#I don’t like the implications of the show making the claim that being referred to as cute or feminine is automatically degrading

[cock-holliday]

The post you made about the celebrity/Biden letter honestly kind of has the same energy as that person who tried to argue that Neil Gaiman is a zionist, especially considering that the list is full of a majority Jewish celebrities.

I agree that the lack of condemnation of the Isreali government's genocide against Palestinian people doesn't look good and I also hate a lot of the wording of the letter, but I think getting into semantics over performative celebrity slackivism from mostly Jewish people who are ultimately calling for the placement of human life over politics doesn't feel like the place to be wasting energy. Especially when, despite how publicly unpopular it is, being publicly vague about politics is still job security in any field. Especially in the entertainment industry.

(dgmw, that doesn't make it "right" - like just look at Macklemore's incredible statement in comparison - but I also don't think people should be blamed for toeing a line but not crossing it because saying more in different ways could jeopardize their places in their profession, regardless of what that profession is)

Neil Gaiman has stated that he believes Israel has a right to exist and that he wants Palestine to either be a country or have full citizenship within Israel. Neil’s response is the sort of fence-sitting I expected from a celebrity—as the goals of Israel are counter to Palestine’s sovereignty. They do not want Palestinians to exist let alone be given equal or even better treatment. Is that sort of response completely removed from the reality of the situation? Yes. Does that make Neil a zionist? Not really.

The letter is much worse.

To begin with, the letter references “beheaded babies” which immediately shows the level of debunked misinformation the entire campaign is operating from. I expected a limp dick response from celebs: “we want no more death,” “we want everyone to leave peacefully”, “please bring the hostages home and end the conflict that definately started October 7th ty 🙏”

What we get is much more sinister.

No, I wouldn’t fucking dream of celebs en mass condemning Israel when they’re too chickenshit to even call for a ceasefire. I thought, foolishly perhaps, that we would get “we don’t need more bloodshed, please limit civilian casualties/exercise caution/show restraint” etc etc every buzzword they use for hostage situations.

The most chilling part of the letter is the implication that the ONLY source of violence is Hamas. The only cause of death for Israelis is Hamas. The deaths of Palestinians is Hamas or…what? Alternatives are completely absent.

Hamas tried to return hostages and Israel rejected them. The hostages who have been released are the result of a brokered deal with Egypt and Qatar—not Israel. It is looking increasingly like a number of casualties on October 7th are a result of Israel counter-striking, including SHELLING buildings holding the hostages. Israel has been bombing hospitals and mosques and churches across the country under the excuse that Hamas is hiding behind human shields—a tactic they have used for decades.

I expected spineless bothsidesing and empty expressions of a desire for peace alongside the concern for the hostages.

What the letter is is permission to do whatever “to save the hostages” that Israel does not give two shits about. They have killed their own hostages, denied their own hostages—and not for no reason! Israel has been using everything as a pretext for ethnic cleansing.

They have claimed places are hiding Hamas that weren’t, that hospitals they blew up were actually blown up by Hamas, that Hamas actually has chemical weapons and that’s why we have to level a neighborhood, that a civilian standing there was actually cause for violence—they get pissed when civilians don’t fight back because it’s hard to spin it as justified when they kill everyone anyway.

Israel has been attacking Palestinian settlements not controlled or connected to Hamas in any way—it is pretext.

This is Iraq WMDs all fucking over again and it makes me feel insane to watch it happen again.

“Do whatever you must to save the civilians” is implicit permission to do whatever the fuck Israel wants and fuck the hostages, they don’t care.

I fully expect celebs to protect their jobs over their interest in people’s lives—I know the cost of speaking out about Palestine, I have experienced it in the past and watched it happen for years. Silence would still be gross, but less gross than this.

If celebs sang a corny song about how ‘hey maybe Israel could pause the slaughter for a minute’ it would be infinitely less disgusting than this letter that blatantly shows

1. The celebs didn’t read it,

2. They are wiiiiiiiildly clueless to what is happening, or

3. They support genocide.

Which is it?

And *I* am Jewish, many people fighting the IOF are Jewish, many marches in the US and abroad are being organized by and heavily populated by Jews. That is not an excuse. Fence-sitting and handwringing are disappointing—a letter that will ultimately be justification for the continuation of massacres is appalling.

It is not “wasted energy” to explain why this is appalling.

#ask #anon ask

[deliciouskeys]

Co-parenting Butchlander is a bad idea for canon even if done in the tamest way possible and I feel like this needs to be said because this shit is getting out of hand to disturbing levels.

Homelander is the rapist.

He doesn't have custody of Ryan. He doesn't and shouldn't have rights to him. After getting Becca (Ryan's actual parent) killed, and against her wishes, he has stolen or in other words kidnapped Ryan.

Ryan is not his to take and shouldn't be viewed as such. Just think rationally for a split second on this.

Do you think a rapist should have rights to custody of a child they force on someone just because that person chose to keep it or god forbid, couldn't manage to get an abortion? Do you think it would be okay for that rapist to then kill the mother or get her killed and steal the child simply because he wants to be a dad?

That's not cute. It doesn't matter what the rapist's backstory is, that's horrifying and wrong and so gross on so many levels.

And look, it's fine if you want to romanticize this idea for fics but that is the one and only place it should be framed this irresponsibly. Because it is a bad idea with horrible implications that shouldn't be rose tinted into something adorable just because there are a few moments Homelander isn't pushing Ryan off a roof.

And you cannot complain about canon treating Becca badly when you advocate for this in canon.

This would be so much worse by make her nothing more than an incubator for the kid of the guy who raped her and then steals her husband. And that is disgusting.

Can we not forget that Ryan and Becca are both victims here, for once?

Romanticize it all you want in fics. It does not belong in canon.

Context link: My dumb crack idea for a Diabolical episode that Anon is referring to

“Co-parenting Butchlander is a bad idea for canon”

Maybe it doesn’t really matter for this discussion, but : I wouldn’t consider Diabolical “canon”. They had an episode about a woman talking to her poop, with a Deep cameo because it involved a sewer. It’s not canon.

“He doesn’t have custody of Ryan”

Well… okay, this is interesting, Ryan is in his custody as of end of season 3, whether HL has legal custody or not. In fact, NYS law is particularly lax and kind of messed up in the sense that you need a rape conviction to be deprived of your parental rights to a child that is genetically yours (and wasn’t made via a sperm bank). So not that it changes things ethically, but legally speaking HL may have legal claim here until someone convicts him of rape or CPS finds his parenting criminally negligent/inappropriate.

“Do you think it would be okay for that rapist to then kill the mother or get her killed and steal the child simply because he wants to be a dad?”

Do I think it’s “okay” ethically, morally, legally? Hmmmmmm, idk, what do you think I think, Anon? I’ll clear it up and say: no, I don’t . But am I watching and enjoying a show that already portrays this fucked up scenario? Yes, I am.

“You cannot complain about canon treating Becca badly when you advocate for this in canon”

Were you up in arms about this Amazon video?

Because it’s along the same ‘teehee this is so fucked up’ humor lines that you are clearly revolted by. If you were, then okay, at least you are consistent. And I’m going to chalk it up to different tolerance/interest levels about fucked up scenarios.

Come off anon if you still think I’m being glib and “romanticizing” dead incubators. I promise I’m not that scary to talk to off-anon. I even promise to hear you out if I’ve misunderstood the problem you have with my hypothetical dumb spin-off plot that wouldn’t be part of canon. You’re allowed to disagree.

#out of the cozy corner and into the hornets nest #Anon you may have a point but I think we’re semantically disagreeing on the word ‘canon’ for one thing #and I think you may be underplaying how fucked up the canon already is #I think you may also be misapplying the blanket word ‘romanticizing’ here but okay #thanks for the ask! #not a sarcastic tag #homelander meta #homelander #the boys #the boys tv

[nestlefox]

between this and my 8 pg essay about the ending,yall better be grateful

Pokemon Scarlet Violet Spoilers// .

.

I wanna make my full take on the professors in the most nuanced way that I can.  Do i think the OG professors are terrible awful people? Absolutely, up there with Lusamine.  However, I do think they started with good intentions when they first traveled Area Zero. If you read some of the professors’ journals before they made the machine, they wanted Area Zero to be habitable for their family and everyone around. I think even in the early stages of building the time machine, the OG professor was still good in a way.  This is when, I believe, the AI were created. This is why the AI contrast heavily towards the OG’s professors recent actions.  The AI have the morals and memories of the OG professor back in the day; when they were still considerate of their family and the lives in Paldea

However, the longer they studied in Area Zero and worked more on the time machine, the OG professor dwelled more into their dreams of the Past/Future to the point of being careless and selfish .  It started from excusing the destruction of Paldea’s ecosystem, to letting Arven take care on one of the legendries, to creating the Paradise Protection Protocol (which I will get into later). When the AI caught into this, they wanted to stop the OG professor and their plans.  This is because the OG professor wouldn’t even consider doing this when they were younger. Which is why I think the paradise protocol was made specifically. If the OG professor couldn’t change their former selves, they would destroy their former selves and goals. (if it weren't for the AI going to the time machine, their only option was just death because of the protocol and them being directly connected to the time machine. Which is sadder with the notion the OG professor knew the AI were sentient )

A small segment before I continue. It’s pretty much canon at this point that the AI professors are sentient. I think it’s of them being direct clones of the former original professors and more that their sentients and actions represents it.  That’s why they don’t become like OG professors; they can make their own actions and choices.  They are not the OG professors 

And on that note, I do think the OG made PPP (Paradise Protection Protocol) behind the AI’s back. With how the AI reacted to this, they seem to be not only shocked, but horrified by this revelation and the implications of this.  The OG went as far to destroying their former self and goals for their now selfish desires   We also just see how the OG professors were in the protocol text (And we know this is the OG professor talking and not the time machine or the third legendary or anything like that because the AI says so with the first one and heavily implied with the PPP).  With the way they talk and how they talk to their goals, show how the professors fell from grace, compared to the AIs.  While the AI calls it a garden, the protocol refers to it as a "paradise".  The protocol even straight out wishing for your destruction, even claiming it to help the foundation of their paradise. 

 I just like this reading because it fits the past and future themes.  You get to see the professor as they were in the past with the AI.  And you get to see them as what they were in the (near) present with the protocol. You can read it as the present prof killing their formal self with the protocol and the past selves killing their present selves by destroying the time machine. The future lie on the hand on future explorers and professors not to do the same mistake as Sada/Turo

#pokemon #scarlet and violet #scarvio #professor turo #professor sada #area zero #ai turo #ai sada #arven pokemon #editing this to fix some of the grammatical errors

[circulars-reasoning]

responding to your points responding ot my points

Then how does that make a thoughtform different from, say, an OC part in a CDD system, or a programmed alter? They’re willfully created as well, so what’s the delineation?

for a term like thoughtform (and not "tulpa" specifically), i think all of them in a sense fit. but, there is a huge difference between

an OC introject in a CDD system that wasn't intentionally created to be an alter

an alter that's not an introject / was created alongside their source material and wouldn't fully count as an introject from existing media, but would be counted as a willfully created alter/headmate

and also, a programmed alter (as in, RAM/COA), is entirely different and would differ because of the reasons why they were created and who created them.

I’ve heard of the soulbonding community, but haven’t looked at all into it. I will also say, as a writer, my imagination is very different from my parts, created or not.

that is fair, but those are personal distinctions that every body has to do on their own. if someone feels that beings that originated from their imagination feel not so different than a thoughtform or headmate, then you cannot say that they're incorrect for having that perspective on their experience.

if someone understands their experience to be similar to something like a thoughtform / headmate / soulbond, then that is their perogative, you know?

I was looking into Western Tulpamancy to see if it did actually have any relation to the Buddhist practice; I had been told in the past that to have a Tulpa (in western tulpamancy) you had to follow certain buddhist practices. These individuals made it clear that wasn’t the case. If going to the community and asking if I have a tulpa results in a resounding yes, despite the fact that I do not believe Debra to be a tulpa and despite the fact that I lacked any knowledge on Tibetan Buddhism at the time of her creation, then clearly, Tulpamancy is not this Special Thing That Needs A Special Name like some of these racists have been claiming.

i have... never heard of anyone having to follow certain buddhist practices to create a western tulpa. yes, there are creation guides, but besides the implication that you have to meditate really hard and focus and parrot, there's... no real set way to create a western tulpa.

i disagree with the "tulpamancy is a special thing that needs a special name" idea entirely, but i am also someone who does not entirely like the divisions of the community into endos, traumagens, and tulpas people have at the moment.

you are plural if you say you are, you aren't if you say you aren't, and you are disordered if you have been diagnosed (or self diagnosed) with a disorder and show/experience those symptoms of the disorder. whether or not a headmate was created accidentally or on purpose, or for trauma or not, doesn't matter to me most the time. of course, it is good to know if a headmate has trauma / triggers that you could affect, but besides that... i don't care.

I don’t think it’s intentional misgendering, but it was still misgendering, which is weird.

yeah, people need to be more aware of what words they are using and if they sound like they are referring to a person or a concept, at least in examples similar to this. especially when it involves a specific person who uses specific pronouns.

you are welcome for the insight and i hope this extra stuff is fine too

Interesting!

What about "accidental thoughtforms"? Those are something that happens, from what I've heard paromancers/willomancers claim.

That is COMPLETELY fair (your points about writing). I suppose this topic boils down to "if someone feels their brain occurrences is a thoughtform, then its a thoughtform." Autism brain just always desires more concrete definitions, lol.

I'm on the same page as you on the self-identified experiences honestly. I find the labels helpful sometimes, but experiences are so varied that its often far more helpful (when seeking advice) to label yourself as disordered or nondisordered, or to provide context of things like "It's likely what I'm experiencing is due to trauma, does anyone have tips?"

This is somewhat unrelated to this whole topic, but that final piece about misgendering -- I've noticed this is a major problem in system communities, from using only the host's pronouns, to assuming collective they/them (despite corrections), to "you&" becoming a default pronoun for many people... It's interesting, and something I want to look into more. I'm not too hurt by it, thankfully, though this encounter was the most interesting by far (particularly as my system dabbles with it/its).

Thanks so much for the insight <3

#syscourse #asks #anon

[cringecompanionapologist]

The Doctor Factor: I Fixed a Plothole in The Evil of the Daleks and Made a Thing

(Spoilers for a 55 year-old Doctor Who story)

Why I Decided to Write This Thing:

So, recently I watched a YouTube video reviewing Dalek stories and said review had a lot of complaints about The Evil of the Daleks that I didn’t quite get. This one really stood out:

“The Dalek Factor doesn’t work on the Doctor because he’s not human, but how could the Daleks not have known that their arch rival wasn’t human?”

And I was like, “The Doctor literally told them he was a human earlier in the story and they didn’t completely disagree. They said he was More Than Human, but More Than Human is just Human with stuff added onto to it, so still human on a biological level.”

I noticed after that that there was a major continuity error in the story. The first six seasons of Doctor Who, before the Time Lords show up, don’t really have a consistent backstory for the Doctor. Sometimes he was said to be human, but sometimes he wasn’t. He was treated as human for most of the Hartnell Era. Susan was implied to be alien though, which is a bit confusing. I’ve heard that it might a leftover of an earlier draft where Susan was a sort of Space Princess, unrelated to the Doctor but under his protection.

But, when watching black-and-white Doctor Who, it’s pretty common for the Doctor to refer to himself as a human, or say “we” when referring to humanity. So, when the Doctor claims to be human in The Evil of the Daleks, it’s not that weird for the era. Some stories made him an alien, some stories made him human, so I guess this is one of the human ones. But, you have this major plot point later in the story where the Doctor is immune to the Evil Thing because he’s not human. So, this serial writes the Doctor as both human and alien. It might be the More Than Human thing, but that’s not made clear. The Daleks said that the Doctor was More Than Human, so the problem of “how didn’t you know the Dalek Factor wouldn’t work on him?” comes back up.

This probably is just a continuity error. The Evil of the Daleks is very long, the pacing isn’t perfect, and it’s easy to forget things that happened earlier. But, there’s a certain bullshit explanation that’s interesting enough in its implications that it’s worth analyzing in detail. Much later on in the series, decades and decades later, an important rule was established. It was important enough to be considered Rule #1:

The Doctor Lies:

When the Doctor told the Daleks he was human, he was lying and the Daleks believed him. He looks identical to human and primarily spends time around humans. Most of his previous Dalek adventures revolved around the fate of Earth or a group of humans. The Daleks never had any reason to doubt the Doctor’s humanity.

Sure, they can tell that something’s different about him, but they explain it away as being a side effect of time travel. This might seem like a major oversight, but it’s an oversight that makes sense for the Daleks: Why would someone of one species try so hard to save people of another? Daleks hate anything that isn’t them. They would never actually help or protect members of another species. If the Doctor looks human and fights for the humans, they assume he is one, because who else would care about humans?

So, the Doctor lied. He does that. But the interesting thing is that his lying and everything with the Dalek Factor is a complete coincidence. It’s pretty clear when the Dalek Emperor talks about the Dalek Factor that the Doctor didn’t know that that was the real plan. He took them at their word when they claimed to want to become more human to better understand their enemies. He had no way of knowing that not being human, but having the Daleks believe he was, would be useful later. This lie wasn’t a calculated decision, part of any greater plan. It was something he did in the moment.

This story features a big argument between the Doctor and Jamie because the Doctor let’s the Daleks use Jamie in their experiments to find the human factor and manipulates Jamie into playing along with reverse psychology. This brings up the moral ambiguity of the Doctor that comes up in many stories. It’s almost a prototype of a 7th Doctor thing. But, there’s a key difference in how it’s presented to the audience.

The audience isn’t told about the Doctor’s plan to use the Human Factor to engineer a Dalek civil war. But, we see the Dalek learning about the Human Factor plan. The Daleks threaten to destroy the TARDIS if he doesn’t let them use Jamie in their experiment. The Doctor is Not Okay with this and makes it perfectly clear. He runs around the room, interrogating Waterfield and Maxtible about the experiment, and getting mad at them for dragging him and Jamie into this mess in the first place. He’s more restrained when speaking to the Daleks, but that’s pretty much Because Daleks. Panicking and raging against them won’t help.

When speaking to Jamie, the Doctor claims that his motivation for cooperating with the Daleks is that they have the TARDIS. That’s probably true, but there’s another layer to it, based on this bit of dialogue:

MAXTIBLE: (after Waterfield protests giving the Daleks the Human Factor): But, besides, what could we have done? Even if I had known for certain, the fact was, nay is, that they hold your daughter, Victoria.

DOCTOR: And now they’ve got Jamie.

Both Jamie and Victoria are part of the Human Factor experiment. Rescuing Victoria basically is the experiment. The Daleks decided to test the core of human nature with a fairy tale: Some terrible monsters have a princess locked away in a tower and now a brave knight must go and rescue her. Waterfield is motivated to work with the Daleks because they have Victoria and could kill her if he refused them. They could just as easily do that to Jamie, even if they don’t have him locked up. Daleks never have much trouble killing people when they want to. Having this exchange of dialogue about Victoria and Jamie, creates a parallel between their situations, as well as the motivations of Waterfield and the Doctor, they have to cooperate with the Daleks to ensure the safety of a hostage.

You might be thinking, “couldn’t all the death traps along the way to rescuing Victoria kill Jamie anyway?”, but it’s actually in the Daleks’ best interest not to kill him. The Human Factor is supposed to be the traits that both motivate Jamie to rescue Victoria, and the traits that determine his success. He avoids traps because of various positive aspects of human nature. If the Doctor cooperates, since the Daleks don’t want their experiment to kill Jamie, Jamie will be safer than if he were to refuse.

So, on top of getting the TARDIS back, it’s at least implied that the Doctor is working with the Daleks for the same reason Waterfield is. But, the experiment, even if the Daleks don’t want Jamie to be killed by it, is still dangerous. It’d be better if the Doctor could let the Daleks do their experiment, but convince them to leave Jamie out of it. He tries to do this, and that’s when he claims to be human.

Here’s the exchange in question:

First, since it’s the Human Factor the Daleks are looking for, and they’re on Earth, which has plenty of humans on it, the Doctor suggests Literally Anyone Else:

DOCTOR: Well why choose Jamie for this test?

DALEK: His traveling with you makes him unique.

Okay, so time traveling humans are more human-y than other humans, I guess. I wonder what would’ve happened if Ben and Polly hadn’t just left and the Daleks had to pick between three time-traveling humans?

Anyway, the Daleks want a time traveller specifically.

DOCTOR: By why him, why not me?

This is where the Doctor claims to be human. If only a human time traveller will suffice, he’s a human time traveller now. He knows human nature well enough that he could probably still give the Daleks what they’re looking for. He kind of already is by volunteering. He’s willing to risk his life to protect someone else. That’s one of those Best of Humanity sort of traits. It’s the sort of thing that inspires a Rescue the Princess sort of mission like the one the Daleks are simulating: the Brave Knight is willing to risk his life to rescue the princess because he loves her, or at the very least cares about her as a fellow human-being.

On Jamie’s side of this plot, he sees a portrait of Victoria’s mother, is told that she looks exactly like her, and apparently falls in love at first sight. He becomes determined to rescue her, to risk his life for her. His motivation for getting led into the experiment is that same aspect of human nature.

This is what the Daleks overlook. They don’t doubt the Doctor’s claim of being human, blaming any evidence to the contrary on excessive time travel, because it doesn’t occur to them that he might be lying to get Jamie out of the experiment. They sort of get that they can get humans to do what they want by threatening their families, something they see as a weakness, but they’d never think that “weakness” might end up working against them. The Doctor accidentally messes up the Dalek Factor plan by making the Daleks believe that he’s human, something he only did in a last, desperate attempt to protect Jamie. The Doctor doesn’t outsmart the Daleks here. He just demonstrates a personality trait that inconveniences them, like the Human!Daleks questioning orders.

So, basic order of events of this headcanon:

The Daleks want to use Jamie to find the Human Factor, so they can find the Dalek Factor from that. The Doctor protests this but the Daleks have both the TARDIS and Jamie, so his hand is forced. The experiment won’t kill Jamie, so the Doctor decides he can use this as part of a plan to defeat the Daleks, but he’s still rather not put Jamie at risk when what he’s looking for could come from literally any human. The Doctor tries to convince the Daleks to use Literally Any Human Just Not Jamie and it doesn’t work because they want a time traveller. In one last attempt to get Jamie out of the experiment, the Doctor lies and claims to be human, only for the Daleks to declare that he’s time travelled too much. The Daleks believe that the Doctor is a human. The Daleks find their Dalek Factor and plan to Dalekify the Doctor. The Doctor isn’t human and the Dalek Factor Thing was designed to convert humans, so he’s fine and can finish saving the day, completely unaware that his earlier lie saved him from the Dalek Factor.

I shall once again restate that I don’t think this was the actual intent of anyone working on the show. But, it fixes a plothole and it’s a good story, so I like it.

#classic who #2nd Doctor #evil of the daleks #Jamie McCrimmon #headcanon #big damn essays

[jalajappa]

An unnecessarily long analysis of "India" from the superhit anime series Hetalia

This character is introduced to being a part of the elephant admirer's club along with Thailand in an alternate universe episode where the characters are reimagined as high schoolers. I like to assume this is a nod to the elephant Indira that was given to Japan when Nehru was the PM. Otherwise, it could be just another stereotypical "joke" about how both India and Thailand revere elephants

The next time you see India is in an episode about different countries writing horror movies. So obviously you'll have a scene from a Bollywood movie. 

So this is the picture where we can see how India is portrayed in this series. (in the previous scene it was just some squiggle). But this is where you get his actual physical appearance

Like how they whitewashed him (a hint of him being a Bollywood actor). He also has lighter hair and eyes than the average Indian(that's quite interesting to note). So all in all your typical Bollywood actor. The film follows the plot where India has to fight against a phantom that kills people in a temple. He faces it and then the phantom surrenders with a dance number with background dancers coming from literally nowhere

The other countries get quite impressed with this plot twist by Japan saying:

Just another proof that the writer didn't watch a single Indian horror film.

But he later went out to watch an Indian film, this can be seen in a Halloween episode where India along with Prussia dress as Salman Khan from Veer, particularly in the song Mehrbaniya. The funniest part is how they show a shehenai in the comics while in the mv you see it’s a western band or something playing western instruments like bagpipes. This stupid show made me to see a Salman Khan film, I wont forgive the show for this sin. They could’ve referred a better Bollywood film.

I couldn't find the anime clip, but he is more dark-skinned compared to his initial appearance, this is from the comics(colored by a fan)

(yes they are shipped after one dance scene)

These are pictures from the anime btw. (i found this later) 

So after the comic finishes, we get to know that India and Prussia met on Twitter. So he speaks in a Kyushu dialect(Hakata dialect). I don't know what's the implication of this tbh. I'm thinking this is how the author tries to distinguish his way of speaking from other countries. 

This is however not the last Bollywood dance scene that we might get, there is another scene from a Halloween comic strip.

The guy who says India has energy is England we will come to that guy in a while. All I have to say is that I can't relate to this stereotype, but I've seen people in schools and colleges dancing at stuff like Baila. I think there is some truth to this stereotype

Let's take a break from Bollywood. There is a dream Lithuania gets where India claims that it is a stronger ally to Russia than China. This was an interesting point the series mentioned. I've never seen people talk about Indo-Russian relationships in non-Indian media

This is the strip. So he calls India Yindu( 印度, That's how they call India in Mandarin. It means broken/crescent moon). This is different from the Japanese word インド(Indo) which is India in Japanese.

I'm delving into this too much, but Indo Russian relationship was huge during the Nehruvian era and it has remained since then. I seem to notice the pattern where India has some similarities with Nehru, along with wearing the Nehru coat in the horror film with a lot of roses.

Ok back to Bollywood, the author makes a note about rain being used in happy scenes in some Indian films, but it is usually used as a thing that represents sadness in English media(forget England's dress). IDK what film this happens in. I can only think of the Aashiq2 scene with rain.

this is where I thought of the contrast between English and Indian art in this picture. A song about the sun coming in English is written in contrast to a Hindi poem about a couple rejoicing in the rain.

I couldn't find it but there is a picture in that same strip about how people in different countries watch films in India's part you have the Indian audience dancing(i didn't know it was a thing until I asked someone) 

There is another cameo of him with China cooking for England. This is a nod to the several Indian and Chinese restaurants in Britain and how the food served in these restaurants is relatively better than English "food". (English food being bad is a recurring joke btw)

it's also funny to note how America couldn't differentiate the cuisine of England, China, or India.

Since we don't have like a proper scene with India from the manga we can only gather from the bits of scenes he's put in. So before he comes in the show in the comics, he is written in England's notebook as one of the incompetent allies. This will be later proven wrong in the other scenes with both of them. He is mentioned in passing in one of England's songs where he(England) boasts about having "holiday houses" in India and Hong Kong. This could be a reference to the east India company and how these countries were holiday spots back in the 19th and 20th century

this is a scene where we can see the both of them together. for context: England faced a huge economical loss from the American war of independence. This is where India provides "tea"(one of the many commodities England has taken from India)

Addressing people with honorifics in Japanese culture is a huge thing. So calling him England-Ji makes sense. Also, India is under Britain so calling him -Ji makes sense. But then if you think of actual history…

England discovered the Assamese growing tea and didn't want to depend on china for it. So there is some merit to this scene. but again, the author might've given the wrong context. In 1776(when the war happened) the British didn't have that strong of power over India(still in the east India company phase).

This is about England "reviving" from this provision of goods from India. This particular scene also reaffirms this whole stereotype of India being a healing country too.

Later you get scenes about how he is in England's "house", just a sweet way to say that he is colonized. (yes there is another picture of him with an elephant)

This is another example:

There is another mention of India in the comics where it seems like Portugal has lots a bit of India and the Netherlands has him now (this is the only mention of the other European powers India was under). Also its a bit weird that Portugal thinks he has completely lost India when he had Goa way up to the 60s

I've already mentioned this before, but India is shipped with England and it is iffy at the least and downright evil at most. It's weird because most of the ships in this show are weird if you think of its historical context

Then there is this brief Introduction of India in the comics where they talk about him being good at mathematics (maybe a ref to Aryabhata) and arguing (Idk who this is a reference to). It says he has a princely aura. This is another fetishized way of portraying the royal kingdoms in India. Also, I like the fact that the author claims that he has his thoughts which do not allow people to argue with him. Reminds me of all the Indian news channels on TV. 

in this, he seems to wear the rudraksha beads even though the show doesn't mention personified countries to be religious identities. But thank god the author gave him a better complexion

Interesting to note the fact he and raj have the same hairstyle

In his first appearance, he's dressed like a politician too lol

What’s with these rose garlands??

This is one beautiful picture that looks like it romanticizes the two centuries of colonial oppression by making them out to be friendly.

The author calls him the gender swap of a hyperactive character called Hungary-> "Mr. India is a character that is as well made as Mr. Hungary, and it's

quite an unexpected character, so I'm going to add a little more character. Indian people are very interesting!" 

For context: the author was in New York for a while, so he has interacted with Indians. There is a comic he wrote about a Japanese student in NY who had an Indian character.  

The author has also mentioned how it is easy for him to imbibe the behavior of Indians along with Italians. This feels a bit sus. The author seems to treat Indians as specimens tbh.

Also, he should stop saying namaste. The word has lost its meaning for me. And that tilak looks like a pimple at this point lol. 

As you likely pointed out he is the embodiment of the privileged sect of Indian society. With his tilak, his behaviour, and his "respect" for England (to prove that he is on the level of Britain)

then again, this is just like how America is a blond-haired blue-eyed guy. (External perception people outside have of the USA). In India, this can be replaced by a Savarna man.

While this character feels like a caricature (in a show about caricatures). India is a pretty cool character for someone who barely gets proper "screen time". However, when we question what exactly is India and what aspect of India he is about. His image gets heavily questionable. I think it's better to assume that this guy is born from the outsider's perspective of India rather than the internal politics of India. Like the name he has which is not a word in any Indian language. Just like how America is born from the European dream of conquering that land in the western hemisphere. 

[writingwithcolor]

Jewish author writing about antisemitism; should I include racism too?

anonymous asked:

Hi! I'm a white Jewish person who's writing a story set in a fantasy world with a Jewish-coded culture. It's important to me to explore antisemitism in this distanced setting, and explore what the Jewish diaspora means to me. I have a lot of people of color in my story as well. I don't know whether I, as a white person, should include racism in a story if it isn't necessary, but I also don't want to erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism, and I also don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism, which is obviously not the case. I was thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based rather than ethnically or racially based, but again, I'm not sure how or whether to write about bigotry against cultures + groups based on cultures + groups that I'm not a part of, and people of color in the story would obviously have their own cultural elements. Is acknowledging bigotry necessary?

It's okay to focus on antisemitism

Other mods have important advice on what exactly might be helpful or applicable to include in your story and how. I want to take a moment with the anxiety you express that focusing on antisemitism and not talking about other types of xenophobia will imply to your readers that you think antisemitism is “more serious” than other forms of bigotry. I hear and honor that anxiety, especially since “Jews only care about Jews” is a stereotype that never seems to go away, so I’m going to say something revolutionary:

It’s okay to center Jews in a story about antisemitism.

There, I said it. But I’m not making the case that you shouldn’t include references to or depictions of other types of bigotry in your story. There are a lot of great reasons why you should, because of what it can do for the complexity of your characters, the depth of your worldbuilding, or the strength of your message about the nature of xenophobia, diaspora, etc.

- How your non-Jewish-coded characters react to the things they experience can affect whether they sympathize over or contribute to the antisemitism at the heart of your story.

- How other types of xenophobia do and don’t manifest in your world can help explain why your world has antisemitism in the first place, and what antisemitism consists of in a world that also contains other minorities outside of the fantasy mainstream culture.

- Including other real-world xenophobia can help you set your antisemitism in context and contrast to help explain what you want to say about it.

Both your story and your message might be strengthened by adding these details. But if you feel the structure of your story doesn’t have room for you to show other characters’ experiences and you’re only considering doing it because you’re afraid you’ll be upholding a negative stereotype of yourself if you don’t, then it might help to realize that if someone is already thinking that, nothing you do is going to change their mind. You can explore antisemitism in your story, but you don’t have the power to solve it, and since you don’t have that power you also don’t have that responsibility. I think adding more facets to your story has the potential to make it great, but leaving it out doesn’t make you evil.

- Meir

Portraying xenophobia

As someone living in Korea and therefore usually on the outside looking in, I feel that a lot of people in Western countries tend to conflate racism and xenophobia. Which does make sense since bigots tend to not exactly care about differences between the two but simply act prejudiced against the “other”. Sci also makes a point below about racialized xenophobia. I feel these are factors contributing to your confusion regarding issues of bigotry in your story.

Xenophobia, as defined by Dictionary.com, is “an aversion or hostility to, disdain for, or fear of foreigners, people from different cultures, or strangers”. You mention “thinking that bigotry might be more culture-based”, and this description fits xenophobia better than most other forms of bigotry. Xenophobia can be seen as an umbrella term including antisemitism, so you are technically including one form of xenophobia through your exploration of antisemitism.

I understand your wariness of writing racism when it doesn’t add to the plot, especially as a white writer. Your concerns that you might “erase the aspects of many mildly/moderately assimilated cultures that are affected by racism” is valid and in fact accurate, since exclusion of racism will of course lead to lack of portrayals of the intersections between racism and xenophobia. I want to reassure you that this is not a bad thing, just a choice you can make. No one story (or at least, no story that can fit into one book) can include all the different forms of oppression in the world. Focusing on one particular form of oppression, particularly one you have personal experience with, is a valid and important form of representation.

You also comment that you “don't want to imply somehow that antisemitism is a more serious issue than racism”, but I honestly feel that doesn’t need too much concern. Much like how queerness and disability are two separate issues with intersections, racism and xenophobia form a Venn diagram, with large intersections but neither completely including the other. A story focusing on autistic characters that doesn’t also have queer rep doesn’t imply queer issues are less serious. Likewise, a story focusing on antisemitism doesn’t imply racism is less serious.

I am slightly more concerned that there might be an accidental implication of antisemitism being a more serious issue compared to other forms of xenophobia. Of course, exploring antisemitism alone is completely valid representation, and there’s no need to go out of your way to try and portray other forms of xenophobia. A microaggression or two, or maybe a mutual bitch out session with a gentile but marginalized friend should be enough to show that antisemitism isn’t more (or less) serious compared to other forms of xenophobia.

-Rune

Avoiding racialized xenophobia

I think one thing you have to be careful with here is racialized xenophobia. Are your characters of color getting disproportionately more xenophobia than your white characters? You might be falling into the trap of racialized xenophobia, which falls under racism, which you want to avoid. An example would be “all Chinese scientists are untrustworthy, but not you, you’re one of the ‘good ones.’” Although this is technically xenophobia, it is also racism.

--Mod Sci

In the case you choose to include even small snippets of other forms of xenophobia in your story, attempting to portray xenophobia without the complications of racism can be a difficult process when they often go hand in hand (especially to a Western audience). So here are a couple of suggestions I have of portraying xenophobia without racism.

First and the simplest method is portraying xenophobia between people of the same race. For example, there is definitely xenophobia against Chinese and Japanese people in Korea, but it would be difficult to claim there is a racial component when all of us are East Asian. (Something you might want to be aware of here is intersections with colorism, where even within the same race, lighter skin and other more westernized features are considered more desirable. I suggest looking through our colorism tag for more details)

Another idea is to include microaggressions for specific cultures rather than something more broad. For example, calling Korean food stinky because kimchi has a strong scent is specifically xenophobic against Koreans, while commenting on small eyes can be directed against Asians in general.

Finally, while antisemitism is a form of ethnicity-based xenophobia, it is also a form of religion-based xenophobia. Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus can absolutely be xenophobic against each other with no racism involved. Should you choose this method, particularly if religious xenophobia is only shown in a shorter scene, I suggest you try and avoid portraying any of the above religions as the Bad or Oppressive ones. As a Christian I will unironically tell you that Christianity is a safe choice for a religiously xenophobic character, as we’re far less likely to face backlash compared to any other religion, and inspiration should unfortunately be overflowing in real life.

-Rune

Other forms of ethno-religious oppression

Here is my TCK perspective as someone brought up in diverse environments where there are often other axes of oppression including religion, ethnicity and class:

Racism and xenophobia can definitely be apples to oranges, so creating a universe where racism no longer exists or has never existed seems doable to me. Perhaps in your fantasy world, structures that buttress racism, such as colonization, slavery and imperialism, are not issues. That still won’t stop people from creating “Us versus Them” divisions, and you can certainly make anti-semitism one of the many forms of xenophobia that exists in this your story. Meir has hinted that your reluctance to declaratively show the harm of anti-semitism indicates a level of anxiety around the topic, and, as someone non-Jewish but also not Christian or Muslim, my perspective is as follows: I’ve always viewed anti-semitism as a particularly virulent form of ethno-religious xenophobia, and while it is a unique experience, it is not the only unique experience when it comes to ethno-religious xenophobia. I think because the 3-way interaction between the Abrahamic religions dominates much of Western geopolitics, that can be how it looks, but the world is a big place (See Rune’s comments for specific examples).

To that effect, I recommend prioritizing anti-semitism alongside other non-racialized forms of xenophobia along ideological, cultural and class-based lines for both POC and non-POC characters. Show how these differences can drive those in power to treat other groups poorly. I conclude by encouraging you to slowly trace your logic when depicting xenophobia towards POC characters in particular. Emphasize bigotry along axes of class and ideology, rather than traits linked to assumed biologically intrinsic features. Ultimately, I think recognizing commonalities between forms of ethno-religious oppression as a whole will help make you more comfortable in depicting anti-semitism with the seriousness it deserves without feeling as though you are trivializing the experiences of other groups.

- Marika

Worldbuilding ethnically and racially diverse cultures

As has been mentioned by other mods, I think it’s completely fine to focus your story on antisemitism and not portray other forms of bigotry if that’s the focus and scope of the story you want to tell. My fellow mods have also offered several valuable suggestions for writing about “culture-based bigotry” in general if that’s what you want to do, while making sure it’s not coming off as racially based. One element I can add is that from a worldbuilding standpoint, it will also help to have your fantasy cultural groups be ethnically and racially diverse. After all, this was common historically in several parts of the world, and depending on which cultures you’re basing your coding on, you could absolutely have fantasy cultures in your world that include characters we would read (according to our modern-day standards) as white, and others that we would read as people of color, within the same fantasy culture. All these characters would face the same culture-based bigotry (such as xenophobia or religious oppression), even though they are read by a modern audience as different races.

As a note, the reason I say “read as” and “according to our modern-day standards” is that the entire concept of whiteness as we know it is very specific to our current cultural context. Who is and isn’t considered white has changed quite a lot over time, and is still the subject of debate today in some cases. Your work will be read by a modern audience, so of course, you need to take into account our current understanding of race and the dynamics surrounding it. However, it’s also helpful to remember that our modern racial categories are fairly new in the context of the many millennia of history of humankind, and that they are certainly not inevitable. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking a fantasy culture has to align itself entirely with modern-day racial categories.

- Niki

#Asks #fantasy #worldbuilding #anti semitism #xenophobia #racism #Judaism #Jewish

[sagurus]

Regarding a Common Misconception of Hakuba Saguru

Lately I've been doing some reflecting on Saguru & the various ways I've seen him portrayed, as well as the ways I've portrayed him in the past. And then I was rereading some MK manga, and had some realizations. I've been feeling like rambling about them! So here I go, rambling.

[Disclaimer: I'm not personally taking issue with anyone's interpretation or impression of Saguru - just sharing my own impressions! This is just for fun <3 ]

Misconception: Saguru is constantly accusing Kaito of being KID

It’s a generally accepted fact in a lot of fics I’ve read (and honestly, maybe some fics I’ve written -- I used to hold this belief too!) that Saguru just unendingly insinuates that Kaito is KID--alone, in front of other people, always.

I won’t cite any here, but I’ve seen nods in fanwork to Aoko feeling a little stressed/frustrated about the fact that Saguru thinks Kaito is KID and makes it known. I’ve also seen fanwork where Saguru explicitly calls Kaito KID, presses Kaito for information, or otherwise makes his beliefs clear, even when others are around.

There are only five scenes in the Magic Kaito manga where Saguru makes direct indication toward his knowledge of KID’s identity.

First, of course, we’ve got chapter 17 - the first chapter where Saguru puts together that Kaito is KID.

For a long time, when I’d consumed more fic than MK canon, I recall an image born in my head of Saguru singling Kaito out in class and making the claim that Kaito is KID in front of everybody. I don’t know if I ever read any such allusion in a fic, or if it’s just an assumption I drew based on portrayals I read, but imagine my surprise when he does nothing of the sort.

Now, to be fair, Saguru is A LOT in this chapter. MK is still heavily in gag manga territory, so his behavior is extra extra played up. But if we take away the visuals, the dialogue between Saguru and Kaito can be summed up thusly:

[First scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

Kaito: You look so tired. Haven’t gotten enough sleep after chasing KID for three nights In a row, huh?

Saguru: Hmph. Aren’t you tired as well?

And then, a few beats later in the conversation:

Saguru: I’d like to invite you to the Ochima Art Museum tonight, where KID’s declared his next target. Kaito: Eh? Saguru: Then, you’ll understand why I’m so tired. Or, do you have other plans tonight? Kaito: Okay, I accept your invitation. It’ll be great to see your work in action!

And that’s it, that’s the big class confrontation. Aoko is present for it, but she’s more interested in joining in on the fun, and while I do think Aoko pieces together that Kaito is KID, she prefers to live in willful ignorance of it until it becomes impossible for her to ignore. She’s bright enough to pick up what Saguru’s implying, but because he never brings it past implication, there’s no reason for her to look at it too hard. Anyway, I digress. That’s conjecture and headcanon talking. My point is that Saguru never makes any explicit claims, just invites Kaito along to the heist.

Another neat thing about this scene is that--while certainly not motivated by mercy in this case, Saguru does give Kaito an out: “Or, do you have an excuse not to go tonight?” Of course, if Kaito took it, it would be rather damning, but I do think it would have been enough confirmation for Saguru. I don’t think there would have been any arm-twisting to get Kaito to agree.

But Kaito and Saguru are competitive bastards, so here we are.

Let’s move on to the heist!

Once again, the manga certainly plays up the whole ordeal. Saguru is intense and waiting for his moment, and Kaito’s being, well, Kaito.

At the heist, there are a few points where Saguru has opportunities to make allusions to Kaito being KID in a way others would pick up on, or otherwise make his suspicions known, but he doesn’t.

First of all, is this exchange:

Nakamori: Why are you guys here? Aoko: Hakuba-kun invited us! Nakamori: What’s the meaning of this, Hakuba-kun? Saguru: I thought she might like to see if KID is arrested tonight. Nakamori: You’ll fail if you’re too cocky! Saguru: We’re well-prepared. Besides, who knows… KID may already be here.

Saguru does imply KID could be present, but he makes no indication that he means Kaito. His next opportunity to hint at Kaito being KID or otherwise make accusations is when Nakamori asks him to consult as a magician.

Nakamori: Kaito, since you’re here, do you want to use your magic against KID? Kaito: [laughing sheepishly] Saguru: Oh, I want to see that fight, too. If you really can do it.

Needling, yes. Saguru knows what he’s saying and so does Kaito. Accusations, no. This is well within the realm of something Saguru would have said even if he didn’t suspect Kaito, considering their dynamic up until this point.

And then, the most explicit Saguru ever gets in terms of literally calling Kaito out as being KID, beginning when Kaito excuses himself to go to the bathroom right before the heist:

[Second scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

Saguru: [handcuffs himself to Kaito] Kaito: Huh? Saguru: I won’t let you do that, Kuroba. Kaito: What do you think you’re doing?! Saguru: I got the report back from the lab. The hair I got from KID indicated that he’s a high school student. After I compared KID’s data with other high school students’ data in the database… Kuroba Kaito came up in the final list. Kaito: That’s a coincidence. Saguru: Really? We’ll see soon enough. Let’s wait until the time KID is stated to come. [Some heist hubbub occurs as officers get into position even though KID hasn’t arrived at the heist time] Aoko: What? KID’s not coming? Saguru: Ha! It looks like I win! You’d better confess who you really are.

And from there, of course, ‘KID’ (Akako in disguise) swoops in and takes care of the heist. That more or less wraps up chapter 17, the first chapter where Saguru understands that Kaito is KID. And I would argue this is the most aggressive Saguru ever is. In fact, rather than persist in trying to accuse/capture/implicate Kaito as KID, he straight up vanishes from the narrative for several chapters.

Saguru doesn’t show up again until the Chat Noir heist, in chapter 25, when he calls from France.

It’s also important to note that at this point, Magic Kaito’s narrative has experienced a slight tonal shift. At the very least, while still often comedic, it reads less like a gag manga. Between the last time we saw Saguru and now, we’ve learned the apparent motivation behind Toichi’s murder, we’ve met Snake (an albeit rather incompetent villain) and Kaito has faced down gunfire and the danger posed by Snake and his men.

The way Saguru is portrayed has also shifted to reflect the shift too. Instead of a hulking antagonist-like character in a Holmes cosplay, he’s dressed primly and presents more as a cheeky but polite character. He’s also more effectively emulating the charm that the story tried to imply he had early on (“Hakuba Saguru, at your service!”, the girls in class fawning over him, the newspaper calling him out as a famous detective making a long-awaited return to Japan).

The interaction is entirely less antagonistic, too. For reference, I’ll paste the exchange (sans Saguru’s massive info dump) below.

[Third scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

[At the heist for the golden eye] Kaito: [Hiding in a bathroom stall while putting on a disguise] [His phone starts ringing] Hello…? Saguru: Hi, it’s been a while. Are you still alive? Kaito: [Thinking] This sugary yet obnoxious tone of voice is... Hakuba?! Saguru: You’ve made quite the stir in Paris. They’re all talking about how France’s Chat Noir is going to go up against you in Japan. Kaito: Idiot! It’s not me. It’s Kaitou KID! Saguru: Ha… it doesn’t really matter. I’ll share some information that I gathered over here. [Info dump cut from dialogue] Well! That’s about all I have to say. Do your best. I don’t want to see you lose to anyone until I capture you myself. Kaito: Like I’ve been saying, I’m not KID! Saguru: Oops, it’s almost time for the Paris Fashion Week. See you! Kaito: H-hey…

The only part of this conversation that I could consider to fall into the territory of antagonistic is when Saguru says “I don’t want to see you lose to anyone until I capture you myself.” And more than anything, I think this is less reflective of a real desire to capture Kaito, and more reflective of his competitive nature. Not to mention, within the context of the conversation, it feels much more like teasing than anything.

Saguru’s motivation for making the call is clear: He doesn’t want Kaito to lose, and he wants to help ensure Kaito’s success.

And most interestingly (although I’d like to see the raw manga to confirm this, or otherwise a more literal translation) he never explicitly calls Kaito KID either. Outside of alluding to KID’s actions, Saguru doesn’t explicitly say Kaito is KID or mention KID at all. It’s Kaito who does that.

When Kaito points out that he is not, in fact, KID, Saguru doesn’t argue. He simply brushes off the denial and shares the information he’s collected.

So, to summarize what we’ve covered so far: after Saguru failed to arrest Kaito during chapter 17, he stopped troubling Kaito so thoroughly that the next time he features in the story isn’t until he’s calling from overseas to try to lend Kaito some helpful information. He’s not even playing a part in trying to capture this thief he allegedly wants to catch.

And then, Saguru dips back out of the narrative, although for a shorter period this time. The next arc he appears in is a few chapters later--the Nightmare Heist which he arrives in the middle of. But, there’s not any interaction between him and Kaito, nor any allusions made by Saguru about KID’s identity, so we’ll move on.

The fourth time Saguru makes any indication that Kaito is KID is during the Corbeau arc, when KID is being challenged by a clad-in-black KID lookalike.

Before jumping into that specific scene, though, there’s another interaction I’d like to call attention to--between Saguru and Nakamori. Not because of something Saguru says, but because of what he doesn’t say.

Nakamori: Hahaha! Looks like you let your guard down because you thought I was at home with a cold! Saguru: Our plan succeeded, it seems. Nakamori: But I only told Aoko I had a cold, so how does KID know…? Saguru: Hm...

If Saguru were wanting to make some kind of accusation, even a non-explicit one, he would have made some remark. Instead, he doesn’t say anything at all, which continues to speak to the fact that he isn’t really interested in implicating Kaito.

Anyway, the next time Saguru makes any sort of implication that Kaito is KID he is, once again, trying to help. Last time it was over the phone, so the conversation was private. This time, the conversation is in a classroom, although based on the panels, it seems like Saguru and Kaito are alone at the beginning--or at least, no attention is being paid to them.

[Fourth scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

Kaito: [Talking to himself] It must be the case, there’s no other way. There must have been some trick with the case.

Saguru: [Eavesdropping, apparently alone in the room with him] The case didn’t contain any hidden mechanisms. Kaito: Eh? Saguru: No hidden doors or things like that, as are often used in magic tricks. Kaito: W-what on earth are you talking about? Saguru: A new notice from Corbeau arrived this morning. ‘I’ll come and take the real Midnight Crow tonight.’ My name is Hakuba--so I don’t want a ‘white’ person to lose to some ominous black crow. [From here, Akako and then Aoko jump into the conversation.]

Surely a classroom is a risky place to have a conversation about KID, but the nice thing is that Saguru--once again--doesn’t bring up KID at all beyond saying that he doesn’t want the ‘white[-clad] person’ to lose to the black crow. From the outside looking in, all he’s doing is sharing information about the case with Kaito. It may also seem unwarranted from that perspective, but not at all implicating.

Also, another thing I’d like to call attention to is that when Akako joins the conversation (and seemingly blindsides Saguru, as if he wasn’t expecting anyone else to join), Saguru stops talking. He continues to be quiet when Aoko chimes in, and he doesn’t have any relevant dialogue for the rest of the scene.

Once again, Saguru’s clearly motivated to share information in the interest of helping Kaito. He has to share with Kaito’s civilian identity, since he can’t exactly arrange a conversation with KID, and this is likely the easiest way for him to do it. He makes no accusations, and this time he doesn’t even imply he wants KID caught.

So--Saguru is a part of the narrative again, but since rejoining the narrative he seems less interested in actually catching KID and far more interested in helping Kaito. And no accusations or incriminating allusions have been made since chapter 17, before Saguru’s first hiatus from the story.

The final time Saguru nods to Kaito being KID is from the Sun Halo arc. This is probably the interaction that’s closest to what fanon tends to depict when it comes to Saguru making subtle accusations that Kaito is KID. And even then, I tend to take this arc with a grain of salt if only because it felt less like Gosho was trying to add to the story and more like he was just trying to make a Magic Kaito addition that hit various fan expectations while still being wildly disappointing, lmao.

[Fifth scene where Saguru makes direct indications as to KID’s identity]

Saguru: [approaching and commenting on Kaito’s motorcycle] I see, a Suzuki GSX 250R. Akako: Ah, Hakuba-kun… Saguru: You’ve shown me something interesting. Perhaps this might help the police tonight. And could it be that you’ve forgotten… that the only motorised bikes we’re allowed to ride to school are scooters? Kaito: Eh?! For real?!

Once again, Saguru doesn’t explicitly mention KID at all--and segues from his mention of the police to pointing out that Kaito is breaking the rules right now, actually, which helps blend this teasing comment into the conversation.

Yes, later in the chapter Saguru does show up with a team of motorcycle experts. But that also means there’s more disguise opportunities for KID and more factors to account for, thus complicating things for, well, everyone--not just KID.

Also, I tend to dismiss that as Gosho throwing in some comedy, and as less to do with Saguru’s character. Call it cherrypicking if you like :P

To recount--there are five times where Saguru implies Kaito is KID.

The first two are in chapter 17, when Saguru first puts it together, and it is during this chapter that he gets the most explicit about calling Kaito out as KID, as well as the most aggressively he behaves about it. And he backs off so hard after that doesn’t work, that we don’t see him for several chapters.

The next two times he implies Kaito is KID are both in order to help him. No aggression or accusations, just the sharing of information. Even when teasing or suggesting he’s interested in catching KID, he’s good-natured about it, and when he realizes there are potentially people witnessing the conversation, he stops participating.

The final time he implies Kaito is KID is a tiny comment about finding something Kaito has shown him ‘interesting’ and ‘helpful for the police’ before smoothing into gently teasing Kaito for bringing an illegal vehicle to school.

In conclusion, Saguru may start off apparently aggressive in part thanks to early Magic Kaito’s overall tone, but rather than persevering in trying to catch Kaito after cornering him in chapter 17, he actually seems to back off. Once he’s playing a part in the narrative again, when he interacts with Kaito it’s almost exclusively to help him. Yes, he is on the task force and participating at heists, but where it matters, he’s less interested in catching the thief and far more interested in those the thief is opposing (excluding the police force).

#hakuba saguru #saguru hakuba #dcmk #magic kaito #meta #nefrit talk

[zarya-zaryanitsa]

Good day to you. I've followed you for many months now and I must say that I really like your blog.

I have seen the notion of "dual faith" commonly applied to Christianized Slavic people more and more questioned lately (either totally or partly) by scholars and practicioners alike, and I was wondering if you (and other of your Christian and Pagan Slavic followers if they wish to develop on that too) have ever attached credit to this notion or not at all, or had any other position on this topic.

Have a nice day !

Ah, once again a complex question!

I would like to quickly re-examine the doubts about validity of dvoeverie in two contexts — first being the doubts about the word itself and its historicity, second doubts about the character of pre-Christian influences on the practices of Christian Slavs.

Dvoeverie (dual-belief, dual-faith) could be very simply defined as preservation of pagan elements by Orthodox Christian communities. This term is used predominantly to refer to Russian religious practices and carries the implication that, while intermingling of pre-Christian and Christian religious practices can happen in any culture, Russia was particularly susceptible to it and displays this phenomenon to a much greater degree, as a result preserving extraordinary number of pagan practices.

Aforementioned term started being used in this context only in mid 19th century, but many scholars who introduced (re-introduced) it into Slavic studies claimed that it has medieval origins and that even medieval Orthodox writers (who would have a better understanding of Slavic paganism than we do) already bemoaned the prevalence of pagan traditions in Orthodox communities (on the territory of present day Russia). 

This idea has been disproven Stella Rock who in her book "Popular Religion in Russia, ‘Double belief’ and the making of an academic myth” shows that, while the word dvoeverie is indeed of medieval origins, it wasn’t used to denote blending of Orthodox and pagan religious practices. According to Rock’s research ”dvoeverie” referred to Orthodox Christians who sympathize with Roman Catholics or a state of spiritual doubt within an Orthodox Christian, and therefore described ”inability to remain unwaveringly Orthodox”. However the second belief referred to by medieval writers using the term ”dual-belief” was never paganism. On that account the context in which the word started being used since 19th century changed significantly — which results in the term coming under a lot of criticism as confusing and misleading.

I don’t really have any strong stances on whether the term should still be used or should be abandoned in the context of pagan beliefs — whatever most scholars will settle on I will follow. I’m of the opinion that as long as everyone involved knows what phenomenon is being discussed the name assigned to it is of secondary importance.

Now onto the problem of pagan influences.

Scholars supproting the existence of dvoeverie usually tend to belong to one of the two main ”camps":

those believing that the Orthodox Christianity was forced to adapt to resistant, prevalent paganism;

those believing that the Orthodox Christianity assimilated Slavic paganism and created a syncretic blend of old and new traditions that was Christian enough to be acceptable to the Church.

Camp 1 tends to support theories of active resistence of the rural pagan peoples to conversion and conscious attempts to preserve pagan beliefs hidden under a thin veneer of Christianity. To many Soviet scholars dual-faith was a symptom of class struggle, although considering the circumstances in which their work was conducted and published this narrative may have been overplayed.

Camp 2 tends to support theories of unconscious preservation of pagan traditions by the people, poor education of Orthodox clergy and neophytes leading to lack of understanding of what is Christian and pagan and creative syncretism of the two faiths.

Onto my personal feelings: I do not believe that ”double-faith” was a form of deliberate resistence of Christianity or a form of conscious class struggle, although I accept that in early days of Slavic Christianization Christianity may have been more common among the elites and that the way different social classes practice the same religion could vary greatly.

Another really interesting interpretation of dvoeverie that I’ve encountered describes it as ”spiritual bilingualism". The believers are "fluent” in two different belief systems and may choose to use the vocabulary of one or the other depending on the circumstances. Occasionally they may also code-switch, code-mix or use borrowings, consciously or unconsciously.

You can still encounter elements with pre-Christian roots in Slavic religious practice as well as many other aspects of Slavic culture. This much is undeniable no matter what name we slap on the phenomenon. Now all that is left is for us to argue about how prominent those elements are and which, and to what degree pre-Christian can be synonymous with pagan.

I imagine that, yes, it could be pretty difficult for early Christians to discern which aspects of their old way of life were specifically ”pagan” — and even the Christian preachers probably struggled with that. It’s worth remembering not everything that is ”unchristian” must be pagan — we can for example see many instances of priests forbidding the newly Christian Slavs revelry, dancing and music but there are doubts as to whether those prohibitions were targetting specific pagan practices or merely marking certain behviors are inappropriate for a devout Christian. At the end of the day what constitutes paganism isn’t all that clear to us.

I will not hide that I personally enjoy including Slavic traditions with strong pre-Christian undercurrent in my Slavic paganism tag — but I am aware that most of the people practicing them don’t see them as ”pagan”. As a Slavic pagan I have quite limited resources when it comes to reliable sources on pre-Christian religious practices and so nevertheless tend to analyse a lot of folk practices looking for elements that are part of local cultural heritage rather than solely Christian cultural heritage, trying to figure out how that could be included to enrich and nuance my personal religious practice which is based on (or perhaps inspired by) pre-Christian Slavic faith though marked with appreciation and inclusion of later Slavic culture. Simultaneously I’m acutely aware that I am likely to come up wrong about things more than a few times. And at the same time I believe we should avoid replicating mistake of romanticizm by uncritically believing that the ”folk” managed to preserve pure and unchanging cultural and religious traditions of the pagan Slavs.

I think it’s perfectly normal for a religion to take on a new ”local flavor” through the influences brought in by the practitioners. Both the culture of the practitioners and the proximity of other faiths will make their marks on the religion in question. It happened to the many forms of Christianity and it happens now, to reconstructed pagan religions. For example in some discussions I observed on Tumblr recently the differences in practices of modern American and Scandinavian heathens were highlighted - a result of the way the practitioners and their culture shape the religion. I find it unavoidable. It’s only natural that earlier pre-Christian and, yes, pagan elements found their way into later practices of Christian Slavs. It’s only natural that Slavic culture of Christianized Slavs finds its way into reconstructive attempts of modern Slavic pagans. Still, I think if you strive for reconstruction or even revival of a pagan religion and not merely an aesthetic repackaging of your local dominant belief you should know what are the core ideas of both religions and where the concepts that form the pillars of your practice came from.

Obviously your knowledge and understanding of your practices will be improved and revised over time. There is nothing wrong with changing your opinions and practices to accomodate new information and new insights. You don’t need a phd before you begin, although some research is anvoidable. In electing to follow the path of revival/reconstruction you implicitly accept the difficulties it introduces into your life and religious practice — and the difficulty will vary depending on both the religion elected and the individual electing.

I warn you — I reserve the right to change my mind once I have more information about the subject in question. I welcome all my followers to add their own thoughts, although please do so politely, acknowledging that a) most people participating in the discussion are laymen with no systematized education on the subject b) this is a tumblr discussion and not anybody’s doctoral dissertation.

Any word I may have overspoken, any word I may have underspoken, be my words helpful and true.

#Asks #dual-faith #double-faith #dvoeverie #slavic paganism

[voxmortuus]

A-Z Will Graham Kinks/Fetishes

UNIVERSE: Hannibal (NBC)

SUMMARY/PROMPT: Prompt from a lovely anon: ok so i was wondering what your headcanon is for will graham’s kinks? like, no one can tell me that that boy did came out of prison mid-season 2 Not wanting to do some seriously wild shit.

TW: KINKS

IMAGE CREDIT: Google I DO NOT CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THIS GIF. If this is your gif or you know who the creator is please INBOX me and let me know. Thank you.

My Masterlist | Taglist | REQUESTS ARE ALWAYS OPEN

Now, not all is receiving, some of it is giving. Under the cut are fetishes/kinks I feel Will Graham secretly has before and after his breakout. Under the cut you will find an A-Z list of Kinks and Fetishes that Will Graham may have. I went off of this list: Kink/Fetish List

A

Abduction as seduction: a kink where the abductor/kidnapper treats the victim in a loving manner

Acarophilia: arousal from scratching. Scratching is often an element incorporated into rough sex.

Accidental stimulation: refers to accidental physical stimulation and situations that arouse adrenaline and cause arousal.

Agalmatophilia: a person with this fetish is aroused by statues, mannequins or other figurative representations. This may be related to Pygmalionism, an attraction to items of one’s own creation.

Age play: role play in which one or both partners pretends to be a different age/stage. Types of age play include infantilism, Daddy/daughter play, and diaper play, among others. Some kinksters differentiate between DD/lg and age play.

Agoraphilia: fetish dedicated to sex in public places.

Amaurophilia: kink for being unable to see, blinded or blindfolded during sex.

Anal sex: both giving and receiving anal sex can be a kink or fetish.

Asphyxiation: a highly dangerous kink dedicated to choking, smothering and strangulation. Autoerotic asphyxiation is self-choking. To be clear, asphyxiation is very dangerous and has led to injuries and deaths.

B

Begging: kink for begging and pleading (to have sex, for release/orgasm, to perform an act, etc.). Begging is submissive in nature.

Bondage: restraint of a person, either by physical item (cuffs, rope, etc.) or instruction (known as mental bondage). Restraint can be full-body (vacuum beds, suspension) or involve a single body part such as the eyes (blindfold), mouth (ball gag), wrists or even thumbs. Bondage may include furniture and devices.

Breath play: choking and limiting breath.  Being aroused by this is known as hypoxyphilia  This kink is a type of edge play that is dangerous.

Breast/nipple torture: the breast equivalent of CBT. Torture may include hitting, pinching, bondage, and other methods of inflicting pain onto breasts.

C

Caning: the act of hitting someone with a rod known as caning.  Fleshy areas such as the back of the thighs and butt are advised, but some people enjoy caning the bottoms of feet. Canes are traditionally made from wood, but modern canes may be made from plastic, metal or other semi-flexible materials. Caning is a form of impact play that is more extreme than typical flogging and may be dangerous if done improperly.

Clothed sex (endytophilia): the affinity for sex while fully or partially clothed. You can enjoy this kink while lifting your skirt or dress, so your man penetrates you. Pushing underwear to the side can also be a form of this fetish.

Cock worship: similar to breast worship. This fetish involves verbal, physical and mental adoration of a penis – including fake ones (strap-ons).

Consensual nonconsent: situations where one or both parties have given prior consent for activities that may appear to be or actually involve nonconsent.

Cunnilingus: this kink can be geared towards receiving oral sex as a woman or giving it either as a man or woman. Cunnilingus plays well with pussy worship.

D

Degradation: if you like when your man talks down to you during sex, you might be into degradation. This is one of those kinks that works especially well with domination and submission. Just because you like doing it (giving or receiving) during sex doesn’t mean you think any less of your partner.

E

Edge play: Any kink or fetish that is considered more risky or extreme. Examples include choking, breath play, knife play, fire play, and any activity that results in bleeding.

Enkuopoiphilia: fetish for impregnation. AKA: Breeding Kink

Exhibitionism: a common fetish for being naked and performing sexually in front of a person or persons. Masturbating for your partner is a mild form of this kink, but performing in sex windows or at BDSM shows and parties is a safe way to explore this fetish. Sex in public is partly exhibitionism. Related to agrexophilia, which is arousal when other people know about your sexual activities, and autagonistophilia, exposing oneself while on stage and being photographed. The counterpart of voyeurism.

F

Face slapping: a slap across the face brings you to attention and corrects your mistakes.

Furries: this kink is hot, literally. Furries dress as animals or humanoid animal creatures, sometimes decked head-to-toe in fur. They often don animalistic dildos via strap-ons to enhance their furry play. Many furries engage in roleplay and cosplay as part of their lifestyle, which can become quite expensive.

G

Gags: a form of mouth bondage. Gags come in many forms, but ball gags are the most common. They may also take the form of bit, cleave, pacifier, penis or spider gag, among others.

H

Haematomania aka hematolagnia : lust for blood and bleeding. May include wounds, vampirism or biting to draw blood. It goes without saying that this one is obviously quite dangerous.

I

Imprisonment: obsession with being locked inside cages, cells, coffins or other areas.

J

No Kink

K

Knife play: a type of edge play activity that involves actual knives or blades or the implication of. Breaking someone’s skin during kinky sex could be quite dangerous.

L

No Kink

M

Masochism: enjoyment of pain, punishment, and torture. Someone who feels this is known as a masochist.

Menophilia: an obsession with menstrual blood. Fetishists of this type don’t mind period sex. In fact, they may prefer it. And they might like going down on a woman when she has her period.

N

Narratophilia: a fetish shared by those who enjoy telling and listening to dirty stories, talking about sex or incorporating dirty talk into sex.

O

Odaxelagnia: kink for biting or being bitten. May or may not involve blood.

Orgasm denial: type of play where someone’s orgasm is denied entirely, limited/ruined or delayed.

P

Pet play: any kink where someone acts like a domesticated pet. Cats and dogs are especially common with leashes, collars and food/water dishes used as props.

Q

Quirofilia: fetish for hands. Some people fetishize certain parts of the hand such as the fingers or fingernails. Others may prefer hands of a certain size or shape. Still others with this fetish may enjoy seeing hands performing certain actions. It could be masturbation or something nonsexual such as washing the dishes.

R

Ropework: a kink for rope as used as the specific type of bondage.

S

Sadism: the kink for providing pain. Masochists and sadists often come together to meet one another’s kinky needs.

Sensation play: a light kink where partners exchange sensations on the skin. Items with different textures (soft, hard, bumpy, smooth, cold, hot, etc) can be run across the skin.

Sensory deprivation: any play that prevents someone from using one of their five senses. Blindfolds block sight, gloves prevent touch, earmuffs deprive the sense of hearing, etc.

Somnophilia: the fetish for sexual partners who are asleep.Spanking: this is a fetish that many people have tried in the bedroom. A firm hand comes into play as punishment or enticement in many power exchange relationships.

Suspension: the practice of suspending someone from the ground or being suspended yourself. Suspension can be accomplished with ropes, harnesses and other devices and items.

T

No Kink

U

No Kink

V

Voyeurism: a kink for watching someone else while naked or engaged in sexual activity. Voyeurs and exhibitionists make excellent pairings.

W

Wax play: using wax during sex. Wax comes in the form of massage candles, which are relatively safe. But other types of wax may have a higher melting point and be more dangerous. Flames used to melt wax also pose a risk.

X

No Kink

Y

No Kink

Z

No Kink

#Will Graham Imagine #will graham x reader #will graham x you #Will Graham Smut #Will Graham Fluff #will graham headcanon #will graham my beloved #will graham core #will graham oneshot #will graham fic #will graham hannibal #daddy will #daddy will graham #tellingyouastory #hugh dancy #hannibal nbc #hannibal gifs #imagine #my oc #my writing #my fanfic stuff #my fanfiction #my story #my fanfic writing #tellingyouastory oc #tellingyouastory original #fan fiction #fanfiction

[ilikekidsshows]

The Marinette and Kagami Sub Arc Breakdown

Okay, it's finally done, the big analysis, where I tackle a topic I've wanted to write for simply because it's a topic I personally find interesting and fun, AKA, The Best Sub Arc in the Entire Series So Far, AKA, How Marinette Proved Without a Shadow of a Doubt that She'd Never Be Like Chloé And We Stan.

One of the most interesting parts of the Marinette and Kagami rivals to friends sub arc is that it's one of the aspects of the show that directly connects to Marinette's past as a victim of bullying and is, in a way, about her overcoming that past. Not many things in the show remind us of the revelation in 'Origins' that Chloé had been bullying Marinette for years before the show's timeline, especially since Chloé became pretty declawed as a school level threat as the series went on to the degree where I think many people watching forgot that she used to hold a lot more power, and Marinette used to be wary of her.

But, the reason why Marinette being a bully victim is important in her arc with Kagami is this: people who have been victimized don't necessarily recognize it when they're victimizing others, and I believe that Marinette shows signs of this mentality in the show, particularly in season three. I'll illustrate how Marinette's ex-bully victim mindset informed the early stages of her relationship with Kagami and how Marinette overcame her internal biases when it comes to Kagami and her behavior towards Kagami.

In 'Origins', when Alya quotes Majestia's by now immortal line, she also says something that is very much what someone who has been victimized would identify with: "That girl over there is evil, while we are the good people." While Alya was very accurate that she and Marinette are good people, she didn't really know much about Marinette at this point, so she was actually pretty much guessing. The reason why this line is important is because it relies on an assumption that a moral binary exists on the bully-victim scale, instead of these roles being dynamic and socially formed. If you’re a victim of a bully, the bully is evil and you are a Good Person.

Some people who've been systematically victimized think on some level that them being victims means that they can never be instigators, that they're automatically morally pure because the person who victimizes them is the evil one. This is a very typical argument in social justice circles, where a person who is victimized for one thing might say bigoted things about another group and claim that they can't be a bigot because they suffer from bigotry. The simplest example I can give is white women refusing to accept that something they've said about black women could be offensive to black women specifically, because "how could a victim of sexism be racist". Now, what happens between Marinette and Kagami in the show is nowhere near this level of victimization switcheroo, but it still has that false binary in that Marinette thinks that her actions have more moral justification than they actually do.

The interesting thing about how Kagami is introduced is that her future role as a love rival was downplayed in ‘Riposte’. Her Akumatization was because of family issues and the idea that she might be attracted to Adrien came from Marinette's jealous grumblings while she was rescuing him from Riposte (I'm mostly referring to the "She doesn't deserve you" line). Outside of that little bit, 'Riposte' comes across as a pretty standard Victim of the Week episode, instead of setting up a romance sub arc. As such, Marinette already viewing Kagami's Riposte form as a romantic rival serves more as foreshadowing rather than it actually forming their relationship.

Then we get to 'Frozer'. Marinette doesn't really know much of anything about Kagami at the start of this episode, as we can see in her mental image of Kagami as a cackling mean girl. Because Marinette doesn't really know Kagami at this point, when Adrien tells her he's thinking of asking Kagami out, her mind gives a placeholder mental image of her, seemingly based off of Chloé, another rich girl with a (supposed) crush on Adrien. This is the episode that establishes Kagami as a romantic rival to both the audience and Marinette, and Marinette’s negative mental image of Kagami establishes the idea of this rivalry being antagonistic. However, because this setup happens in Marinette's headscape, it's actually a one-sided antagonism.

Kagami isn't actually antagonistic towards Marinette in 'Frozer', but there is a certain assertiveness and physical presence to her in the episode that Marinette, as a former bully victim, might find imposing. Kagami gets in her personal space, because she's telling Marinette something she's sure Marinette doesn't want the boys to hear, but to Marinette, the body language could have come across as threatening. The way Marinette stares at Kagami throughout the scene with a deer-in-headlights look can indicate more general startlement or a sense of foreboding. And the episode ends with Kagami kissing Adrien on the cheek, establishing her as a threat in Marinette's eyes. From Marinette's view, Kagami's behavior in 'Frozer' confirmed her fears about Kagami, that she was a rich bully.

This interpretation of Kagami informs a lot of Marinette's actions in 'Animaestro'. Here we see just how much Marinette has started to view Kagami as the new Chloé in her mind. Even when the actual Chloé shows up, Marinette is more ready to side with her than Kagami. And why this happens is because Chloé actually accidentally enforces the idea that, because Marinette is a Good Person, any person who works against her happiness is a bully and a Bad Person. While we could argue that Marinette has no reason to listen to anything Chloé says, we have to remember that Marinette has been lowkey hoping Chloé would become a better person in episodes like 'Antibug' and 'Zombizou'. When they both agree that Kagami has to go, Marinette could have taken it as another sign that Chloé's not all bad, or Marinette could have simply come to the conclusion that Kagami is actually worse than Chloé, and so teaming up with Chloé to take her down is justified.

It's important to note that 'Animaestro' chronologically takes place right after 'Chameleon', another episode where Marinette thinks she's morally justified in practically bullying someone because they're acting in a way she disagrees with. Because Lila was revealed to be able to dish back the same, if not even worse, that Marinette could unleash, Marinette never learned that her behavior at the start of the episode was bullying and therefore bad. Lila "justified" Marinette's actions after the fact because she was actually a bad person all along, so Marinette doesn't need to feel bad about basically harassing her. If Lila had just been someone who fibs for fun, with no malicious intentions, Marinette's behavior would have been completely out of proportion.

This is why the approach Chloé and, by extension, Marinette take against Kagami is so vital. With Chloé hatching a scheme that was so much like one Marinette would put together, the lines between Marinette and Chloé were blurred in this episode. Simply because it was such a convoluted plan might have also been why Marinette didn't seem to realize the implications of what she was trying to accomplish. I mentioned during my liveblog of this episode that Marinette doesn't seem to consider that, since the plan was to publicly humiliate Kagami, the plan working would have meant hurting Kagami really badly. I also pointed out that, because the trap triggered for the wrong target, this fact didn't really register with Marinette completely, since she merely noted that of course Chloé would have a bad plan. The plan was bad because it failed, not because it was morally wrong.

However, even though we didn't see it happen in the episode itself, what happened at the movie premiere did alter Marinette's perception of Kagami. Most likely it was contrasting Kagami to the actual Chloé and realizing that she had been mistakenly attributing Chloé's traits to Kagami. The change in Marinette's perception is clear in her panic spiral when she realizes Kagami is her partner for the game in 'Ikari Gozen': "She's brilliant, strong, cute!" Marinette would never spell out all of Chloé's better features in such a way, which means her stance on Kagami has moved away from seeing her as The New Chloé.

Even though Marinette doesn't see Kagami as a bad person at this point anymore, she does still consider her strictly opposition. She refuses to work with her, preferring instead to sabotage her and her chances with Adrien, just this time without the attempted humiliation. This is mostly because Marinette sees Kagami and thinks she has it all: looks, confidence, influence, a connection with Adrien. Marinette is absolutely convinced that if they won the contest, all attention would be on Kagami and she'd be sidelined in favor of her. It's easy to think that a little bit of sabotage is okay when Kagami seems to have such an unfair advantage.

Unfortunately for Marinette's peace of mind, the point of 'Ikari Gozen' is to dissuade her of the notion that Kagami is fortunate in every way possible. We can see that Marinette thought that sabotaging the game was fine because Kagami had so many advantages because, as soon as she discovers that Kagami is friendless and has no connection to Adrien outside of fencing, she feels very bad for what she was trying to do. Marinette didn't actually want to hurt or upset Kagami. In 'Animaestro', Marinette didn't think about Kagami's feelings at all in relation to how Chloé's scheme might make Kagami feel, but this time she is thinking about them, she simply misjudged them at the start. She thought her purposefully throwing the contest would be a minor setback to Kagami, not what it ended up being: a betrayal by someone she was hoping to befriend.

I noted during my liveblog of this episode that Marinette's relationship with Adrien also started with a misunderstanding where Marinette first saw Adrien in a more negative light before that impression was proven to be false and they became friends. The development in 'Ikari Gozen' mirrors what happens in 'Origins' in that Marinette first has a false impression of Kagami, but is ultimately proven wrong in her assumptions and becomes friends with her. Marinette nominating herself as Kagami's friend even in her phone call with Tomoe suggests that Marinette recognized a similar need for friends in Kagami that she's seen in Adrien.

Marinette has gotten over seeing Kagami as an opponent in 'Desperada', where we see how Marinette reacts to Kagami and Adrien enjoying an inside joke together: she is miserable. Marinette recognizes the similarity between Kagami and Adrien and, rather than making her mad with jealousy, it makes her feel defeated. While Marinette's perception that Kagami was put together and perfect was taken down in 'Ikari Gozen', 'Desperada' shows us that she still thinks she can't measure up against Kagami, although now it's for the reason that she can see the connection between Adrien and Kagami and doesn't think she has what it takes to compete with that.

'Love Hunter' is the episode where this new sense of insecurity comes to a head. When Marinette's hair falls out of its usual style, it signifies her letting down her guard and enjoying both Kagami and Adrien's company, because Adrien and Kagami are both her friends at this point. However, when Marinette is reminded that there are things that Kagami and Adrien experience that she can't relate to ("It's not every day we can escape from everything they expect from us"), she hastily ties her hair back into the usual twintails, her insecurity forcing her to put her walls back up again.

Marinette is in emotional turmoil throughout the episode, allowing Adrien and Kagami to have what could constitute as an ice cream date alone at first, only to interrupt Kagami's attempt to kiss Adrien a few minutes later by whisking Kagami away to help solve the Akuma situation. This is why Marinette wanted André to pick the ice cream blend, because she started to project her relationships with Adrien and Kagami onto the ice cream too much. Marinette values her friends' happiness very high, high enough to stand aside when Kagami refers to their similarity as the reason she and Adrien are made for each other. Marinette does respond to Kagami that choices can be hard, so her standing aside is also about Marinette simply not acting at all, either to allow Kagami to go for Adrien unchallenged or to pursue Adrien herself. The choice between Adrien and Kagami was too much for her. Marinette being indecisive is of course a major character flaw I've discussed on this blog repeatedly, so the idea that it might have played a role here too makes sense from my perspective.

So far the Marinette and Kagami arc has been about Marinette learning not to subject other people to the kind of treatment she gets from Chloé, overcoming the temptation to turn into a bully to protect herself, and also making friends along the way. But there is still more ground that can be covered with this immensely interesting relationship. This is actually why I feel we really need to see Kagami and Marinette interacting after Kagami and Adrien break up. Because Marinette still has unresolved feelings about Kagami and not just Adrien after the season three finale.

#miraculous ladybug #miraculous tales of ladybug and chat noir #marinette dupain cheng #kagami tsurugi #ml meta #long post #popular

[greensaplinggrace]

honestly THANK YOU for saying all that abt baghra bc i thought i was going crazy from not liking her??? bc i haven't read the books and only summaries of them on wiki and like. i dunno why ppl like her actually even in the show bc this guy, her son, is like "i wanna make the world better for us grisha" and she's just like "no." even tho he sees that she's MAKING HERSELF SICK from suppressing her powers! she's literally like in bed coughing in the flashback yet seem much healthier at the little palace. also like after everything, after her disapproval, after the fold, after centuries of waiting for the sun summoner.. he never abandons her. he makes sure she's cares for. he doesn't harm her. and i have to wonder if baghra has ever thanks him for that, for just not leaving her alone. like i dunno how im suppose ro believe aleks is a heartless villain when he still cares for his abusive mom like this. like has baghra even told her she loved him (honestly she reminds me of a classic emotionally unavailable asian parent but maybe that's just me). also im wondering if baghra ever told aleks that he had an aunt.. bc like.. now that u bring up her isolating him it's like hmmmm...

not at me being like alina... why do u trust the bitter old woman who literally beats u with a stick and verbally abuses u every chance she gets.. just bc she showed a bad painting... like.. pls use two braincells to see that who u figured out as his mother... is also using his protection..

like baghra could've upped and left with alina. but no. she stayed bc she knew she was safe under aleks's protection.

alsoim just impressed that after his first friend tried to drown him and harvest his bones... he didn't go into hiding???? he still wanted to make a safe heaven for grisha!!! HE STILL WANTED TO PROTECT GRISHA EVEN AFTER HIS GRISHA FRIEND TRIED TO KILL HIM FOR HIS FUCKEN BONES. like... this is the guy im suppose to believe is the villain???

honestly i feel like part of the reason why LB's plotlines seem so bad and disconnected (and sometimes outright racist but that's another rant) and why darkles is disproportionately more violent and villainous in the later books is bc she didn't expect the darkling to be so popular and wanted to stick with her guns of making him the villain. but also wanted the money from aleks's popularity. but like you can't have ur cake and eat it too.

Well thank you for sending this ask! It's very sweet and very passionate. I'm glad you liked my post! I didn't put as much thought into it as some of my others lol. I kind of just talked. But it was nice to be able to finally talk about some of the problems I have with both her character and the fandom/author's perception of her.

HERE is the post this is referring to, in case anyone's wondering.

👀👀 You've hit the nail on the head for so many things, here!

Baghra is extremely emotionally unavailable, basically to the point of neglect. She's also verbally and physically abusive, traits which I doubt were only reserved for her students and not her son. Baghra claims she would do anything to protect him, but I've known a lot of parents who have that mindset and yet still harm their children because they think it's "good for them".

Aleksander stays at Baghra's side for years, and even when they're opposing each other she's never too far away from him. Idk if you've read the books but he does eventually hurt her. And as much as I don't like Baghra, I think his actions were horrid. But I'm also honestly kind of surprised it took him so long lmao.

Yeah I mean, in terms of isolation, let's not forget that she never wanted to introduce him to his father, either. Baghra's sense of eternity clouds a lot of her judgments on relationships, which means she views most people as dust and therefore teaches her son to as well. The problem with that is that he's a growing child, and he needs those social and emotional attachments for healthy development.

I would bet quite a bit of money that Baghra has either never told him she loves him or she has told him so few times it's practically forgettable.

And everything becomes more complicated because so many of Baghra's actions are understandable because of her life and her history, but the impacts they have on the people around her, especially Aleksander, are permanently damaging. And the fact that that's never gone over in critical depth in the books or how it's glossed over in fandom is just very disconcerting. Like, acknowledging Baghra's failings doesn't mean we're excusing Aleksander's actions, it just means we're holding Baghra liable for her own. Which the fandom should be doing, considering she's the epitome of an abusive parental figure.

And Alina trusting Baghra over Aleksander is even more confusing! Especially in the show!! This is the woman who beat her and abused her and tortured her friends when they tiny little children (and who probably still does so now that they're adults). This is the woman who mocks you and harasses you and insults you on a regular basis. Why does Baghra revealing she's Aleksander's mother make Alina change her mind?! Like fuck, I'd just feel bad for Aleksander. No wonder he kept it a secret, I would too! And that painting is enough evidence?! Really?! A random painting shown to you by this abusive mentor that's been making your life hell. That's what you're going to betray your new lover over?

The friends trying to harvest his bones thing is a good point, too. I think Aleksander, especially show Aleksander, is incredibly idealistic. I think he cares too much for others - those he's deemed worth his care (a sentiment given to him by Baghra). Despite everything she's tried to teach him about hiding and abandoning others and never caring and never doing anything to help or reach out or connect with people, Aleksander still continues to do so. It's likely because he never got it from Baghra growing up, and so is desperate for those emotional needs to be fulfilled elsewhere.

His turning point, when Baghra tells him it was understandable that those kids tried to kill him because the world is such a hard place for them - that's crucial. And the reason it's possible as a motivating factor is because of that idealism and that desire to help and that desire to be everything his mother isn't. Baghra tells him this trauma he just experienced was because of the oppression of his people, and instead of following her lead and accepting that, going into hiding and abandoning everybody to their misery, he goes I can do something about that. I can make it so this never happens again. Which is usually how trauma like that combines with one's core personality traits at a young age, especially when there's none of the essential support systems in place to aid in recovery (ie, the role Baghra should have been filling but wasn't, because she decided to exacerbate the problem instead).

And yeah, one of my biggest problems with the ham-fisted "beating you over the head with a sledgehammer of evil deeds" look-how-bad-this-character-is! portrayal of the Darkling in the later books comes from the impression I get that Bardugo doesn't trust her readers. She's so desperate to have us hate this character and think him an irredeemable villain, not trusting any of her readers to engage critically with a morally gray character, that it feels quite a bit like condescending fucking bullshit. Which ew, I know how to engage with literature, thanks.

She really does seem to look down on a large part of her fandom, and imo, the infantilization of the female characters in her books seems to carry over to her impression of most of her female readers as well. Which is why the Darkling's character arc gets fucking destroyed. But he's still a good cash grab, of course, so she'll shake his dead corpse in front of the fandom for money every time she wants something from it.

Also! Another reason I think her plotlines feel disconnected (I'm sorry Bardugo I respect you as a person, but shit-) is because the writing in SaB is just bad. I mean, nevermind the absolutely nauseating implications of the way she portrays the Grisha as a persecuted group who's situation is never actually fully addressed as it should be, considering Grisha rights is what her main villain is fighting for (imo for a series called the Grishaverse, LB seems to be pretty anti Grisha), but her characters and story alone are just wrong for each other. They don't fit together.

And the ending is one of the main pieces of evidence in that regard! You can’t say the ending where Alina isn’t Grisha anymore is her “going back to where she started” when she’s always been Grisha. She just didn’t know she was Grisha because she denied that part of herself that she was born with.

Alina is reluctant to move forward or change, she struggles with adapting, and she’s very set on the things she’s grown attached to throughout her life. She also has some latent prejudices against the Grisha, and so denies the possibility of being Grisha for those reasons as well.

Alina’s lack of powers in the beginning of her life because she willfully doesn’t learn about them to avoid change versus her lack of powers at the end of the book when she’s accepted them and then they’re stripped away from her by outer forces are two entirely separate circumstances. You can’t make a parallel about lost powers and lack of Grisha status bringing her back to the start when she was always Grisha and she always had powers and she simply refused to come to terms with it because of personal reasons.

The first situation is an internal conflict that indicates a story about growth and a journey of self acceptance. Denying herself the opportunity to learn about her heritage and to find acceptance with a group of people like her because she’s tied to the past and because of the way she was raised is the setup for a narrative that tackles unlearning prejudice and learning how to connect with a part of her identity that was denied her and learning how to grow independent and self assured. It’s the setup for a different story entirely. The second situation is an external conflict that centers around the ‘corrupting influence of power’... for some reason.

In a world where Grisha do not have social, political, or economic power and they are hunted, centering your heroine’s journey of self acceptance and growth around an external conflict about... the corrupting influence of power (in a group of people that don’t actually have any power?!) just doesn’t work. It is literally impossible to connect the two stories Bardugo is trying to push in Shadow and Bone without seriously damaging the main character’s developmental arc.

The only way a narrative like this would work, claiming that she has gone back to where she started, is either a) if the Grisha weren’t actually a persecuted group and instead were apart of the upper class, or b) if the one bad connection between the two instances is acknowledged - that Alina denied a part of herself crucial to self acceptance and growing up, and that losing her powers at the end has also denied her. It is a tragedy, not a happy ending.

Alina suffered because she didn’t use her powers. She grew sick. It was bad for her. This was not a resistance to 'the corruption of power and the burden of greed', it was her suffering because she couldn’t fully accept herself.

Framing the ending as a return to the beginning can’t be done if you don’t address how bad the beginning was for your main character. You brought her back to a bad point in her life. You regressed her. This should be a low point in her arc. It should be a problem that’s solved so she can finish developing organically or it should be something that is acknowledged as a tragedy in it’s own right, for the future the world (the writing) denied her.

This is a ramble and it makes no sense and I’m really sorry, but my point is that Bardugo put the wrong characters in the wrong story. The character arc required for organic development doesn’t match the story and intended message at all. The narrative doesn’t fit the cast. She's got two clashing stories attempting to work in tandem and she ends up with both conflicting messages that fans still can’t comprehend in her writing and an ending that doesn’t suit her main character to such an impossible degree that it’s almost laughable.

So yeah, there's a few reasons why I think the story and the plot feels so bad and disconnected. I hope you don't mind me making this answer so long! 😅 I was not expecting to write this much.

#shadow and bone #sab #grishaverse #alina starkov #aleksander morozova #mymetas #the darkling #baghra critical #anti leigh bardugo #sorry! #sab salt #sab meta #fandomcourse #negative #negativity #myramblings #asks and answers #joonmono #anti baghra #leigh bardugo critical #abuse tw #torture tw

[a-mellowtea]

Let’s talk about character design.

Specifically, let’s discuss how an incongruous element of design, with the intention of it being incongruous, can lead to a problematic display of narrative decision-making.

As an anecdote, I’m a theatre undergrad with a focus on production, and costuming fascinates me. And, just as every element of costume design -- from fabric, to color, to era -- is a choice, character design is a choice, and one more often than not informed by the text in question. It falls on quite a few people to ensure these aspects work in tandem, and it is difficult and good work. However, if the text is -- for lack of a less melodramatic term -- spoilt at its core, then the design likely will be as well. In that vein, I find myself put off by both aspects of this particular choice -- the actual design itself, and the intention behind it.

If you hadn’t already guessed by who’s making this post and my as-recently typical subject matter, we’re going to be focusing on James Ironwood’s Volume 8 prosthetic.

I ought to preface this by mentioning that the conclusions I come to here are my own opinion, and those of an able-bodied woman. I cannot speak for the dehumanizing experiences disabled people (or persons with disabilities, if preferred) endure. I am mostly examining the design itself, but the intention and implication behind that are not things that can go unstated.

So, let’s begin with the design and that aforementioned incongruity; both with the character and the established look of technology in the show’s world. On its own, in a vacuum, it is a good one; I called it creative and unique when it was first, albeit accidentally, released to the public, and I stand by that. I’d expect no less from Alexander Juarez by now. However, that uniqueness is a double-edged sword in this instance, as this design is very distinct. To this point, replacement prosthetics in RWBY were uniformly shades of greys and blues (until and unless painted, see: Yang), noticeably complete and, even when purposefully visible, fit the designs of the characters themselves. Examples of this are Yang, Mercury, Maria, and even James’ own pre-Volume 8 prosthetics.

Oh. Yes, a moment on that. It’s worth mentioning that James does already have prosthetics, replacing or supporting the entire right side of his body, for which it is noted that the arm is a modified AK200 model.

The Volume 8 addition, meanwhile, is remarkably incomplete, with exposed wiring that can be cleanly seen through. Its core colors are also black and grey, which clashes directly with the blues and whites of the rest of the character design, as the only other instance of those colors on him is his hair. It’s heavy and eye-catching, throwing off the balance of the design.

Moreover? It's visible, and this is where incongruity of character comes in. James' prosthetics have always been hidden, bar extenuating circumstances (see, Battle of Beacon), and that is implied through both design and narrative to be a character choice based on how he himself views those prosthetics. The one he is given in Volume 8, however, is fully displayed, yet there is nothing to indicate that this particular character aversion has changed.

What did change, then? With a pre-established source of reference for James’ prosthetics being the AK200, why was this design choice made? His new arm is meant to be noticed. It's meant to contrast with the rest of the design, be visible, and visibly incomplete. Why?

Remember: character design is a choice that is typically informed by the text.

I don't like making big claims about CRWBY's intentions with things, because I’m not involved in the industry or production, and it’s generally rude to assume beyond that. With this, though, I don't have to, because they said it themselves.

Kerry Shawcross: "And then of course Ironwood now losing another part of his humanity. [pause] Get it?" Paula Decanini: [chuckles]

If you wish to check the context, this is taken from the Volume 7 DVD director’s commentary on Chapter 11, “Gravity”, and is a comment on the moment James loses his arm. It would be uncomfortable enough on its own, but discomfort isn’t very well the point of noting this as much as it is the answer to that question.

The design choices of the prosthetic were made as a visible reminder of a loss of humanity and his new status as a villain in that light. It is, certainly no pun intended, a narrative shorthand, meant to carry implication and impossible to ignore when he is on screen.

Perhaps a little more distressing is the fact that it worked. Still visible in a thread on the r/RWBY subReddit and several threads on Twitter, when it was revealed, people immediately associated the prosthetic and extension of James’ disability to a loss of humanity, despite the character actively having prosthetics for the entirety of his tenure in the show and it only previously being raised in regards to his Tin Woodsman allusion.

You may ask, so what? Why is this problematic? James is a villain in Volume 8, what should it matter that his design echoes that?

All I have to say is that that’s unfortunate. It’s unfortunate that we aren’t at a point yet where this kind of shorthand isn’t something immediately frowned upon in media, and especially in how characters are designed. James could have been a villain without the creative team pointedly using his disability as a neon “Now A Bad Guy” sign. They could have designed it in a way that fell in line with the character and the aesthetic designs of the world, and still had the loss be acknowledged as a stressful circumstance that informed how he was behaving in a way that wasn’t a silent visual.

Disability being used as such a signifier for some sort of absence of humanity is not a good thing in media in general, whether RWBY or otherwise. I’m still hopeful we’ll get to a point where that isn’t the case -- RWBY itself did quite well with Yang, all things considered -- but its as-yet unquestioned acceptance when characters are anti-heroic/villainous or, god forbid, “deserve” it, both in the design process of media and the minds of audiences, is disheartening, to put it mildly.

#rwby #rwby analysis #james ironwood #i'm not labelling this rwde because it isn't #but yes that commentary absolutely disgusts me #crwby does good work but sometimes #sometimes there are just these unacceptable things #that slide under the radar

[antiloreolympus]

10 Anti LO Asks

1. I do not get why the colors are so oversaturated. persephone is so hard to even look at because she's just one shade of neon pink, and it really doesnt help rachel seems to think dull backgrounds help? that only makes the contrast even more intense and makes it even harder to look at. there used to be such a strong grasp of color harmony but that's been gone for so long now that I doubt it'll ever come back. Even her non-comic art now is the overly bright, wonky style. What a downgrade.

2. I don't get why we're supposed to be against Minthe when she once slapped Hades (which came out of nowhere and is OOC) yet we're supposed to laugh at Hekate slapping him during a moment which seems to imply it's a common occurrence between the two. Surely his "best friend" wouldn't physically assault him in the same way that sours his relationship to another person for good right? RS flip flops a lot on what's ok for some but bad for others, but the anti Minthe angle for everything is ridiculous

3. I dount RS even knows she's doing this but the fact her Persephone is idolized for her youth/beauty/fertility and nothing else (especially compared to older women like Demeter, Leto, Minthe, etc who "lost it" when they got older or ever had those "desired" traits to begin with) has deeply misogynistic implications to it. RS can claim all she wants it's a pro feminist story, but even a basic look into it makes it seem like it's a very regressive, conservative piece masquerading as "progressive"

4. I feel like no one really talk about how the actual SA in comic was depicted really voyeuristically? Like there's so many panels of her being groped and emphasizing her body, still always making a point to show how "sexy" she while she's literally being assaulted. It doesn't help afterwards the comic again and again makes a point of sexualizing her (esp from Hades' POV) w/o her consent. RS says she wants to give her "agency", but she sure seems determined to make sure Persephone never has it.

From OP: I can’t really see the SA scene as sexualized. I think I get what you’re referring to but I think it’s just meant to show what Apollo was doing which makes it more disturbing to read. I do agree with the rest though.

5. It's so stupid how fast RS reverses any stakes in comic, making any sort of tension just non existent. just off the characters who were shown to dislike hades/be disapproving of him wanting to get with persephone (hera, eros, hekate, etc) they just get over it in about an hour, maybe a day at most to now blindly support it ad want them together. like seriously? RS is trying to sell us theyre a couple going against all the odds when only like, two people don't approve. what are they overcoming?

6. any LO theory we see now is just people debating on how, when, and how many babies persephone will give hades and that's about it. does she really have nothing else going for her beyond what she can give to a man who is doing nothing to accommodate or compromise for her? Does her sexual trauma not matter when Hades needs babies? Oh, and PS to any LO fas reading this, Hades and Persephone didn't have kids in the myths, especially not Dionysus. JFC.

7. Something that gets overlooked i feel is that despite Hera being the worst to Minthe, Minthe still told her friend not to mess with Hera when Thetis was sending dick pics to Hera. TO ADD SALT TO THAT HERA WAS KISSING HADES right after their fight and probably sometime when Minthe and hades were together.

I’m not saying Minthe is a done nothing wrong character but she is a far more likeable character than the cast members were supposed to be rooting for

8. what I dont get is you get lo fans saying it has to be uncritically praised because "we need a woman's voice to be heard!" like ... ok, lets hear what actual greek women have to say on the mythology and raise them up, not some random new zealander who is butchering a real country's culture and stories to tell her weird 50 shades/sleeping beauty rip off. idk how to tell them making a privileged white lady even richer with her capitalist bootlicking, status quo praising work isnt subversive lmao

9. What I find frustrating is LO fans say the art decline is just "style progression" and the culture of webcomics is more about speed but 1) stop marketing it off its "great art" then of it doesnt match up but 2) that undersells how many other webtoon creators, often just by themselves, create beautiful episodes every week while rachel has a 4-5 art team and its only gotten worse in quality. Objectively she has become a worse artist. especially when you see her older art. It's harsh but true.

10. I think some people act as if it's impossible to put "contradictory" colors next to each but that's not the case, it just requires a little more work. Case in point, the idea of Persephone with red eyes isn't inherently bad, the problem is it's very obvious Rachel just picks colors at random instead of googling color palettes (and yes, pink and red can work!), hence why it looks bad. It's actually possible to pair basically every color together, but Rachel just doesn't put the effort into it.

#anti lore olympus #lore olympus critical #lo critical #anti lo

[spockshocked]

On “This Side of Paradise”

Watching the original Star Trek many decades after it aired, I cannot help but feel as though the conclusions I draw from certain lines, scenes, and even entire episodes must not be exactly as initially intended. Despite the caginess, both in canon and in external commentary, that Roddenberry and others employ in their discussions of the nature of Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock’s relationship, and the subtext often burgeoning on text especially to a gay viewer, Spock’s perceived gayness extends beyond his ambiguous relationship with his Captain. Many of the cues that might cause a gay viewer to feel reflected by Spock come via the quirks of his Vulcan nature.

One episode which deals particularly with Spock’s internal conflict vis a vis his mixed heritage is “This Side of Paradise,” the 24th episode of the first season. Spock falls under the influence of alien spores that cause him to break down in what appears to be immense pain, before he confesses his love to a woman named Leila Kalomi, whose love for him had been unrequited for six years. Spock spends the majority of the episode under the influence of these spores, canoodling with Kalomi and giggling while hanging from a tree branch, until Kirk roughly snaps him out of it and the stoic science officer returns to himself. The spores appear to render their hosts relaxed, blissful, and dazed, an effect which can be undone through displays of strong negative emotion.

The most striking result of his time spent under the influence is the melancholy that seems to overtake him once the effect is broken. Once he has his bearings and realizes that Kirk has intentionally riled him so that the spores lose their hold, the first thing he says is:

SPOCK: The spores. They're gone. I don't belong anymore.

In the context of the episode, “belonging” is the eerie, almost cult-like description for one under the influence of the spores. Taken at face value, Spock’s comment is merely an observation that he is no longer being affected by them; Spock often makes somewhat banal comments seemingly for the benefit of the audience’s comprehension. However, this one seems to carry a double meaning. Consider Spock’s heritage: half-human and half-Vulcan, Spock constantly finds himself torn between two clashing cultures, truly “belonging” to neither. A substance that enables his full emotionality, effectively tipping the delicately balanced scales of his identity, provides a sort of relief. With the negation of its effects comes a return to the inner turmoil he experiences every moment of every day.

Spock felt like he belonged when he was able to feel and express romantic love for a woman. A simple reading of this might be that the ability to process emotion gave Spock a sense of belonging, but there is once again another, deeper analysis to be made. The assumption that gay couples would likely be commonplace by the 23rd century aside, the fact remains that the show was produced in the 1960s and there are no canon gay couples to be found. Therefore, it is possible to work within a metric where one might have a reason to remain closeted. If we approach Spock as a closeted gay man, then the female object of his affections becomes a key element in his feeling of “belonging.”

In typical Star Trek fashion, the exact effect produced by the spores is never elucidated. The implication seems to be that it provides some lowering of inhibitions and propensity for leisure. However, the spores could also be seen as pushing their hosts to pursue their ideal lives. Doctor McCoy gets notably more Southern, his accent thickening as he walks around singing the praises of the mint julep. It seems as though, while under the influence, he pursues things that remind him of the comforts of home. 

Spock, however, has no such comforts. Instead, he becomes something he could never be: able to reciprocate the feelings of a beautiful young woman who has pined after him for years. Once the effect of the spores is broken, he must then break the news to her:

LEILA: I love you. I said that six years ago, and I can't seem to stop repeating myself. On Earth, you couldn't give anything of yourself. You couldn't even put your arms around me. We couldn't have anything together there. We couldn't have anything together anyplace else. We're happy here. [crying] I can't lose you now, Mister Spock. I can't.

SPOCK: I have a responsibility to this ship, to that man on the Bridge. I am what I am, Leila, and if there are self-made purgatories, then we all have to live in them. Mine can be no worse than someone else's.

Spock’s response is cool, as we have come to expect from him, but notably more candid that most of his observations about his own experiences. He starts by claiming a responsibility to not only the Enterprise, but to Kirk himself. This could be a simple declaration of loyalty to his captain, as it would almost certainly appear to Kalomi, or an allusion to some repressed feelings that would only register to him. His next line, however, carries some serious weight. “I am what I am” refers to his Vulcan heritage, but as is often the case, it could also easily be in reference to his own homosexuality. Either way, he is explaining why he is incapable of loving Kalomi; the difference is whether he is incapable of love at all, or of love for a woman. His “self-made purgatory” is both his entrapment between his Vulcan and human halves, and his repression of his sexuality. 

Spock rarely speaks about his mixed heritage and the internal conflict it causes him, just as he rarely speaks of his own emotions at all, but it takes its toll on him. Briefly finding relief from this conflict only makes the return to it that much more difficult, causing him to be even more terse than usual. Kirk even points out that Spock has been quiet about the experience:

KIRK: We haven't heard much from you about Omicron Ceti III, Mr. Spock.

SPOCK: I have little to say about it, Captain, except that for the first time in my life I was happy.

Spock has spent his entire life trying and failing to completely repress his human emotions in an attempt to become fully Vulcan. When he finally has the chance to experience them in full, he breaks down in pain at the wave of repressed emotions before he finally experiences untainted joy “for the first time.” However, that is not his authentic self either. Neither a logical Vulcan nor an emotional human, he is eternally trapped between worlds, and was only able to find joy in a brief and unattainable fantasy. He is so discontent with his own nature that he cannot be happy as he is.

To a closeted viewer, this final line of the episode, delivered as dryly as always, is heartbreaking. The first time in Spock’s life that he was happy was when he ignored an integral part of himself that brought him pain in order to live a moment of a life that he could never have. To those who have repressed their sexuality, convincing themselves that they felt attraction to those of another sex because it was what would make them belong, watching Spock find joy in this fantasy only to be crushed when he must return to reality is painfully familiar. 

Analysis of Spock and Kirk’s relationship is generally sufficient to read them as a gay couple. When Spock is viewed in isolation, however, he still comes across as gay to many viewers. Spock’s innate perceived gayness relies not on his attraction to men, but on his repression of his true self and of the emotions that he cannot bring himself to face. While chalked up by the show to his half-Vulcan heritage, it still strikes a chord in a very human gay viewer. 

#star trek #tos #this side of paradise #analysis #spock #gay spock #spirk #mine #yes this is a paper i wrote for fun

[firelxdykatara]

I’m just really confused as to where this idea that Zuko is gaycoded came from. Like people are allowed to have that headcanon but I don’t understand where people are coming from when they try and claim that he was undisputedly gaycoded and trying to deny it is homophobic when he’s only ever shown romantic interest in women.

I made a pretty long post on the topic a while back, but the ultimate gist of it is this: there are a lot of elements of Zuko's status as an abuse victim and trauma survivor that resonate with queer folks. This is understandable and completely fine! However, there are some parts of the fandom who have taken that to the other extreme and will now insist that those elements are uniquely queer, and that they can only be read as some sort of veiled gay/coming out narrative, even though that doesn't make much sense since there is no part of Zuko's narrative which is unique to any sort of queer experience.

I think the problem really does stem from two things being conflated--Zuko's history of abuse and trauma, and trauma&abuse being something a lot of queer people have experienced. I suspect it goes something like 'I see a lot of myself in Zuko, and I was abused for being gay, therefore Zuko must be gay too in order to have had similar experiences.' This can then lead to feeling dismissed or invalidated when other people point out that those experiences are not unique to being queer--but on the flip side, abuse victims and trauma survivors whose abuse&trauma do not stem from queerness (even if they are queer themselves) can feel invalidated and dismissed by the implication that their trauma must be connected to their queerness or it isn't valid.

This is also where the 'people don't actually know what gay coded means' part comes in, and I realize now that I didn't actually get into what gay coding (and queer coding in general) actually means, since I was so hung up on pointing out how Zuko doesn't really fit the mold. (And the few elements that exist which could be said to count are because of the 'villains historically get queer coded bc Hays Code era' thing and mostly occur in Book 1, not because of how he acts as an abuse&trauma survivor.)

Under a cut because I kind of go on a tangent about gay/queer coding, but I swear I get back to the point eventually.

Queer coding (and it is notable that, with respect to Zuko, it is almost always framed as 'he couldn't possibly be attracted to girls', rather than 'he could be attracted to boys as well as girls' in these discussions, for... no real discernible reason, but I'll get into that in a bit) is the practice of giving characters 'stereotypically queer' traits and characteristics to 'slide them under the radar' in an era where having explicitly queer characters on screen was not allowed, unless they were evil or otherwise narratively punished for their queerness. (See: the extant history of villains being queer-coded, because if they were Evil then it was ok to make them 'look gay', since the story wasn't going to be rewarding their queerness and making audiences think it was in any way OK.) This is thanks to the Motion Picture Production Code (colloquially and more popularly known as the Hays Code), which was a set of guidelines which movies coming out of any major studio had to adhere to in order to be slated for public release and lasted from the early 1930s until it was finally abandoned in the late 60s.

The Hays Code essentially existed to ensure that the content of major motion pictures would not 'lower the moral standards' of the viewing public. It didn't just have to do with queerness--cursing was heavily monitored, sex outside of marriage was not allowed to be seen as desirable or tittilating, miscegenation was not allowed (most specifically interracial relationships between black and white people), criminals had to be punished lest the audience think that it was ok to be gay and do crime, etc. Since same-sex relations fell under 'sexual perversion', they could not be shown unless the 'perversion' were punished in some way. (This is also the origin of the Bury Your Gays trope, another term that is widely misunderstood and misapplied today.) To get around this, queer coding became the practice by which movies and television could depict queer people but not really, and it also became customary to give villains this coding even more overtly, since they would get punished by the end of the film or series anyway and there was nothing to lose by making them flamboyant and racy/overly sexual/promiscuous.

Over time, this practice of making villains flamboyant, sexually aggressive, &etc became somewhat separated from its origins in queer coding, by which I mean that these traits and tropes became the go-to for villains even when the creator had no real intention of making them seem queer. This is how you generally get unintentional queer-coding--because these traits that have been given to villains for decades have roots in coding, but people tend to go right to them when it comes to creating their villains without considering where they came from.

Even after the Hays Code was abandoned, the sentiments and practices remained. Having queer characters who weren't punished by the narrative for being queer was exceptionally rare, and it really isn't until the last fifteen or so years that we've seen any pushback against that. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is famous for being one of the first shows on primetime television to feature an explicitly gay relationship on-screen, and that relationship ended in one of the most painful instances of Bury Your Gays that I have ever personally witnessed. (Something that, fourteen years later, The 100 would visually and textually reference with Lexa's death. Getting hit by a bullet intended for someone else after a night of finally getting to be happy and have sex with her s/o? It wasn't remotely subtle. I don't even like Clexa, but that was incredibly rough to witness.)

However, bringing this back to Zuko, he really doesn't fit the criteria for queer coding for a number of reasons. First of all, no one behind the scenes (mostly a bunch of cishet men) was at all intending to include queer rep in the show. This wasn't a case where they were like 'well, we really wanted to make Zuko gay, but we couldn't get that past the censors, so here are a few winks and a nudge', because it just wasn't on their radar at all. Which makes sense--it wasn't on most radars in that era of children's programming. This isn't really an indictment, it's just a fact of the time--in the mid/late 00s, no one was really thinking about putting queer characters in children's cartoons. People were barely beginning to include them in more teen- and adult-oriented television and movies. It just wasn't something that a couple of straight men, who were creating a fantasy series aimed at young kids, were going to think about.

What few instances you can point to from the series where Zuko might be considered to exhibit coding largely happen in Book 1, when he was a villain, because the writers were drawing from typically villainous traits that had historically come from queer coding villains and had since passed into common usage as villainous traits. But they weren't done with any intention of making it seem like Zuko might be attracted to boys.

And, again, what people actually point to as 'evidence' of Zuko being queer-coded--his awkwardness on his date with Jin and his confrontation with Ozai being the big ones I can think of off the top of my head--are actually just... traits that come from his history of trauma and abuse.

As I said in that old post:

making [zuko’s confrontation of ozai] about zuko being gay and rejecting ozai’s homophobia, rather than zuko learning fundamental truths about the world and about his home and about how there was something deeply wrong with his nation that needed to be fixed in order for the world to heal (and, no, ‘homophobia’ is not the answer to ‘what is wrong with the fire nation’, i’m still fucking pissed at bryke about that), misses the entire point of his character arc. this is the culmination of zuko realizing that he should never have had to earn his father’s love, because that should have been unconditional from the start. this is zuko realizing that he was not at fault for his father’s abuse--that speaking out of turn in a war meeting in no way justified fighting a duel with a child.

is that first realization (that a parent’s love should be unconditional, and if it isn’t, then that is the parent’s fault and not the child’s) something that queer kids in homophobic households/families can relate to? of course it is. but it’s also something that every other abused kid, straight kids and even queer kids who were abused for other reasons before they even knew they were anything other than cishet, can relate to as well. in that respect, it is not a uniquely queer experience, nor is it a uniquely queer story, and zuko not being attracted to girls (which is what a lot of it seems to boil down to, at the end of the day--cutting down zuko’s potential ships so that only zukka and a few far more niche ships are left standing) is not necessary to his character arc. nor does it particularly make sense.

And, regarding his date with Jin:

(and before anyone brings up his date with jin--a) he enjoyed it when she kissed him, and b) he was a traumatized, abused child going out on a first date. of course he was fucking awkward. have you ever met a teenage boy????)

Zuko is socially awkward and maladjusted because he was abused by his father as a child and has trouble relating to people as a result. He was heavily traumatized and brutally physically injured as a teenager, and it took him years to begin to truly recover from the scars that left on his psyche (and it's highly likely, despite the strides he made in canon, that he has a long way to go, post series; it's such a pity that we never got any continuation comics >.>). He was not abused for being gay or queer--he was abused because his father believed he was weak, and part of Zuko's journey was realizing that his father's perception of strength was flawed at its core. That his entire nation had rotted from the inside out, and the regime needed to be changed in order for the world--including his people--to begin to heal.

That could be commingled with a coming out narrative, which is completely fine for headcanons (although I personally prefer not to, because, again, we have more than enough queer trauma already), but it simply doesn't exist in canon. Zuko was not abused or traumatized for being queer, and his confrontation with Ozai was not about him coming out or realizing any fundamental truth about himself--it was about realizing something fundamental about his father and his nation, and making the choice to leave them behind so that he could help the Avatar grow stronger and force things to change when he got back.

TL;DR: at the end of the day, none of the traits, scenes, or behavior Zuko exhibits which shippers tend to use to claim he was gay-coded are actually evidence of coding--they aren't uniquely queer experiences, as they stem from abuse that was not related in any way to his sexuality, and they are experiences that any kid who suffered similar abuse or trauma could recognize and resonate with. (Including straight kids, and queer kids who were abused for any reason other than their identity.) And, finally, Zuko can be queer without erasing or invalidating his canon attraction to girls, and it's endlessly frustrating that the 'Zuko is gay-coded' crowd refuses to acknowledge that.

#atla #zuko #on queer coding #atla fandom salt #salt for ts #asked #mudbend