#yeah this campaign is different and doing new things and not following the same narrative beats you might be expecting

[stranger-queers]

I don't get people being angry at yesterdays episode?? People have been talking about wanting Dorian back since he left and now we're finally getting that and people are mad? Yes it was a tonal shift and yes it halts the main storyline but I think the campaign needed that. The mourning and character development doesn't stop, it'll still happen in the coming episodes and acting like it should've all been resolved in one episode is odd. The players probably need time to process, Sam needs time to figure out a new character and a natural way to introduce them to the story, Matt probably needs time to figure out how to incorporate Sam's new character and how last episode changes things in his narrative. And both those things are hard to do in an episode Sam couldn't be there for. So they stalled. By bringing back a fan favorite and show what's been happening with him and his path back towards the Bells Hells in order to set up his (wanted, asked for and anticipated) return to the cast. I get that it was unexpected and can understand it's not everyones favorite development (not everyone liked EXU and thats totally normal and fine) but why the anger? You don't have to watch the last two hours if you don't want, but why ruin it for those who are exited by this development or what it could mean for the future of the campaign? Personally I think this will be good for the campaign long term. I want to see where this goes. And also I'm just so happy to have Robbie and Dorian back because I've missed them so much.

#cr spoilers #just random ramblings #not understand the negativity #yeah this campaign is different and doing new things and not following the same narrative beats you might be expecting #its been that way since the second arc #I get not liking it but I dont get being surprised by it or the anger directed at the cast or the fans who do enjoy it

[randomnameless]

It's crazy how SoV preluded 3H by making one of the protags have a tremendously contradictory mindset of humanity being better off without gods, while also relying on those same gods to fulfill their goals, the hypocrisy of which goes completely unadressed throughout the game; truly masterful foreshadowing

Who directed FE15?

lol

I've recently tried to think about this "gods BaD" shift in more doylist terms - especially since I've finally played a Squenix game recently and...

FE13 was the FE series last ditch effort, it will either work or end up as the F-Zero series, FE13 worked and FE14 followed suit.

Lolcalisation aside, FE14 had a nice plot and I engaging characters - to some people but not me, different tastes and all - but FE14 and FE13 were still FE games, as in part of the old FE series, aka a niche series. Adding dating sim/interpersonal relationship through avatars might have helped a bit, and yet, imo, it was still the "niche" FE series.

Comes FE15 where we basically have a remake, and can't add the interpersonal thing because Alm isn't an avatar (even if the game spends a lot of time praising his oranges) - how to make the game work? Sure, some weirdo fans of the FE series will buy it, and it was never supposed to sell as much as FE13/14, but if it was a 1:1 remake or just with minor adjustments? It might bomb like the Archanea remakes, and good luck coming after that - will they need another "FE13" to reignite the sales or??

And here I thought about it : FE15 was retconned with the "GoDs BaD" spiel, to make this game more in-tune with what I'd call "traditional" JRPGs where the protagonists often defy a corrupt church and "divine" being.

("Traditional" imo being the Squenix way, because while I didn't play all entries of this series, the Tales series never striked me as being particularly as, uh, vindicative against organised religion, maybe save for Symphonia 1 - Abyss' Church really wishes to help the people even if it is corrupted from within by some dude who doesn't want to let the world die and played by the big bad, Xillia has no church, ditto for Zestiria and Phantasia had Mint and... that's it? - compare this to Squenix's Triangle Strategy and Hyzante being comically EvIl and without any redeeming traits/points when all of the other major parties of the conflict have "token good NPCs" as forced as they are in the game, to make it very clear that they might have done questionnable things like invading and slaughtering civilians from a foreign nation who welcomed them at their wedding, but at least they have "MoRaLs" unlike those bozos in their desert...)

And this "let's make FE mainstream by kicking gods" mentality completely runs at odds with the rest of the FE franchise, and while I know RD basically ends like this bcs "uwu Ike defeated a GoD with the help of another who used the lead of that game as a soul jar and granted him exclusive powers to put her sister to sleep" the morale of RD's story - as seen in the perfect ending but in Ike's speech to Yune itself - is that everyone can and should try to live together, asking Gods not the fuck out to let Humanity alone, but to believe in them just like humans believe in gods.

So FE15 ends as this big, uh, mismatched clash of narrative directions - being a remake it cannot stray too far from the source material and Archanea verse : Dragons and Humans can live together (even if it means dragons must sacrifice part of themselves to do so because fuck them I guess) and dragons can help humans just like humans can, uh, not be asses and not target them because their ears are pointy or when they are weakened...

And we had the new Squenix direction where GoDs BaD and HuMaNiTy fuck yeah, which leads to FE15's hypocrisy : please trust and rely on us Gods/dragons and kindly help us when we're in deep shit, and at the same time "HuMaNiTy FuCk YeAh".

Interestingly, the Squenix direction loses in the post game campaign (the one where we discover Thabes) but is reintroduced in the official (tm) timeline, depicting basically how BaD Duma is and how much of a chad Rudy was, before his very tragic (bring the onions!) death.

But yeah, I agree anon, FE15 was crazy foreshadowing and I guess is part of the reason why Tru Piss has this message "Humanity doesn't need Gods" targeted at... Rhea, aka a Nabatean (while Supreme Leader got there thanks to Sothis' powers!!) because the "Humanity Fuck Yeah" narrative is a staple of Squenix JRPGS, and if FE has to become mainstream, I guess to some devs, it has to copy what sells.

That would also explain why FE16 went so off the rails and forgot the tradition FE series message about coexistence, because what the fuck do you mean by "Humanity doesn't need Nabateans", after parroting for the entire game "Nabateans are to blame for the irrational world we live in" and blame "Nabatean blood" for everything wrong in Fodlan, without ever acknowledging the "evilness that lurks in the heart of men" (who aren't called Dimitri) ?

In a series that, albeit hazaphardly at times (FE8's manaketes feel forced in the lore! and the less is said about Nowi/Panne in FE13 the better we are), tried to push the "coexistence between all inhabitants of the land is the key to peace!" card - this Squenix direction feels all kind of wrong, especially when friendship with the divine beings (dragons) have been a staple of the franchise (Y!Tiki's number of alts, imo, is telling : for better or worse, Y!Tiki is, along with Marth, the figure of the franchise. She is a dragon, and she's a kid who wants to make friends. Sure it brings the loli crowd, but all those dragon children in the different games? They are a direct throwback to Y!Tiki!).

In a nutshell, I'd say the first crack was FE10's writing that made things seem like the Hero defeated a goddess and its subsequent wanking.

But I agree with you anon, FE15's change in direction and retcons were absolutely gunning for that Squenix "GoDs BaD" while keeping the "traditional" FE message which resulted in hypocrisy that showed in the writing but I guess no one really paid attention because FE15 has other issues too (I didn't before happening on FE16... even if I remember wondering why the fuck the game kept on hammering how BaD Duma was when we had people being asses right and left on their own).

FE Fodlan completely ignored the "we can coexist" message - save for subtext you can have where the optional lords who win the war and aren't Supreme Leader can have half/quarter-nabatean heirs through Flayn but her heritage is never ever mentionned in the ending cards - by completely shitting/ignoring the local dragons, they're blamed for everything wrong and don't get their voice to the chapter.

Masterful writing lol

I can't wait for the next game, let it be a remake (pls not Jugdral!!) or a new entry (Engage was developped alongside Fodlan, not after!) to see if IS will continue with the Squenix developments or return to their roots, even if they seem milquetoast, of "humans and lizards can hold hands".

---

NGL anon, during 2020/2021 and the daily "Supreme Leader was right though" threads in SF, I kind of realised that what I took for granted, aka "coexistence between humans and dragons!" being the message of FE in general, wasn't, even in what used to be the most serious board/thing.

FE as a series came to the West through FE7 where Dragons and Humans were at war, but ultimately the cast learns that dragons aren't evil incarnate and the best ending reveals that the big bad went mad because his dragon wife was killed and he tried to reunite with their dragon-human children he hid away for their safety.

So it was kind of surprising to see long-time, or at least not "Fodlan introduced" members of SF parroting the "well they can't live together" by buying the most ludicrous headcanon/fanon arguments you'd find in other series like "different lifespans" - this argument is pretty much non existent in the FE series, and I've never seen it opposed to Miccy's rule in Daien when, as a Heron Branded, she will outlive her citizens, or what, are we supposed to believe that Myrrh shouldn't interact with humans and remain in her forest because she will outlive humans, or is too "different" from them thus wouldn't have the same considerations?

FE13/14 brought the fandom wars of "new fans" vs "old fans", but FE Fodlan? Brought "casual JRPG gamer" vs "FE gamer" which usually boils down to "Supreme Leader fans" vs "everyone else".

Sure, we had the religion hate boner because the dragons in Fodlan verse made a "Church" with catholic imagery which is a deadly sin to some - but the "dragon blood is indeed the reason why everything sucks in the world" being parroted? "Dragons cannot have power over humans because of the sheer inbalance"? What, are you implying Nergal was forced by Aenir to mate with her twice or what? Ninian was oppressing Pherae in the endings where she marries Eliwood, and humans were finally liberated when she died?

Kana is, by nature, someone who will oppress humans because they're part dragon and their blood will bring strife to the world?

So unless IS doesn't fully commit to one narrative - because yes, for all of its flak, FE Fodlan still takes time, when it remembers, to portray Nabateans in a relative positive light when it comes to them as characters and in the general background, it's just that, they're never given a voice when it comes to discussing about the plot - we're bound to have this hypocrisy :

Dragons BaD bcs Humanity Fuck Yeah

and

Dragons and Humanity can coexist and make babies for scalies/monsterfuckers out there because acceptance/diversity is a way for peace.

#anon #replies #sorry i ranted #FE series #FE15 stuff #rant #watch as the whitewings never bring up Tiki the kid they met 3 years ago #when Alm goes humanity fuck yeah #when the devs could have pulled out something like Ike for Alm or rather return to their roots #they pulled this squenix shit #that imo doesn't have its place in the FE series #sure the series is evolving and maybe that's the direction it will take #if it really does I'll to reconsider my engagement with FE in general #and be stuck ranting about old games lol

[businesstiramisu]

Okay I rewrote the post. Thoughts on the last tenth (or so) of Worth the Candle:

[I don't really expect this to be interesting to anyone except me, but i do want to save these for future me, lol]

 I found the ttrpg Fel See Incident much more satisfying than the Aerb version. No, not satisfying, it was horrible. But it was exactly what the story had been building it up to be, for 1 million plus words, and that's quite an accomplishment. Whereas the Fel Seed of Aerb.... I think the problem is scope creep? When the stakes get Too High and the antagonists (or protagonists, for that matter) get Too Powerful my brain just gives up and I disengage. Like "sure, whatever, just tell me who wins". Whereas the ttrpg version, and the real world-level drama around it, felt horribly plausible.

I did like "we'll win the second time because, if Joon had gotten a second chance at the game, he would have let the players win." That was a nice bit of narrative reinforcement/article of faith.

 I love the Long Stairs. It's almost enough to make me think I should give SCP a more serious look, but I'm still worried the horror will be Too Scary for me. (And don't get me wrong I would hate to play a ttrpg campaign in it... actually, maybe it wouldn't be worse than usual? I could just follow the RDP instructions instead of my usual choice paralysis. well, depends on how often they come up. I probably wouldn't like having to make new characters constantly b/c they keep dying.) But like when Juniper wished they could've stayed in the labyrinth and explored the other cultures living there, I was right there with him.

The final reveal of Uther/Arthur..... hmmm, complicated feelings. On the one hand, ugh! why couldn't he just apologize, and admit to being terrible!! Well, he kinda did later... to Juniper, after they'd spent a long time rebuilding camaraderie and basically giving each other a pass for the horrible shit each considered the other to have done. And that was depressingly realistic. Well, idk that anything in my life compares (fortunately) but the most serious, scary arguments in my life have mostly gone like that.

Juniper and Arthur's ultimate goodbye felt appropriate, even cathartic. Raven and Bethel didn't get anything comparable though. Just Uther brushing them off (or in Ravens case saying "I understand this is hard for you but you've got to suck it up", basically). Which, yeah the world ain't fair. It wasn't justice, though. They didn't get their due like Juniper did.

The final conversation withe the dungeon master was also surprisingly satisfying! I liked it a lot more than when Sophie's World did the same thing. (And I've probably read more books that have the character confront the fact that they're characters in a novel, but that's what came to mind lol).

Maybe b/c it was really funny how the DM told Juniper "you're all characters in a novel I'm writing" and Juniper immediately rejected that explanation as bullshit.

Similarly, the Narrator, as the actual Juniper who was writing WTC

Heaven!Fenn though, felt overly self-indulgent to me. Which is maybe ridiculous, b/c the whole story is an exercise in self-indulgence/self-examination, but i dunno she just didn't work for me

Well, it's pretty hilarious that she was The One Person In Aerb Ever To Go To Heaven, and was always destined to be that one person. Hilarious in a pretty arbitrary way.

Someone in the comments to Ch. 245 or 246 said that "Worth the Candle but Reimer died instead of Arthur" is a great fanfic premise and... i dunno, it would be a massive amount of work, but it's tantalizing to think about. Seems like Aerb would have to be very different with--well, idk, would it be a whole collection of Reimer's characters, since he never seemed as devoted to one of them?-- instead of Uthur Penndraig, but with the themes of putting people on a pedestal, using their tragedies as an excuse to wallow in your own grief and depression and rage, and also the DM presumably having the same goals, I have to wonder how much it would even matter?!

Wow, the void beast was a metaphor for global warming?! kinda kicking myself for not picking up on that. Unless I just forgot about it; this story is really long.

#worth the candle #my own liveblogging #justice for bethel #justice for raven

[peach-the-owl]

Tainted Innocence Pt. 2

Percy & Younger Sibling!Vampire!Reader

At long last part 2 has arrived! If anyone needs a refresh of part 1, click here. I’m really sorry this one took me so long, but after finishing the show I’ve regained the motivation to finish this. This follows the timeline a bit more from the Campaign but I sorta switched to follow with the show, it all still works narratively so I’m not complaining. Anyways, I really hope the wait was worth it. Enjoy! 😁

You skillfully weave your way around the tunnels heading to a different exit then the one you normally use seeing as you now had new friends with you and that wouldn’t look too good to the guards patrolling the area. As you traveled you learned more about what’s all happened, who your brothers friends all were and what you had become. While this was all explained carefully and very simply to you, it was still defiantly a lot of new information to take in at once. As you continue forward the strange sensation you’d get from time to time was starting to act up again, you lightly clutch your stomach in hopes of calming the feeling down to no avail.

"(Y/n), are you alright? You’re not looking too well." Percy furrows his brow, slight concern on his face. You give a nod and turn away from him slightly only to feel him grip your shoulder and stop you in your tracks. "You’re not lying to me are you?" He asks more firmly, you shrink in on yourself a little and give a small whine. "(Y/n)." He sounded very stern, you felt embarrassed for not knowing how to answer properly and if you were able to blush your face would’ve been beet red from the embarrassment.

"I-I don’t know." You mange to stutter out.

"You don’t know." He repeats, you shake you head in confirmation.

"Can you explain to us what your feeling right now darling, maybe that’ll help." Vex suggests. You think about it for a second, you knew the feeling would go away by itself eventually but with everything else you’ve been learning maybe it would be better to tell them.

"Okay," you take in a breath. "I have this, ummm, weird feeling that pops up sometimes and it’s really annoying until it goes away by itself." You fiddle with your fingers as you speak to try and distract yourself from the slowly growing sensation.

"What about this feeling is weird, like how would you describe it?" Keyleth asks.

"It’s uhhh, it’s kinda like feeling hungry, but not hungry at the same time."

"We're going to need a little more of a description then that." Vex presses.

"I don’t know what else to say, it just feels like I’m hungry but when I eat food it still doesn’t go away." You shrug, why did they have to ask such hard questions, it’s not like you could magically make an answer appear.

"Alright then." Vex lets out a sigh and is about to speak again but Pike beats her to it.

"So you say this feeling goes away by itself. Does it just disappear randomly, does something have to happen first, what do you do to make it go away?" This was starting to feel ridiculous to you, it wasn’t easy to just tell them what was wrong because you didn’t know either, it was something you just dealt with feeling and moved on once it went away. You shake those thoughts away, you'd been living a lie this whole time and they wanted to help make things better so you had to do your best to help them too.

"Well I was told to just ignore it, so I do but then I pass out from how bad it gets, and then I wake up and the feeling's gone."

"Sounds reasonable to me." Grog says before being slapped in the gut by Vax.

"Yeah, I don’t think it’s that simple big guy, is there anything else you might be forgetting to tell us." You really didn’t want to say anything more, afraid you’d just sound stupid, but you had to at least try.

"Well, when I wake up I always have this funny, metal-y taste in my mouth." You started off strong, only to deflate and talk more in a murmur as you finish.

"Sorry, what was that last bit?" Scanlan looks at you confused. You pout not wanting to repeat yourself but with a stern look and raised eyebrow from your brother you cave and repeat yourself, louder this time so everyone could hear you.

"I see… I think I know what the problem is." Percy speaks up again.

"You do?!" You perk up a bit. "Do you know how to make it go away?" There’s a moment of pause as he hesitates before answering.

"In a sense of the word, yes." He takes in a heavy breath. "Come with me for a moment."

"Percy, are you sure about this?" Vex quickly jumps in, concern written on her face. Did they know something you didn’t?

"It should be fine, hopefully. Just give us a few minutes, I’ll even yell Jenga if something goes wrong." You stare at them confused, what was Jenga supposed to mean? Before you could dwell more on your thoughts your ushered a ways away from the group by Percy and take a seat against the tunnel wall. It’s quiet for a second before he speaks up again.

"You’re now well aware of what’s become of yourself, correct?" You nod at this, not sure where he was going with this. "Right, and you still remember those old tales about what they do to survive, do you not?" You nod again, still a little confused. "I believe what’s happening here is a natural instinct to well…" He trails off, but you were able to start connecting the dots.

"But wouldn’t that hurt? I don’t want to hurt anyone." You say with a small whine.

"I know, and believe me I’m no fan of the idea either, but it’d be better if you’re aware of what you’re doing rather then letting these instincts take over and you possibly doing something worse. Do you understand?" He spoke slowly and as simply as he could to help you get the idea.

"Yeah, I think so." You say with a small nod, after taking a second to let his words sink in. This already felt so weird and you hadn’t even done anything yet, so with a deep breath you hold your hand out to him and he slowly places his own in yours, a slight raise to his eyebrow. "You’re sure it’s okay?" You ask uncertain, wanting to know if this was really okay to him, he lets out a sigh and gives a hesitant nod.

"The sooner we do this, the less we have to worry or think about it." He quickly comments. You stare off into space for a second, only to be drawn back by the growing sensation but pause when you see he’s still staring at you.

"Don’t look! It feels weird with you staring!" You blurt out, puffing out your cheeks and flailing your hand in front of his face to get him to turn around.

"Alright, alright! Jeez." Percy puts his free arm up in surrender and shifts so he’s facing away from you. "There I’m not look, better?" He almost sounded like he was playfully mocking you with the way he dragged out the "better", but true to his word he was now looking away from you.

"A little." You say with a small pout. Taking in another breath and closing your eyes you go about this as carefully and calmly as possible, trying not to think too much on the matter but also wanting to be done with it so you wouldn’t hold up the group any longer. Soon enough the nagging sensation disappeared, once it did you reopen your eyes and let go maybe a little too fast for your liking when Percy suddenly tenses at the action. "I’m sorry, I’m sorry! I didn’t mean to hurt you! I was trying to be careful." You say a little panicked as you search for a piece of cloth to cover where two pinpricks of blood were showing.

"That was it?" He mumbled more to himself, pulling out a handkerchief to clean and cover the small area on his arm, tying it so he wouldn’t have to hold it in place the entire time. You let out another quiet sorry, deflating a bit but he stops you. "No no, you’re fine. I barely felt a thing actually." He seemed surprised by this revelation, you just let out a sigh of relief knowing you didn’t do something bad after all.

You rejoin the group and continue on your way, they conversed with each other while you let your mind wander a little. Had so many years really passed without your knowledge? You try to recall as much as you could, days having bled together when you’re locked inside all the time and kept as far from any view of the outdoors as possible. You frown at this, for so long you just obeyed the rules set before you because the grownups knew what was best yet everything they told you was a lie, it was still so confusing to wrap your head around. The sound of an iron door scraping open reels you back to reality and you’re surprised to see miss Ripley exit the cell, missing her right hand no less. She takes a look at her surroundings stopping when she catches sight of you.

"So, the little monster's still alive after all." She says with an unamused tone, you shrink a little into your self at the comment only for Percy to step in front of you and raise his weapon at her, you shuffle closer to him for comfort.

"You watch your tongue." He hisses.

"Why should I? You can see for yourself that they are." She says nonchalantly, this only makes Percy press his weapon closer to her.

"The only monster I can see at this moment, is the one standing in front of me." He says with a low, dangerous voice. You grip at his leg a bit pulling his attention away from her, looking up at him with worried eyes. He stares at you a second before letting out a sigh, lowering his weapon and looking back to Ripley. "You are now, at the moment, the luckiest person in Whitestone, do you know why?" He pauses and she hums in slight interest. "Cause you’re at the bottom of my list." He finishes, ominously. What list was he talking about you weren’t sure but at least you were moving again.

Moving your way through the castle really solidified just how long you’d been away from certain areas, having a harder time figuring out which hall went where and some areas looked completely different then what you remember. Soon enough you’re stopped a little ways in a hall, Percy kneels down to your height, a look of minor panic on his face that he tries to hide.

"I hate to do this, but I need you to keep an eye on Ripley for me, make sure she doesn’t go anywhere alright? I need to take care of something." He tells you. "If she tries anything you have my permission to bite her." He adds with a small smirk, you nod and he gets up, rounding the corner in the hall where a commotion can be heard. You turn your attention to Ripley and do as Percy said, keeping a close eye on her.

"Quit staring, your making me uncomfortable." She sneers.

"Too bad, I trust my brother way more then you and he said I have to watch you and if you’re bad I’ll bite you." You puff up your chest to make yourself look as intimidating as possible.

"Typical…" She trails off quietly, but you still heard her. Speaking of hearing, the commotion in the other room seemed to have stopped, you take a quick glance over your shoulder to see if anyone was coming back. When no one does you start to feel worried, but you couldn’t leave Ripley alone either, turning back to her you see she’s already trying to sneak away.

"Hey." You whisper yell and easily catch up to her standing in front of her you look her dead in the eyes and glare. "Stop trying to run away and just sit down will you." You huff angrily, to your shock your eyes feel like they tingle for a second at the same time her eyes flash a (f/c) and she obeys what you told her to do. "Whoa…" You shake your head, now wasn’t the time to be amazed by whatever just happened, you needed to see if everything was okay with Percy and his friends. Taking one more look over your shoulder at Ripley she was still sitting where you told her to, satisfied with this you round the corner and carefully crack open a door you’re sure you heard the commotion from. When you get a good enough view you gasp at the sight you see, feeling tears of joy well up in your eyes.

"Cass!!" You shout, hurrying into the room without a care and tackling your sister to the ground in a hug. It’s been forever since you’ve seen her, well since you’ve seen anyone but first Percy now Cass, this was great!

"Wait… (y/n)? Is it really you?" She looks at you stunned by your sudden appearance but happy nonetheless.

"So, even you weren’t aware of their presents or situation?" Percy looks at Cassandra with a mix of curiosity and concern.

"No, I-I didn’t know." She says softly, finally wrapping an arm around you to return the embrace. You snuggle into her more, she also looked different like Percy but it was still her and you were more then happy to relish in this reunion.

"Not to be that person or anything, but wasn’t (y/n) supposed to keep an eye on Ripley?" Pike mentions.

"Oh yeah! I told her to go sit down in the hall and she listened to me." You beam happily. Vex and Vax exit the room, coming back not too long after with a very unhappy Ripley in their grip.

"So they hypnotize me and you still think they’re not some monster." She hisses. Percy looks to you shocked but quickly recovers from it.

"Well originally I said they were allowed to bite you, so honestly you have no room to complain about this alternative." He replies stoically, causing Ripley to huff.

"Let just get this over with." She mumbles to herself. With that you get up off the floor and help Cassandra stand up too, she offers you her hand which you happily accept and you all file out of the room, continuing the journey with a newfound spring to your step. When you finally make it to the residuum refinement room you see that it’s a lot bigger then you thought, but then again you never thought much of it before, you have a look around the large room while the others converse until you’re pulled aside by Cassandra.

"Hey." You whine, she quickly shushes you.

"Don’t worry (y/n), our family will take good care of us." She says, you look at her confused, Percy was your family what was she talking about?

"Cassandra!" You hear Percy shout with alarm, confusing your further. She pulls a lever on the wall closing off any exits, you quickly try to switch it back, wonder what she was doing, but you’re stopped by her grasping onto the collar of your shirt and pulling you away.

"Cass, what are you doing?" You ask as you wriggle to break free from her grip, she doesn’t answer you just giving a glare towards Percy as he tries to make his way over to you both, Vax doing the same just faster. Before the room's completely sealed Vax manages to slip his way under the barrier, him and Cassandra pull their weapons and point them at each other. With her distracted by Vax you manage to break free of her grip and try for the lever again but something makes you pause when you hear a voice coming from the shadows.

"Excellent work dear." You recognize Lord Sylas' voice anywhere, turning to see him and Delilah approach. Vax tries to strike at them but you see Sylas' eyes glow for a second before Vax stops in his movements and straightens out more stiffly. You quickly turn to reach for the lever but Delilah holds you in place with her magic.

"Now now, my dear child, not so fast." She tuts you in almost a sickly sweet voice. You struggle to free yourself of the spell but it’s no use.

"Delilah, let them go!" Percy yells slamming a fist against the thick glass, before looking back to Cassandra. "Why are you doing this?"

"You did this to yourself, Percy. The day you left me lying in the snow, choking on blood like a hunted animal." She seethes in response. "My brother abandoned me. Abandoned us." She says looking directly at you. You pause in your struggling as you look at your siblings concerned

"What-what's she talking about?" You ask, clueless. You’re pulled back by the spell and brought over to Delilah's side.

"You need not worry yourself on such trivial things, my child. All will be made better before you know it." She whispers to you, this just furthers your confusion. She redirects her attention towards the others. "You know, I’m quite disappointed Percival." She says smoothly, pulling in his attention. "Because of you our sweet, innocent child was exposed to your harsh reality." She places a hand under your chin to make you look at her, before you quickly pull away. "You see? Now they’re scared and confused because of you. Not to worry though a few memory spells should fix that problem easily." She taunts.

"No! I don’t wanna! You can’t make me!" You cry out, struggling harder against her spell holding you in place. Tears trail down your face as your fruitless efforts to free yourself continue, to make matters worse you’re now being dragged away from everyone. "No! No, it’s not fair! I don’t want to go with you! I want my brother! Percy!" You cry out for him, even if you knew he couldn’t reach you, you still beg for him to somehow break through the barrier and save you.

Percy can only watch helplessly as the last of his family is pulled away from him, one seemingly by their own choice, the other kicking and screaming for help…

To be continued…

That’s right I’m making this a three parter because there was just too much to add for only two parts (hopefully part 3 will come out sooner then this one did)

#critical role #critical role & reader #vox machina #vox machina & reader #percy de rolo #percy & reader #nothing romantic here

[gingerteaonthetardis]

☕️ time! Thoughts on (any or all!)

1. Catherine Hardwicke’s iconique blue tint/the general vibe of twilight vs the other three (ugh, fine, the other four)

2. A film/tv show where the soundtrack made the film/tv show what it was (not really an opinion but I don’t make the rules I just don’t follow them)

3. Tentoo! I remember reading a while back (I think it was you? If not VERY awkward and I only ask forgiveness) that something about Tentoo didn’t settle with you bc it felt like a plot device and I HARD agreed and always wanted to hear a little more about your thoughts

But no pressure to answer all of these or even any ones in particular! Enjoy your caffeine

oh man, you've opened the floodgates, loup!! i'm gonna put my answers below the cut, just for the sake of everyone's dashes.

clown time!!!

☕ listen, i love the blue tint!!! i love the blue tint, it activates my nostalgia in such a profound way that when i look outside on greyish blueish days, i feel inexpressibly cozy. i think it is one of those iconic and super fun things that makes people remember the color correction in twilight more strongly than the other films.

but!! my hot take is that new moon also has a completely lovely palette that really reflects bella's entry into the beauty of the more human world... the shots of her driving to la push, with the flash of her sunset orange truck against the verdant green? her and jacob in endless coordinating earth tones?? the hazy golden light around them as they ride their bikes?? the fact that all the wolves look so fluffy and warm that i literally do not care if they have sharp teeth, i will be cuddling them at the first available opportunity?????

(the series is seriously lacking on wolf cuddling. it annoys me on a number of levels. affection for my wolfpack, please!!!!!!!)

idk, i think the color story of new moon is really powerful and lovely. it begins a general trend toward warming the series up, which... is a little bit frustrating, considering the narrative. it means they chose to warm the cullens up, in order to make them more appealing and less obviously Dead, when i appreciated the contrast between her world with edward—blue and cold and beautiful in a way you flinch back from but yearn for—and her world with jacob—a world with life, growth, warmth.

(i've decided that every time i ramble about twilight, i have to donate a dollar to the quileute move to higher ground campaign. think i'm up to $5 for the month.)

☕ oh my god, please don't judge me, but i the first example that jumps to my mind is the freaking......... vampire diaries???? the cw has this ability to choose these outrageous songs to go along with these poignant emotional moments, songs that you will one day hear in a department store and that will make you randomly start flushing, because so-and-so had their first kiss to this song!! or this was the song they played when so-and-so got into that fight that almost destroyed their relationship with so-and-so!!

it's one of those shows where the music choices aren't necessarily good, but they are incredibly impactful, and i still listen to a lot of those songs to this day just because of the way they make me feel!

☕ yeah, so, tentoo has definitely never sat right with me. that isn't to say that i don't see what rtd was doing with him as a narrative tool (i do), that i don't enjoy writing him (i do), or that i can't comprehend other people liking him and being satisfied with rose's ending (i totally do). it's more like... for me, he is both a frustratingly convoluted and incredibly easy answer to what should have been a more weighted question: how do you move on when the love of your life is in a different universe, living day after day without you? how do you move on from the doctor?

the answer we were ultimately given was, "well, you don't. you marry his biological metacrisis who conveniently has the same lifespan as you." which feels like a disservice. it feels like a band-aid over a bullet wound. i want, "maybe you never do, and you learn to grow around the hole in your chest, because that's what life is. life is having regrets and hurts and still moving forward." or i want, "one step at a time. you learn to love again someday, maybe differently than before, but just as good." or i want, "you don't. you don't move on. you search for what you truly want, all the way to the ends of every universe, because you don't just give up. you don't just let things happen. you make a stand. you say 'no.' you have the guts to do what's right, when everyone else just runs away."

tentoo can be used well in stories by fantastic writers who move me to actual tears, yes. and i can appreciate that people love him. but i find his narrative existence—'a copy of the doctor, just for rose'—a lazy answer to an important question.

#LOUP YOU GOT ME STARTED NOW I OWE MONEY!!!! lmao #i came up with this rule to keep myself from rambling about it to everyone all the time and it's actually going pretty well #abbey.txt #loupettes #dw #twilight posting

[thessalian]

Thess vs Wildermyth Review

So as some of y’all know, I got some video games for Christmas. (Well. I got money to spend on video games for Christmas. Same thing.) And already I have one that I absolutely have to recommend to basically everybody ... nah, just everybody. I mean, assuming that the ‘everybody’ that follows me likes fun, doesn’t bitch about SJW bullshit in their video games, and can go for five minutes without taking themselves too seriously.

...Okay, I’m assuming that’s all of you; here we go. If you want a turn-based game with frankly adorable art, a simple but effective combat style, an equally simple but effective narrative conceit, and a reasonable method of expressing whatever gender identity and sexuality you want for your characters (almost, anyway; I’ll get into that), I heartily recommend you pick up Wildermyth while it’s still on sale on Steam.

It’s a deceptively simple game, at least on the combat end of things. Turn-based, party-based semi-traditional Melee / Ranged / Magic combat format, very streamlined ability system. Your avatars and the monsters are little paper cut-outs, and they’re incredibly cute - even in the case of the monsters, which given the monsters you’re dealing with is kind of weird, but the fun kind of weird. It’s when you go digging a little more into the meat of it where it gets not complicated but complex. I know it’s a subtle sort of distinction but bear with me.

Basically you start by generating three characters of your very own as the core of your party, which you get to name after your initial bit of combat. Character creation is also streamlined but solid; you get options about personality traits (two), hair and face styles (not gender-locked), voices (also not gender-locked), and whether you’re attracted to men, women or any. Which is why I say ‘almost’ any sexuality above - there is the option for asexual / aromantic, but they kind of lump them together in one package with a check-box as to whether you’ll allow random romances to form through the course of the game. In any case, those few options allow a pretty reasonable amount of representation depending on what you’re after.

It’s a D&D campaign writ small, honestly. You pick up new party members in other towns, stuff happens in the background that gets reflected in the narrative chunks you get between missions, there are personal missions as well as story quests, random things that aren’t necessarily combat-related just sort of pop out at you randomly throughout the campaign, and there’s a lot to do just in general, all of which seems to have a real effect on how the campaign goes. And honestly, it’s several D&D campaigns writ small, since there’s lots of different campaigns to choose from and you get a new starter party for each campaign. Best of all, characters from earlier campaigns still exist within the world and there is the option to pick them up as heroes-out-of-retirement in later campaigns.

So basically it’s fun, it’s cute, it’s interesting, there’s a lot to do despite the deceptively simple presentation, and some of the storylines have more depth to them than some major games I’ve seen over the last few years. So ... yeah, Wildermyth. If you still have a little cash to throw at the Steam sales this year, it comes highly recommended.

#Thess plays video games

[ma-lark-ey]

~ Glenn dissection ~

this is genuinely not a post to start some kind of discourse, I just wanted to dissect gGenn close a little bit because i think the choices in today’s episodes are very interesting and i wanna dissect how I think they were the right ones. 

in summary; Lark is having a little special interest moment and wants to info dump sorry not sorry. 

My opinion on Glenn is fairly neutral, much like Henry. I don’t think he’s a terrible parent, but he’s also by no means a good parent. I do see some child neglect in his narrative, but he’s by no means ‘abusing’ Nicolas. 

So, I’ve been thinking about these two a lot over the past few days. Like, a lot a lot. They.... They’re a complex pair to digest

As Freddie and Anthony said in the latest episode of Talking Dads, people don’t like accepting characters who are good people and bad parents. Because if someone’s a good person, then they’re a good parent, or bad person equals a bad parent. Vice verse shit. 

Now, Glenn was ruled as a good person. And, I won’t say Glenn is a ‘bad person,’ but I also won’t say he’s a good person. Again, he’s a grey area. he’s a grey character. he’s a mediocre person. 

Glenn, at his core, is an immature person. A broken man who refuses to acknowledge he’s broken, and that gets increasingly clear with each time he talks about Morgan, or is asked about Morgan. There’s an unresolved grief there, and who knows if he’ll ever resolve it. He avoids those kinds of emotions (’harshing his vibe’) 

I think, narratively, the only option that would’ve made sense would have been to give up Nick. 

there are three core things we have to think about here. 

- Player; how would this decision affect Freddie? How do his personal desires for Glenn play into this? 

- Narrative; what decision makes the most compelling narrative? What furthers the story in the most dramatic way? 

- Character; What decision would the character make in this sitation? Why would they choose this? 

These are all things that are constantly needed ot be brought into topic when it comes to these kinds of major plot points. The only other instance I can think of for this in DnDads was the chimera and Grant. 

I’ll start at the top. 

1. PLAYER; The most intense part of a narrative is the player’s decisions in said narrative. As a dungeon master, I’ve watched my players choose some baffling things for their characters (such as, a typically laid back background player taking the lead in a mystery to try and assist our younger player) and these players own wants and desires in the storyline play a major role in these things. In this case; Freddie didn’t want to kill off Glenn. And that is absolutely valid and understandable and by no means wrong of him. He’s played this character for two years (or coming up on it) and that’s huge. That’s a lot of time for him to become attached and fall in love with this character he’s made. It’s completely normal, acceptable, and welcome for players to fall absolutely in love with the character they play. These players, over the course of their campaigns, become a way the players bond with each other. It’s no secret that Freddie feels very attached to Glenn, to the point there’s jokes there’s little to no line between them during episodes. He didn’t want to end a character he held so near and dear, and if anyone faults him for that; a personal fuck you to you, good tiz. 

A content creator is going to love the characters in the content they produce, and shaming them for wanting to hold onto those characters as long as possible is absolutely absurd. If Scott Cawthon can keep making FNaF games six years later, and no one insults him about it, Freddie Wong can choose the timeline where Glenn stays alive. 

2. NARRATIVE; in crafting a narrative, you want to choose the option that will cause the most conflict and interesting plots to follow. While, killing off Glenn would have provided us with a very interesting arc where they go to hell to rescue Glenn and go into this weird Entourage-style campaign; it’d be repetive. We just had an episode or two where the gang had to go save Glenn, and while we currently do have to save Glenn again, it’s very different this time. It’s not ‘Glenn got sent to a hell dimension’ it’s ‘let’s pull a jailbreak’ and yeah, I’m not to excited about another ‘go save glenn’ arc right after Deck Picks, I AM excited for Jimmy Wong and this new character of his, I’m vibrating with excitement. 

Choosing to give Nick up makes narrative sense, whether it was a ‘good dad’ decision or not. It made sense. It provided more conflict for the party, because now there’s a new guy in the party and Nick doesn’t remmebr who Glenn even is, it provides a very interesting new character arc (i.e, Glenn building a cool uncle type relationship with Glenn, and befriending Nick’s new dad.) No, Glenn giving up Nick was not some big heoric deed as some people are portraying it, but it’s more selfless than dying just so your kid can become an orphan and mourn your memory. That would’ve been the shitty option, I’m sorry, but it would’ve been. Especially given Freddie, nor Glenn, thought they owuld be able to bring Glenn back this itme. 

3. CHARACTER; I feel that this is a very telling decision for Glenn and wanting to better himself. I’m gonna focus on the topic of Glenn seeing Nick as his last tie to Morgan. 

We know Glenn is very stuck on Morgan, to the point of being stuck at the same maturity he was when Moran was born. He’s stuck there, trying to keep her memory alive. Because, Morgan was all he had and he lost her. And that sucks. When your partner dies, it feels like everything in the world is absolutely gone and there’s nothing you can do to get them back and that everything you ever were is gone. So, of course he would latch everything he had of Morgan onto Nick. It makes such logical sense. His wife has died, y’all. Unexpectedly. Suddenly. In a horrific way. But, here he has this little kid who is a physical manifestation of their love and commitment to each other. Obviously, he’s gonna latch onto that child and hold them close, see them as their last tie to Morgan. Because Nick is his last tie to Morgan. A child inherits parts of both their parents, and I’m sure there are things Nick does that Glenn sees nothing but Morgan in. 

Glenn wanted to keep Nick. He loves that kid so much. (Freddie’s first reaction upon meeting Nick in episode one is “Guys, I love my kid!” and that transfers into Glenn’s love language, encouraging Nick even if it’s in a very bad way.) But, I feel., and this is strictly me looking into his character, he realizes he needs to let go. He realizes he needs to let himself grow, and that him and Nick aren’t healthy and that he’s becoming Bill. And he let’s go. 

This also plays into how the Close family is known to live hard and long, (YOLO mentality) and so, clearly he won’t take the death option. Not happening. 

TL;DR Glenn choosing to give Nick up shows a major character growth in unhealthy attachment and admitting fault, and Freddie also is totally justified in choosing option to give up an NPC his player character is attached to instead of just killing off the character he’s clearly very attached to. 

#dndads #this is just me dissecting Glenn #episode 48 #glenn close #dndads spoilers #i dont know if I should tag this positivity or not #but i know its not discourse #this is just a character psychoanalysis

[fymagnificentwomcn]

t’s truly something how all princes/sultans in tmck are so pressed…I get their life isn’t easy, but all that blaming & truly how it can affect everyone’s perception. Murad even accused his mother of faking an assassination attempt on her life, incredible *sarcasm of course*. And Atike was just his cheerleader most of the time, ugh. All that blaming by people who even weren’t there. Thanks for writing that piece!

Aww thank you so much! This piece is my magnum opus I guess lol (Link here:https://fymagnificentwomcn.tumblr.com/post/610970504341405696/no-she-isnt-the-whole-evil-k%C3%B6sem-thing-isnt )

Murad’s angry 24/7 & gets so ridiculous with blame-shifting – he would need a good anger management therapy LBR.

And there’s one scene that portrays his character in nutshell:

Doctor: you cannot drink anymore wine, Your Majesty.

Murad, literally 5 minutes later: Yusuf, bring me wine!

Murad in 1 minute, another example:

Kösem: Don’t marry Silahtar to Atike, you also have another sister and if you do it, it will end in tragedy!

Murad: No worriez, I’ve thought about Gevherhan, I will marry her to Kemankeş ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I mentioned a lot of blame-shifting in my previous posts, but he even at moment began questioning his mum about Gülbahar and whether she truly committed treason (and Gülbahar herself admitted to it).

Even when Atike asked him for permission to take children with her & Kösem to vaqf, he was totally okay with the idea, but later after kidnapping snapped at his mother that it was HER fault for gaving taken his sons there & began threatening her with exile far away. Charming as always.

Honestly, he’s like a broken record. In all his arguments, while Kösem has her logical arguments, his only argument is usually “I’m the only/rightful owner of Ottoman Empire, “I’m the shadow of God on Earth. Like dude do you realise how boring you are???

Don’t forget how mad he got when Kösem wrote to Kemankeş to have a backup plan if Murad died and Bayezid wanted to take the throne, which could have meant danger for other Kösem’s sons. After all, she didn’t take it from nothing, Gülbahar told her about assassination attempt to come & it actually already had happened by the time Murad received the letter. Yes, dude you are not immortal, you could have been killed, and life goes on you know? It doesn’t mean your mother doesn’t love you or is not going to mourn you, but she also needs to take care of your brothers and state ffs. He’s truly obsessed with this idea that after his death life will  (unfortunately in his view) go on – which is also meaningful since Kösem reminded him like two episodes earlier that state was going to remain even with both of them dead. And well we all know the “masterful” idea he conceived just before his death.

And it’s clear how even some of his siblings fear him – Gevherhan was scared immediately following the announcement of Kösem no longer being a regent (especially since he did in a way to put  blame on his mother for recent events to prop himself up, and he was also engaged in state matters at that point). Kasim also immediately fears being locked up in kafes or even executed. Judging by their conversations, despite problems going on, last 10 years were a peaceful time for their family.

As I said, out of all Kösem’s opponents only Handan and Derviş weren’t worse than her, and she was the only main player that never engaged in mass slaughter – Safiye, Halime&Co., Gülbahar&Sinan, Murad, Turhan - all did.

Same with Atike – she was a baby when when her father died, didn’t even spend her early years locked up as Ibrahim…. she’s honestly so blind it’s painful. The scene where she jumps at Kemankeş for trying to talk sense to Ibrahim not to appoint Genie Master as chief judge… please your brother is now acting contrary to Imperial law and it’s asking for further disaster if Cinci increases his influence among ulema by bringing people who pay him into it & it’s good Ibo is controlled in this way… nah, it’s actually necessary. And how you jump from this to your mother I have no idea either. A true performative “activist”, who talks about protecting her brother, but all is limited to talking  & exposing her moral superiority, while it’s not supported by any real actions helping him.

Well, you got your revenge on your mother for killing the husband who despised you, acted against your youngest brothers at that point, and likely was only praying you wouldn’t follow him also into afterlife.

I also forgot to mention one more example of Mu/rat manipulating the narrative – when he tells Atike following the failed dethronement attempt & Kasim’s death that their mother had lied to her and tried to kill him – he was after all put in kafes, he should be aware nobody planned an assassination attempt, bah he KNEW the whole plan from Sinan… and yes, Kösem being so adamant that nothing can happen to Mura/t cost her Kasim in the end.

Atike herself was aware that Mu/rat would have killed her brothers even if the dethronement attempt had not happened as she told him to his face after Kasim’s death and she stated that he had made the decision long ago. Later however she got the letter from Murad informing her who killed Silahtar and she even released Traitor No. 1 Sinan to spite her mum 😂.

I suppose princes at this point led the hardest existence because they were closed in kafes, unable to get decent education&experience or have families (maybe they were allowed to have sex with cariyes, but contraception had to be used or even abortion if the concubine of a sehzade has got pregnant) but at the same time they weren’t certain whether they wouldn’t be killed because the switch to anti-fratricide was pretty new&the times were turbulent. Osman clearly broke Imperial law by getting fetva from military judge to kill Mehmed, and Murad killed the biggest number of Ahmed’s sons obviously (yeah more than in the show because not all princes appeared in MYK, though we don’t know the exact number of Ahmed’s sons, Murad definitely also executed Suleiman, most likely his full brother). I laugh when people go about “rule-breaker” Murad. Wow by getting back to law that has already began to run its course, clap clap.

Murad was king of hypocrisy and it’s also a historical fact. As Halil İnalcık states in his book Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age: “ The tyrannical Murad IV was a habitual drinker and at the same time the most ruthless supporter of the prohibition againt alcohol”. Mu/rat tried to make use of religion in his attempts to drill absolute obedience, but he wasn’t a religious person himself & definitely tried to take from religion what it most suited him, while ignoring other things, e.g. he kept decreasing zakat, aka income tax that goes to charity. A small bit of trivia: apparently he was a big fan of Machiavelli’s The Prince, there were even some rumours that he translated the book himself (we can only imagine he also took from this book what he wanted 🤪 ).

Similarly Turhan manipulated the narrative, also in a hypocritical way – remember her going like: “how many padişahs you killed?” and she was the main force behind Ibo’s death… the moment Ibo told her that she “was a coward who hid behind his mother’s skirts”… it was clear he was doomed. There was explicit anger on Turhan’s side here. Not only because she felt insulted by him, but also because she felt a need to prove both to him and the world that she was capable to be on top without Kösem’s support.  Not to mention all her actions leading to Ibo’s situation, also her ordering Mehmed to sign his dad’s death order was so chilling “I don’t want dad to die”. Well, now let’s play morally pure, especially while murdering elderly (very elderly lbr :p) Haci in again a brutal way, including twisting his neck. It’s not even that she removed a padisah – she actively worked to make him crazier and for his rule to be total failure, it wasn’t even about her, Ibo or Kösem – whole nation suffered because she was impatient to take power into her hands./BTW pity we skipped the time period when they were both Valides and we know both tried to get rid of each other, without harming Mehmed/ And frankly even with Kösem it was a terrible & undeserved backstabbing because also Ibi criticised Turhan for this saying his mother always “loved and protected her, did so much for her” and I doubt Ibo was biased here considering that he was also on bad terms with his mum at that moment.

Later the situation truly calmed down & later princes could live much more peacefully because the practice of killing truly went out of style and also later there were less and less restrictions on princes and they could for example travel abroad with the reigning padişah. For example, Sultan Abdülaziz took princes for a European trip and they even had a chance to meet Queen Victoria.

And I laugh when people blame Kösem for “failing to protect the princes” instead of you know, blame the actual killer. Ahmed truly replenished dynasty, while Murad axed a number of his brothers, at the same time of course used his own propaganda. It is true that Murad executed the favourite of princes, Bayezid, during celebrations following the successful Revan campaign. Similarly, when Kasim was executed someone spread rumours about the prince impregnating a number of concubines & it was before the Baghdad campaign when even setting out on it Murad had to display his “splendour and glory”.

Show-wise I legit one read that Kösem killed Ahmed because she spared Bulbül following Safiye’s attempted coup lmao. It’s not like Ahmed wasn’t there when she made the decision & it’s not like it wasn’t Hümaşah who after all got Yasemin in, and I doubt anyone could oppose an Imperial princess anyway – she would have found another servant. And Bülbül later saved Kösem’s kids, so… scapegoating truly is in some people’s blood lmao.

I love how MYK played with the idea of historical representation & creation of narrative, how people “see” and how different factors might influence their perception & creation of narrative. And also how S2 put into different perspective some stuff from S1. I admit there were some things that back during first watch of MYKS1 made me go WTF? that I later understood when compared/contrasted with MYK S2. It’s clear that they truly planned a lot of the whole show back in S1.

It’s sometimes interesting how narratives may be created and repeated even without evidence supporting it - there is no historical evidence that Kösem took part in Osman’s dethronement, yet it is something that often pops up even in “historical articles” for example. People deduce since Kösem later became Valide quite soon because Mustafa’s (or rather Halime’s) reign didn’t last long, know Şehzade Mustafa’s (Suleiman’s son) story, and some rumours about what Ottoman women did to secure throne for their children, so they see getting rid of one’s stepson to claim throne for one’s child as logical and usual in Ottoman system,  even when there is no proper evidence backing it up. Because it seems natural and logical, so why not make it more spicy? We know next to nothing about Mahfiruz, but there is this “Betty vs Veronica” trope, so suddenly we learn that Mahfiruz was Kösem’s opposite, not politically involved or ambitious, but gentle & sweet, and even details like light hair pop up as opposed to Kösem’s dark hair (sometimes of course it is also extended to good vs. evil). Taken from where, other than fitting a known trope? Or when she’s presented as some sort of Mahidevran vol.2 as having as close relationship with Osman like Mahi did with Mustafa, perfect prince and jealous stepmother Kösem. I know some of the stuff is also derived from Western, orientalist plays, but those are obviously not sources and should not be treated as truth. And sometimes it it even repeated by historians. For example Uluçay, who  was very against Sultanate of Women & pretty much propagated a lot of rumours (and new approach to the period truly changed a lot of how academia writes about these women now). Let us look at this quote:

Taken from: Necdet Sakaoğlu, Famous Ottoman Women.

It’s clear what narrative Uluçay chose for his research.

It’s common practice to sometimes fill in the blanks (and sometimes even change stuff) with known cliches, tropes, and narratives.

It is truly a topic for an extended discussion, so I will stop for now, but when it comes to Ottoman history I do recommend Daniel Piterberg’s Ottoman Tragedy. History and Historography at Play, which shows how the same event may be even differently presented in historical works depending on chosen narrative that is often rooted in current context.

#magnificent century: kosem #muhtesem yuzyil kosem #muhteşem yüzyıl kösem #kosem sultan #murad iv #answered #mods opinions #yeah again slowly restarting blog #I hope you missed my ramblings yhy #idk what's happening with read more cut ffs #so #long post

[whiterosemarie]

The Environment of TLOU2

So, during my lunch today I was reflecting on jacksepticeye’s playthrough of TLOU2 and some of the comments about if the world really would look like that after 20+ years (or something to that extent). When I heard some of this pondering in the video I was like “yeah probably not” but I’ve been turning it in my head as I work on my new property and honestly...I think I’ve changed my mind. So, buckle in, and let’s talk about the West Coast.

First we have to look at West Coast weather. One of the most amazing depictions in game of West Coast weather was the nonstop rain during the game. Not only was it thematic and symbolism, but it’s also pretty accurate for the West Coast. Most areas of the world have four seasons, but its a pretty popular sentiment that the west coast has two: Wet and Dust. This can vary in higher Washington where they might even consistently see snow, or down south where it is less dust and more straight desert. During the winter months, most of the west coast rains pretty non-stop. During the summer, you’re lucky to get the occasional rain fall. Usually this summer rainfall is very little and spaced out. So, what that means for plant life here on the west coast of the US is that during winter, our plants gets a crap ton of water. However, I’ve noticed that this rarely results in super growth for plants. No, no. That’s Summer’s domain there. If you’re one of those unlucky souls that like me has a yard that breaks every lawn cutting device anytime you so much as look at the grass, then you know this pain very well. During the summer, even if it’s just a sprinkle of rain, the plant life here springs back with a force. Usually, my yard can be up above my shoulders before I even know it. And that’s JUST the grass.

The biggest offenders of huge growth are trees, blackberries, grape vines, and ivy. I’ve watched our yard the past few years look somewhat similar to the environments in the game due to overgrowth. The blackberries and grape vines devour everything and can even scale up trees and grow into huge hedges if left unchecked for even a few days. In a world where there’s less concern for cutting back nature, I can easily imagine how fast everything would be overtaken. Trees too are tricky fast bastards. In less than a year, I’ve suddenly got an apple bush that’s rooted and grown underneath our sugargum tree. It’s a bush because it has no ability to grow upwards because it, like me, had no foresight. I’ve seen several trees in the last year grow even though we had no hand in planting them (because of the blackberries keeping us away.) For me, its really easy to imagine forest like areas, parks, and open fields completely overgrown. Oh, and wildfires. TLOU2 doesn’t show fires so I’m going to assume it was wet season. Wildfires give the ground a crap ton of nutrients and areas that have burned grow back often times pretty healthy, vibrant, and uh...big.

So about the conditions of the roads...

This to me is also believable because of two things: one reality, but also, two, the events that are talked about in game. I don’t know about the entire West Coast, but I do know that during most of the year Oregon roads are basically in a permanent state of constantly being worked on and repaired. This is because of the large amounts of rain and other factors but I can honestly see a campaign propping up something like: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IF THE ORANGE BARRELS GO. In the game, we hear about the military bombing areas where the outbreak was in order to control it, and then the bombings between militant groups and FEDRA in the QZs. A few years of water erosion, west coast rain, and explosions would definitely do it for places. Roads for sure would collapse.

Also, keep in mind that the west coast gets some gnarly earthquakes and tsunamis. Flooded areas would get worse from the damages to long maintained structures and natural phenomenon and the human element (bombs).

In short, I think that TLOU2′s environments are believable and beautiful all at once. Nature can take over so quickly once humans aren’t the main force keeping it back. Buildings, roads, and other structures would eventually crumble from lack of maintenance. I think it was brilliant of Naughty Dog to set the series on the West Coast because of this. It’s very believable to me, and probably strikes people from other areas differently because our environments act differently. If the series was set in other places I’m used to (such as the Northern Kentucky area), I don’t think the plant life would be so obviously taken over. It’d be different, for sure. The grass doesn’t get as tall, plants actually occasionally die off from winter, and trees aren’t as abundant and grow nowhere near as fast or as tall. (Though, Cincinnati would be an interesting urban apocalypse area to explore if we followed the same narrative of TLOU with bombs and resistance groups fighting it out. Buildings collapsing from age and human consequences? Sign me up.). I think other apocalypse medias set elsewhere have also skewed our expectations of how long it would take for the world to grow back over. After all, the environment on the eastern side of the US is far more urban, has shorter grasses, more seasons...It was a good choice.

Anyways, hope you enjoyed my dumb ramblings about stuff no one is really discussing because everyone is too busy either being immature or avoiding the game all together. I won’t say much more on that topic, but yeah. Enjoy!

#TLOU2 #TLOU #The Last of Us Part II #The Last of Us #Minor Spoilers #game design #environment #naughty dog #seattle #west coast #west coast best coast #discourse #discussion #game environment #concept art #jacksepticeye

[disillusioned41]

In the United States, every season is campaign season. Four months after America last went to the polls, Democrats are still refining their autopsies of the 2020 race and already governing with an eye toward the 2022 midterms. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Republicans are trying to figure out just how firm Donald Trump’s grip on their party really is — and debating whether that grip should be stronger or weaker.

To gain some insight into these matters, Intelligencer turned to our favorite socialist proponent of ruthlessly poll-driven campaigning, David Shor. A veteran of the 2012 Obama campaign, Shor is currently head of data science at OpenLabs, a progressive nonprofit. We spoke with him last week about how his analysis of the 2020 election has changed since November, what Democrats need to do to keep Congress after 2022, and why he thinks the Trump era was great for the Republican Party (in strictly electoral terms).

What are the most important things you’ve learned about the 2020 election between the last time we spoke and today?

What’s changed since November is that we now have individual-level vote-history data in a bunch of states. And we also have a lot more precinct-level data. And people have had more time to run surveys. So the picture has gotten clearer.

One high-level takeaway is that the 2020 electorate had a very similar partisan composition to the 2016 electorate. When the polls turned out to be wrong — and Trump turned out to be much stronger than they predicted — a lot of people concluded that turnout models must have been off: Trump must have inspired higher Republican turnout than expected. But that looks wrong. It really seems like the electorate was slightly more Democratic than it had been in 2016, largely due to demographic change (because there’s such a large partisan gap between younger and older voters, every four years the electorate gets something like 0.4 percent more Democratic just through generational churn). So Trump didn’t exceed expectations by inspiring higher-than-anticipated Republican turnout. He exceeded them mostly through persuasion. A lot of voters changed their minds between 2016 and 2020.

At the subgroup level, Democrats gained somewhere between half a percent to one percent among non-college whites and roughly 7 percent among white college graduates (which is kind of crazy). Our support among African Americans declined by something like one to 2 percent. And then Hispanic support dropped by 8 to 9 percent. The jury is still out on Asian Americans. We’re waiting on data from California before we say anything. But there’s evidence that there was something like a 5 percent decline in Asian American support for Democrats, likely with a lot of variance among subgroups. There were really big declines in Vietnamese areas, for example. Anyway, one implication of these shifts is that education polarization went up and racial polarization went down.

In other words, a voter’s level of educational attainment — whether they had a college degree — became more predictive of which party they voted for in 2020 than it had been in 2016, while a voter’s racial identity became less predictive?

Yeah. White voters as a whole trended toward the Democratic Party, and nonwhite voters trended away from us. So we’re now somewhere between 2004 and 2008 in terms of racial polarization. Which is interesting. I don’t think a lot of people expected Donald Trump’s GOP to have a much more diverse support base than Mitt Romney’s did in 2012. But that’s what happened.

Does the available data give us any insight into why? Do you have any sense what was behind the large rightward shift among Hispanic voters?

One important thing to know about the decline in Hispanic support for Democrats is that it was pretty broad. This isn’t just about Cubans in South Florida. It happened in New York and California and Arizona and Texas. Really, we saw large drops all over the country. But it was notably larger in some places than others. In the precinct-level data, one of the things that jumps out is that places where a lot of voters have Venezuelan or Colombian ancestry saw much larger swings to the GOP than basically anywhere else in the country. The Colombian and Venezuelan shifts were huge.

One of my favorite examples is Doral, which is a predominantly Venezuelan and Colombian neighborhood in South Florida. One precinct in that neighborhood went for Hillary Clinton by 40 points in 2016 and for Trump by ten points in 2020. One thing that makes Colombia and Venezuela different from much of Latin America is that socialism as a brand has a very specific, very high salience meaning in those countries. It’s associated with FARC paramilitaries in Colombia and the experience with President Maduro in Venezuela. So I think one natural inference is that the increased salience of socialism in 2020 — with the rise of AOC and the prominence of anti-socialist messaging from the GOP — had something to do with the shift among those groups.

As for the story with Hispanics overall, one thing that really comes out very clearly in survey data that we’ve done is that it really comes down to ideology. So when you look at self-reported ideology — just asking people, “Do you identify as liberal, moderate, or conservative” — you find that there aren’t very big racial divides. Roughly the same proportion of African American, Hispanic, and white voters identify as conservative. But white voters are polarized on ideology, while nonwhite voters haven’t been. Something like 80 percent of white conservatives vote for Republicans. But historically, Democrats have won nonwhite conservatives, often by very large margins. What happened in 2020 is that nonwhite conservatives voted for Republicans at higher rates; they started voting more like white conservatives.

And so this leads to a question of why. Why did nonwhite voters start sorting more by ideology? And that’s a hard thing to know. But my organization, and our partner organizations, have done extensive post-election surveys of 2020 voters. And we looked specifically at those voters who switched from supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016 to Donald Trump in 2020 to see whether anything distinguishes this subgroup in terms of their policy opinions. What we found is that Clinton voters with conservative views on crime, policing, and public safety were far more likely to switch to Trump than voters with less conservative views on those issues. And having conservative views on those issues was more predictive of switching from Clinton to Trump than having conservative views on any other issue-set was.

This lines up pretty well with trends we saw during the campaign. In the summer, following the emergence of “defund the police” as a nationally salient issue, support for Biden among Hispanic voters declined. So I think you can tell this microstory: We raised the salience of an ideologically charged issue that millions of nonwhite voters disagreed with us on. And then, as a result, these conservative Hispanic voters who’d been voting for us despite their ideological inclinations started voting more like conservative whites.

Are these problems with Democratic positioning or with “disinformation”? Obviously, Joe Biden didn’t campaign on police abolition and worker control of the means of production. So there was a disconnect between the reality of the party’s platform and how it was perceived. Closing that gap, through a “Latino Anti-Disinformation Lab,” appears to be a focus of Democrats’ postelection efforts to fix their problem with Hispanic voters. Does that make sense as a path forward?

I’d say this: The decline that we saw was very large. Nine percent or so nationwide, up to 14 or 15 percent in Florida. Roughly one in ten Hispanic voters switched their vote from Clinton to Trump. That is beyond the margin of what can plausibly be changed by investing more in Spanish media. And I don’t think a shift that large can be plausibly attributed to what was said in WhatsApp groups or not buying enough in YouTube ads. I think the problem is more fundamental.

Over the last four years, white liberals have become a larger and larger share of the Democratic Party. There’s a narrative on the left that the Democrats’ growing reliance on college-educated whites is pulling the party to the right (Matt Karp had an essay on this recently). But I think that’s wrong. Highly educated people tend to have more ideologically coherent and extreme views than working-class ones. We see this in issue polling and ideological self-identification. College-educated voters are way less likely to identify as moderate. So as Democrats have traded non-college-educated voters for college-educated ones, white liberals’ share of voice and clout in the Democratic Party has gone up. And since white voters are sorting on ideology more than nonwhite voters, we’ve ended up in a situation where white liberals are more left wing than Black and Hispanic Democrats on pretty much every issue: taxes, health care, policing, and even on racial issues or various measures of “racial resentment.” So as white liberals increasingly define the party’s image and messaging, that’s going to turn off nonwhite conservative Democrats and push them against us.

When you say that white liberals are to the left of the typical Black Democrat on racial issues, how much does that depend on the definition of a racial issue? For example, one policy fight that often pits the interests of white liberal Democrats against those of the Black working class is housing and school integration. There are a lot of highly educated, white, liberal areas — full of “Black Lives Matter” lawn signs — which nevertheless oppose affordable-housing projects or school-redistricting plans that would bring less wealthy, less white students to their kids’ classrooms. The white liberals who oppose efforts to end de facto segregation may know the enlightened answer to abstract questions about the nature of racial inequality, but I’m not sure that puts them to the left of nonwhite voters on racial issues, properly defined.

Yeah, no, absolutely. White liberals do give more progressive responses across a wide battery of traditional racial resentment questions like, “Do you believe that the reason why African Americans can’t get ahead is due to discrimination or due to other factors?” But I think it’s important to put “racial resentment” in quotes whenever you talk about it. I’m not claiming that white liberals are somehow less racist than people of color, to the extent that question even makes sense. And I do think if you asked about affirmative action and inclusionary zoning, rather than these more abstract questions that political scientists use for measuring racial resentment, you could find a different breakdown.

But I think the split on those abstract questions captures something real. In liberal circles, racism has been defined in highly ideological terms. And this theoretical perspective on what racism means and the nature of racial inequality have become a big part of the group identity of college-educated Democrats, white and nonwhite. But it’s not necessarily how most nonwhite, working-class people understand racism.

How do they differ?

I don’t think I can answer that comprehensively. But if you look at the concrete questions, white liberals are to the left of Hispanic Democrats, but also of Black Democrats, on defunding the police and those ideological questions about the source of racial inequity.

Regardless, even if a majority of nonwhite people agreed with liberals on all of these issues, the fundamental problem is that Democrats have been relying on the support of roughly 90 percent of Black voters and 70 percent of Hispanic voters. So if Democrats elevate issues or theories that a large minority of nonwhite voters reject, it’s going to be hard to keep those margins. Because these issues are strongly correlated with ideology. And Black conservatives and Hispanic conservatives don’t actually buy into a lot of these intellectual theories of racism. They often have a very different conception of how to help the Black or Hispanic community than liberals do. And I don’t think we can buy our way out of this trade-off. Most voters are not liberals. If we polarize the electorate on ideology — or if nationally prominent Democrats raise the salience of issues that polarize the electorate on ideology — we’re going to lose a lot of votes.

Don’t these ideological self-descriptions carry similar definitional problems as “racial resentment”? Most voters may not identify as liberals. But judging from opinion polls, most voters do reject the lion’s share of the conservative movement’s governing priorities. In Congress, a “conservative” is typically a lawmaker who supports tax cuts for the rich and funding cuts for Medicaid, while opposing a higher minimum wage and another round of stimulus checks. Those are all extremely unpopular positions.

Absolutely.

It seems important then to get clarity on what these ideological labels do and don’t mean. If taken at face value, the data looks pretty ominous for Democrats: They’ve built a coalition premised on overwhelming support from these nonwhite groups, but that support was rooted in historically contingent social conditions — not substantive agreement — and now those conditions are eroding, clearing the way for an emerging “conservative” majority. On the other hand, if you look at the polling of the biggest policy debates in Congress over the past eight years, you might conclude that there’s a natural liberal majority in this country and that the GOP is the party whose coalition is an “unnatural” agglomeration of groups held together by accidents of history.

I agree with everything you said. I do think that liberals sometimes take the ambiguities of ideology too far. A lot of progressives insist that ideological self-identification means nothing. And we know that isn’t true. One of the big patterns of the last 40 years is that ideological self-description has become increasingly correlated with partisanship and increasingly correlated to views on issues.

But there is still a large universe of policy questions — mostly economic but not exclusively — where a large majority of the public agrees with us. A $15 minimum wage polls above 60 percent; that couldn’t happen without a lot of “moderates” and “conservatives” supporting the policy. What I take from that is: Ideological polarization is a dead end. If we divide the electorate on self-described ideology, we lose — both because there are more conservatives than liberals and because conservatives are structurally overrepresented in the House, Senate, and Electoral College. So the way we get around that is by talking a lot about progressive goals that are not ideologically polarizing, goals that we share with self-described conservatives and moderates. Even among nonwhite voters, those tend to be economic issues. In test after test that we’ve done with Hispanic voters, talking about immigration commonly sparks backlash: Asking voters whether they lean toward Biden and Trump, and then emphasizing the Democratic position on immigration, often caused Biden’s share of support among Latino respondents to decline. Meanwhile, Democratic messaging about investing in schools and jobs tended to move Latino voters away from Trump.

Is that primarily a function of the fact that the marginal Hispanic voter — the one who’s least attached to the Democratic Party — is to the right of the typical Hispanic voter? Like, it isn’t the case that a majority of Hispanic voters respond negatively to immigration messaging, is it?

No. I mean, Hispanic voters are more liberal on immigration than white voters. But I think that, for one thing, the extent to which Hispanic voters have liberal views on immigration is exaggerated. If you look at, for example, decriminalizing border crossings, that’s not something that a majority of Hispanic voters support. Pew’s done a lot of polling on immigration reform, and if you ask things like, “Should we deport the undocumented population, should we give them a path to permanent residency, or should we give them a path to citizenship?” citizenship only gets a little over 50 percent support among Hispanic voters. So I think liberals really essentialize Hispanic voters and project views about immigration onto them that the data just doesn’t support.

Now, how we should campaign and what we should do once in office are different questions. Our immigration system is a humanitarian crisis, and we should do something about that. But the point of public communication should be to win votes. And the way that you do that is to not trigger ideological polarization.

What’s your (way too early) assessment of Democrats’ odds of retaining Congress after the midterm? What do they need to achieve, in statistical terms, to pull that off? And then, from a substantive point of view, are there things that they can do in office to make hitting those marks easier?

As a baseline, midterms are usually very bad for the party in power. In the past 70 years, the incumbent party has gained seats in the House and Senate maybe once or twice. The last one was in 2002. The regularity of how bad midterm environments are for the president’s party is one of the most striking findings in political science. Generally speaking, over the last 30 to 40 years, the party that controls the presidency gets about 47 percent of the vote nationwide. Add in the fact that the House already has a fairly substantial pro-Republican bias — the median House seat is something like three points to the right of the country overall — it means that in the base scenario, Democrats are headed for near-certain doom. If we replicate the GOP’s post-9/11, 2002 midterm performance, we have a chance. If we replicate the second-best presidential-party midterm from the past 40 years, we lose.

The good news is that there’s a strong case for thinking this time might be different. I’m not a macroeconomist, but it seems like Joe Biden might preside over a post-corona economic boom. Already, Biden’s approval rating is very strong. The best predictor of how a midterm is going to shake out is how popular the president is. So, for now, everything looks about as good as you could hope for.

But we have no margin for error. If we conduct ourselves the way we did after 2008, we’re definitely going to lose. And due to the way that our electoral system works, we really could be locked out of power for a very long time, just like we were after 2010. So that means the need for messaging discipline is stronger than ever. But keeping the national conversation focused around popular economic issues probably won’t be enough. Since the maps in the House of Representatives are so biased against us, if we don’t pass a redistricting reform, our chance of keeping the House is very low. And then the Senate is even more biased against us than the House. So, it’s also very important that we add as many states as we can. Currently, even if we have an exceptionally good midterm, the most likely outcome is that we lose one or two Senate seats. And then, going into 2024, we have something like seven or eight Democrats who are in states that are more Republican than the country overall. Basically, we have this small window right now to pass redistricting reform and create states. And if we don’t use this window, we will almost certainly lose control of the federal government and not be in a position to pass laws again potentially for a decade. In terms of putting numbers on things, I think that if we implemented D.C. and Puerto Rican statehood and passed redistricting reform, that would roughly triple our chance of holding the House in 2022 and roughly the same in the Senate. The fact that it’s possible to triple those odds is a testament to how bleak the baseline case is. So we need to pass those reforms and we need Biden to remain popular. If his approval rating is below 50 by the end of the year, we’re probably fucked.

Is there a tension between those two imperatives? In the past, I’ve heard you talk a lot about “thermostatic” public opinion — how voters tend to move right when Democrats are in power, and left when Republicans are in power, and generally display a bias toward the status quo and against policy change. Could adding multiple states to the Union, and changing the way that we go about allocating House representation — specifically in a manner that diminishes the influence of white, rural voters — spur thermostatic backlash? And if so, could maintaining Biden’s current approval, and implementing the reforms necessary for Democrats to stay competitive at the congressional level, present an irresolvable dilemma?

I can’t claim to know exactly what the electoral effects would be of doing these things. But all of the polling I’ve seen suggests that things like HR 1 and adding states are above water. They’re not as popular as a lot of economic issues, but they’re above 50 percent. Electoral backlash doesn’t typically come from doing things that poll at 53 or 54 percent. It comes from doing things that poll at 30 or 40 percent. And so I think that the downside of this stuff is low. I think the level of voter interest in procedural issues is low. If we lived in a world where voters punished politicians for playing procedural hardball, we would have a lot fewer Republicans in office.

And actually, in some ways, pursuing procedural reforms that don’t concern voters much — but which do get the other party all worked up — could be electorally beneficial. If you can get the other party to talk about something that voters don’t care about, that’s good. People don’t always think about media attention as a fixed quantity. But it is. To the extent that the coronavirus impacted the 2020 election, I think one positive political effect it had for Democrats was that whenever the media was talking about the coronavirus, they weren’t talking about Hunter Biden or immigration. And I think that kind of blocked Republicans from creating and inserting wedge issues. If Republicans decide to make 2022 into a referendum on independent redistricting, that will eat up space that could have otherwise gone to effective attacks. We should dare them to do it.

We talked a lot about the rightward drift of Hispanic voters in 2020. But the other big change was a leftward shift among college-educated whites. Understanding the cause of that shift seems pretty important. If these college-educated voters were primarily rejecting Donald Trump, Democrats might not be able to count on their support in 2022 and beyond.

Yeah, it’s a great question. Let’s start with numbers: In 2016, non-college-educated whites swung roughly 10 percent against the Democratic Party. And then, in 2018, roughly 30 percent of those Obama-Trump voters ended up supporting Democrats down ballot. In 2020, only 10 percent of Obama-Trump voters came home for Biden.

So I think what this shows: There is a long-term trend of increasing education polarization here and in every other country in the West. But the fact that education polarization declined significantly in 2018 — when Trump wasn’t on the ballot — and picked up again in 2020 suggests that Trump is personally responsible for a significant portion of America’s education polarization. I think that there’s a really strong case that this transition was specifically about Donald Trump.

A lot of people theorized that we first alienated Obama-Trump voters during the fight over comprehensive immigration reform and that their rightward movement was already apparent in 2014. But if you actually look at panel data, it seems really clear that these people didn’t start identifying as Republicans until Trump won the GOP nomination. I think there’s a very strong empirical argument that Donald Trump was the main driver of the polarization we’ve seen since 2016. He just personally embodies this large cultural divide between cosmopolitan college-educated voters and a large portion of non-college-educated voters. Those divides take a lot of different forms: attitudes toward race, attitudes toward gender, opinions on what kinds of things you’re allowed to say, or how you should conduct yourself. And you know, as Trump became the nominee, and as the media made politics the Donald Trump Show for the last four years, that led to increasing political polarization on attitudes toward Donald Trump specifically. I think the reason why we saw less education-based voting in 2018 is that Trump was a smaller part of the media environment than he had been in 2016 or would be in 2020.

Looking ahead to 2022, and just thinking about the next four years, the big question is how much is Donald Trump going to shape media coverage of the Republican Party or the Republican Party’s own branding? And I don’t know the answer to that question. If Trump fades out of the spotlight, I’d expect some level of education depolarization, particularly if Democrats show ideological discipline.

That speaks to a question I’ve been mulling for a while. During the 2016 campaign, Vox developed this concept of “the Trump Tax,” which was a measure of the electoral penalty that Republicans were paying for picking the most unpopular nominee in polling history. Basically, it took a “fundamentals” model of how one would expect a Republican presidential candidate to perform, given economic conditions and other background factors, and then measured how much lower Trump’s support was than that. And yet, while Trump remained historically unpopular in office, he also helped the GOP increase its structural advantages at every level of government. So I’ve long wondered: Was Donald Trump’s unpopularity with the general public more detrimental to the Republican Party than his gift for deepening education polarization was valuable?

So, in 2016, Hillary Clinton got 51.1 percent of the two-party vote. Obama got 52 percent in 2012. In just about any other country, retaining 51.1 percent support would have been enough to keep power. But in this country, between 2012 and 2016, the Electoral College bias changed from being one percent biased toward Democrats to 3 percent biased toward Republicans, mainly because of education polarization. So Donald Trump is unpopular. And he does pay a penalty for that relative to a generic Republican. But the voters he’s popular with happen to be extremely efficiently distributed in political-geography terms.

Imagine Hillary Clinton had run against Marco Rubio in 2016. Rubio is a less toxic figure to the public as a whole, so let’s say he performed as a generic Republican would have been expected to, and Hillary Clinton’s share of the two-party vote fell to 49.6 percent. If she had maintained Obama’s coalition — if her 49.6 percent had the same ratio of college-to-non-college-educated voters as Obama had in 2012 — she would have won that election. And then, if you look at the implications that would have had down-ballot, especially in the Senate, Republicans would have been a lot worse off with a narrow majority coalition — that had a Romney-esque split between college and non-college voters — than they were with the Trump coalition.

So I think the Trump era has been very good for the Republican Party, even if they now, momentarily, have to accept this very, very, very thin Democratic trifecta. Because if these coalition changes are durable, the GOP has very rosy long-term prospects for dominating America’s federal institutions.

The question is: Can they get all of the good parts of Trumpism without the bad parts? And I don’t know the answer to that question. But when I look at the 2020 election, I see that we ran against the most unpopular Republican ever to run for president — and we ran literally the most popular figure in our party whose last name is not Obama — and we only narrowly won the Electoral College. If Biden had done 0.3 percent worse, then Donald Trump would have won reelection with just 48 percent of the two-party vote. We can’t control what Trump or Republicans do. But we can add states, we can ban partisan redistricting, and we can elevate issues that appeal to both college-educated liberals and a lot of working-class “conservatives.” If we don’t, things could get very bleak, very fast.

#just asking questions #david shor #q&a #2022 midterms #vision 2020 #New York Magazine #opinion #analysis #us politics

[things2mustdo]

Recently there’s been a lot of talk about whether or not the media has our best interests at heart, and with more and more men awakening from the feminist matrix, it seems that the mainstream media is going the way of the dinosaur.

Donald Trump has been urging the public not to trust the mainstream media, but I’m sure that if you’re a reader of Return Of Kings, you don’t need him to tell you that. The modern mainstream media is basically the same thing as the Church was in the 1200’s—they control the flow of information, and they don’t like it when people disagree with them. In fact, if someone who disagrees with them gets popular enough, they often times resort to smear campaigns (see: smearing Roosh as a manipulative pickup artist, and Milo as a pedophile apologist).

Now, I know what you’re thinking—“I know the media doesn’t report on things, Jon, but fake news? That’s, like, intentionally lying and manipulating information, isn’t it?” Yes, sir, it is—and this is what the mainstream media, particularly CNN, has been doing ever since television became popular.

Here’s 5 examples of how CNN is, in fact, “fake news”:

1. Kicking Bernie Sanders Off-Air

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWQcxUIYUcQ

Bernie Sanders, the unofficial leader of the socialist movement in America, recently called CNN “fake news,” before being kicked off the air. CNN tried to play this off as a “connection issue,” but anyone with a grain of common sense knows better.

Bernie: “…who is the head of Russia, and now we’re learning that there may have been discussions between Flynn and the Russians, about sanctions, before this administration took power. So this is very, very troubling, and I think the president is going to have to tell us what he’s gonna do about it.”

CNN Anchor: “So far he hasn’t said much…he was asked about Flynn on his flight to Mar-a-Lago late today…here’s how he responded:

[plays clip of Donald Trump denying obvious lie directed towards him]

CNN Anchor: “He says he hasn’t seen any of these reports. Is that a problem?”

Bernie: “Well, I don’t know, maybe he was watching CNN Fake News, what do you think?”

Bernie: [sees her offended look] “It was a joke.”

CNN Anchor: “You don’t buy what he said, obviously?”

Bernie: “Erin?”

Bernie: “Kevin, I’m not—are we on?”

CNN Anchor: “Umm, it looks like we’ve lost connection with Senator Sanders…”

Right, of course. You just happened to “lose connection,” with Senator Sanders conveniently right after he called you fake news.

2. “Racism” Is Why Adele Won Grammy

After Adele won the song of the year, record of the year, and best solo pop performance awards, it wasn’t long before CNN charged in to proclaim that “racism,” was the cause. CNN “reports”:

…”but with its racial themes and imagery, some are questioning if the project was “just too black” for Grammy voters. Kevin Powell, author of the memoir “The Education of Kevin Powell” and a forthcoming biography on rapper Tupac Shakur, thinks so. He told CNN “Beyonce’s ‘Lemonade’ made a lot of people uncomfortable, because it is so political, so spiritual, so unapologetically black, and so brutally honest about love, self-love, trust, betrayal.”

Right, because apparently Beyonce, despite being nominated for 62 Grammy awards, and winning a whopping 22 Grammy awards, is being discriminated against. In the Leftist’s delusional reality, any time a white person succeeds, it’s due to “racism,” yet any time a black person succeeds, it’s due to “overcoming insurmountable odds.”

Give me a break. Adele won the Grammy, because the panel thought her songs were better, period. This has nothing to do with racism, but apparently CNN still thinks it’s a good idea to race-bait the hell out of current events in 2017. I don’t see this changing anytime soon, either.

3. Venezuela Bans CNN For Lies

According to Fox News World, the president of Venezuela actually asked CNN to leave:

“CNN, do not get into the affairs of Venezuelans. I want CNN well away from here—outside of Venezuela. Do not put your nose in Venezuela.” -Nicolas Maduro

…and can you blame him? CNN has repeatedly shown how ridiculously biased they are, and they’ve shown how willing to lie they are, for the past year after running a gigantic smear campaign against Donald Trump.

Didn’t CNN claim that The Donald had a 3% chance of being elected president? What did they do, just poll the gender studies department at UC Berkeley? I wouldn’t be surprised if they did, because nobody in their right mind would ever accidentally come to the conclusion that our current president had a 3% chance of winning.

In fact, other independent journalists such as Mike Cernovich actually predicted that Donald would win months before the election day in November—how? Because they saw the trends. They saw that men were tired of being emasculated and having their lives ruined, they saw that we’re tired of being shamed for our whiteness, and they saw that the people of America were starting to wake up from their NWO conditioning.

4. “Our Job Is To Control Exactly What People Think.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoXGV4Vw-VA

Yeah, yeah—I know this one isn’t CNN, but they’re all the same to me. MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and even Fox News to an extent…they’re all just different heads on the same globalist-controlled hydra. Buckle in though, boys, because this one’s pretty bad…and it just happened days ago.

Mika Brzezinski, whose name should automatically create suspicion in the wary citizen, recently stated on MSNBC that it’s “our job,” to “control exactly what people think.” I honestly couldn’t even make this stuff up, but if you don’t believe me, you can watch it in the video above.

Mika Brzezinski: “Well, I think the dangerous edges here are that he’s trying to undermine the media, trying to make up his own facts, and it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he could control exactly what people think…and that is our job.”

No, Mika, that isn’t your job. Your job is to report the facts and let THE PEOPLE decide what to think, but if you can’t get that through your thick skull I guess we’ll just stop watching your crappy network.

5. Donald Trump Calls CNN “Fake News”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZI0Q3LQZmo

Ah, I saved the best for last—I do love me some Donald burns. After a CNN “news reporter” tried to aggressively ask Donald a question for some odd 20 seconds, repeatedly interrupting him and interjecting his way into the conversation, Donald lost it and called him “fake news.”

And who could blame him? They spent the last 8 months doing absolutely everything within their power to completely ruin Donald Trump’s chances at winning…and yet, by the grace of God, and by the memes of Pepe, lord of Keks, the Trump train smashed its way through the entire god damn establishment…and won.

Trump: [to other reporter] “Go ahead.”

CNN Fake News: “MR. PRESIDENT SINCE YOU’RE ATTACKING US CAN YOU GIVE US A QUESTION!”

Trump: [to CNN] “No.”

Trump: [to other reporter]: “Go ahead.”

CNN Fake News: “MR. PRESIDENT ELECT! MR. PRESIDENT ELECT! SINCE YOU ARE ATTACKING OUR NEWS ORGANIZATION,”

Trump: [to CNN] “No, not you.”

Trump: [to other reporter] “Go ahead.”

CNN Fake News: “CAN YOU GIVE US A QUESTION,”

Trump: [to CNN] “Not you.”

CNN Fake News: “GIVE US A CHANCE! MR PRESIDENT”

Trump: [to CNN] “Your organization’s terrible.”

CNN Fake News: “CAN YOU GIVE US A CHANCE, JUST LET US ASK…”

Trump: [to CNN] “Your organization’s terrible.”

CNN Fake News: “LET US ASK A QUESTION, SIR! SIR!”

Trump: [to CNN] “Quiet.”

This goes on for literally 25 seconds, before Trump finally becomes visibly angry and proclaims:

Trump: [to CNN] “You are fake news.”

If the President of the United States of America thinks that CNN is fake news, I think they’re probably fake news.

Summary

In conclusion, if you still watch the mainstream media, don’t. Get your news from real news sites, like Return Of Kings, Info Wars, Gateway Pundit, Drudge Report, and Cernovich. The MSM has shown us multiple times in the past that they’re globalist whores, selling out the American public to fatten their own pockets.

I recently bought an Info Wars shirt to start wearing around in public, and the results have restored my faith in America. Everywhere I wear it, I’ve gotten complements—it’s not that often, but you’d be surprised how many men are awake, but just don’t broadcast it.

The MSM would have you believe that 99% of the American public hates Trump, but it’s really only something like 10% who hate him, and maybe 25% more who dislike him.

I usually wear Info Wars, Breitbart, and Trump apparel to the gym, because most guys who have a shredded six pack from lifting heavy ass weights are strong and masculine, and are therefore not subject to stupid social pressures that the media uses to influence you.

Do your part in spreading the good gospel of the manosphere, the alt-news, and the resurgence of America, and we’ll reclaim our country for sure. Let’s all make America great again.

https://www.returnofkings.com/165920/how-journalists-became-whores

Journalists are supposed to follow a set of rules and values called deontology. These rules say journalists should strive to be impartial, objective, and to inform their readers. We know well this is not the true nature of their activity.

Most MSM journalists today if not all are spinsters. They cherry-pick their facts and craft narratives around to steer people towards an untold yet ever-present agenda. They make up stereotypes while attacking other stereotypes, they make up ideas while attacking other ideas, as it suits the editorial line of their employer.

In the name of information, journalists create and fulfill an artificially constructed consciousness. They are paid to do so. They believe what they’re doing is normal or cool, just like the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984, where officers burn archives then forget they just destroyed records (soon to be rewritten); your average leftist journalist spins all the time, follows all the time, yet doesn’t even know he spins and follows.

A little bit of history

If you lend an ear to leftist historians, up to perhaps to age of discoveries, the West didn’t know much. Everybody were locked into their own towns and fields. Well, this is not true. Europeans had known about the Silk Road from time immemorial. Kings and the clergy had their messengers, their events, their gatherings. Individuals like Saint Bernard or Saint Thomas of Aquino were quite familiar with communicating at a distance.

It was just much slower than today—and quite of a luxury as well. Common folk had to rely on minstrels, travelers, and on their own travels. Most communication was done orally. Academics today love to point out how unreliable the bush telegraph is, but at least this communication is done naturally between common people rather than top-down from a shadowy agenda.

Also, as slow as this word-to-mouth communication was, people then did not need more: they could make a living on their own, with the insurance that they could consume it themselves or sell it. Markets tended to be stable, and whether you were a field-tiller or a craftsman, you didn’t need to know about the latest fad not to be left behind. People were also much less bored and in need of diversions. Didn’t have newspapers, didn’t need them.

Then came the printing press. What had been done by scribes secluded in monasteries became partly automatized and multiplied. Bibles were printed. Then pamphlets. By the time, Protestantism had well developed, clever princes tried to use it to their advantage, and the Catholic church counter-attacked by launching one of the most manipulative orders ever created.

More power to independent people meant chaos. Printing outside of the rigid hierarchy of the Church meant a never-ending contest of ideas, systems, tastes, experiences, and egos. The hypocritical journalists of now who chide “trolls” while sniffing their own written farts should remember that trolling appeared as a side-effect of the printing press, as it became possible to say anything remotely instead of being necessarily confrontable. Plus, trolling helps to think of things to talk about with a girl.

Nevertheless, printing what you wanted was not that simple. First, literacy was still the hallmark of a comfortable upbringing, and second, you had to be able to print. You had to know a printer, had to make a deal with him and pay him. Not to mention the dissemination of your lovely printed book. It was always possible to print in a country with virtually no censorship, then smuggle books, but who was to receive them and share them?

No matter what you had to say, you always needed to address a noble-bourgeois audience, which meant catering to fashionable topics or debates. Otherwise, your material would be simply ignored. Authors who weren’t too well-known had to rely on booksellers who conspired to arrange a discrete monopoly on over-the-counter books. Yep, the world of “culture” has always been murky, and its members believe this is a sign of their superior intelligence.

As “culture” developed, with its train of noise, untold rivalries and social parasitism, periodic journals were printed at an ever-faster pace. Eighteenth century bi-annuals were replaced by daily or weekly newspapers. Which meant a great need, not for amateur gentlemen, but for people who could write constantly. Such people would be called journalists.

The modern journalist plant

If you believe journalism is about informing the public, forget it immediately. There is no such thing as an automatic progress which just makes happen what seems desirable. If an unbiased, all-objective information seems desirable, that does not mean someone will pay for it or even manage to get it. Even the CIA Factbook was made in the first place because objective information would benefit the CIA itself, not “enlighten the masses” or whatever a leftist salesman would say.

A journalist is basically someone who is paid to write on particular issues, in a well-defined format, as his boss sees fit. A journal belongs to someone—no matter if the owner is public or private—who usually has its own aims. Whether the newspaper has to simply sell or shape the opinion, it always aims at something else than merely informing.

(Even ROK has an agenda, and I’m fine with it, because I believe it is sound and fair, but I’d never pretend I write for the sole love of truth or as if I was a disembodied soul with no consciousness of its own. Any writer having such pretenses is a hypocrite or a liar.)

Back to the nineteenth century. Newspapers were just like factories. As plant workers had to churn tangible products, journalists had to churn out impressions. They were like paid artists for the ephemeral, creating appearances that would sell, or satisfy, or infuriate—anything as long as it suited the editorial line of their employer. Journalists did not become whores. They were paid employees, to put it politely, from day one. But at least the blue collar workers had to pretense to say the truth or illuminate or whatever BS that sells.

Let’s say you were born with a high verbal IQ, a knack for writing, and some ideas. What could you do? You may consider writing books, become an intellectual, but book writing takes time and often doesn’t pay. If you can’t live like an annuitant, you must be an employee.

If you choose the written words, you have to conform to a preexisting editorial line, to a particular milieu that already existed before you did, in hope of being granted a job. Creating a journal demanded not only experience but capital as well. Can you pay a printer? Would a banker trust you if you asked him for a loan so you can start a journal?

As the nineteenth century was an epoch of exceptional growth, some people had this capital or trust, and many independent journals were formed. Many, though, were bought off, or chased away, or censored. The elite does not want you to become an influencer, unless, of course, you remain a perpetual servant of their agenda.

This is why mild conservatives are accepted as a stooge opposition, along with the alt lite, whereas those who really want to save civilization and its creators are reviled. The elites want to destroy civilization, so, their journalists, who all depend on them socially and financially, foster their agenda while lying to themselves on the nature of what they do.

So-called investigators are paid by Darth Soros to “investigate” on convenient targets while turning a blind eye on other things, like mass immigration, or upholding a mandatory narrative which rests not on truth but on pure social conformism—muh minorities r always good, muh white males r always wrong.

Perhaps the “fake news” offensive has been crafted, not only to maintain the masses into the blue pill matrix, but also to reassure the frail employees that they are serving truth and progress. Which is already dubious, as worshiping an arbitrary strand of “progress” has nothing to do with objectivity, just as the contemporary humanities are rather a Hollywood for nerds than a place of real knowledge, but you can’t ask vapid girls to get to this level.

No one writes for the sake of truth alone. Independent writers or journalists also speak of what they think relevant. They will mention XYZ facts because these are important, or, at least, ensure a modicum of success. Just like men tend to read Miyamoto Musashi quotes, not merely because he existed, but because he’s interesting.

Mainstream journalists are courtiers. They are paid by global elites to do their bidding. They work in cities just like filmmakers work in grand obscure studios—because their activity lies in creating perceptions, in shaping fashions, ideas, mottos, norms. The difference between a marketer, a journalist and a filmmaker is only of scale and means. The aim, and the bottom, is the same.

We are different, because we are bottom-up. When mainstream journalists sold their souls, we are upholding ours. The problem with this is that we’re ill-paid. The globalists and the boomers tend to concentrate all the money, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to witness that the non-mainstream outlets tend to all lack money. Such is the price of independence.

We ought to have our own money elsewhere, and have a lot of independent journalists around, so that autonomous individuals from our side can work or investigate and help masculine men to shape their own consciousness.

[longforyesterday]

part 1/2 thanks for sharing everything you find interesting in that book. I feel like you've posted half of the book here and I didn't see anyone mention appreciating it. so yeah, thanks for that. just a few things (my personal opinions of course) : I get the feeling that Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians is heavily biased, basically everything he says is about comparing john vs paul, and sometimes biographers vs biographers, even while he criticizes others for being so

2/2 for instance, the meaning behind "paul being a PR man" was distorted. being a PR man isn't necessarily about giving as many interviews as possible. it's purely about how you present your image in the media. john and yoko were all over the news during the early 70s when paul clearly avoided any raucousness. he managed to keep a good image despite being constantly slammed by critics and john, while john n yoko were presented as an abnormal couple. that's good PR on Paul's part (theres a 3rd p)

the 3rd part: meanwhile John and Yoko were desperate to fix their image, which didn't exactly happen until john died. the other thing is, a very personal unpopular opinion of mine, but john and paul are in no way two sides of the same coin. but more like one side of 2 different coins. Paul's musicianship and professionalism is in no way equal to John's, it's way more superior, and the lifestyles they chose is nothing alike.

----------------------

Hi!

The Beatles and the Historians is perhaps the most unbiased book I’ve ever read about the Beatles. It is an anaylisis of the biographies that have been written by the band since 1962 and it’s conducted through an academic method that is normally used for writing about historical events. 

You said “biographer vs. biographer”, and you got it right, since the book’s purpose is to show the different narratives that have been promoted by the different authors (ex. Norman’s heavily Lennon-biased version vs. Doggett’s more or less even-handed account) since the band’s break-up.

That leads me to “John vs. Paul”. Ever since the news of the break-up came out, the former Beatle who was the busiest in trying to destroy his past in the band and promote his own version has been John, mainly in his infamous Rolling Stone interview Lennon Remembers, an interview he gave to a still fledging magazine (which would later become renowned in the musical business thanks to him) in a period when he was still bitter, angry and addicted to heroin. And we all know John was dominated by his emotions and most of the times said things he didn’t really believe in. His narrative is still treated as gospel despite having been refuted by John himself both in the mid-70s and in 1980 (when he was in a better state of mind) and proven wrong by later researches on the Beatles (I’m thinking of Lewisohn’s work and the transcripts of the Let It Be sessions). Rolling Stone championed this narrative until the 2010s, but Yoko still promotes that old, factually wrong and contradictory version as the only truth. Paul, on the other hand, didn’t tell his own version of the story until 1997, with Many Years From Now. His version is now considered closer to the truth than John’s - and yet, he’s STILL accused of revisionist history when John has been doing it since day one to promote his own agenda as someone who was more than a Beatle. So, the comparison between the two exists in the book, because the two promoted two versions of the story, and the authors and biographers followed their leads (mainly John’s, since he was in the public eye for two years, and when he died the narrative he had walked back on became the truth no one dared to challenge for the following decade).

About the PR thing... Let’s compare the period immediately following Paul’s announcement. Paul himself was living with his family in Scotland, depressed and an alcoholic, away from the world. He avoided the medias because he knew he couldn’t win against John (”He’d do me in”). The other three were against him, Klein was still ruining his life and the whole world hated him for breaking up the band. John and Yoko were all over the news, promoting their peace campaigns, their involvement in the avant-garde scene and telling their (wrong) story of the Beatles in order to promote their agenda and paint John as the only talented and experimental artist in the group. With the exception of some critics, they were the public’s darling, and they didn’t have to “fix their image”. They destroyed Paul’s image, and he struggled to rebuild it, only managing it in 1973.  The abnormal couple was the one formed by Paul and Linda, actually, who were derided for being caring and involved parents by John and Yoko themselves (who on the other hand had abandoned their own children). John and Yoko always maintained that fairytale love story-image, even in 1980, and John’s death in December only elevated their status as THE rock’n’roll couple. John became a martyr, a saint, and no one dared to paint him as lesser than that (well, except for Goldman’s book, which described him as a monster) for decades. [Except Yoko still describe him as a saint, as the Messiah, which we all know he wasn’t. He was human like the rest of us.] John’s image never really needed fixing, it only had to be more accurate to his true being.

And about John and Paul being two sides of the same coin, I agree with what is written in the book... but your interpretation is valid too!

(Sorry for the long reply!!)

#ask #anonymous

[postmodernmulticoloredcloak]

Time for The Witcher episode 4!!

So the last episode was Intense(TM) and also I finally realized that the show isn’t happening all at the same time but it’s following multiple timelines, which, better late than never. Now things make more sense...

Alright, bando alle ciance and let’s do this.

“Ciri! Ciri” Cirilla: yes? “Not you, I was talking to Siri. What’s the weather going to be tomorrow”

That’s such a stupid joke. Unfollow me right now, it’s okay.

Glowy Forest Intensifies... oh, there’s people now. Forest Dora Milaje aren’t happy to see her, which is understandable, I guess. But the boss arrives.

Meanwhile, except not meanwhile, a man has had a very bad day. Apparently the nickname White Wolf has stuck. Remember when we thought the MCU was going to make Bucky into a Black Panther character as the White Wolf, official media outlet even used the White Wolf as a title for Bucky, and then it ended up in nothing? Sorry for the digression but I really hoped we’d get Bucky written by Ryan Coogler and I was really disappointed when that didn’t happen but *waves around* all of that happened instead. I mean, technically it’s not too late to make it happen but Bucky is a Disney+ creature now, so, bye.

Hello Jaskier! My boy! I missed you.

Ah, the new media image campaign is working. 

“You never get involved, except you actually do, all of the time” I love this XD “I don’t do emotions or attachments” character who does emotions intensely all the time and gets attached to everyone they meet paired with “sure Jan” character who calls them out is a very good dynamic.

Ah, yes, this is perfect. I’m sorry but dark brooding protagonist and bubbly comic relief sidekick is my secret weakness.

No offense, Geralt, but those clothes did need a good washing after your latest job, so don’t make that face.

Blah blah royal affairs I should probably pay attention to.

“I am not going to protect you” [*Spongebob font* five minutes later...]

But yeah, the princess is Cirilla’s mother, I suppose, and I’m sure the marriage that produces Scream Princess is super important. She is very pretty and has lovely hair. Sometimes I wish I had long hair I could braid artistically.

The princess doesn’t want to get married to some strange dude, but the queen is A Very Strong Woman(TM) and has no time for silly things like her daughter’s feelings over the most life-changing decision in her life. She’s an interesting character for sure, and the narrative doesn’t try to frame her as either definitely good or bad, which is interesting.

Oh! Rat Boy isn’t dead! That’s great. That makes sense narratively, native forest women who suffered genocide from colonizers wouldn’t kill an elf boy who went through the same thing.

Promised husband is a shitty dude. Queen Calanthe likes Geralt, which, relatable. But she and her entourage are racist assholes, and the next scene with Cirilla and Dara tell us that their anti-elf talk isn’t just talk.

By the way, now we know for sure how much time there is between Geralt’s timeline and Cirilla’s.

The queen doesn’t like feminine dresses. Lady is trying to overcompensate a lot. But her banter with Geralt is entertaining.

The first suitor is from Nilfgaard, and in hindsight it would have been a wise choice to unify the two kingdoms... C’mon, poor guy is just awkward, he doesn’t deserve the humiliation. Or is he the guy who’ll make war later? The pilot threw too much new information at me the other day.

Yennefer is bored... and apparently 30 years has passed since the last we saw of her. (I refuse to try to understand when in relation to the other plots that puts this scene. Things will click together at some point or I’ll just accept whatever happens and nod along.) And coincidentally she is paired with a woman who laments being only considered important as a baby-producing womb. Oops. Awkward.

Not relevant to the show but my parents never get inside my room as often as while I am watching something on Netflix.

Yennefer thinks life as a court mage sucks, queen Kalis thinks life as a baby-maker sucks. They envy each other for what the other has, but they’re probably both right.

Well, boredom is no longer a problem.

Oh, poor queen, her husband paid to have her killed because she’s only given him daughters. Two episodes in a row about female heirs to kings, plus queen Calanthe being female and having a daughter who’ll have a daughter. Theeemes!

You can’t be rude to the only person who is your only hope not to die horribly, girl.

Queen Calanthe is frustrated she isn’t a man, which we could guess. She also likes the simplicity of killing, which we could also guess.

Oh! It’s almost pre-decided husband’s time to claim the girl’s hand in marriage, but New Guy appears! He’s been cursed and Mr I Don’t Pick Sides Ever No Matter What, guess what, picks a side. The audience is shocked. No one could foresee this unexpected turn of events.

Noooo the baby!!! Yennefer loses a rare chance to acquire a baby. This is sad. Damn this show doesn’t shy away from killing children, such a different feel from most stories we’re used to.

These people are weird with destiny. Calanthe says fuck destiny, Geralt says lol mood but just because you’re a queen doesn’t mean you’re above sacred rules.

OOOOH Calanthe says fuck sacred rules and it does not go well. Is this happening because she tried to mess up with the order of the world and chaos said hi? Was the princess always magical or did this happen because destiny will have its way no matter what?

Ah, her grandmother had it, she never manifested it before until now, when circumstances awoke it.

Queen Calanthe acknowledges destiny, and of course they’re all dressed in green like the mages of Feminist Hogwarts aka Chaos School. I should have paid more attention to colors but green seems to be the color of magic slash chaos slash destiny.

Then bam, red. Men. Violence.

Everyone in the forest is also dressed in green... Colors aren’t really my thing, you might have noticed that I rarely analyze colors in Supernatural and I’m not particularly into what which color means and I only notice things when they’re very obvious like the purple of transformation-slash-death, so, yeah, I am not the kind of person who notices colors until they slap me in the face. I guess this is my slap in the face by this show’s color palette XD

Also consider that I watch everything with f-lux on, so I don’t even see colors the way they actually look, I guess that’s why it’s harder for me to notice colors when everything looks orange.

Alriiiiight *disables f.lux for current app*

Oh. Oh. So this is how this show looks like.

Awkward. This is so embarrassing.

I should rewatch the whole thing with real colors now... well, another time.

Anyway, Dara has drunk antidepressant juice, but it doesn’t work on Ciri, because she is Relevant(TM) to destiny so she can’t forget her past otherwise the plot destiny can’t happen.

Sleep well baby.

Aaah husband’s curse is broken! Yay.

Geralt accidentally acquires a bond with a baby. One baby dead and Yennefer’s potential bond with her lost, one baby on her way and Geralt’s future bond with her created. So this is all about parallels based on babies and births. Cool.

In the future, destiny has arrived and indeed wrought calamity on the court and the city. Someone makes something gross with Calanthe’s dead body--a spell to learn the location of Cirilla. Trouble is coming.

Oh! It’s him, he’s not dead? And taking something from Calanthe (that will be relevant later)?

Ciri drinks stronger juice and goes to the ancestral plane, er, I mean has a vision of a Very Important Tree, sorry I had Black Panther stuck in my head from before.

Well this is very interesting and things are starting to click together and yeah it’s a weird ride but I’m enjoying it! I suppose only at the end of the season you get the full picture of why and when everything has happened so I’m just sitting here metaphorically eating popcorn waiting for things to make sense on their own rhythm. There’s a theme of motherhood and babies and it seems that Geralt’s destiny is to become a metaphorical mother for Cirilla? Or am I mixing him up with a similar kind of character with a tendency to become everyone’s mom? Anyway, I’m looking forward to see what happens.

#the witcher

[upontheshelfreviews]

Last year I talked about Fantasia, which is not just one of my favorite Disney movies, but one of my favorite movies in general. And if I may be self-indulgent for a moment, it’s also one of the reviews that I’m the proudest of. Fantasia is a visual, emotional masterpiece that marries music and art in a manner few cinematic ventures have come close to replicating. One question that remains is what my thoughts on the long-gestated sequel is –

…you might wanna get yourselves some snacks first.

As anyone who read my review on the previous film knows, Fantasia was a project ahead of its time. Critics and audiences turned their noses up at it for conflicting reasons, and the film didn’t even make it’s budget back until twenty-something years later when they began marketing it to a very different crowd.

“I don’t wanna alarm you dude, but I took in some Fantasia and these mushrooms started dancing, and then there were dinosaurs everywhere and then they all died, but then these demons were flying around my head and I was like WOOOOOAAAHHH!!”

“Yeah, Fantasia is one crazy movie, man.”

“Movie?”

Fantasia’s unfortunate box office failure put the kibosh on Walt Disney’s plans to make it a recurring series with new animated shorts made to play alongside handpicked favorites. The closest he came to following through on his vision was Make Mine Music and Melody Time, package features of shorts that drew from modern music more than classical pieces.

Fast-forward nearly fifty years later to the golden age known as the Disney Renaissance: Walt’s nephew Roy E. Disney surveys the new crop of animators, storytellers, and artists who are creating hit after hit and have brought the studio back to his uncle’s glory days, and thinks to himself, “Maybe now we can make Uncle Walt’s dream come true.” He made a good case for it, but not everyone was on board. Jeffrey Katzenberg loathed the idea, partly because he felt the original Fantasia was a tough act to follow (not an entirely unreasonable doubt) but most likely due to the fact that the last time Disney made a sequel, The Rescuers Down Under, it drastically underperformed (even though the reasons for that are entirely Katzenberg’s fault. Seriously, watch Waking Sleeping Beauty and tell me you don’t want to punch him in the nose when Mike Gabriel recalls his opening weekend phone call).

Once Katzenberg was out of the picture, though, Fantasia 2000, then saddled with the less dated but duller moniker Fantasia Continued, got the go-ahead. Many of the sequences were made simultaneously as the animated features my generation most fondly remembers, others were created to be standalone shorts before they were brought into the fold. Since it was ready in time for the new millennium, it not only got a name change but a massive marketing campaign around the fact that it would be played on IMAX screens for a limited run, the very first Disney feature to do so. As a young Fantasia fan who had never been to one of those enormous theaters before, I begged and pleaded my parents to take me. Late that January, we traveled over to the IMAX theater at Lincoln Center, the only one nearest to us since they weren’t so widespread as they are now, and what an experience it was. I can still recall the feeling of awe at the climax of Pines of Rome, whispering eagerly with my mom at how the beginning of Rhapsody in Blue looked like a giant Etch-A-Sketch, and jumping twenty feet in the air when the Firebird’s massive eyes popped open. But did later viewings recapture that magic, or did that first time merely color my perception?

We open on snippets from the original Fantasia…IN SPAAAAAAAAACE!

It reminds me a little of the opening to Simply Mad About The Mouse, where bits of classic Disney nostalgia fly about to evoke the mood of this upcoming musical venture. In a clever conceit, snippets of Deems Taylor’s original opening narration explaining Fantasia’s intent and music types plays over the orchestra and animators materializing and gearing up for the first sequence, which jumps right into –

DUN DUN DUN DUUUUUUN – I mean, Symphony #5 – Ludwig Van Beethoven

Here, a bunch of butterflies flee and then fight off swarms of bats with the power of light – I can’t be the only one who saw these things and thought it was butterflies vs. bats, right?

It does look cool with its waterfalls and splashes of light and color bursting through the clouds, but this brings me to a bit of contention I have with the movie.

When I planned this review I was going to do a new version of “Things Fantasia Fans Are Sick of Hearing”, except there were only four major complaints I could think of that. On further introspection, I admit they are legitimate grievances worth addressing. I’m going to get them out of the way all at once in order to keep things rolling.

#1 – This Seems Familiar…

Certain sequences are noticeably derivative from the first movie. It’s as if they were afraid of trying too many new things that would alienate audiences so they borrowed from their predecessor in an effort to say “Hey, we can do this too!” Symphony #5 is clearly trying to be Tocatta and Fugue with its abstract geometric shapes swooping all over to kick things off. Though I love how much character the animators managed to give two pairs of triangles, Tocatta’s soaring subconscious flights of fancy leaves me more enthralled. Carnival of the Animals literally began as a sequel to Dance of the Hours until the ostriches became flamingoes. And Roy E. Disney openly stated he wanted the last sequence, The Firebird Suite to have the same death and rebirth theme as Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria, which they got, right down to a terrifying symbol of destruction emerging from a mountain to wreak chaos.

‘Sup, witches?

#2 – Too Short

Speaking of repeating the past, the original idea for Fantasia 2000 was to follow Walt’s vision in that three favorite segments would make a return amongst the newer ones – the Nutcracker Suite, which was eventually cut for time, Dance of the Hours, which I’ve already stated morphed into Carnival of the Animals, and finally, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, the obvious choice to keep since that’s the most popular piece out of any of them. Cutting things for time doesn’t make that much sense, however, when you realize that Fantasia 2000’s runtime is only 75 minutes. A very short animated film by today’s standards that lasts barely half as long as its previous installment. I don’t see why they couldn’t keep at least one other sequence from the first Fantasia to make things last a little longer and keep in the original idea’s spirit.

#3 – All Story, No Experimentation

Unlike the first Fantasia, all of the sequences have a linear narrative structure that’s easy to follow. Not a bad thing and kudos to you if you’re among that group who prefers Fantasia 2000 for because of that, but again, I admire how the original film didn’t stick to a coherent story the whole time; how it was unafraid to let the music, atmosphere, and visuals speak for itself without sticking to a three-act plot and designated protagonist for every piece.

#4 – The One You’ve Been Waiting For, The Host Segments

One of the things that turned Fantasia off for its detractors was Deems Taylor’s seemingly dry narration. But maybe Fantasia 2000 can fix that with some folks who are hip and with it, perhaps a wild and crazy guy or two…

Eh, he’ll do.

Now, the idea of varying segment hosts isn’t an altogether bad idea. Most of them work well: Angela Lansbury gives the lead-in to the Firebird Suite plenty of gravitas befitting the finale, as do Ithzak Perlman, Quincy Jones, and James Earl Jones, who build plenty of intrigue for Pines of Rome, Rhapsody in Blue and Carnival of the Animals respectively; this seriousness makes James’ reaction to what the Carnival segment is really about a successful comic subversion. Even Penn and Teller for all their obnoxiousness kind of works with The Sorcerer’s Apprentice due to the linking magic theme.

I suppose what turns people off is the self-congratulatory tone and seemingly forced attempts at comedy you get from Martin, Penn, Teller, and Bette Midler. But you know what? They still make me laugh after all these years (well, you have to laugh at Bette Midler’s antics or she’ll come after you when the Black Flame Candle is lit). In fact, I have to hand it to Midler’s intro in particular. Fantasia 2000 came out right around the time I began taking a keen interest in what animation really was and how it was made. For me, her preceding The Steadfast Tin Soldier piece with tidbits about Fantasia segments that didn’t make it past the drawing board was like the first free hit that turned me into an animation junkie (plus this was before you could look up anything on the topic in extraneous detail on the internet, so it had that going for it). If I have to nitpick, though, The Divine Miss M referring to Salvador Dalí as “the melting watches guy” is a bit reductive. That’d be like calling Babe Ruth “the baseball guy” or Walt Disney “the mouse and castle guy”. Plus, Dalí and Disney were close compadres with a layered history. They planned on many collaborations, though the fruit of their labors, Destino, would not be completed in either of their lifetimes. Couldn’t show just a modicum of respect there, Bette?

Ahhh! I take it back! Don’t steal my soul!

So, I wouldn’t say I hate or even completely dislike the host segments. Sorry to disappoint everyone who was hoping for me to rip into them. They’re not awful, just uneven. And if you think they ruin the movie for me, you’ve got another think coming.

Pines of Rome – Ottorino Respighi

The idea for Pines of Rome’s visuals came about due to an unusual detail in some concept art. Someone noticed that a particular cloud in a painting of the night sky heavily resembled a flying whale. So why make a short about flying whales? The better question would be why NOT make a short about flying whales? A supernova in the night sky miraculously gives some whales the ability to swim through the air over the icy seas. Again, seeing this in IMAX was incredible. There’s just one minor issue I have with. This and another segment were developed well before Pixar made its silver screen debut, and unfortunately, it shows twenty years later; the worst cases are the close-ups.

Okay, who put googly eyes on the moldy beanbag?

There are ways of blending CGI and hand-drawn animation well, and this isn’t one of them. I understand the necessity of having expressive eyes but simply dropping one on top of a CGI creature gives it a bit of an uncanny valley feel. They should have either stuck with traditional all the way or made the whales entirely CG. The CG animation of the whales themselves isn’t too shabby, so they could have pulled it off.

Because simply giving whales flight apparently isn’t enough to hold an audience’s interest, we have an adorable baby whale earning his wings, so to speak. Once he gets his bearings above the surface, he swoops ahead of his family and bothers a flock of seagulls. They chase him into a collapsing iceberg, leaving him trapped, alone and unable to fly. The quiet dip in the music combined with the image of this lost little calf adds some genuine emotional weight to this piece. The baby navigates the iceberg’s claustrophobic caverns until he finds a crevice that elevates him back to his worried parents. From there a whole pod of whales rises out of the ocean to join them as they fly upwards to the supernova’s source.

“So long, and thanks for all the krill!”

As the music reaches its brilliant crescendo, the whales plow through storm clouds until they reach the top of the world and breach through the stars like water. It’s an awe-inspiring climax of a short that, flaws and all, reminds you of what Fantasia is all about.

Majestic.

Rhapsody in Blue – George Gershwin

The music of jazz composer George Gershwin? Timeless. The art of renowned caricaturist Al Hirschfeld? Perfection. All this brought to life with the best animation Disney has to offer? It’s a match made in heaven. Eric Goldberg, who animated the Genie among other comedic characters, idolized Hirschfeld and drew plenty of inspiration from drawings, so getting to work alongside him while making this was nothing short of a dream come true. That attention to detail in rendering Hirschfeld’s trademark curvy two-dimensional style goes beyond mere homage. It is a love letter to a great artist that encapsulates everything about him and his craft, and to a great city that we both had the honor of calling home. The story goes that Goldberg screened the final product for Hirschfeld shortly before his 96th birthday and his wife told him after that it was the best gift he could have ever received.

All this to say I am quite fond of this particular short, thank you very much.

The piece follows four characters navigating 1930’s Manhattan and crossing paths over the course of a single day:

Duke, a construction worker torn between his steady, monotonous job and following his dream of drumming in a jazz band,

Joe, a victim of the Great Depression desperately looking for work,

Rachel, a little girl who wants to spend time with her parents but is forced to attend lesson after lesson by her strict governess,

and “Flying” John, a henpecked husband longing to be free from his overbearing wife –

And her little dog too!

By the way, John is modeled in name and in looks after Disney animation historian John Culhane, who also was the inspiration for The Rescuers’ Mr. Snoops, hence why the two look so similar. He’s not the only name who appears in this sequence: Gershwin himself makes a surprise cameo as he takes over Rachel’s piano solo halfway through the story.

Speaking of, my family used to compare me to Rachel because at that point in my young life I was doing or already did the same mandatory activities as she – swimming, ballet, music, sports, all with the same amount of speed and varying degrees of success.

No one can argue that art is where we both excelled, however.

The physical timing of Rhapsody in Blue’s animation is hilarious, though it doesn’t rely wholly on slapstick for its humor. The sight gags and clever character dynamics all weaved into the music milk plenty of laughs, and envelop you in this living, breathing island that is Manhattan.

I speak from experience, this is the most accurate depiction of commuting on the 1 train that there ever was.

Even with such a premise and two masters of combining comedy and art, there is still enough pathos to keep the story rooted. Take when all four characters are at their lowest point. They look down on some skaters in Rockefeller Center and picture themselves in their place fulfilling their deepest desires. Seeing their dreams so close in their minds and yet so far away while paired with the most stirring part of the score is heartwrenching.

In the end, things pick up as the characters unwittingly solve each other’s problems. Duke quits the construction site, leaving an opening for Joe to fill. Joe accidentally snags John’s wife on a hook and hauls her screaming into the air, allowing him one night of uninhibited fun at the club where Duke performs.

“Anyone hear something? Nah, it’s probably just me.”

Rachel loses her ball while fighting with her nanny, which Duke bounces off the window of her parents’ office, which in turn gets them to notice their daughter about to run into traffic and they save her. Everyone gets their happy ending and it ends on a spectacularly glamorous shot of Time Square lit up in all its frenetic neon glory.

And not a single knockoff costumed character hitting up tourists for photos. Those were the days, my friend.

If you haven’t guessed by now, I adore Rhapsody in Blue. It’s easily my favorite part of the movie; a blissful ménage-a-trois of art style, music and storytelling, and it’s so New York that the only New York things I could think of that are missing are Central Park and amazing bagels. This sequence is gut-busting, energized, emotional, and mesmerizing in its form. I don’t often say I love a piece of animation so much that I’d marry it, but when I do, it’s often directed at Rhapsody in Blue.

  Piano Concerto #2 – Dmitri Shostakovich (aka The One With The Steadfast Tin Soldier)

This piece has an interesting history attached to it. Disney wanted to do an animated film surrounding Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tales – including The Little Mermaid and The Steadfast Tin Soldier – as far back as the 30’s, but the project fell by the wayside. During Fantasia 2000’s production, Roy E. Disney asked if they could do something with Shostakovich’s Piano Concerto #2 since he and his daughter were attached to that piece. He looked over sketches and storyboards made for the unrealized Tin Soldier sequence and discovered the music matched in perfect time with the story.

This is the second sequence that features CGI at the forefront. Unlike Pines of Rome, though, it works because the main characters are toys, and you can get away with your early CGI looking shiny and metallic and plastic-like when you’re animating toys.

Hell, it worked for Pixar.

The story centers on a tin soldier cast with only one leg who is shunned by his comrades for routinely throwing off their groove. He falls in love with a porcelain ballerina when he mistakes her standing en pointe as her also missing a limb. Despite his embarrassment when he learns the truth, the ballerina is enamored with him as well. This rouses the jealousy of an evil jack-in-the-box who I swear is a caricature of Jeffrey Katzenberg minus the glasses but with a goatee and Lord Farquaad wig.

“MUST. CHOP. EVERYTHING!!!”

The jack-in-the-box and the soldier duke it out for a bit before the former sends the latter flying out the window in a little wooden boat. The boat floats the soldier into the sewers and attracts a horde of angry rats who attack him, because animated rodents seem to have a natural hatred towards toy soldiers.

Case in point.

The soldier hurtles into the sea where he’s eaten by a fish – which is caught the following morning, packed up to be sold at market, bought by the cook who works at the very house he came from, and he falls out of the fish’s mouth on the floor where his owner finds him and places him back with the rest of the toys. Now the story this is based on hints that the jack-in-the-box is really a goblin who orchestrates the soldier’s misfortunes with his malicious magic. But based the extremely coincidental circumstances of his return home, I’d say the soldier’s the one who’s got some reality-warping tricks up his sleeve.

The soldier and jack-in-the-box duel again that evening, but this time the harlequin harasser falls into the fireplace and burns up. Our hero gets the girl and lives happily ever after. A nice conclusion, though a far cry from what happened in the original tale: the ballerina is knocked into the fire, the soldier jumps in after her, and all that remains of them by morning is some melted tin in the shape of a heart. I gotta say, for all my love of classic fairytales, Disney made the right call. Andersen’s life was far from magical and it reflected in his stories, making many of them depressing for no good reason. The triumphant note the music ends on also would have clashed horribly if they stuck with the original. Even the Queen of Denmark agreed with Disney’s decision to soften their adaptations of Andersen’s work. I don’t know if I’d call The Steadfast Tin Soldier one of my very favorite parts of Fantasia 2000, but in the end, s’all right.

  Carnival of the Animals: Finale – Camille Sant-Saëns

This shortest of shorts (clocking in at less than two minutes) kicks off with James Earl Jones asking with as much seriousness as he can muster from the situation, what would happen if you gave a yo-yo to a flock of flamingos?

The answer –

Good answer!

Fie on those who dismiss this part as a silly one-off that doesn’t belong here. Fie, I say! It’s a pure delight full of fun expressions and fluid fast-paced action. Once again we have my man Eric Goldberg to thank for this, though this time he animated it entirely by himself. I’d call it a one-man show except for the fact that his wife Susan handpainted the entire thing with watercolor, making it look like it sprung to life straight from a paintbrush. It’s a simple diversion about a flamingo who wants to play with his yo-yo while the other snooty members of his flock try to force him to conform. As you can see from the still, they fail quite epically. Nothing beats the power of nonconformity and yo-yos (also every yo-yo move featured here is authentic; I love when animators go that extra mile).

  The Sorcerer’s Apprentice plays next, but since I already touched on that in the first Fantasia review, I’m skipping over it. The segment ends with Mickey congratulating Leopold Stokowski (again), then crossing the barriers of time and space to inform the conductor, James Levine, that he needs to track down the star of the next segment, Donald Duck. Levine stalls by explaining a bit about what’s to come while Mickey frantically searches for his errant costar. The surround sound sells the notion of him moving around the back of the theater accidentally causing mischief all the while. Thankfully, Donald is found and the sequence commences.

Pomp and Circumstance – Edward Elgar

This famous piece of music was included at the insistence of Michael Eisner after he attended his son’s graduation ceremony. He wanted to feature a song that everyone was already familiar with. Of course, since this was after Frank Well’s untimely passing and no one was bold enough to temper Eisner’s worst instincts with common sense, his original pitch had every animated couple Disney created up to that point marching on to Noah’s Ark – and then marching out with their babies.

Okay, A: Unless you’re doing a groin hit joke or are Ralph Bakshi or R. Crum, cartoon characters don’t have junk as a rule. And B, one of the unwritten rules of Disney animation is that barring kids that already exist like the titular 101 Dalmatians or Duchess’ kittens, the established canon couples do not in any official capacity have children.

To which Eisner laughed maniacally and vowed that they would.

But in order to placate Eisner’s desire to turn every branch of the Disney corporation into a commercial for itself, the animators compromised and agreed to do Pomp and Circumstance with the Noah’s Ark theme, BUT with only one couple – Donald and Daisy Duck. In this retelling of the biblical tale, Donald acts as Noah’s beleaguered assistant (I guess Shem, Ham, and Japheth were too busy rounding up the endangered species). Daisy provides emotional support while preparing to move on to the ark as well. It’s refreshing to see these two not losing their temper at each other for a change. I wish we got to see this side of their relationship more often. Donald returns Daisy’s easily lost plot device locket to her and as the rain rain rain comes down down down, he starts directing the animals on board; the lions, the tigers, the bears, the…ducks?

Anyway, all the animals and Donald get on board – well, most of them do.

The world’s first climate change deniers.

Donald realizes Daisy hasn’t arrived yet and runs out to look for her, unaware that she’s already boarded. Daisy sees Donald leaving but is too late to stop him before the first floodwaters hit their home. Donald made it back to the ark in time, however, though both of them believe that the other is forever lost to them. I find it astounding that they never run into each other not even once during the forty days and forty nights they’re cooped up on that boat. It’s the American Tail cliche all over again, and well, at least it’s happening in a short and not the entire movie.

Soon the ark lands atop Mount Ararat and the animals depart in greater numbers than when they embarked on their singles cruise. Daisy realizes halfway down the mountain that she’s lost her locket again, which Donald finds at that very moment while sweeping up, and the two are joyously reunited.

“I thought you were dead!” “I thought YOU were dead!”

I kid around, but I truly enjoy this short a lot. There’s so much warmth to Donald and Daisy’s relationship that makes their reunion at the end all the sweeter, and there’s plenty of great slapstick to offset the drama in the meantime. I will admit it’s nice to hear there’s more to Pomp And Circumstance than just the famous march, and the entire suite matches flawlessly with the visuals, though the main theme itself is so ingrained into the public consciousness that it’s difficult to extricate it from that what we’ve seen accompany it countless times.

Come on, you all know what I’m talking about.

“What? Don’t tell me YOU don’t think of heads exploding like fireworks when you hear Pomp and Circumstance! Name one other life-changing moment could you possibly associate it with…you weirdo.”

The Firebird Suite – Igor Stravinsky

Fantasia 2000 comes to a close with a piece that has some emotional resonance if you know your history. You might remember from my first Fantasia review that Igor Stravinsky was disappointed with how Rite of Spring turned out, especially since he was a big admirer of Walt Disney and really wanted to do more projects with him beforehand. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they picked his premiere ballet to end the movie on decades later. After all these years, Disney worked hard to do right by Stravinsky – with a few twists, though. Instead of a balletic retelling of Russian folktales involving kidnapped princesses and immortal sorcerers, we have a fantastical allegory for the circle of life.

No, not that circle of life.

A lone elk who I’m fairly convinced is the Great Prince of the Forest walks through the forest in the dead of winter. With his breath, he awakens the spirit of the woods and one of the most beautiful characters Disney has ever created, the Spring Sprite.

I. Love. This character. Her design is gorgeous, shifting from a shimmery opalescent blue as she steps out of the water into an eternally flowing fount of live greenery spreading from her hair in her wake. Wherever she moves, grass, flowers, and trees blossom, fulfilling the idea of a springtime goddess more than Disney’s own Goddess of Spring ever did. The Sprite was a massive influence in developing my art style, particularly in her face and expressive eyes, and I used to draw her a lot. Visit any relative of mine and chances are you’ll find a picture of her by me hanging up on a wall somewhere in their house. Yet there’s far more to her character than just a pretty representation of nature; there’s plenty of curiosity, spunk, determination, and a drive for creativity. I love her frustrated expression when she’s dissatisfied with the tiny flower she sculpts out of the ground and how her face lights up when she morphs it into a buttercup as tall as she is.

The Sprite paints the forest with all the colors of the wind (mostly green) until she reaches a mountain that isn’t affected by her magic. Perplexed, she climbs it until she finds a large hunched over rock figure – or is it an egg? – standing inside. She reaches out to touch it and…

The Sprite has awakened her counterpart, the wrathful and deadly Firebird. Think giant evil phoenix made of smoke, flame and lava. And it goes without saying that seeing this on the biggest screen left quite the terrifying impact. One of the biggest inspirations for this sequence was the eruption of Mount St. Helens (though the shot of the Sprite surveying the breadth of the Firebird’s destruction reminds me far too much of the Australian bushfires going on) and the sheer horror of nature’s irrepressible chaos is fully captured here. But the Firebird refuses to settle for merely destroying the Sprite’s handiwork, oh no. It won’t rest until creation itself is consumed, and the Sprite is reduced to a powerless mite as she scrabbles to escape the Firebird’s relentless pursuit of her. Try as she might, however, the towering monster corners and devours her in one fell swoop.

The forest is reduced to gray ashes in the wake of the Firebird’s rampage, but the Great Prince has survived. Once again he brings the Sprite to life with his breath, only this time she is tiny and weak (the animation of her slowly developing from the ash into her huddled ragged form is breathtaking). Now, I didn’t think I’d get emotional revisiting a small part of a single movie I’ve rewatched countless times before but viewing this through a mature eye combined with the beauty of the Firebird Suite’s climax and its timely message has caused me to see it in a new light:

The Sprite is utterly broken by what she’s been through and the destruction she carelessly caused. She’s lost all faith in herself and in the idea of returning the forest to what it once was. Even so, the Prince gently insists on carrying her on his antlers to the remains of their favorite cherry blossom tree. Where her tears fall, grass shoots begin to sprout. This fills the Sprite with hope, and she soars into the air becoming one with the sky and rains life down on the forest. New trees burst from the earth. The air is filled with leaves and pollen and new life flowing from her essence. The Sprite’s joy and power grow so strong that she even encircles the Firebird’s mountain in all her verdant glory. Life and creation overcome death and destruction. It’s not Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria, but it’s close.

And unfortunately, that’s the biggest problem Fantasia 2000 has.

While working on the original Fantasia, a storyman made the mistake of referring to the work they were doing in “the cartoon medium” in Walt’s presence. Walt turned on him and snapped “This is NOT ‘the cartoon medium’. It should not be limited to cartoons. We have worlds to conquer.”

And conquer they did…just not the way Walt intended.

The point I’m trying to make is Walt was breaking new ground and experimenting with things nobody ever tried when it came to Fantasia. While those risks were initially deemed a failure, it eventually gained the recognition it deserved from the animation and filmmaking community. Any attempt to recreate the magic of Fantasia is no small feat. But rather than taking new risks that not even the first film dared, the studio opted to adhere to Fantasia’s formula with pieces that recall if not flat out copy from the original segments. I hesitate to call it a pale imitation or cash grab however because this was done for the art much more than the money (though Eisner was probably hoping it would bring in some bank). There’s even a little bit of depth to it: while the first Fantasia had themes of differing natures in conflict – light vs. dark, fire vs. water, etc. – Fantasia 2000’s theme is accidental but brilliantly meta: CGI vs. traditional animation, a conflict Disney would become very familiar with in the decade following the film’s release. In some ways, it reminds me of Epcot’s genesis. The driving force behind it was long gone, but the attempt to bring it to life as close to the original vision as possible is still much appreciated.

For all my gripes, I really do enjoy Fantasia 2000. Perhaps not on the same level as its predecessor, but it has its moments, oh yes. And believe me, as far as Disney sequels go, you could do far, far, far worse than this one. Fantasia 2000 is Fantasia’s kid sister mimicking its beloved older sibling in an attempt to show it can be cool like the big kids too. But hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed this review, please consider supporting this misfit on Patreon. Patreon supporters receive great perks such as extra votes for movie reviews, movie requests, early sneak-peeks and more! If I can hit my goal of $100 a month, I can go back to weekly tv series reviews. As of now, I’m only $20 away! Special thanks to Amelia Jones, Gordhan Rajani and Sam Minden for their contributions! I’ll see you in a few weeks when I and review the 1959 Disney animated classic, Sleeping Beauty!

Artwork by Charles Moss.

Screencaps from animationscreencaps.com

Yes, I know The Lion King and Lady and the Tramp ended with the titular characters having babies, but was there anyone out there apart from Eisner who demanded there be sequels to those films that focused on their offspring?

January Review: Fantasia 2000 Last year I talked about Fantasia, which is not just one of my favorite Disney movies, but one of my favorite movies in general.

#2000 #2000&039;s #2D animation #action #al hirschfeld #angela lansbury #animated #animated feature #animated movie #animated movie review #animated musical #animated short #animated shorts #animation #animator #animators #anthropomorphic animals #art #ballerina #Beethoven #bette midler #brave tin soldier #Camille Saint-Saëns #Carnival of Animals #Carnival of the Animals #carnival of the animals finale #cgi animation #computer animation #continuation #continued

[him-e]

I've seen the new season, including the last scenes, and if someone wants to see a media property *actually* spitting in the face of devoted fans and swerving out of nowhere to be shocking, look at V-Mars. It's so funny, because the re-release campaigns for V-Mars were SO fan-driven, it was a show almost completely resurrected by the passion of the fans (who were largely LoVe shippers) and I guess now the show is courting a "serious" audience of people who aren't into/indifferent to shipping?

Yeah it’s really appalling. VM is no Star Wars, lmao. It’s not there to tell a larger than life, transgenerational story. It’s a small, and in many ways mediocre, tv show from the early 2000s with a very specific fanbase---mostly female, mostly in their thirties as the protagonist is and (in some cases) nostalgic, disillusioned by life and into fiction for the fairytale/wish fulfillment aspect of it, mostly heavily invested in LoVe, and rightfully so, because it’s one of the most original and iconic and emotionally compelling elements of the show. Veronica/Keith, sure, is another key relationship and one of the hearts of the show... but it never had to carry the series on its shoulders alone. Romance is important. The shipper gaze isn’t a marginal factor that you can rearrange or take out of the equation and still get the same result. If they think so, they can get fucked.

What why do you think the VMars thing (I think we're thinking of the same spoiler) happened?????

I’ve read it’s because they wanted to turn the series into something “more” than a teen drama, as if people being invested in a relationship that started when the characters were both teens makes the story necessarily a teen drama. Also, the following:

Veronica Mars' latest season: romance is dumb as a focal point of narrative, the only way female protagonists can be strong or interesting is if they're subjected to an endless line of suffering

I was really sad to find out that VM's showrunner and writers apparently buy into the idea that relationships that are solid/stable aren't compelling enough and the heroine can't be happy if she's got a fulfilled romance and only constant suffering makes you interesting and strong

Look, I’m a huge proponent of the “conflict is needed to tell a good story” rule, and I’m also one of those who normally aren’t into stable fictional couples---I get easily bored, and I don’t find these narratives very relatable for personal reasons. 

BUT there are a thousand different ways to maintain conflict in the main pairing and keep the heroine motivated than doing The Thing. The Thing is cruel and, even worse, it’s permanent. And it abruptly destroys one of the overarcing narratives of the series. I’m not saying this reboot should have been mere fanservice. But I’m sure there is a middle ground between doing 100% fanservice and alienating 95% of your fanbase by taking out a character whose dynamic with the protagonist is one of the reasons this story needs to be told in the first place.

If R*b Thomas pairs her with Leo after this I'm going to be so pissed.....he's so fucking boring

LMAO OH GOD NO

i'm petty as fuck so i hope the backlash is so bad that vmars gets cancelled or they feel pushed to randomly resurrect l/ogan for s5 bc their ratings drop lol

I hate the idea of shows I love getting cancelled, or ridiculous solutions to fix narrative missteps, but this was objectively a horrible, crippling mistake and I don’t think the story is strong enough to survive it. 

#uuuuugh #veronica mars spoilers #veronica mars for ts #seriously what the hell #and y'all people have still the nerve to be pressed about got #? #vm negativity #wank for ts #anon #asks

[lydia-can-live]

In honor of Jess getting blocked by Shatner on Twitter...

And to also to acknowledge her contribution to the Outlander Fandom AND to totally gloat about how fucking stupid Shitner/Camuso looks on twitter right now. This post is in response to their combined attack on me on tumblr.  Sept 2018 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You could have had it all... Unlike paulcamuso & p-redux, I didn’t create my tumblr blog to “debunk Sam is gay theories” or “to put Shippers in their Place” like they did. I created my blog in 2013 to read and enjoy stuff about Outlander.  So p-redux​ shows up in the fandom because she was hot for Sam. Who can forget her sorrowful good bye to Rob Pattinson upon seeing Sam. Yeah, this isn’t her first Rodeo; and then paulcamuso with his negative comments about Claire, causing a commotion on Twitter. Camuso decided to capitalize on the number of followers Shatner had with the Outlander fans and conceived the clever concept of insulting the lead actress while exalting the handsome, male lead to garner social media excitement.  Purv and Paul: employing selfish strategies and inserting their theories into a built-in fan base they know nothing about, fucking it up and somehow making it all about themselves.  Sigh…. But that wasn’t enough. They had to go after people who were enjoying the fandom experience and were speculating on whether the two leads with lightening-in-a-bottle-chemistry were a couple in real life. 

They turned that into a bad thing.  Camuso used Shatner’s 2M mostly men and boys to attack anyone that suggested that Sam and Cait were a couple and Purv used her tumblr and TW to push the “any woman but Cait” theory. The “shippers are evil” trope was solidified in a fandom that was based on a historical romance novel. Who let this marinate?  I ignored the Purv and Camuso nonsense and drew my own conclusions about Sam & Cait. Isn’t that amazing? I didn’t need gossip bloggers to tell me what to think!? Surely I can’t be the only one? I don’t believe Sam is straight, and I fully support whoever he is. I’m offering my observation and opinion like everyone else but because it doesn’t fit the hetero-normative narrative I’m guilty of spreading rumors and ugly lies. I’m called nasty and mocked for my mental health and intelligence People are upset with me because “I shouldn’t discuss Sam’s personal life” but those same people are looking for Sam’s balls in stills, replaying the stupid Mill Pond gif set I’ve seen a half a million times, and talking about how Sam’s penis reacts to Cait in a dress. They talk about it incessantly, but if someone offers a differing opinion, they are labeled intrusive, mentally ill, etc. Listen up: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING GAY!!! LGBTQ people are just people and they are everywhere. Its not okay to have a hard time with that anymore.  Purv and Paul, you worked so hard debunking my insignificant post on my teeny tiny insignificant blog, the least I can do is acknowledge it.  First of all, If I google “what do social media managers do” I get  “ About 211,000,000 results (0.58 seconds) “ so, I mean, how stupid do you think people are to think that you’re going to get an accurate amount of hits per subject?  Hilarious. The internet is like trying to get a glass of water out of a fire hydrant. Don’t pretend that google searches are exact. The fact is that all of the references to Sam’s gay roles have been cleaned up to look very generic. Links are broken, clips are gone. Sure, references are there, but not as they were in 2013. Check the Heughan’s Heughligans fan page, even their links are broken. 2nd, the internet term “scrubbing” doesn’t mean that all content is erased; it means a new narrative is created. Sure, you can see content on the gay roles Sam starred in, but he is not the focus. His roles are down played significantly. Casual fans don’t care. They just want a little info and they move on. In that sense, it is effective. But who am I to tell you guys about effective internet campaigns? I’m just one of those horny grannies who believe that if Sam isn’t with Cait, he must be gay, amirite? But seriously Paul, how many fans did you snare with your hateful snark? Not many, I’m guessing, because most intelligent women think for themselves. The bigger, more important question is how many of these fans did you purposely hurt? That’s a post for another day.So how was last weekend, you guys? Did you read my Fri. night blog and decide to “go after” me? Hilarious. I know you didn’t scramble for all those screen shots to compile the perfect joint post because you’ve had them in your “debunk” folder, ready to fire off when someone pisses you off. You made your point to…maybe a half dozen followers. Well done. Your sock accounts tried to bait me into arguing over stupid shit and poor SnowWhitewhateverthefuck got her feelings hurt because she was called out for using a mental health assessment as a way to win an argument. I know you’re not going to stop your bullshit, but just know that it matters so very little to the rest of us. tl:dr You have unleashed chaos into a fandom that has been waiting for over 20 years for these books to come to life. You could have grown a social media following without negativity, without hateful rhetoric, yet you decided to do the opposite. You had access to millions of followers clamoring for info and you decided to pit fan against fan. You missed out on a great opportunity for unity and decided to go with hate.