy was demonized to prop up Clarke, but you have a problem when Bellamy is shown to be a better person? The show has always put Clarke and her feelings first. What’s so bad about Bellamy, the male lead, getting the spotlight every now and then? Why, even when Clarke makes bad choices, you’re still defending her and arguing that she deserved better writing, whereas when Bellamy made bad choices, you promptly decided that you could never like him again? These are genuine questions.

“Octavia is the only one who feels angry at Bellamy, but the show isn’t interested in exploring her feelings. Or to be more precise, the show is interested in her pain and anger because of the effects they have on Bellamy. Just take as an example that horrifying scene that never should have existed of Octavia beating up Bellamy in the cave. The scene (and the script as well) is entirely from his POV. The center of the scene isn’t Octavia’s grief, it’s Bellamy’s pain. His voluntary martyrdom as he gives himself up to his sister’s rage, bleeding in slow motion and not reacting. It’s a nasty, horrible scene that also has the effect of making Octavia invisible, crushing her character under all this violence and horror that we are forced to focus on, much like the other people in the cave. She has lost the man she loved but instead of focusing on her grief, she is shown in this extremely violent light that makes it impossible to sympathize with her in that moment, while instead it makes the audience feel bad for Bellamy. Same thing in 313, when merely days after Lincoln’s death, Bellamy complains because Octavia hasn’t forgiven him yet. She is shown cold and harsh, while the suffering that is shown and explored is Bellamy’s." I think it says a lot that in a scene where Bellamy is being beaten up by his sister, you’re more worried about Octavia’s grief than his pain. Octavia’s history of abuse didn’t start in that cave. It started in season 2 when she hit Lincoln and tried to teach him about his own culture. She has had this issue for a long time. Octavia’s feelings don’t mean anything to me and she DOESN’T deserve sympathy. That scene was completely disgusting and unnecessary, and definitely not because of Octavia. I’ll put it more clearly: in a scene of gratuitous violence against a man of color at his white sister’s hands, your priority should be to be concerned about the racism shown, not worrying that this made her unsympathetic or him sympathetic. That being said, according to you this scene made it impossible to sympathize with Octavia, yet I remember distinctly a post with SEVEN THOUSAND notes from Clexa shippers who couldn’t WAIT until Octavia beat up her brother. I remember people celebrating it and laughing about it. I’m also annoyed about people making Lincoln’s death about Octavia. He was more than being Octavia’s boyfriend. Losing him doesn’t excuse her violence. Bellamy didn’t kill Lincoln. Octavia wanted to lash out and targeted her brother, the one person who's been sacrificing everything for her since the second she was born. He shouldn’t be seeking her forgiveness. SHE should be the one desperate to be forgiven by him.

“Season 4 is even worse when it comes to this, with the writing caging Octavia in this nonsensical storyline centered on her downward spiral supposedly started with her killing Pike. We’re supposed to question the morality of that choice and it’s even used as one of the pieces of evidence of Octavia’s growing darkness by Kane, the same person who told Bellamy to forget his past actions.”

“Nothing about all this is realistic or narratively coherent, these are choices made to heighten the scope of Bellamy’s redemption because now Bellamy not only is subjected to her anger but is also worried about her soul. And eventually, of course, their relationship is restored. With the exception of maybe one scene in 311, we can’t really talk about any actual confrontation between these two when it comes to Bellamy’s redemption storyline, between Bellamy and any character really.”

Bellamy’s bad actions came from a place of wanting to protect his people. Octavia became a killer because she was sad and angry at the world. Of course Kane is able to forgive Bellamy, because he can relate to him, but Octavia’s actions are purely selfish. The relationship between the Blake siblings shouldn’t have been restored, because, again, she was abusive towards him. But, as always, Bellamy is the punching bag of the white girls on this show and HE has to earn THEIR redemption despite them being horrible to him.

“The point of Bellamy’s storyline is that he learns to forgive himself.”

“And when the core of the redemption of a character like Bellamy is based on him letting go of guilt to go party and get drunk, I really struggle with calling it “redemption.”” It’s almost like you want everyone to hate him and constantly remind him of everything he did like this is gonna solve anything. He did bad things. The others did, too. Everyone is dealing with their own issues and berating Bellamy, and Bellamy only, for the things he did, would be hypocritical. I don’t see the fandom demanding the same treatment for Clarke, Octavia, Kane, Abby, etc. Kane did the culling in season 1, and he was redeemed on the same season. As I said before, the narrative won’t even acknowledge that Clarke has been doing some fucked up stuff to her “friends” and grounders. Bellamy’s arc with Pike started and ended in season 3, and in season 4 he tried his hardest to be a better person and make up for his mistakes, but it’s STILL not enough. Him regretting what he did isn’t a bad thing. It shows his humanity. This is exactly what I meant by “holding Bellamy up to higher standards”. Bellamy can’t win. If he makes mistakes, he’s a monster. If he regrets his actions and tries to be a better person, it’s “unearned”. Is the real issue here that Bellamy’s redemption was badly written, or that you see Bellamy as the only character who needs redemption?

I will say this: People’s hatred of Bellamy is directly connected to Clarke. Bellamy calls Clarke out on her shit and handcuffs her, and they lose their minds. Bellamy is shown as a better person than Clarke, and they can’t fathom it. They tolerate Bellamy when he’s a good soldier doing everything for his princess. When he has his own priorities that don’t involve her, though? Then he’s the devil. People hate Bellamy because he dares not to lick the ground Clarke walks on. People are allowed to dislike Bellamy. He doesn’t have to be everyone’s favorite character. But be aware of racist writing, double standards, and how those affect your perceptions of certain characters.

#bellamy blake #txt #t100 discourse

72 notes · View notes

writeforsoreeyes · 5 years

Text

transreading - What Makes You Beautiful

[image description: cover of What Makes You Beautiful by Bridget Liang. Off-center portrait of an east Asian teen wearing a blue button-up shirt, eye makeup, and lipstick.]

Note: like last month, this is book in which the POV character realizes they are trans over the course of the story. While the character is “Logan” for the first part of the story, she begins using the name Veronica in the final act. Midway through, while still working out her gender, Veronica asks her friends to use they/them pronouns for her. The story doesn’t have a moment in which she updates her pronouns, but I’ve made the assumption that she would ultimately go with she/her by the book’s end.

Veronica will never be the perfect half-Chinese son, but her mother and father are in denial. Despite her parents’ misgivings, Veronica switches to an arts high school to pursue singing. She quickly makes friends with several queer kids at the school. With new freedom to explore her identity, she slowly begins to realize that while she likes guys, she herself is not a guy.

What Makes You Beautiful is a really quick read. It’s short in length, with a straight-forward plot that pulls the reader along. While there are some darker moments (particularly instances of racism, homophobia, and so on), it’s by and large a sweet book -- and even downright cheesy at times. If you’re looking for a pleasant read to pass an afternoon or a flight, What Makes You Beautiful fits the bill.

There is a lot packed into this little book though, despite its brevity. The cast is highly diverse in terms of sexuality, gender, ethnicity, religion, and more. With so many different identities in play, the author gets to explore a lot of different topics naturally in the story.

For example, Veronica has doubts about being a trans girl because she fears she’s falling into the stereotype of Asian men being submissive. Veronica and her friends come into conflict with their voice teacher because all the winter concert songs are Christmas songs. One of her friends discloses that it was difficult to get his gender identity respected because of his autism. And so on and so forth. These many intersections of identity reflect the complexities of the real world and make What Makes You Beautiful stand out from similar trans coming out narratives.

There are moments, however, that might come across as over the top and strain readers’ suspension of belief. For instance, when Veronica’s father drops her off at school on the second day, he sees her visibly queer friends waiting for her and shouts at them, “Kids like you are ruining this great country!” It’s a really erratic burst of violent homophobia from someone who is otherwise portrayed as more your run-of-the-mill “I’m not bigoted!” casual bigot.

My belief was also strained by how quickly the character relationships developed. Veronica is pretty much folded into an existing friend group her very first day of school, in addition to making friends outside the group.

It’s true that friendships generally move faster with kids than adults, but I couldn’t help but raise a skeptical eyebrow when Veronica thought “I feel safe nestled between these two boys” and earnestly saying “I never had friends like you two before” within 24 hours of meeting them. Arguably, Veronica is starved for friendship since it seems she didn’t have any at her previous school. But since she was bullied, I’d expect her to be more wary.

I appreciated how well the love interest was handled. Kyle hangs around with the queer kids but is straight himself. He initially isn’t especially romantically or sexually attracted to Veronica. However, as her true gender becomes more apparent and she begins experimenting with presentation, his feelings spark. Later, he’s frank with her that this made him question his sexuality, but it doesn’t come across as an “Oh, god, am I gay??????” panic. It’s also refreshing that the guy who is indisputably the hottest in the book is Asian, since Asian men in media are so often classed as less than sexually desirable.

Reading What Makes You Beautiful was kind of nostalgic to me. I also attended an arts high school, so I remember the unique energy of being surrounded by people who are all into the same craft as you. My high school also had a reputation as the “gay school,” though students weren’t nearly as openly queer -- and the teachers weren’t nearly as queer-friendly -- as at Veronica’s school. Perhaps though my school today is more like Veronica’s than the school I remember; a lot has changed in the last decade.

To wrap up, I recommend What Makes You Beautiful if you are looking for a trans coming out narrative where the main character has a really supportive friend group (as well as the mentorship of a trans adult.) If you relate to the “It was obvious to other people, but I didn’t notice until it was pointed out” sort of trans experience, you’ll likely find a lot to relate to here.

And, of course, there is always a need for more racially diverse trans books -- What Makes You Beautiful is a very welcome addition. If you’re looking for more QPOC YA books similar to this one, I’d personally recommend Let’s Talk About Love by Claire Kann (female Black asexual main character, male Asian straight love interest) and This Is Kind of an Epic Love Story by Kheryn Callender (male Black bisexual main character, male Latino gay hard of hearing love interest).

#what makes you beautiful #bridget liang #trans books #transgender books #transreading

0 notes

fardell24b · 7 years

Text

Doctor Who - Complete compilation of Series 10 reviews

Spoilers

Doctor Who 10.01 'The Pilot' Review

The first episode of Series 10. It is an interesting beginning to the new series. It certainly makes me wonder what is going to happen. There are many aspects to the episode that give rise to questions. Questions about what the Doctor has been doing since he had saved New York from Harmony Shoal. Also questions about what makes Bill special, compared to others he had met at the university while he was there. More than 50 years seems to be a long time for him to be in one place, but more on that later.

Nardole isn't much expanded upon, but it is obvious that his body (at least) is mechanical (mechanical enough for parts to fall out of his arm). He is assisting the Doctor with whatever that vault is containing. (Gallifreyian writing is visible on the outside, so something to do with the Time Lords? Is the Doctor's promise to a Time Lord?) In a related note (maybe) the Doctor is seen talking to pictures of River and Susan (Was she lost in the Time War? Would she appear at a later point in the series)

The Doctor seems to be restless in his position, seeming to stay in the one place out of obligation. He is quite eager to leap into the adventure when the liquid spaceship Heather is chasing Bill. (I'm not sure what to make of the Bill/Heather relationship, or the progress it had made before Heather is possessed.) The handling of the situation when the Doctor wanted to wipe Bill's memory is better than when it was Clara on the end of it. (and definitely when it was Donna!) The Doctor's change of mind was quite quick.

Unless it is a future Doctor, which would be interesting in of itself. (Would present!Doctor investigate Bill's vanishing?) The Dalek cameo was handled quite well.The fate of Heather is interesting, and Bill's reaction to it is well handled. I recommend seeing this episode. 9/10.

Doctor Who 10.02 'Smile Review:

The second episode of Series 10, following straight from the end of the previous episode (much like, The End of the World from Rose...) The start is interesting, proving that it isn't a future Doctor, but the mystery of what is in the Vault deepens. What is it that Nardole has to remind him that he is no longer allowed to go off planet? (He also only appears in this scene, clearly not a traditional 'companion'.) Bill's questions regarding how the Doctor drives (or negotiates with) the TARDIS normally are quite well done.

The introduction to the colony planet and the Vardy robots is also quite well done, but there are issues with the excution. I'm not certain how. Is it the writing? (Maybe, but I liked it more than In the Forest of the Night.) Bill is a great character, her interactions with the emoji-bots, and reaction to what happened to the set-up crew, are quite believeable. The way she ignores the Doctor's instruction to stay in the TARDIS after they escape the first time, shows that she is inquisitive, and wants to help the Doctor with what he's doing.

The episode shows that the Doctor is quite fallible (for instance, that he doesn't realise that the ship is a sleeper ship, until Bill alerts him to that fact, although she doesn't fully grasp the significance until he tells her about it.) While finding out about what went wrong with the Vardy's (or Vardies?) is interesting, the resolution seems off. (Surely, it would be better if the Doctor re-programmed the Vardy's so that the deadly error wouldn't crop up again? As soon as someone else dies, or the boy is obviously greiving...) While the concepts are interesting, I have seen them done better in other media.

So, while it is still watchable (and re-watchable), I'm not recommending it that well. The lead-in the to the third episode is more interesting than that resolution. I'm looking forward to see how Bill will react to being in the past, and what that threat under the ice is. To re-interate, not that well recommended. 7/10.

Doctor Who 10.03 'Thin Ice' Review

The third episode of Series 10, following on from the end of the previous episode. (Are all the episodes going to do this this series? With next starting from the scene at the Vault? See below.) The episode is set at the Last Great Frost Fair, held in London in 1814, on the frozen Thame, where there is more to the Fair than what it appears to be.After the Doctor and Bill arrive, the Doctor tries to get back to the university, but the TARDIS isn't letting him. 'Always looking for trouble,' is a perfect description of the TARDIS's behaviour.

Of course, the Doctor and Bill don't stick around long enough to see the 'monster fish' on the scanner, but the story would have proceded quite differently if they had. In any case, the urchins at the Fair are quite well realised, albeit cleaner than they would have been in reality. But the real character development is Bill's. She seems to be horrified that the Doctor doesn't know how many dead bodies he had seen, and wonders what sort of man he is. It is the death of one of the urchins that spurs the Doctor, and Bill, into action. This leads to the discovery of the monster fish

The sound effects of that creature were done quite well, making Bill's comment about it's despair quite impactful emotionally. The following investigation of Lord Sutcliff's operation is also quite well done. The way the Doctor counsells Bill about being rational, but reacting impulsively anyway to Sutcliff's racism towards her is quite well written. Capaldi and Mackie (and Burns) acted quite well here.The Doctor's following speech about the measure of Civilisation being how fellow man is treated, rather than progress, is very well written.

This episode is better than the previous episode (the society of the time is represented accurately, racism and all). I definitely recommend seeing it. The end scenes, back at the university are good too. Bill learns that extraordinary events in the past, don't necessarily have an impact on the present, and we learn some more (albeit not much) about what is in the vault. Someone capable of knocking. 9/10.

Doctor Who 10.04 'Knock Knock' Review

The fourth episode of series 10, about Bill and several friends moving into a strange house. David Suchet sells it as The Landlord. He helped to make it a better episode than it could have been. However the episode is mostly about how Bill and her friends react to the predicament they find themselves in, and how they respond to the Doctor's help. With a large number of characters it is sometimes difficult to keep track. Some are developed more than others, but most of them do have a role to play.

Bill does panic almost as much as her friend, Shireen. But she takes the initiative to investigate the house. Her annoyance with the Doctor insisting he stay, is well done. Her calling him 'Grandfather' though, is that a link to Susan? Once the house starts doing it's thing, Shireen is incredulous at first, but does follow Bill's lead, thus allowing her to survive until the confrontation with the Landlord. It seems that she's interested in Paul, but that's not developed much. Harry gets trapped with the Doctor, in the loungeroom/kitchen.He too is incredulous about what is happening with the house, but follows the Doctor's lead once they are sealed in.

There isn't much development for Felicity, other than that she may be a clustrophobe. She panics, saying that 'I can't get trapped!' I'm uncertain whether the depiction is accurate. There isn't much more she does. Pavel does even less, simply being trapped by the house/'dryads'/alien woodlice. Paul 'comes on' to Bill (being shot down by her, given her orientation), he also is a practical joker (with Bill and Shireen falling for it). There is also the Landlord, and the secret he has been concealing.

The reveal, about the Landlord and his daughter (who actually turns out to be his mother) is quite well done. However the 'everyone lives' moment seems anticlimatic. But the ongoing storyline is continued quite well with the Doctor's interaction with the person in the vault. (It may be obvious who it is, but I'm prepared to be surprised.) The above caveats aside I would recommend this episode alongside those previous in this series. 8/10.

Doctor Who 10.05 'Oxygen' Review

The fifth episode of series 10, where the Doctor, Bill and Nardole arrive at a space station in response to a distress call. There is more going on at the Station than it appears. The intro to the episode does a really good job of setting up the situation, with the Doctor's riffing of the Star Trek intro ('Space, the final frontier. It's final, because it wants to kill you!') and the fate of various characters at the station. The visual design of the station is impressive also, like a much smaller Deep Space Nine.

Each main character is impressive, and undergoes changes in this story. The Doctor's problems get a lot worse. It leaves me wondering how this development would affect his efficacy in the future episodes. Nevertheless, he leads the investigation into the problem on the station in his usual manner, despite Nardole's objections. Although I'm not sure why he would be hiding the problem he gains from Bill at the end. Talking about Bill, she continues to be an interesting character, seemingly supporting the Doctor against Nardole at the beginning.

The way she reacts to the threats are quite believable, anyone would panic at having to go into space with limited are (more on the air situation below). She is also quite shocked at the fact that people had died. Nardole is much the same as before. It is revealed that he is following the Doctor's orders, to stop going off when that Vault needs defending (and whoever it is would know that the Doctor is injured, and given the nature of the Doctor's injury... Uh oh!). However, when problems amount, he is quite helpful in the situation.

That the Doctor is able to 'negotiate' with the TARDIS despite his injury is interesting. But there is the elephant in the room, or rather the Megacorporation that owns the station. Is the story anti-capitalist? That is a high possibility. However, workers deemed expendible is plausible given many historical precedents. Charging for air seems to be an efficient way of doing this. This is a good story despite any caveats above, albeit not as good as any anti-capitalist tales in the classic era (Capaldi doesn't quite match Baker), but still quite well recommended.

8.5/10.

Doctor Who 10.06 'Extremis' Review

The sixth episode of series 10. It is also the first part of a three part story. The Vatican calls the Doctor to come and investigate a mysterious book in their forbidden library, bringing Bill and Nardole along for the ride. That is just the start of their trouble. The blindness which the Doctor had been inflicted by in the previous episode, plays a major role here. The way he navigates with the sonic specs is well done. (my guess, the Specs induce synesthesia to produce a visual field for the Doctor. May, or may not, work only with a Time Lord brain.)

The device from the TARDIS he uses to temporarily regain vision is interesting too (borrowing from his future self? An interesting notion!). His relationship to a previous Pope is an interesting addition to the show's story also. Bill and Nardole play off well against each other. Her characterisation builds upon that established in the previous episodes. She is annoyed when the Doctor interrupts her date via materialising the TARDIS in her bedroom with the Pope (and Cardinals) in tow.

She is incredulous about what the central mystery of the episode entails even after Nardole vanishes (and the previous weirdness at CERN.) And that leads into the central plot of the episode The mystery of the book has an unexpected solution. That is, that most of the episode takes place in a simulation. Some aliens had been running the simulation as a way to predict how the Earth (and any visitors, including the Doctor) would react. It is also a great demonstation of the fact that computers don't produce truly random numbers.

Then there's the other plot. It is Missy in the Vault! (Not really surprising.) The concept of a planet of executioners is interesting (in the Chinese sense. How would a civilisation get that way?) One wonders how they would enforce the oath that the Doctor took. (Other than via Nardole?) Missy's comment about the Daleks knowing about the Doctor's 24 year sojourn on Darillium with River (although she isn't named) is also intreaging.At the end, the real Doctor finds out (via the Sim-Doctor sending a message somehow).

I certainly recommend watching it. 8.5/10.

Doctor Who 10.07 'The Pyramid at the End of the World' Review

The seventh episode of Series 10 and the second in the 'monk trilogy'. An interesting installment. What the Monk aliens want with the Earth isn't revealed (other than that they want to rule it). It also isn't revealed why they need 'consent' to rule the Earth. However, the real 'meat' of the story is with the character interactions (as it should be). (Was the Doctor going to tell Bill about his blindness?) Especially with Bill telling Penny about what had occurred (sort of) in the previous episode. Is that going to lead anywhere?

But I digress. The Doctor is mostly his usual self, even though he is moping in the TARDIS. (The song he is singing when the TARDIS is on the plane is quite downbeat.) However, he is certainly desperate to stop the plan of the Monk aliens, doing what he does best, trying to think of a solution to the situation, right down to the last moments in the lab with Erica. It's not his failure that leads to the cliffhanger ending... Rather it's down to Bill, and her not willing that the Doctor be caught in an explosion.

She;'s willing to sacrifice the planet to save the Doctor. (a good motive, but certainly the wrong group to make such a sacrifice to!) However, this is consistent with what we have seen in the previous episodes. Nardole is his helpful self, there is not much to say here. However, there is Erica, the (little in stature, but not in personality) microbiologist. The establishing moments for her were a rather good setup for her role in the rest of the story. She's willing to help the Doctor in preventing the bacteria from spreading.

(Of course she would be.) However, introducing the Secretary General the same way as the Pope was in the previous episode seems an interesting choice. Is this going to be a running gag, Penny meeting Bill in her flat, and some unexpected, but important person suddenly appears? I'm not sure how many repetitions could be sustained. (If each time is different enough, sure...) The American, Russian and Chinese generals are used quite well. The aliens cencept of consent... I'm not sure what to make of it (Sec-Gen's fear and the Generals' strategy not accepted.)

Even with the identified caveats, I recommend this episode as a good example of Doctor Who. 9/10.

Doctor Who 10.08 'The Lie of the Land' Review

The eighth episode of series 10 and the conclusion of the 'Monks trilogy'. A little bit of 'hit and miss', quite a lot of 'telling' and not a lot of show. However there are still many parts that were good. The introduction sequence for instance, showing that the Monks have set up a totalitarian regeime by rewriting history, was quite well done, as was Bill's method of holding onto the truth, via talking to her Mum as an imaginary friend. Still, a thought was 'the weirdest episode of Doctor Who ever', but that's not true.

There is certainly more than a passing similarity to another New Who story involving the Master, but more on that later. The meeting (after the six months that have passed since the previous story) between Bill and Nardole was done quite well, as was their finding the Doctor by tracing the broadcasts. It was appropriately tense (as with the scene where there is an identity paper spot check). That was resolved very well. If only the episode overall was resolved as well, but more on that later.

The scenes where the Doctor was pretending to be collaborating with the Monks were genuinely tense, the way he was testing Bill was quite genuine. (Capaldi did this really well.) However, I don't think Bill needed to shoot him in that way. A fake out regeneration wasn't really necessary. The scene was tense enough without it. But what was well done, was what followed, with Missy in the Vault. (This does add to the 'telling' problem, but the information Missy gives helps to save the Earth from the Monks.)

There is a parallel between the Monk's memory alteration field (whatever it's called) and the Archangel Network in The Sound of Drums. (Of course, Missy doesn't show the compassion). That said, the scene where the Doctor and the others enter the Pyramid (which is in London for some reason) is quite tense. However the way Bill saves the Earth with the memories of her mother, seems anticlimatic and a cheat. And that the situation seems to have reset via the Monk's self-erasure.

That too seems to be a cheat. Recommendation? Is it the worst episode ever? No that goes to some stinkers in the Classic series. It's not as bad as some from Series 8 either. 7/10.

Monks Trilogy overall review

The 'Monk's Trilogy is interesting as an exercise in science fiction, and as a Doctor Who story, but does it hold up to the first five entries so far in Series 10? As the first part, does Extremis introduce the threat that the Monks pose in an effective manner? It is a good introduction to Missy's situation. The plot thread introduced here does get a good continuation in The Lie of the Land. The fact that the Monks use simulation as a method of assessing their potential victims, and that they gather enough information for those simulations certainly indicates that they are a significant threat,

But do the elements introduced in Extremis carry through to The Pyramid at the End of the World effectively. The Doctor knows that they are coming, certainly. But does he use the information that was sent from the sim-Doctor effectively? Or as if he was going into the situation without any information on the Monks at all? The answer; the former. In my opinion, the situation in Termezistan would have played out differently if he hadn't received that message. But it's difficult to tell how different,

Bill and Penny. Their reactions in Extremis and The Pyramid at the End of the World, to the Pope and the Secretary General respectively, do have some differences, probably to the Doctor telling Bill about the simulation. However, do the characters of the Secretary General, the three generals and Erica (latter whom is the only survivor out of them) contribute to the overall trilogy? Erica doesn't appear in the next episode (should she have). To answer, their role is minor, but Erica could appear again later in the series.

But does The Lie of the Land make a good conclusion? I'm not sure, given the nature of how the Monks are defeated. The motivation behind their regieme wasn't satisfactorily explained. About why they needed love based 'consent' or to manipulate the historical record. If not for the story elements involving Missy, I'm not sure it works. That story thread, involving Missy is more fulfilling than that involving the Monks. So it does work, but only barely. The Black Guardian Trilogy (Maudryn Undead, Terminus, Enlightenment) works a lot better.

(But then, one could consider Davison 'my Doctor'), there was much better plotting in the Classic series than here. And RTD did better with the trilogy that concluded Series 3. So overall it's underwhelming. 8.166/10.

Doctor Who 10.09 'Empress of Mars' Review

A very good episode. One of Gatiss' best. The NASA scene while it does introduce the situation, seems a little unnecessary, although it is as good as the rest of the story. It just seems to be a little superfluous. The arrival on Mars is well done, although it's not clear why the TARDIS left when Nardole went back aboard. The early explorations by the Doctor and Bill of the Martian tunnels were done quite well also. And the confrontation between the Doctor and Friday was well choreographed.

The explanation of how the British troops got into the situation they are in, is believable. That they found the Ice Warrior they named after the Defoe character in a ship on the veldt in South Africa and then helped him repair it. (And then lured them to Mars with promises of riches in the form of gemstomes, or gold.) That's an excellent set up to the situation, and leads into the discovery of the Empress' tomb/hibernation chamber. Each of the soldiers is given a unique personality, but more on that later.

In any case, the Empress is quite well realised, being in shock at the interlopers, the length of time spent in the hibernation, and the state of the surface. Godsacre's backstory is interesting. That he was caught for desertion, and was unscuccessfully hung for it. (There are questions about how he would be able to rejoin the Army after that, but those would detract from below.) In any case, that leads him to be able to work out a deal with the Empress, despite an attempt by his second to gain control.

The resolution that is worked out is quite believable (they wouldn't get back to Earth in any case). The appearance of Alpha Centauri is just icing on the cake (although I yet hadn't seen the Peladon serials). The conclusion with Missy being in the TARDIS, is interesting. There may be more to Missy's question about the Doctor's well being than his concern about her being out of the Vault. Overall this is a very good episode. 9/10.

Doctor Who 10.10 'The Eaters of Light' Review

The Tenth episode of series 10, written by Rona Monroe. (A note that there won't be Survival comparisons here.) The bookends, with the young 21st (?) century lass at the ruins of the cairn, is an interesting plot device. The beginning effectively sets the scene, that there is something on the Moor that the Doctor had been involved in. (The stone image of the TARDIS along the Pictish monster, is very good in this regard.) A very good lead in (more about the concluding scene below.) The TARDIS crew's arrival is quite good also.

The dialogue about the crows speaking, and being in a huff is a little 'on the nose' but it does lead to a satisfying plot development towards the end of the episode, so that's easily forgiven. But what is more interesting, is Bill's interest in the IXth Legion. It is an effective way of setting up her role in the story. (The less said about her explaining her orientation to the Romans the better.) The Doctor and Nardole meeting the Picts is a lot better. The Picts come across better than the Romans as characters here.

(Romans are done better in The Fires of Pompeii.) The Picts' resentment at what the Romans have done to them and their land is quite well articulated. (Rebecca Benson did a very good job as Kar here.) The nature of the monsters ('Light eating locusts' as the Doctor puts it), is a very good idea for an antagonist, but I'm not sure that the resulting CGI is 100% effective. But that is a minor quibble, that doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the episode. Back to the characters: Kar. She's quite remorseful for her mistake in using one of the creatures against the IXth Legion.

(And thus the threat to the universe, see below.) When the Romans and Picts come to gether, the Doctor and Bill have to help them 'bury the hatchet' in order to focus on the problem that the 'light eating locusts' pose. Bill talking about the TARDIS's translation of the languages (English, Latin, Pictish...) helps to resolve the tension, but the Doctor's speech on the threat the creatures pose (that they would eat all the light sources in the universe) is what gets them to reconcile. Then the manner of fighting the creatures makes a good resolution.

(Another reference to Regeneration...) Kar and the remaining soldiers of the IXth sacrificing themselves to fight the creatures (rather than the Doctor) is a satisfying resolution to this story. The fact that the crows are remembering Kar, rather than being in a huff, contributes to that satisfaction. The scene with Missy, where it's revealed that she was maintaining the TARDIS, is just icing on the cake. I would recommend it to anyone to watch. 9/10.

Doctor Who 10.11 'World Enough and Time' Review The 11th episode of Series 10, and the first part of the two part finale. A very interesting episode with a lot of suspense. The pre-titles scene, with the Doctor starting to regenerate certainly adds to that suspense. However, the tale is in the journey, and so that journey starts on this 400 mile long colony ship falling into a black hole. With a twist, Missy pretending to be the Doctor. I'm not sure what to make of her saying 'Doctor Who', but otherwise it was well done. The way she introduces Bill and Nardole was interesting also.

But what really sets up the events of the episode is what happens to Bill. After some things start coming up the elevator (turbolift?) the pilot (who turns out to be the janitor) starts getting very anxious. The slow reveal of what they are is quite effective. But the result of this scene, Bill being shot is the impetus that drives the plot. The flashback, after she is shot, intercutting with her falling, was quite effective. Bill trying to get a promise from the Doctor that she wouldn't get killed, but not really getting one, also adds to the suspense.

The Doctor's “Wait for me,” to Bill is a good line, and it also leads to some resolution at the end of the episode (more on that later). Bill then waking up and exploring the Hospital. This scene is quite atmospheric and creepy. Very suspenseful. She seems to know that there is something not right about the patients. She soon meets Mr. Razor, who is more than he appears (see below), and the Matron).And so she discovers the other end of the ship, and that time is passing much faster there than at the top of the ship.

Of course, it takes time for the Doctor to explain the time dilation to Jorj (Missy and Nardole already have an idea of what is going on). The intercutting, showing time passing for Bill (and Mr. Razor) while the Doctor is explaining what is going on, was rather well done. The scenes outside the hospital, where Razor explains what is going on, that the society is dying and want to change to be strong, were good, both as exposition and as forshadowing for what was to come. The Doctor's explanation of the time dilation was good also.

Of course, it comes down to the last few minutes. And what a last few minutes! A lot is revealed in those few minutes. Bill's betrayal by Mr. Razor was really well done. I didn't expect him to be the Saxon incarnation of the Master in disguise! (I thought he would appear in some other way.) The reveals of Missy discovering that the ship was from Mondas and the Doctor recognising a patient as a Cyberman from that planet were very well done. But the wham at the end come from the reveal that the Cyberman is Bill!

That, and that Missy seems to team up with her past self and CyberBill's line “I waited for you!” combine to make a rather shocklingly great cliffhanger. 9.5/10.

Doctor Who 10.12 'The Doctor Falls' Review

The 12th and final episode of Series 10, and the second half of the series finale. It is certainly an interesting (if a little confronting in parts, see below, regarding Bill) episode. Is it a good episode? A good finale? To begin with, the sequence on the roof of the hospital was rather good, with the two incarnations of the Master trying to interrogate the Doctor, only to find that the Doctor had one-upped them, by altering the parameters for the Cybermen. It makes for a very tense scene. The Doctor being atttacked by a Cyberman only makes it more so.

The introduction to the farming society on Floor 507 was good also. It helped to get a feel for the characters as it were. However it also leads to the most confronting part of the episode. Bill and the effect of what was done to her on her mind (or the lack thereof). Her perplexity at seeing the reflection of a Cyberman in the mirror was done quite well, as was the following discussion with the Doctor regarding what she had become. It was very moving, almost enough to move one to tears.

The young girl is certainly moved to tears by her. That interaction helps to set up the interaction with the Doctor as noted above. However, there is more to the episode than Bill's problem. There is also the two incarnations of the Master, and how they interact with each other. (Gomez and Simm certainly work well together.) They both help the Doctor find the lifts, but Saxon Master is more likely to follow the beat of his own drum (even if the literal drumming had been removed). The planning for the Cybermen attack (what there is of it), is done well.

Of course, the Masters don't stick around for the actual attack, but the final scene where the two Masters kill each other (although Missy is surprised) is done very well. That Missy would induce the regeneration of her previous self to punish him for running away is believable, as is Saxon Master killing his future self! The Doctor's line to them that it's not about being a hero, but rather about being kind, is a very good line. It certainly suits the Doctor, not just this Doctor, but also the Doctor overall.

There is the contrast between the Doctor and Nardole in the heat of the moment. That Nardole is stronger than the Doctor, seems a bit much, but it's a good send off for that character (even if his situation and that of the children he leads to floor 502 is unresolved). The battle between the Doctor and the Cybermen is well choreographed. But the main resolution involves an unexpected element. Heather! This isn't as much as a cop out as it might seem, given the set up in the first episode, but more on that in the overall series review. Bill gets a good ending (and she may come back.)

Far more interesting is that the Doctor is refusing to regenerate. That is certainly an interesting development. The First Doctor appearing makes for a rather good hook for the Christmas special. Overall a well written, if flawed episode. 8.5/10.

Series Finale Two Part review

The season finale, both as an example of science fiction, and as a Doctor Who story works, better than the 'Monks Trilogy'. There are many elements common to both stories within this finale. Overall themes, and character development. For instance, desperation, and the efforts that both individuals and societies go to as a result of that emotion. For instance, the descendents of the Mondasian human crewmembers on Floor 1056 eventually upgrading themselves into Cybermen, and Jorj's reaction to Bill's presence on the Bridge.

This also extends to the inhabitants of Floor 507, as they do what they must against the proto-Cybermen that were coming for their children. It also extends to the Doctor, as he tries to come up with a plan that would stop the Cybermen, and is later desperate to stop the inevitable regeneration. And the Saxon Master is also desperate to stop his future self from becoming good. Bill also is desperate to hold onto her identity despite what happens to her. All of this desperation is very well presented.

There certainly isn't an overload of it, and it obviously isn't the only emotion present. There's also fear. Fear of the Cybermen. Fear of regeneration, fear of what one has become. Anger: Bill's presentation of this was well done. And last but not least, hope. A misplaced hope on the part of the society on Floor 1056, but also the hope that Nardole and the kids from 507 would survive on Floor 502. On to the characters, specifically to the two incarnations of the Master. Missy continued redemption was done very well.

But the more interesting characterisation is that of the Saxon Master. It is consistent with how he was portrayed in Series 3. The way he manipulated the Mondasian society and Bill is reminicent of how he manipulated Britain and the Doctor, Captain Jack and Martha in that previous storyline. His role as Mr. Razor was subtely offputting. In fact the name could be seen as a hint. It's very close to Saxon. The Master must like these two syllable pseudonyms... In any case, Simm did a very good job in both episodes.

The Doctor's development was also done well, even if the development of him not wanting to regenerate seems to come out of nowhere. Him wanting Missy to be good continues and he wants both Masters to help against the Cybermen. That part was done well, as was his reaction to what happened to Bill. Bill's experience was developed well across the episodes. Her reaction to the hospital and the patients therin, is reflected with her reaction to what she had become. More directly, her waking in the barn is like the previous waking in the hospital.

There is not much to say about Nardole's role in the episode that hadn't been said earlier. However, what happens to Jorj isn't stated. (Other than him possibly waking up and then seeing the TARDIS dematerialise as Heather flies it away...) Overall this is an effective conclusion to the series. 9/10.

Overall Series Review

Overall Series 10 was a very good series of stories about the Doctor and the changing circumstances that his meeting with Bill Potts brings about. It isn't a simple story (or series of stories), but there are many repeating themes. And then there are the bookends. As an example, Heather's becoming the Pilot is one of the main plots of the first episode, and she appears to rescue Bill and the Doctor after the defeat of the Cybermen on Floor 507. Her appearance in the latter episode may seem to come out of thin air, but it is set up in the first.

One of these themes is memories... Bill's memories in particular play an important part in various episodes. The Doctor gives her a photo of her mother, and it is that memory of her mother that allows her to defeat the Monks (even if that plot thread was weak). In addition, the strength of mind that allows her to hold out against the Monk's 'fake news' field is what allows her to resist the cyberconversion. A thread through the later part of the series is Missy remembering those she had killed...

Another is the phrase 'Without hope, without witness, without reward'. It appears in Extremis, and also in The Doctor Falls. In the former it is linked to the Doctor rescuing Missy from the executioners because he considers her a friend. In the latter, it helps to swing Missy back to the Doctor's side. It also appeared in some of the other episodes, but these are the most prominent. The development of the various characters through the series was also good. The Doctor is shown to be 'chafing' under the responsibility of guarding Missy.

He is clearly interested in Bill's development, encouraging her to look outside the box, with examples of such occurring throughout the series (even at the end). His weaknesses are also shown, quite well, especially after he's blinded at the space station, and hides it from Bill, with dramatic consequences! (See below for more.) He seems to be desperate for Missy to turn to the good side, and is flat flooted by the appearance of her predecessor on the colony ship. This aspect was also quite well done.

Bill's development was also interesting. She continues to ask questions in every episode (even of 'Razor'). It doesn't get too much. Her savvyness is also well done (except for in Empress of Mars, where it may be a little thick). Overall she was an important part of the storylines, with her mental fortitude helping to defeat the Monks (even if she caused them to take over the planet), and the Cybermen, The former may have seemed like a cheat, but the latter was a lot better done. Nardole was done well aslo.

There was more to him than first met the eye. But it was the storyline involving Missy that was the best aspect of the series. The earlier portions regarding the Vault may have dragged a bit, but after the 'Monk's trilogy' it lead to a very interesting conclusion. Was the Monk's trilogy a mistake? I'm not sure. The Lie of the Land may have been a let down, but the earlier portions involving the Doctor's weakness were done very well, so probably not. Overall, despite this dip in the middle, it was a great series.

8.5/10.

#doctor who #review #series 10

1 note · View note

lauraxxtennant · 7 years

Text

don juan in soho

Review & lots of spoilers below

Ok. So, you guys know by now that I was, let’s say, cautious about several aspects of this play prior to seeing it.

I was completely turned around on one of those things, though, and this was the inclusion of music/dance numbers and an actual. Duet. Between dt and adrian. This duet was the highlight of my night. I know!!! That’s bonkers!!! I thought I was going to find this the most embarrassing moment of my life, and yet!!!!!

Let me be clear, I love musicals. I love plays. I don’t usually find it beneficial to the material when a play tries to shoehorn in a musical number. I usually think it’s best for straight plays to leave the musicals down the road to their singing and dancing, and just act the damn thing. Added to this, the fact that david tennant is clearly desperate to be in a musical lmao made me think, ‘oh god, this is gonna be a disaster, he can’t sing, it’s gonna be embarrassing.’ HOWEVER. I fully admit that he sounded good tonight. Really really good. DJ & Stan basically get stoned and sing a (brief, TOO BRIEF) semi-romantic duet under the stars at the end of act one. It’s the best point in the play, and no one is more surprised by this than me.

There’s another brief musical number in the play by the cast (not including dt) where you see a couple of real life, floppy-haired teenage dt photos projected in the background (none that we haven’t seen before.) I also really liked the tiny snippets of music from the opera Don Giovanni, which gave me the shivers. I feel like this could’ve been used to greater effect actually; if the ~moment of revelation~ and the ending of the play were stronger, bringing in those strains of Mozart could’ve had a greater impact, really set a nice tone of doom about the place. But perhaps there were practical limitations on how much they could use of that music anyway; this play is, after all, not the opera Don Giovanni.

Before seeing the show, I was also dubious about what I’d heard re: the staging. It’s quite a sparse set, which I think is fine actually, and there’s an absolutely ridiculous moment where david tennant flies into the air on a rickshaw (yes, really) which clearly made him very happy so i can take that all in good fun lol. Therefore, the only gripe I have about the staging has to do with the whole statue-coming-alive thing (yeah...really.) More on that later, though.

The third thing I didn’t think I was gonna like but did, was the hospital scene. DJ receives a blowjob from Lottie (played by Dominique Moore, who is very funny in the scene preceding this where she actually gets to speak) whilst chatting up the bride (or, ‘the fox’ as DJ charmingly calls her...) whose wedding reception he has just ruined in his pursuit of her. The logistics of it are frankly ridiculous - nobody could get away with that in a hospital waiting room lmao, blanket covering the action or not. There’s a large bag sitting on the seat between him and the bride, hiding Lottie’s ministrations from her, but the rest of the people in the room can see what’s going on. So it’s bonkers. But it’s also hilarious. I’m incredibly impressed that david tennant managed to offer up such a variety of expressions over the course of several minutes, whilst also having a conversation with the bride. Several times you think, ok, he must be nearly done, this is the orgasm face...but nope, he keeps right on going, and he doesn’t even blush. Stellar receiving-blowjob acting right there. This is the funniest part of the play, imo.

As always, dt’s comic timing is great. But I think he mines more laughs through his delivery and physical comedy than the writing actually offers him. He deserves much better material. This play is a comedy but I get the impression it thinks it’s funnier than it is, or at least it thinks it’s more quick-witted and worldly than it is. Admittedly this comes down to personal taste as much as anything. I did laugh aloud in places, but there were several times I heard someone a few rows back really, properly laughing at something I considered pretty tepid on the humour front tbh.

As I mentioned in my summary earlier, the staggering amount of alliteration in this play nearly made me lose my mind. Once you notice something like that - something repetitious in someone’s writing - it is so hard to tune it out. I know this sounds like a very nit-picky, minor thing, but it was honestly so irritating!! The line that’s been thrown about a lot in the promo stuff/reviews, ‘Satan in a suit from Savile Row,’ is truly just the start; that line is said by Stan, but DJ gets most of the excruciating stuff, including a dozen or so lines informing us that DJ cannot possibly be racist because he’d do it with, among other alliterative ladies, ‘a babe in a Burka.’

Talking of racism. There’s a terrible line about how DJ wants to fly to Alaska to have sex with a ‘furry little eskimo,’ which I didn’t find particularly pleasant or funny.

The supporting cast is very non-white for a West End show, so kudos to the casting director for that, but it is unfortunate that DJ’s brother-in-law, who I have seen described in a review as a ‘black thug’ (!!!) is the maker of DJ’s demise.

There’s also a really tasteless scene where DJ is interacting with a homeless Muslim man. This is the scene I was referring to when I said something turned my stomach. He dangles his £6k watch in front of his face and tells him he can have it if he blasphemes Allah. I’m aware this is a direct parallel to a scene in Moliere’s Don Juan (wherein he offers a coin to a beggar on the proviso the beggar concedes to blaspheme; interestingly this scene was removed from performances at the time.) But the execution of this scene is just so tasteless and unpleasant. Oh, and also dt imitates the Muslim man’s accent at one point. Grim.

Though DJ, in his monologue near the end of the play, riles against hypocrisy, he is so self-righteous in this scene that it’s almost unbearable; he goes on and on about how Allah hasn’t done anything for this homeless man, so why can’t he insult him (at first he wants him to call Allah a cunt, then he de-escalates to ‘twerp,’ neither of which the man does. Thankfully DJ throws him the watch anyway, ‘because of his integrity.’ But that this rich, vile, atheist man could shout in this other guy’s face about his religion...it’s horrible. Stan agrees, so at least our ~moral compass within the play (dubious) is on the audience’s side. But still, it’s very uncomfortable to watch.

For me, this was the only shocking moment in the play. Though this play is billed as being filthy and shocking, there is nothing inherently shocking or controversial about a fictional portrayal of a womanising, amoral, cynical, privileged white male with an excessive sexual appetite, penchant for prostitutes, and evidently an addiction to drugs and/or drink. Those characters are, let’s face it, ten a penny in literature, on stage, and on screen. DJ’s liberal use of the word ‘cunt’ might shock some in the audience, granted, but I think this play thinks it’s more shocking that it is. The language in the play is clearly something dt relishes getting to perform, and I am not offended by swearing at all, and honestly quite like hearing him going for it (apart from that one time he calls a prostitute ‘fuckface,’ not that she seems to mind.) But it’s sort of a bit laughable, that lines like ‘I’m just a cunt with an eye for one,’ are trying so hard to provoke laughter and/or shock, when...it’s just not even that great a line? A lot of the ‘funny’ lines are phrased pretty awkwardly tbh.

Other absurd moments:

DJ declaring himself a radical feminist. (this is funny because aside from Marber’s use of that word in this one instance, the rest of the play seems to take place in a contemporary world where feminism never happened.)

The statue coming alive. I hated this lmao. I mean. It’s all hallucinatory/figurative I guess (i hope??) because it’s his own voice bellowing from the statue that DJ hears, foretelling his impending doom and indicating how much he despises/fears himself, but the surrealness of the statue moving about and pedalling him into the air on a rickshaw, it’s just...it’s embarrassing

‘I’m not a rapist, I don’t grab pussy!’ getting a huge laugh. a) the bar is truly low when you have to say at least the dude is not a rapist, b) i hate donald trump as much as anyone but this is one of those poorly-phrased lines i mentioned that aren’t actually very funny. It felt a bit shoehorned in tbh.

Elvira, DJ’s wife, is an oddly-conceived character. I understand that reflecting the convent-girl origins of this character in the modern day was gonna be tricky, but the modern-day equivalent Marber comes up with is not particularly believable. Rather than a nun he’s lured away from the convent to marry/take the virginity of, as in Moliere’s play, in this play Elvira is a charity worker who, after a two-year pursuit, DJ has finally persuaded to marry him. The reasons he wanted to marry her are the same as in the original: she’s a virgin, and won’t sleep with him before marriage. Once they’ve had their honeymoon, he’s off to bed Croatian supermodels, done with her now that he’s finally had sex with her.

The suspension of disbelief comes in twofold: firstly, we have to accept that Stan and Elvira’s brother throwing around the words ‘she was an innocent’ and ‘she was pure’ (and the implication that she has now been corrupted) are likely phrases to be said these days. I mean, come off it. Secondly, Elvira’s speech - about DJ being terrible but at least he opened her up to physical pleasure! At least he showed her how magnificent all these filthy fantasies she didn’t know she had could be! She won’t be with him now she knows what he’s really like but she still loves him and always will! - all of that nonsense, it just didn’t ring true. Especially as we come into their relationship just as they are back from their honeymoon and he’s sleeping with someone else, so we don’t even get to see evidence of how he charmed her in the first place (she references that he was sweet and kind and acted so in love, but we never see these traits in DJ at all.) The actress playing Elvira, Danielle Vitalis, didn’t give a particularly strong performance imo, but I honestly don’t know how much of that was really her fault, given the ridiculous lines she had to say.

The final thing that rubbed me up the wrong way was the monologue near the end. The disdain for millennials from middle-aged male writers made a jump from online articles to stage with this one, or, if not targetted at that generation specifically this time, then at least at this digital day and age we currently live in. It elicited rapturous applause from the audience, and yeah, the ‘welcome to my vlog; today i bought a plum’ line was amusingly delivered, but I have no time for a character who is morally bankrupt claiming the moral high ground simply because he finds selfie/social media culture undignified and lacking in class. I might agree with him on his comments on the value of privacy, but this dude is shamelessly shagging his way through Soho (christ, I’ve caught Marber’s alliteration bug) and so I think his sermon on hypocrisy is a little tone deaf.

Are we expected to equate the unapologetic, relentless pursuit of ‘skirt, or occasionally, trouser’ with a life lived to the full, a life celebrating ‘free will and answering to nobody?’ It’d be one thing if DJ genuinely loved women, as in loved in the way dt’s Casanova loved women; a seducer and a bit of a cad, sure, but one who at least respected and admired rather than objectified women. But DJ generally seems to have contempt for them bubbling under the surface, and in any case, the only reason he is able to pursue this kind of life - one sexual dalliance to the next, a snort of cocaine here, a cigarette and a scotch there - is because his father is rich and can fund such an elite lifestyle. There’s also your typical middle-aged male writer cynicism about love dressed up as a philosophical, salient point about the unnaturalness of monogamy as opposed to the natural state of man being to ‘hunt his prey.’ Marber, mate - you ain’t saying anything new, here. Writers just like you wheel out this faux-philosophy about the human condition more times than I can count, and all it ever really tells me is that you wish you had the guilt-free option to have an affair yourself.

I say all this because it’s quite hard for me to decipher what Marber really wants us to take from this play. DJ is warned of his reckoning, promptly feigns contrition to ensure his father doesn’t cut him off, but feels no actual guilt or compulsion to change his ways. He then eventually gets his comeuppance, and Stan regularly tells us how despicable he is, but I still get the impression that, in spite of Stan’s warning, ‘please don’t be charmed, he’s not a loveable rogue,’ that’s exactly what’s expected of us. Indeed, Stan says at one point ‘just as we were starting to warm up to him!’ (I think after the homeless man scene.) But I…..was never charmed. Not even for a second. I don’t think anyone could be? Honestly? Because he clearly is despicable, he has no compassion, is selfish to the extreme, has received all the luxury and privilege being the heir to an earldom affords him, with none of the responsibility, has never worked a day in his life, and has only limited affection for even the one person closest to him (Stan, an employee he never pays and treats abominably.) As dt has postulated in interviews, DJ is a sociopath. And yet we are subjected to a lecture from him on the indignity of a world of selfies and vlogs and hypocrisy, as though those things, vainglorious though they can sometimes be, are more sinister and morally corrupt than his objectification and dismissal of every woman he comes across. It’s a bit hard to swallow, frankly.

DJ has great hair, tailored suits, tiny red pants, and the innumerable benefits afforded to him by virtue of being played by david tennant. But he’s never particularly charming. We never see anything of the kindness and gentleness that so charmed Elvira into marrying him. We never really see him seduce anyone, aside from Lottie (this seduction is essentially him groping her boobs in the guise of being a ‘specialist doctor,’ complimenting her assets and telling her she shouldn’t change herself in any way [she’d mentioned she wanted a boob job]) and the only other time we see him in a sexual situation is with four prostitutes, and he has evidently paid for their company. But we hear he has had sex with three different women a day for the last 25 years, and that he is ‘extremely fuckable.’ I mean, yes, to look at him, clearly sexy af. Yet I feel there was a twinkle in the eye missing for anyone to actually be compelled to go for it with him; for comparison, rather than returning to dt’s Casanova again, I’m now thinking about Tom Ellis in Lucifer, who does play a loveable rogue, and the contrast is pretty clear.

And I bring this up because I’m left here thinking: if there’s nothing really interesting about DJ, if he really is just one-dimensional, and selfish, a destructive man with delusions of self-importance, who’d ‘fuck a hole in the ozone layer’ if he could, then....why? Why are we interested in this man? Would we sit there and watch two hours of a female character doing the same thing? Would anyone even bother writing that, let alone consider producing it? I don’t think they would.

It’s an entertaining play because dt and adrian breathe humour into a script that is, occasionally, lifeless. They can’t save every line, but their chemistry is great and their relish for these parts is evident. The play isn’t as shocking or as funny or even as filthy as you’d expect, and I don’t think it taps into the moral quagmire it thinks it does; honestly, it’s pretty standard stuff. I still don’t know quite what Marber’s going for. Of course, there doesn’t necessarily need to be a ‘message’ or a twist or a social commentary to be figured out within a production. But I think if you’re adapting something that plays with the idea of a libertine repenting through fear of death/hell, and if you feel that won’t resonate in a contemporary setting, then the stakes ought to be raised in another way. The spectre of impending doom looming over him is pretty lacklustre, and, given that DJ would rather die as he lived than profess a simple apology to save himself, the ending isn’t very evocative at all - it’s actually a bit dull.

Best bits:

DJ & Stan’s duet

dt’s hair

stan’s endless exasperation at DJ’s antics

the hospital scene

the tight blue suit

dt looking so happy flying overhead in a rickshaw (despite the ridiculous statue driving it)

stan’s last few lines

i cannot stress this enough: dt looked super hot

Worst bits:

the homeless man scene

the patronising tirade against this vain new world

the elvira plot

the statue coming alive and foretelling his doom a la marley’s ghost in a christmas carol

the lacklustre ending

3/5 stars, could’ve been a lot better. with a different writer. and plot. 😂

#don juan in soho #laura's theatre adventures #ok exactly none of you really want a three thousand word review of this play lmao #but that's what i have provided #goodnighttttttttt

28 notes · View notes

billcoberly · 7 years

Text

The Silliest Take of the Week: 1/22/2017

Last week was a busy week for Internet Writers, between MLK Day, Trump’s inauguration, and, of course, the U.S. premiere of the first episode of The Young Pope. Today, I’d like to spend a little time going through some harmlessly Silly Takes, perform a quick detour through a truly Rage Inducing Take that is not so much Silly as it is Patently Offensive, and finally, end with a succinct yet wonderful tweet. More of the Silly Takes this week were from conservative sources, but please don’t take that to mean that this project only mocks conservative Takes: everybody is capable of writing Silly Takes.

Don’t forget to submit your favorite silly pieces of Internet writing to [email protected]! I didn’t get very many submissions this week, so the pool of potential Silly Takes was mostly limited to stuff I found in my Internet travels. Thanks to Erin for submitting a Take!

Most Self-Loathing In An Obligatory Take For A Culture Site

Jen Chaney, “How Trumpish Is The Young Pope?” Vulture, 1/18/2017

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and Internet writers gotta write about The Young Pope and Donald Trump as often as possible. A lot of people did this, and I’m sure many of the resulting Takes were Silly, but this one takes (hah) the cake for me because it spends most of its wordcount apologizing for writing a Take on The Young Pope and Donald Trump. See, for instance:

“I know what you’re thinking: ‘Is every TV show analysis from now until 2020 going to invoke Donald J. Trump? I mean, sometimes a show about a pope with a kangaroo in his garden is just a show about a pope with a kangaroo in his garden.’”

Anyway, this Take is harmless, but I include it because it’s always nice when a Take is self-aware of its own silliness. You just know that this writer pitched this with a heavy heart and a sudden deep awareness of the many sad duties required of her as an Internet Opinion-Haver.

White People Saying Stupid Things About Race: MLK Day Edition

Roger Clegg, “Dr. King, Race Relations, and Obama’s Farewell Address,” National Review, 1/16/2017

Here’s a couple of sentences for you, from Roger Clegg’s piece about Obama’s farewell speech:

“In a word: Nothing can purport to be a serious discussion of race relations in this country unless it discusses out-of-wedlock birthrates, because it is the disparity in out-of-wedlock birthrates that now most drives other racial disparities.”

After a paragraph citing various statistics on birth rates among various demographic populations, Clegg adds that:

“Racism is a bad thing, and it still exists. But the president is right that only the delusional think it is anything like the problem it was 50 years ago. The principal impediment for those who would like to narrow our ongoing racial disparities is not racism; it’s the “70.4 percent” figure above. Obama had a duty to talk about that again, too, and he failed to do so.”

Is there any better way to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day than for a white dude to condescendingly tell off a black dude for not focusing on the important parts of racial inequality? At least, in a victory for equality and legitimate children everywhere, Clegg generously admitted that racism is “a bad thing.”

Most Incoherent Paean to Fascism

Karl Spence, “How Donald Trump and Friends Can Crush the Great Crime Wave,” National Review, 1/16/2017

T. Greg Doucette wrote about this piece over at Mimesis Law, and you should probably just read what he has to say about this fatuous, incoherent, and offensive mess of an article.

However, if you want to read my opinion (which, presumably, you do, given that you’re reading my blog) it’s here. In short: Karl Spence, who near as I can tell is just Some Jackass, has spent the last thirty years of his life advocating that the only way to stop the massive crime wave in America (that doesn’t exist, at least certainly not the way he describes it) is to bring back swift hangings. In so doing, he ignores the current state of criminal law, statistics, context, and common concepts of decency and due process.

He complains about Miranda rights, dismissively describing that case as granting “a right to receive helpful legal advice from detectives whose true job is to solve crimes,” joining the ranks of the many who think that the problem with our criminal justice system is just too much due process. He spends paragraph after paragraph talking about how great vigilantism used to be. He advocates for a constitutional amendment to restore swift executions.

But the piece de resistance of this mess is this paragraph:

“What of the fact that most criminals stop short of murder? After all, the thugs who victimized Hans and Emma Kabel didn’t kill them, though they might as well have done. How do you reach those people? With a rope. That’s because most robbers depend on the threat of murder to secure their victims’ compliance, as do many rapists. And aggravated assault is, in many if not most cases, simply unsuccessful murder. Hang murderers, and every hoodlum in the land will notice. And, like the outlaws who fled the vigilantes, they will change their behavior.”

“Hang murderers, and every hoodlum in the land will notice” is the sort of thing I’d expect the Sherriff of Nottingham to say, and “[h]ow do you reach those people? With a rope,” is pure masturbatory posturing. As other people have pointed out, this op-ed reads like it was written by Frank Castle.

This Take is Silly in the sense that its legal and empirical analyses (as discussed in detail by Doucette, above) are completely divorced from reality, but it’s not Silly in the sense that some otherwise serious people apparently just paid a man to espouse harmful, hateful, inaccurate nonsense about the criminal justice system in a major publication. This is a bad take, and Spence should be ashamed of himself, but the real villain here is the cowardly jackanape at National Review Online who agreed to run this piece. There are always going to be jackboot-fantasists who long for the days when the local constabulary would chop hands off for petty theft, but we don’t have to give them a platform.

The Silliest Take of the Week, 1/22/2017

Ross Douthat, A Tweet, Twitter, 1/17/2017

Ross Douthat writes for the New York Times as their Designated Conservative, which means that a lot of people hate him: liberals hate him for being conservative, and conservatives hate him for writing for the New York Times. I would feel more sorry for him if he didn’t say immensely silly things all the time.

Earlier this week, then-President Obama announced that he was commuting the majority of the rest of Chelsea Manning’s sentence. People had Thoughts about this, as you might expect, but Ross Douthat managed to squeeze the Silliest Take of the Week into less than 140 characters when he tweeted this:

I have stared at this tweet for a non-trivial number of hours over the last few days, trying to decipher its many mysteries, and I still have no idea what this means. What is the “coincidence?” Who is scripting history? Is he suggesting that Chelsea Manning is a member of the Illuminati?

Many people expressed confusion, but Douthat refused to clarify what this means in any follow up tweet or, to my knowledge, any writing since. Douthat, like any good performance artist, knows that the work needs to speaks for itself.

This, friends, is everything I want in a Silly Take. It’s an off-the-cuff response to a current event that is intended to really make you think, man, about the way the world works. It even uses scare quotes. It doesn’t make a lick of sense. It’s equal parts confusing and offensive.

This is perfection in Take Silliness, ladies and gentlemen. We may never see such a perfect specimen again. Congratulations to Ross Douthat for writing the Silliest Take of the Week, and winning a special place in my heart.

#STOW #Silliest Take of the Week

4 notes · View notes