Tumgik
#critical analysis actually requires analysis. not just criticism.
utilitycaster · 2 days
Text
You know what's interesting to watch is that I feel like a lot of people have very thoughtfully and maturely moved away from "I don't like this specific character/ship/fictional work and here's a reason why it's problematic" but we still have a lot of "if you don't like this specific character/ship/fictional it's problematic" floating around (and the more extreme example, "everyone who dislikes this one specific thing is a bigot") and the latter is actually way dumber. Like, it is valid, in fact, to dislike a specific work because it has unfortunate implications; the issue is just that analysis cannot simply stop there. It is rather less valid to say "if you don't like this one specific female character you are a misogynist;" that definitely requires a lot of more involved analysis into what specifically their criticisms are, patterns in their preferences, and even then, you are only basing this on internet mannerisms; I think someone who has no favorite characters who are women is unlikely to be deeply involved in feminist causes irl, but this is technically possible, and it's very easy to find the reverse case of people who are terrible to real women and champion fictional ones.
55 notes · View notes
pallases · 1 year
Text
guys im actually really nervous abt taking an english class next semester 😭 im so out of practice i feel like stem has rotted my brain*
4 notes · View notes
caraphernellie · 1 month
Text
wip !! here's a moodboard <3
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
fake happy // e.w.
ellie williams is a freak, and that's just a fact. others deemed that she is not to be trusted from the moment she was born. in a world where everything is real and raw, it's hard to lie. but ellie doesn't quite fit into the category of 'real and raw.'
everybody's moods are displayed above their heads like little emoticons - there's no fake, there's no lies, there's simply emotion. except for ellie. nobody could figure out why ellie's feelings were not displayed. she'd been seen by every doctor, every specialist, every psychiatrist, and psychologist, and none of them knew what could cause this. and so an assumption was made that she doesn't feel anything.
nobody knows how she feels at any given moment, and in a world where people are spoiled with honesty, nobody wants to believe ellie isn't dishonest. nobody wants to be played by her.
somehow surviving life up to college without ever even having a friend, ellie's accepted that she's in for a lonely life. the only person she has is joel, and well, even he can be misunderstanding at times.
and ellie's sure her professor must hate her, because he partnered her for a project with the one girl who is always happy, without fail. the girl whose mood above her head is always, always, always a yellow smiley face. ellie would even say she's jealous, that she hates you, but she can't help but feel herself smiling whenever you're around. you're like a ray of sunshine. if sunshine knew how to lie.
ok ok ok so. i feel a little bit crazy and like nobody is going to like this fic but i kind of want to write it. this is just me posting to see if anyone actually would read it 😭 not like that would motivate/demotivate me but idk. im curious paramore inspired fics first of all, the best ones. secondly, i feel like maybe years ago i read a fic with a similar premise which inspired this but it's also mainly inspired by the music video for fake happy by paramore. and also, i always write fics about reader having the 'i can fix her' mentality for ellie so this time it's ellie saying 'i can fix her' about reader. this one would be for my fellow sad/anxious girlies who love big hurt/comfort vibes. it would be an angsty ride but not without lots of comfort :D two people who are very sad falling in love and helping each other with their issues? i think yes. this fic would be very? angst and hurt/comfort and some fluff idk if there'd be smut ... anyway this was more a way for me to brainstorm for the idea (by making the moodboard and blurb) i have yet to do literally any plotting or writing for it..
from the river to the sea, palestine will be free 🇵🇸 i stand with palestine, and for that reason, i require everyone on my blog to keep themselves educated and participating in the fight for palestine's freedom. here are some links to educate yourself- 1, 2, 3. the last of us part 2 in particular is a game with zionist background. do not support neil druckmann by buying any of the games and please continue to engage in your media with critical analysis!! stay educated. !!! i urge you to participate in the global strike for palestine from february 18th - 25th !!!
Tumblr media
155 notes · View notes
braxiations · 20 days
Text
What is Hylics Canon? - The Accretion
Preamble/Disclaimer
Hi! This post will be a bit different from my previous analysis and theory posts. Unlike those, I'm going to be doing very little theorizing or speculating -- at least, that's not my primary goal. What I want to do today is go over everything we know about "The Accretion," a vague event referred to numerous times throughout Hylics 2. Additionally, I'll try to draw some conclusions about what I think is Mason's authorial intent with the Accretion. I'll do my best to walk through my logic and view multiple sides, and whenever I speculate or make a stretch I'll try and be clear about it.
Before we start, I want to apologize for if I come off as rude or dismissive of certain headcanons or interpretations. Later on I'll be tackling 3 of the main theories I've seen floated around and I intended to be critical and clear when I think they contradict the established canon. However, I do not mean to invalidate these interpretations. Hylics' lore is very interpretive and vague and "canon" isn't something that needs to be strictly abided to. If your interpretation conflicts with what I've shown here, that's perfectly ok!
Basically, my post is for people who either care about adhering to canon or are just curious as to what evidence there is. That being said, let's jump in!
The Basics
Tumblr media
"Gibby! Emerge from that vessel. The Hylemxylem was a failure. Only now does the Accretion's long dark age begin to subside." This dialogue, said by Wayne to Gibby before the final battle, is perhaps the only piece of required dialogue referencing the Accretion. This paints the Accretion as the cause of a "dark age," although it's unclear what this entails, which the Hylemxylem threatens to begin again. Many have taken this to indicate that the Hylemxylem caused the Accretion, but there isn't substantial evidence for or against this. It's certainly a valid possibility.
Tumblr media
"Back when the accretion hit, the strongest gesture was buried." This line, spoken by one of the Waynes at Waynehouse is one of many indications that the Accretion was an event. Many other pieces of dialogue have wording that confirms this, this is just the first the player is likely to encounter. I bring this up to dispel the idea that "the Accretion" could be the name of the dark age itself.
This is also the first instance we see of the Accretion being claimed to "bury" things. This might indicate that certain objects either hit the ground with such tremendous force that they sank deep in. Alternatively, the Accretion might have actually produced a layer of matter that buried objects on the surface.
Known buried objects: - Disthlarn Moon. (New Muldul NPC: "When the Accretion buried the sage's great ship, Disthlarn Moon, my wife and I were stranded here on the surface.) - The Bombo-Genesis monitor (The TV Wayne and various other NPCs. The monitor is in Disthlarn Moon so this makes sense.) - The labyrinth ("The key is ancient. Whatever door it unlocks is likely deep underground, buried in the Accretion." Said by Smuldunde, referring to a key that unlocks a door in the labyrinth.)
You'll notice that many of the things explicitly listed as buried in the Accretion are specifically those that belong to the Sages. This makes sense given what we'll discuss in the next section.
Tumblr media
"A great gesture may oppose Gibby. But accretions place it beyond our reach, and embolden his agents as they seek reconstitution." The Sage of Accretions gives this line, and like their name it confirms that the Accretion is just a singular instance of an accretion, and in fact there have been multiple. The Accretion, denoted by "the" and also capitalized (at least by me, the in-game dialogue is inconsistent) may have just been a particularly damaging one.
Given that a Sage of Accretions exists, they're likely not all catastrophic and could be somewhat akin to weather event. They happen from time to time and aren't necessarily bad, but under particular conditions or if emerging suddenly, they can be a disaster. These are all just assumptions though. Accretions could happen over massive spans of time and the Accretion is only referred to as such due to being the most recent. As we know that the "great gesture" referred to here was buried in the Accretion, the fact that multiple accretions place it beyond their reach may indicate that smaller accretions have occurred since. This is all just speculation.
The Age of Sages
Tumblr media
"Our empire was undone by a sudden accretion. Only the cabinets recall its grandeur now." This line, spoken by the Sage of Monitors deep beneath Viewax's Edifice first establishes an "Empire of the Sages" and the idea that that empire was undone by the Accretion. The Empire of Sages is also referred to by Pongorma and Gibby. Pongorma specifically refers to Disthlarn Moon as a "remnant" of their empire. This indicates rather clearly that the "Age of Sages" as I've decided to call it was specifically ended by the Accretion, which cast the labyrinth and Disthlarn Moon deep into the subterranean.
Tumblr media
"The surviving sages hid themselves, one in Viewax's edifice, another under the fortress at Foglast, and a third in those halls which recently held this ship." This line from an NPC within Disthlarn Moon directly implies that many Sages perished in the Accretion. The mention of three survivors is interesting in regard to the other three Sages we know from Hylics 1. This is something we'll talk about later in the theory section.
This provides us a pretty solid layout of events. For a time, the Sages led a prosperous empire. However, a sudden accretion ended this era of prosperity, plunging society into a dark age.
The Cabinets
An often overlooked detail is that the arcade cabinets provide some of our only looks at the world of Hylics before the Accretion. The cabinets can be presumed to have been built by the Sages, given that they protect items like the deep key that corresponds to the Sage's labyrinth. We see many within Viewax's Edifice in complete disrepair, with only one functional, as one might expect from ancient machines caught in a catastrophe.
Tumblr media
The Sage of Monitors also remarks that "only the cabinets recall its [their empire's] grandeur now." This may suggest that the games within the cabinets are actually designed to tell important stories of the Sage's empire or hold information. This would make sense given the story we see play out, which follows a Wayne transforming into the Sage of Satellites. It's not a stretch to suggest that the Sages chose to immortalize the ascendance of one of their own.
Tumblr media
With this in mind, we can use what's seen in the cabinets to date certain things to the pre-Accretion times.
A flag bears the image of Odozeir and Gibby, suggesting they're not only older than the Accretion but were even allied back then.
Tumblr media
The, or a Hylemxylem, seen in the background. It resembles the reconstituted Hylemxylem in Hylics 2. This is probably the previous Hylemxylem before it grew into the Moon seen in H1.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
A structure resembling the Waynehouse. Notice the egg pod in the basement, the bathroom, the bedroom, and the tv.
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
At least one Wayne (the player aka "Sat-Wayne.")
Poolmen
Coutures
Truculents
Numerous kinds of airships
Various other enemies
The labyrinth and drill site also indicate what species existed before the Accretion, albeit less directly. Tyros are depicted in numerous statues in the maze, and a tyro in the drill site seems to refer to a herd of galliforms as being pre-Accretion (although this dialogue is kind of vague and could refer to the labyrinth itself.) The labyrinth also has a pool hooked up to the Afterlife, implying that it existed back then too. There are also numerous enemies found inside the labyrinth which one could assume were sealed down there in the Accretion, but they may have crept in through breaches in the structure or other means. I'm not comfortable saying they're definitively pre-Accretion, although I won't disregard the possibility.
There is another character heavily implied to have lived before the Accretion, Pongorma.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
This dialogue amounts to show us that Pongorma lived during the Sage's rule, and I believe we've successfully concluded earlier that the Accretion is what ended their empire. Thus, Pongorma is pre-Accretion. This fits in well with his introduction in the first game: we find him sealed away within a vault "through long ages."
Tumblr media
The Three Main Theories / When Did it Happen??
Okay, so this is the real meat of this discussion. I'm going to lay out the three main theories I've seen discussed and go over evidence for and against each of them. I'll also be making the case for what I personally believe to be the canon intent of Mason lindroth.
Theory #1 - The Human Extinction theory: It is widely accepted that the world of Hylics is a post-human one, following some kind of apocalypse that wiped out humanity. This theory suggests that the Accretion is the event that caused this. Note that some believe humanity didn't necessarily die, but rather that they were transformed or evolved. Regardless, this event is what caused humanity to stop being human, which is really the only thing we can prove or disprove. I'm going to say "extinction" for simplicity.
Theory #2 - The Moon Crash theory: This is the only theory of the three that actually proposes a cause for the Accretion, being the crashing of the Moon at the end of Hylics 1. This theory states that, after Wayne's crew killed Gibby and trashed the Moon, it crashed into the planet, causing the Accretion.
Theory #3 - The Other Apocalypse theory: This theory is kind of vanilla compared to the other two. It just states that the Accretion happened before Hylics 1 (and presumably long after the extinction of humanity if you believe that to have also happened.) Because this theory says so little definitive about the Accretion, it's sort of the default if the other theories are disproven. As a result, it's the theory I personally subscribe to, and I will explain why below.
This is where we get into harsh, potentially theory-"disproving" territory, and I want to again reiterate that I don't intend to invalidate anyone's personal interpretations, I'm just speaking in terms of what the games show us and what I think to be canon. That being said...
The easiest of these theories to """disprove""" is the Human Extinction theory. This comes from the views of the pre-Accretion world given to us by the cabinets. The world depicted in the Accretion is very Hylics-y, still comprised of clay, having Hylics-age species, and no traces of human civilization or typical Earthen life. Even if the world and the people in it underwent some kind of transformation and the Sages and Pongorma were originally human, this directly shows that clay species and landscapes existed pre-Accretion. There are a few explanations for this, hence why I put "disprove" in quotations. One could argue that only parts of the world were clay'd at this point, or maybe the scenes depicted in the cabinets have changed over time as did the world. I personally find these explanations kind of contrived (the former would make the Accretion seem nearly redundant if the world is already transforming, and the second would make it incredibly strange for the cabinets to "recall" events if they can't recall them accurately.) There's also the language in which the Accretion and its ensuing dark age is described. Wayne calls it a dark age, and Gibby seeks to return to the Age of Sages' grandeur by forging a new zone. The "dark age" in this theory wouldn't just be a more stable society, it would be a completely different world that, to put it simply, none of the characters we know would fit into. It seems especially odd for Gibby to want a return to this sort of world when the fortress he launched transformed the inhabitants into surreal creatures. Personally, I find the Human Extinction theory to be uncompelling. While it can't be outright, factually disproven, explanations for it require inelegant contrivances. There isn't really any evidence for it either, and in my opinion it removes depth from the world's history.
Now we'll discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the Moon Crash and Other Apocalypse theories. First, I'll give what (to my knowledge) is the main evidence for the Moon Crash theory. As Oxford Dictionary defines it, "Accretion" can have a few definitions, but two are primarily relevant to us. 1. the process of growth or increase, typically by the gradual accumulation of additional layers or matter. 2. the coming together and cohesion of matter under the influence of gravitation to form larger bodies. The second definition, astronomical in nature, is particularly intriguing and relevant, especially with Hylics' themes of moons. This brings light to the idea that maybe the Moon crashing into the planet is what caused the Accretion.
Tumblr media
"Pongorma, you witnessed the empire of the Sages." Here, Gibby speaks directly to Pongorma as someone who witnessed the empire of Sages, something we previously established ended at the Accretion. This heavily implies --but again does not directly confirm-- that the other characters didn't see the empire. Why would Gibby call out Pongorma specifically if what he was saying applied to everyone? And, if the gang indirectly caused the Accretion, how could they have not witnessed the time before it? There's also the general language with which the Accretion is spoken of. As previously mentioned, Wayne says the Accretion caused a "long dark age," and Smuldunde says that the labyrinth must be "ancient." The monitor containing bombo-genesis is also called the "monitor of the ancients," indicating that the Sages must be viewed as ancient too. While Hylician lifespans and therefore general scale of time may be amplified compared to ours if that was the case we would expect adjectives such as "long" and "ancient" to be equally stretched. However, there's no indication that such timespans have passed since Hylics 1. It'd be especially odd to refer to a time as ancient if most people were alive for it. While Pongorma certainly was, his age is portrayed as an exception. Although I understand that this is ephemeral, the general vibe is that only a few years have passed (or whatever the equivalent is to Hylicians.)
Tumblr media Tumblr media
The only evidence against the Other Apocalypse theory I can gather is how the remaining Sages are described. One inhabitant of Disthlarn Moon says "The surviving sages hid themselves," going on to describe the locations they're found in. Another says "Tokens from the three sages." This could be taken to say that only three Sages are currently alive, which would imply that the Sage of Computers, Brains, and Monitors from the first game have since perished. Otherwise, there'd be six. I would like to counter this with two possible explanations. For one, this dialogue exists specifically to tell the player where to find the Sages. If the NPC also said "another sage can be found in the hall of deadly statues," players would be confused because that location doesn't exist in this game. It'd defeat the purpose of this dialogue in the first place. Secondly, we know that the Hylics 1 and Hylics 2 locations are different, evidenced by Somsnosa's dialogue about moving away from her island home from the first game. It'd make sense for the NPCs to not be discussing Sages from distant lands. If you were talking about a natural disaster in your country that only left 3 politicians alive, no one would correct you saying "actually, there are plenty others in other countries!" That's simply not what you're talking about. It's even possible that the Accretion wasn't a worldwide event. The Hylics 1 location could've been unscathed and thus be equally irrelevant.
Conclusion
An analysis of all the dialogue referencing the Accretion brings us to a few conclusions I find to be rather sound.
The Accretion was a particularly sudden or strong instance of an event called an accretion. This particular accretion buried numerous objects like the labyrinth and Disthlarn Moon, as well as ending the empire of Sages and plummeting the Hylics 2 location (and possibly others) into a long dark age. "Only the cabinets recall its grandeur now." We know that Pongorma, Gibby, and Odozeir witnessed the time before the Accretion, and it seems likely that Wayne, Somsnosa, and Dedusmuln did not. As indicated by the cabinets, the previous Hylemxylem (likely the one that later became the moon) existed before the Accretion. The labyrinth shows us that so did the Afterlife. The pre-Accretion world is shown by the cabinets to be similar to the current one, still made of clay and containing many of the same species. Given the general language in which it's discussed, it's likely that the Accretion occurred before the events of either games. Less catastrophic accretions may have occurred since the large one, further burying Disthlarn Moon, but this is unclear.
I hope you all enjoyed this analysis! It was tough to write because basically everything is vague, and with this vagueness, it's tough to not rope in a billion other subjects and ideas. I ended up leaving out quite a few things because otherwise, it would've come out even longer and more bloated than it already is. I might make a follow up post containing every piece of dialogue I could find about the Accretion, the Sages, and their associated artifacts, just in case there's something significant I missed.
115 notes · View notes
suchawrathfullamb · 4 months
Text
I love how anti-shippers are like "we are just trying to analyze without fantasies!! we like being neutral and REAL" as if the fucking creator of the show and both fucking actors haven't confirmed that hannigram is canon and that the cliff fall was not a rejection but will realizing how much he loved it and knew he would never go back to his normal life. Hugh and Fuller literally SAID that.
You're just homophobic. And media illiterate. "How am I homophobic, I am queer!!" no offense but unless you are a child, this sounds incredibly dense, one does not exclude the other.
Society's pervasive norms and biases can influence anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This can happen without them fully realizing it, as it's deeply ingrained in societal structures.
And it becomes homophobic when individuals dismiss or invalidate these representations simply because they don't conform to explicit heterosexual norms. This dismissal disregards the complexities and nuances embedded within media portrayals of queer relationships, often due to societal constraints or censorship inhibiting the full portrayal of LGBTQ+ narratives. It also fails to acknowledge the creative ways in which creators navigate these limitations to depict queer relationships, resorting to subtleties, metaphors, or implicit cues.
It also sounds dense when you say "I'm queer, there's no heteronormativity for me!!"
Even individuals within the LGBTQ+ community can inadvertently perpetuate heteronormative beliefs due to the overwhelming presence and reinforcement of these norms in society.
Heteronormativity's pervasive influence can cause individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, to conform to these expectations, often without conscious awareness, due to societal conditioning and normalization.
It is insane that you'd aim at being a "source of critical analysis" as if shippers aren't actually a reliable source when you are incredibly ignorant when it comes to media.
You claim Hannigram is "ambiguous", when it is not.
Understanding media literacy involves recognizing the limitations imposed by societal norms, censorship, or heteronormativity on how queer relationships are depicted in media. It requires the ability to interpret and appreciate the subtleties and metaphors employed to convey these relationships, acknowledging that the absence of explicit representation doesn't negate the validity or importance of the queer narrative being portrayed.
Why insist that something isn't real/canon if it's already confirmed exhaustively by those who made the show? It's a losing game, and you look like a crazy conspiracy theorist trying to prove the Earth is flat.
125 notes · View notes
elodieunderglass · 6 months
Note
Referring to you "anxieties of the culture" horror tropes post, I just watched the 1990 adaptation of IT and this comes less than a month after watching both Kolchak movies & starting the TV show. What do you think it was about the late-70s/early-80s that led to "the killer is a monster that hibernates for a set number of years before returning to perform the killings again, as a grim echo of the past, and it's up to the heroes to stop it now before it rears its ugly head again"? There's gotta be some "pass-the-buck" crisis that PEAKED in that time period, something that was a long time coming before that and may or may not have continued since. I don't think it's climate change, that wasn't really at Critical Mass yet until the HFC hairspray crisis of the mid-80s. Your thoughts?
(In reference to this post: https://www.tumblr.com/elodieunderglass/729604545735458816)
Oh that is SO interesting! I also like the Horrors of the Past that Re-Emerge. You get them in fantasy too. To some extent they’re quite nice, because they displace responsibility, allowing the heroes to grapple with something distanced. necromantically resurrected Zombie Nazis will always be a more appealing enemy, for a broad market, than your present-day actual real life QAnon uncle. You can blow up an Ancient Horror as much as you like, can’t you? You don’t need to worry about the tricky present-day political circumstances that birthed the serial killer if it’s actually an ancient time-travelling monster. Monsters are often articulated and described and used because they are “safe” in this way: a displaced thing that can be used. Separate from us in species, appearance, home planet, history of origin, motives, spacetime - the farther they are from us and our shared background, the more justifiable it is to nuke them from orbit, to make a splashy movie.
HOWEVER. As I said in that post - “horror reflects social anxieties” is a SUPER well-described piece of media study and you can read proper writing about that anywhere. I encourage you to seek it out! They say it much better than I do.
I also said in that post that I, myself, don’t watch horror/movies/film. It isn’t due to contempt for the genre, or fear of the content - I just can’t get into it or get immersed, which defeats the point of an immersive genre meant to provoke response. (For example, despite being explicitly told that I would love Stranger Things Season 4 and that I was required to write fic about it for a friend, I gave out at the beginning of season 2; despite being really fond of Welcome to Night Vale at a formative time of my life, I dropped out before StrexCorp. And those are things I generally liked, wanted to consume, and knew I would enjoy! It’s a me problem, and I’m not bothered by it. I am TOO BUSY.)
That’s just to say that I could spitball some thoughts, but I’d be out of my depth.
But here’s an idea. A very small minority of people in the notes took offence to me having meta thoughts about horror when I don’t consume the genre - and worse, saying them out loud, while also openly admitting that I’m out of my depth and would prefer an expert to say it better. “YOU are a COWARD,” they say. “The audacity of commenting on a trend in a genre that you don’t even watch.” “You complain so much but don’t even watch these films” “imagine writing all this with such a bad attitude about horror.” etc.
I think those people have effectively volunteered to write you an essay. They clearly have the horror-consuming chops! Perhaps not the reading comprehension … or analysis skills… but they definitely watch a lot more horror media than I do, so why not give them a crack at it? (This is jokes, don’t bother them.)
Alternatively - there are a lot of clever and savvy people with good takes around here, so they’re welcome to spin out some answers on this post.
127 notes · View notes
Text
Some people need to understand queer coding opens character identities and relationships up to a solid queer interpretation, but that doesn’t equal “this character 100% fits my headcanon and if you disagree you’re a [REDACTED]”
From a literary analysis perspective, as long as your interpretation is reasonably evidence-based it’s valid. As this is fandom, I’d add “sincere” to that since unlike an academic setting we get bad faith actors but that’s it.
So, to have a valid “interpretation” you have to do the work in good faith, and you have to be able point at the text to support your interpretation. If you can’t, or don’t want to, that’s a headcanon, and it’s totally fine.
“But this character is a lesbian she likes a girl!” There’s more to queerness than straight and gay. You could reasonably interpret a girl who likes another girl as plenty of different things:
Lesbian
Bi
Ace/aro and something else
Straight and closeted trans
Straight and lover is closeted trans
And so on.
So when you have an interpretation, someone might tell you, “I think this other thing.” The polite way to handle this if you don’t like it is to say “that’s so cool we can see different things in the ambiguity of art”. Maybe blocking each other if you dislike their interpretation that much.
That’s of course unless you both want a debate to further refine your understanding of the text or just like to argue or whatever. Which is fine! As long as it’s not overly bitter or whatever, it’s fun to discuss.
“So how do I know which interpretation is more canon than another?”
See, that’s the thing, you can’t. Canon is kind of shaky in the first place. The canon is just what’s written that’s recognized as true/correct text, not the way to understand it (and not what the author says is true, some people take Word of God as canon because it allows the following of one concrete interpretation instead of acknowledging multiple, but strictly speaking it is not). You can only interpret the canon.
For example, 4-komas bonuses of serialized manga are usually non-canon because they are jokes and not meant to be taken seriously as a part of the story’s text. That’s what canon actually is for, originally it’s to talk about which books are genuinely part of the Bible and which are to be deemed offshoots that shouldn’t be taken as a Catholic Church-endorsed religious text.
I guess that’s what gets people confused? That there’s no actual truth to imagined worlds, only what happens in the eyes of the beholder when they interact with art?
Because that’s what it means, canon often has nothing to do with who’s “actually a lesbian” short of them saying it directly. An onscreen wedding is said to “make a couple canon” precisely because there’s only so many ways you can interpret a wedding, but all that means is that the text says they’re together at a point in time. One way I can think of having a canon sexuality would be a canonical character sheet, or an omniscient narrator saying so, but everything less is basically an interpretation.
Note that interpretation obviousness can go from “that’s a stretch but I like it”, to “you only need eyes to see it”, they’re both still interpreting. Even a character talking sexuality technically only makes canon that they’re willing to say so, but that’s when critical thinking comes in.
If you hear a character say “I’m a married lesbian” and think “they’re just confused” with no evidence, you look like an idiot. You absolutely can argue which interpretation is more valid or likely by pointing out inconsistencies, stretched evidence, or that one interpretation has a higher volume of evidence/etc. This is how you avoid relativism and “nothing the text says matters” trolls.
Occam’s Razor is another way you might be tempted to try and determine whose thesis is stronger. This technique works through figuring out which interpretation requires the least amount of assumptions (saying something arbitrary is true as a basis) but it doesn’t make anything canon, or more interesting, it’s not a concrete sign of superiority. Just means it has stronger fondations.
However… your interpretation being stronger, more popular, better worded etc. or you thinking someone else’s is immoral, stupid, etc. doesn’t give you license to be a bully, to call people names, to dox them, dig up dirt to make them look worse, and so on and so forth. Thinking you’re right and they’re wrong does not make you above basic respect, politeness, or consequences. You’re not better than everyone else.
As a child, I used to think I was always right because I was logical, and I clearly made logical sense so there was no way for there to be a logical reasoning that arrived at a different conclusion. (Newsflash: Child me was very wrong! Sometimes multiple things can be equally valid! And even if they were not equal, that didn’t give me license to deride people publicly!)
Queer coding is by its nature interpretative. Coding is the author leaving hints about their characters by using a “code”. Some hints, almost everyone in your section of fandom might have the exact same interpretation about. Some hints might be dead obvious. Some hints might leave you overjoyed. Some hints you might ignore because they make you uncomfortable.
Some people will disagree with you about how they interpret the coding, or might even just state that they believe people have a right to interpret the canon however they want, even in ways you don’t like. That is normal. That is not a threat to your interpretation.
Don’t be a petty cunt about it.
Essentially,
Tumblr media
159 notes · View notes
balkanradfem · 8 months
Text
So I like the Barbie movie enough to do an analysis of their feminist statements and try to get to the root of the problem! They did give us a long list of expectations women worldwide are dealing with, now let's see why they're dealing with it.
1. "We have to always be extraordinary, but somehow, we're always doing it wrong. You have to be thin, but not too thin, and you can never say you want to be thin, you have to say you want to be healthy."
This issue happens because women in practice, culture, and their real-life circumstances are still effectively living as the second class citizens, and they're viewed as servants for males, and male toys. It does not benefit us to be expected to be extraordinary, and it does not benefit us to be thin. So who benefits from it?
It's a feature of a male fantasy. Male wants to posses a woman who is trained to please him in every possible way, but she also needs to be unique and different from all other women, so he feels like he has something special. Every woman already is unique and individual, but he doesn't notice such things as personality, he needs her to be special in a way that he and his male buddies will notice! So she has to be extraordinary in something that males appreciate, but also if she is better than them at it, then they no longer feel the ease of being superior, so she's doing it wrong.
Women's ideal being thin is also a male fantasy, they've managed to pavlov themselves into finding thin women the only kind of woman that is attractive, thus the requirement on women is to be thin, even when it damages our health. Men love causing trauma to women, but to see women actually visibly struggling with it, putting it into words, saying it hurts us, that makes them uncomfortable! So they shame the language, until we phrase it as something that doesn't relate to them, or that makes it seem like it's for our own good. 'Being thin for health' makes it seem like the required starvation is for our own good, and healthy, in fact.
This could not possibly happen if we were not existing in service of the other half of population. If we were respected and valuable human beings, what is bad for us would not be represented to us as an ideal.
2. "You have to have money, but can't ask for money, because that's crass. You have to be boss, but can't be mean. You have to lead, but you can't squash other people's ideas."
These are double standards that men put up for us. Even though women are paid less, own less, are globally more impoverished and have a harder time gaining money, that is no longer enough for us to completely depend on men for money; they hate this. So as a revenge for us managing to earn a bit of our own money, we now can't ask them for any, we are supposed to 'have our own', and still depend for them, but in fear, reluctant to ask or to demand. Notice how it isn't crass for a man to ask for money, it's almost expected, but for a woman, it's shameful.
Women in lead will be criticized, called out, scrutinized and humiliated like no male leader ever would be; this is to make it harder for women to feel in control and comfortable in leading positions. Male leader is supposed to step all over ideas he doesn't find useful, hell he can even squash it and take credit for it later, but if a woman doesn't acknowledge a stupid idea, she is immediately told off for 'not being a good enough leader'. Even when she's doing exactly what she's supposed to do. It's a hypocritical little game to ensure only men can comfortably lead.
3. "You're supposed to love being a mother, but don't talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people."
This is a feature of "women existing for male convenience" problem. We are supposed to be naturally loving of raising kids, because it's convenient for males to just have their children raised for them without having to do much about it, and if this is not provided to them, then women are evil for not 'loving being a mother' when it's convenient for men that women are super into that and willing to do it for free, forever, without complaining or talking about it, because men don't like to know that it's an actual effort, they feel more comfortable feeling it's a silly little chore that deserves no thought whatsoever.
Women having careers is something men have been making difficult in any way possible, because it means women are not reliant on them for resources within capitalism, but they were not able to completely prevent us having jobs, so now they're just trying to get as much use of it as possible. If women earn money, they will leech off of that money. If women have careers, well then those women should prove that they're just as convenient, nurturing, always available, running at every beck and call, and act as if they still only exist to serve and please men. If women fail to do this, they'll again be accused of being selfish, horrible people, bad mothers, bad community members, and so on and so forth. Men of course, can ignore the entire world and do their job badly, and have a violence problem, and be addicted to p*rn, and it's fine. They're not bad people regardless of how little compassion they have for anyone who isn't them.
4. "You have to answer for men's bad behavior, which is insane. But if you point that out, you're accused of complaining. You're supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you're supposed to be a part of the sisterhood."
This is an example of psychological abuse; victims are most often told they're responsible for their abuser's actions, as if they would in any situation be able to control or influence them, which they can't. But, putting that responsibility on women will make women hyperfocus on their own behaviour, on prevention of abuse, prevention of violence, which means they will go a long way trying to please men, tiptoe around them, give them insane amount of attention and care, in hope or preventing the escalation of their behaviour - and this is exactly what men want, this is what the abuse was for. To gain that devotion and attention, with the threat of violence. If women understood perfectly that men are responsible for their own behaviour, their way forward would be to hold men accountable, to lock them up and never look back. It's only in the world where women are victims of severe psychological abuse that we try to please men into not committing acts of violence. And it never works, because men love violence, and will turn to violence at every corner, even more easily and smugly knowing they can simply blame a woman for not working hard enough to prevent it.
Men expecting women to be pretty but then punishing them for being pretty is also an act of abuse; women's exterior is being judged as if our appearance is both a statement and a crime. Men can look whatever they naturally look like, and it's not a provocation, temptation, lack of solidarity or anything worth criticizing; but any way that a woman looks can be scrutinized and a ground for moral callout. The reality is that women also just look like the way they look like, and there's nothing wrong with it. There is zero moral problems with women looking pretty or not pretty. There isn't even a problem with tempting males because males are responsible for their own actions and not toddlers who have no power to resist impulses. This is a tactics for making women responsible for male behaviour - the way she looks is responsible for what I want to do to her. Complete nonsense, they just found a way to blame her for his own behaviour.
Calling women out for not being 'a part of the sisterhood' based on their appearance is very poorly concealed tactic to turn women against each other, to distract them from seeing that men are the root of the problem. Men don't turn on each other based on appearance, and it doesn't make sense for women to be assumed to do it either; in women-only communities, it doesn't matter what women look like. Whatever women look like is never a threat or an attack on other women, men are trying to play on female insecurity and frame other women as a threat to that insecurity - when the only threat all along was men, creating ideals and standards of beauty that don't correspond to reality or nature.
5. "Always be grateful, but never forget that the system is rigged, so find a way to acknowledge that, but also, always be grateful. You have to never get old."
The waves of feminism have forced the public consciousness to acknowledge that the system is rigged, but the pressure to do something about it falls completely on women, even though men created the system, rigged it, are keeping it rigged, are using violence to enforce it, and are benefiting from it. And it's convenient to them if women do nothing else but acknowledge it's rigged and stay grateful they're still allowed to live within, we're supposed to be threatened by the fact that we can easily be killed if we step out of line.
Men are threatened by older women because mature women have experience, they are no longer easily manipulated or cheated out of their gain, they will not bow down and please men like young, inexperienced women can be tricked into doing. So they convince those young women, that being old is shameful and ugly for women. They want women to stay young and susceptible, like children that they can control and not allow any agency or free will. This ensures we stay focused on being scared of time, aging and our own bodies and nature, but not of the predators who are taking our lives as a service for themselves.
6. "Never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear. Never get out of line, it's too hard, it's too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says "thank you". And it turns out, in fact, that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault."
These are lists of standards that are only applied to women, men are allowed to do all of these things and to be catered to while they're doing it. This behaviour is presented as bad only when women are doing it; if men do it, it's considered neutral, normal, intrinsic to human nature. Women being selfish inconveniences men, who are looking to exploit female selflessness. Women showing off and being proud would cut into their time showing off, they want that attention for themselves. Women getting out of line is inconvenient, since men have drawn those lines for women (those lines don't exist for men). Women showing fear makes it difficult for male predators to corner them down and have them act complacent; men don't want to see proof of victimizing women, except in private, except when they can get off on it. Never in public, never when women could potentially escape or reach for help, then it's sexist of women to be afraid.
Women getting medals, acknowledgment or gratitude again, cuts into male parade of getting all the acknowledgment, gratitude and medals, for them it doesn't make sense that they should share attention or credit with what they consider to be the 'servant class'. Men have deluded themselves into thinking they deserve more credit than women do, they don't consider us smart or capable, because they can easily oppress us, so how smart can we be? But also, they expect and demand us to be as smart and capable as necessary to resolve all of their issues, to make their life easy and pleasant and undemanding. We are forced to deal with issues they won't even look at, we often solve problems or create solution they wouldn't be able to produce, and this is when they simply take credit and convince themselves that they knew better all along. It's a 'male-delusion rules reality' kind of world for women.
After doing the biggest bulk of work on earth, creating and raising the entire human race, doing daily unpaid labour, putting up with violence, threats and constant degradation from men, after not having our interests represented by the law, education, government, economy or any other institution with any power, after spending a piece of our life being groomed and then having to spend another undoing the grooming, we are still told that everything is our fault, and that we're doing everything wrong.
This is abuse, and somebody is doing it. We are not put thru all of this for vague reasons, or for arbitrary reasons, someone is benefiting from all of it. While we're raising children, who lazes around and attaches their last names to our kids? When we're doing daily unpaid labour, who doesn't do their part? Who is staring at us while we're walking down the street, who fails to represent or even acknowledge our interests, and even our human rights? Who does the grooming, and who enables them to do it? Where do they get resources from it, who allows it to go on unchecked? How come young girls and women are regarded as such low value that we allow them to live unprotected around predators who will absolutely attempt to violate them in as many ways they can? Who fails to prevent, or arrest, or punish them?
It's not just a system of patriarchy, it'a a system of men, doing this every single day of their life. We can point the finger at the root of the problem. We have a common enemy, and they're working damn hard to keep us from realizing it.
165 notes · View notes
talkingparrotkee · 1 year
Text
Re: Namor x Shuri working from a storytelling standpoint
I stumbled on a post trying to give an analysis of how Namor and Shuri "don't work" from a storytelling standpoint. After reading several of the objectionable points made and realizing I've seen them all before, I felt like trying my own hand to exemplify why these kinds of criticisms against "Nashuri" don't actually work. I didn't directly reblog to avoid being convoluted or dogpiling, but I'll be responding to specific points throughout.
Direct quotes are in orange
Linked sources and further information are in green
Warning: This article has many layers, musings, and points. After all, it's essentially a master collection of material. If you just want to jump to a certain point, you can. There are subtitles for every point.
The Oxymoron of Improbable and "Non-Sensical" Story Writing
In the context of specifically Wakanda Forever's story and nothing else, yes: as of now, Namor and Shuri being a romantic couple does not make "sense."
However, there is no such thing as a ship that doesn't make sense from a story-writing perspective.
With your pen, reality can be shaped according to your whim, or elements can be bent to fit the mold of a given reality. Story-writing-wise, anything can happen, and anything can work with the proper execution. A good writer knows how to suspend the reader's disbelief and make the seemingly improbable, seem probable.
Namor and Shuri already have the ingredients for chemistry and compatibility as characters, which are the two essential requirements in relationships. The media they're in gives you the room to potentially address their circumstance, like reviving Ramonda (coming back to life is no foreign concept to Marvel) or building off of the concepts already there (e.g., the Ancestral Plane or "dead not meaning gone"). There are also AUs.
Saying otherwise is simply putting a cap on your creativity and demonstrates a sheer lack of imagination.
Why Do People Ship Namor And Shuri?
To answer this question, Namor and Shuri:
Have undeniably strong chemistry. That was the first thing that had people question what their relationship would be. You don't have to register this as inherently romantic, but they have chemistry nevertheless.
Deeply connected with and paralleled-equaled one another. Shuri opened up to only Namor about her true grief. With Ramonda, Shuri closed herself off. When her mask cracked, she lamented that if she sat and merely thought of T'Challa, she'd burn the world and everyone in it. The ancestral plane, tethered to her subconscious and emotional state, lit up on fire the moment N'Jadaka mentioned T'Challa. Yet... Shuri felt that she could be emotionally vulnerable to Namor, seeking solace and answers within him. She could not only think of but also talk about T'Challa with Namor. This is after Namor was, in exchange, completely vulnerable and honest to her, showing her his scars and his cherished nation. Both characters did things they wouldn't do with anyone else. They felt seen and heard by the other. That is a beautiful testament to the bond they were forging before uh, yeah.
Shuri was healing in Talokan. It is directly said in the script Shuri was better than she was before she left, but the movie let it be a "show, don't tell." We already established she was finally unveiling her grief to Namor, but Talokan was also an escape for her. Her behavior and attitude were a sheer contrast to how she was earlier in the movie. Shuri was shown beaming, marveling at, and practically glowing as Namor showed her his world. Approximately, she genuinely smiled 11 times in under 3 minutes. She forgot her worries. The tension rolled off of her and let herself go "with the breeze". Her admiration and sense of wonder made him smile too. She was taken care of, a shame that her reason of stay wasn't preferable.
Shared several purposefully intimate moments.
Tumblr media
Look hot and are hot together. Argue with a wall.
Can be the strongest, most unstoppable MCU power couple to date.
Create a rich, ethnic, and main poc ship and representation between a black African woman and a brown-skinned indigenous man. That's not common at all, and the thought of their cultures being connected, becoming one through their union is hair-twirling inducing. The idea of them creating a new era filled to the brim with their respective cultures and identities together, with them learning from one another, is very interesting.
They have many, many classic romantic-fantastical tropes poured into the batter that is their dynamic. You may have heard the comparisons to Beauty and The Beast (say thank you, Riri!), Aladdin ("I Can Show You The World"), Peter Pan and Wendy (Namor is deemed of a "Peter Pan" archetype. "Peter Pan" lost his Wendy, who is Shuri in this case. See Inframundo.) and Hades-Persephone.
The only reason why they're on opposite ends is due to outer forces and unfavorable circumstances at work. There's something interesting about their nuanced tragedy. There's a fun intrigue to find a way to "fix" what seems broken beyond repair, through understanding, love, character development, and healing.
Have a romantic anthem: Con La Brisa is a tender love song specifically created based on the underwater scene between Namor and Shuri. Foudequesh revealed that the meaning of the song was showing someone the sun for the first time.
Additionally, Namor and Shuri having romantic chemistry is not baseless. It was initially toyed with. Though they decided to characterize their relationship a bit differently and focus on grief-shared trauma, elements were still left in to give their relationship complexity. The way they relate and the things they did gave romantic undertones you can't just pluck out. Micheal P. Shawver, a colleague of Ryan Coogler and an editor of Wakanda Forever, said this much when asked about the possibility of Namor and Shuri having romance in their cards.
Tumblr media
Note how Ryan Coogler, a writer and director of both Black Panther, even apparently thinks that Namor and Shuri are not unsuited for one another even then.
You can also view the original script where Namor is described as "charmed" and "smitten" with Shuri. It's only natural people pick up the pieces purposefully left behind.
Clarification Notes
Before we jump into this, there are things you need to know.
Note 1: None of this is bashing or permission to bash Ramonda, Riri, Shuri, or Nakia. They were justified and operating under grief and dramatic irony if you look at it from every perspective. Currently, this is just clearing up Namor and Talokan's perspectives because that is what's being targetted and unceremoniously characterized, but everyone has a case for them.
Note 2: This doesn't mean you need to ship Shuri and Namor. It's explaining why some do and clearing up misconceptions about their dynamic as well as individual characters. Your takeaway should be this and valueable information on Black Panther, not a decree of what you should or shouldn't ship.
Positive and Negative Chemistry
"Positive" and "negative" chemistry is confusing terminology at best and doesn't exist at worse. It's either you have or lack chemistry. There are also two different kinds of chemistry: platonic and romantic.
When describing how characters wouldn't be compatible in a given relationship, you may be looking for the term, "compatibility".
Chemistry: magnetism, attraction, and natural connection. Compatibility: a more "logical" component: your degree of harmony and cohesiveness.
You can have chemistry without compatibility, and compatibility without chemistry. Healthy and long-lasting relationships have both.
Namor's view of Shuri
Namor does not view Shuri as an equal, despite their similarities.
Pause. Namor does view Shuri as an equal. Shuri is arguably the person he respects the most.
The idea That Namor-Talokan does not relate, respect, connect with, or even view Shuri-Wakanda as human directly goes against the meta-pillar theme of Wakanda Forever.
You said it yourself:
"these are fictional characters (who represent real-world dynamics)"
“We talked to so many experts and really made relationships with them, because there was a lot to go through,” says Beachler. “There are a lot of parallels between Africans and Latin Americans as far as the colonization of their communities and cities, the enslavement of their people, the lies that were told about their culture, the misinterpretation of their words, and the ways they were made out to look demonized in order to elevate a European country.”
Besides honoring Chadwick Boseman, motherhood, and the dead not being gone, grief, trauma, the effects of colonialism, and the connectivity between African-Mesoamerican indigenous culture are central points of the film. Namor and Shuri and by extension Talokan and Wakanda are explicitly supposed to relate and be equal to one another for this reason. You are supposed to struggle with choosing a side, and Namor is a complex antagonist or even anti-hero rather than an actual villain (An antagonist just opposes or challenges the protagonist in the context of the story, they're not inherently good or evil. Villians are inherently evil and with malice.) Their fight is supposed to feel wrong, intimate, and emotionally charged, unlike most generic action hero fights. They are natural allies, and therefore unnatural enemies.
Namor bent in ways he wouldn't have with anyone else.
This is why it's an in-fandom joke that he was whipped or smitten. What he says on his throne when waging "war", was "Máansa'ab u nej miis tin wich." Josué Maychi confirms that this means, "They passed the cat's tail in front of my face with the hope of an alliance."
"If you see cats, jaguars or panthers when they go hunting they wag their tails because it is a way of hypnotizing the prey, then that image is what happened to Namor, that someone did like that with the tail."
Namor virtually said he was hypnotized, but the Spanish and English translations didn't quite convey that cat-involved metaphor (although keeping the crux of his lament.).
Tumblr media
Namor could have killed Riri the moment she touched Talokan grounds, but he showed temporary "mercy" because of Shuri and Shuri alone. He didn't need Shuri's permission nor did he have to communicate with Shuri. Riri was in his domain, Shuri did not really have much power there, yet he treated her as if she did.
"It goes back to the point of him never seeing Shuri as human or recognizing her feelings as valid."
Two of Namor's quotes in the movie alone prove this wrong:
"I know you wanted me to spare the life of the scientist (recognizing and acknowledging what she wants), but now you see what I have to protect."
"So you can understand why I need to kill the scientist."
He didn't need to seek her approval or give her the ability to negotiate with him, yet he did and on top of that dressed her in the finest silks fit for royalty, consistently trying to convince Shuri like her opinion mattered, and that he wanted her on his side. It wasn't that he didn't "recognize her feelings as valid," he just felt that, based on how many of their lives are at stake, he couldn't risk it (Movie quote: "I cannot risk that, princess...").
He was absolutely gobsmacked when she said, "Take me instead." He wouldn't speak then, uncharacteristically breaking eye contact. When he could finally speak, he couldn't answer her directly, his voice awkwardly raised an interval and suddenly, unnecessarily, speaking with his hands.
Shuri wanted to see Talokan, and Namor, the pessimistic isolationist who never let a surfacer step foot in Talokan, immediately caved into her desire. There was no reason for him to do that and it demonstrates an immense level of trust. He also, quite literally, showed her the keys to his kingdom. He waited until she was beside him, looked to see if she was watching him, and then did his hand sign in the rock to open the "doors" to Talokan.
As writer Joe Cole said in The Movie Report panel interview, Shuri demands him to make the right choice that was yielding, and he does yield to her, which wasn't something he'd ever consider in his hundreds of years of being alive.
Namor gives his beloved mother's bracelet to Shuri
Fen was Namor's beloved mother. Her memory is something he held dear to him. The bracelet he gave not only was the last piece of her left with him, but it directly signified his birthright as king, was a priceless national object, and was made with their sacred plant's fibers.
He gives it to Shuri twice. One immediately to hold when he sees she's attracted to it, two he ties on her (after receiving her non-verbal permission, another sign of respect) for her keeping as a "gift of gratitude."
Namor saw his mother in Shuri
Namor saw his mother in her highest state, induced by Shuri. She was unchanged, young, and in their homes, outstretching a hand to him as Shuri metaphorically did.
Namor paints the mural of their fight
in his personal hut no less, where he preserves their history and culture. He paints them entangled in a battle with neither side besting the other. She is the Jaguar-Black Panther, a revered, highly respected animal in Maya culture with connections to godhood, and he is a mere human, humbling himself in a sense. That speaks volumes, and it's furthered when he tells Namora that Shuri had every single reason to kill him. He also speaks very highly of her, stating she's the strongest person on the surface, of the strongest nation.
None of this makes sense AT ALL if he supposedly did not view Shuri as a respected equal, let alone "human." If he somehow doesn't see her as a "human", then he sees her as higher than.
Talokan's "Violence" to Wakanda's "Pacifism"
"Namor and the Talokanil, immediately resort to violence and war when they feel a threat from the surface world. But since no one knows they exist, this threat is hypothetical for now."
This is not true. Talokan has constantly been evasive with relocating being their immediate resort. In the film, Namor says, "Talokan will not move, again" for a reason. They didn't "feel" a threat, there was a threat. People found the Vibranium within their domain and were drilling to seize it. War was a later development after Shuri took killing Riri off the table, which is what Namor initially wanted to do (in the script, this is furthered, with him saying he'd prefer picking off one person to outright war.).
"A direct contrast to Ramonda and Shuri, who in the face of real eminent threats, resorted to peace and showed their aggressors mercy."
Ignoring the insinuation that Namor was not faced with real eminent threats when he was, there is a reason for that contrast. Remember that while Wakanda was being threatened, they have never been conquered or forced to move. They're confirmed less vulnerable than Talokan, who does not have shields and lives in the ocean. They can afford to reveal themselves. Talokan cannot, and they're collateral damage to Wakanda's choice of revealing themselves and the power of Vibranium to the world.
The beginning village of Talokan has been conquered and mass murdered before the rebirth into the blue people we see now, with their ancestral lands plundered and made into slave houses. Namor almost died and was sick in the womb because the conquistadors brought smallpox. His father who he never met died due to their disease. He witnessed countless treacheries, betrayals, and wars from the surface lands. Namor spent his entire childhood watching his mother grieve due to them. As a result, Talokan has a more pessimistic perspective compared to Wakanda's privileged optimistic one.
So yeah, Talokan isn't going to play patty cake with their active aggressors who are trying to plunder them. Nor should they, because Namor is proven right with America actively seeking to destabilize Wakanda under the guise of retrieving Riri (see the meeting Ross has with government officials), and the ending with Val.
Wakanda wants to delay inevitable war and minimize the loss across the board but will go to war if pushed, which is fair. Talokan is tired and ready to give the smoke, striking fast and hard to merely end what threatens them once and for all after centuries of patience and displacement. That is also fair.
"Namor, despite wanting Wakanda’s help with his mission, ultimately doesn’t view Wakanda with anymore sympathy than he does the rest of the world. He has made it clear that he hates the surface world and everyone in it, which includes the Wakandans."
You're right, he doesn't sympathize with Wakanda. There's nothing to sympathize with. He empathizes with them, a stronger feeling and sense of connection than sympathy. He admires Wakanda and feels a sense of kinship, maybe a bit of jealousy (Joe Cole). To him, Wakanda was a threat if they weren't on his side. Why?
A) Wakanda (unintentionally) compromised them by revealing themselves to the world and the power of Vibranium. Now everyone else, armed with that dangerous knowledge, is looking for it to wield it. Wakanda can more or less protect their Vibranium, claiming ownership of it when it's on their lands, they have the power to, and they're the ones who revealed it. But what can Talokan do? They'd be forcefully revealed in some way and be subjected to attacks just because they dared to also have Vibranium.
B) Wakanda is compromising them again by harboring Riri, who is the one source capable of the machine the FBI is currently chasing down. There is no guarantee Riri would stay with them (Riri is not their citizen, and America can easily use her as a means to undercut Wakanda and force them to either give vibranium or fork Riri over, so she can build the machine, and they'll get vibranium anyway through Talokan) or wouldn't rebuild her machine. The solutions Namor could fathom were either taking Riri out of the equation for sure (a case of killing one person and saving everyone else) or taking out the threat of those who seek to exploit her.
C) Wakanda was already shaking hands with nations that wanted to destabilize and plunder them, and will want to do the same with Talokan.
D) Wakanda is the only nation that can rival them that now also knows of their existence. If they're not allies with that information, that's dangerous and makes Talokan vulnerable.
With all things considered and understandably from Namor's perspective, there's no "in-between" here. You can't be "neutral." You either are with them or facilitate your own and their destruction.
This doesn't mean he hates Wakanda or Shuri. It is nothing he wants, but something he perceives he has to do for his people, as their protector, father, god, and king. In the script, this is only further exemplified, by his, "I don’t want it to come to this. But I will not hesitate."
Namor Killing Ramonda
His line of "You are queen now" showed that he was never willing to conduct business with Ramonda likely because she was the only person on the surface world who bested him when she lured him out of Talokan(...). He was simply looking for an excuse to get her out of the picture."
At that point, Ramonda threatened to reveal Talokan. Ramonda purposefully played decoy with him and sent in a war dog to infiltrate their nation and retrieve not only their national threat but the princess who has all of their secrets without a sense of closure. The result of this act was the death of two of his "children". Did you just gloss over that fact, because Ramonda didn't just "lure" him away? He wasn't throwing a fit because he was bested. People literally died? He was cradling a dying child in his arms?
Namor was "willing" to conduct business with Ramonda, proven by the simple fact that he approached Ramonda and gave her the shell to contact him. Namor went out to answer Ramonda's call in the first place when he could've just ignored it when he had what he wanted and more in Talokan.
Namor saying "You're queen now" doesn't at all connect to him not seeing Shuri as an equal. That doesn't make any sense. If anything that undermines your point, because before Shuri is officially crowned, he immediately sees her as the sovereign leader, much like himself.
He says "you're queen now" because Shuri is likely the queen now. It's simple math: Shuri is the heir apparent. There's no royal before her now that is leading.
"It's also another reason why he killed Ramonda with no hesitation despite knowing what he knew about Shuri"
Again, Namor did what he did with no hesitation or care if Ramonda is collateral damage because in his eyes, Ramonda betrayed him, he was acting as a vehicle of vengeance for two souls, and he was defending Talokan. When she stepped in front of Riri glaring him down, that was his final nail in the coffin (no pun intended, please, no pun intended.). It was never personal to him nor did he look at it as him killing Shuri's mom. He was playing the role of a protector and king in conflict with another royal, but of course, it's inherently personal to Shuri because that royal happens to be her mother.
Ryan Coogler confirmed it was not personal for him in the Disney+ movie commentary, Tenoch Huerta says killing the queen was never in his initial plans, and Namor says this himself in the script, explaining he did what he did because the queen "betrayed" him with not only a guard, but a child dying as a result when Shuri was never in danger ("you were safe in my care").
Recklessness With Grief
No, Shuri did not have a better handle on how she externalizes her grief until the final of the movie.
"She recognizes that even though she is angry at T’Challa’s death, the rest of the world doesn’t deserve to feel the extent of her wrath."
That's not at all what she recognized at any point. "It will not be these clothes, I'll burn. It will be the world. And everyone in it."
"Even when Namor does kill her mother, she rightfully directs her anger at him."
At the expense of her people's safety and risk of eternal war. She tells M'Baku straight up that nothing else matters except what she wants, and she wants Namor dead. She threateningly pointed a finger, giving M'Baku no choice and leaving him with the command to help her in her endeavors, even if it meant sending them all to their watery graves.
Nakia: "If you go to war for vengeance, it will not fill the hole left from your loss. It will only grow larger, and it will consume you!"
Shuri: "It already has."
With every blow she landed and exchanged with Namor, we cut back to Wakanda receiving blows and being backed up into a corner.
Namor and Shuri were on collision courses where they were destroying themselves, each other, and their people by not handling their grief properly, being consumed by their vengeance, and committing destructive actions ignited by their pain.
Shuri just later had the strength to break that cycle by recognizing what he said to her back in Talokan ("broken leaders"), their connectivity, and shared traumas. She saved them both and quietened Namor's own flames in the process.
"Sure, she has some outbursts at Nakia and M’baku, but she never really alienates them."
Do not downplay the fact that Shuri is dangerous and was not healthily dealing with her grief, but instead was on a path of destruction. Ryan explicitly states that Namor shares this with Shuri: they're both trying to process and similarly struggle grappling with their grief.
Why else do you think Ramonda took Shuri outside to touch grass and do a ritual? Shuri was not ok. From the moment her beloved brother died, she was not ok. She was not magnanimous to the world. She was angry at it. She thought that there was no point in the Black Panther mantle or herb when T'Challa isn't there. As M'Baku even pointed out, she buried herself in her technology as a coping mechanism, which she ought to stop.
Shuri does alienate Nakia. Not only does she snap several times and harshly shove Nakia off of her after she took the herb, but it's also shown at the beginning of the movie she's ignoring all of her calls. In the script, she explicitly considers Nakia dead, immensely angry she missed T'Challa's funeral.
She doesn't listen to M'baku, but consistently tries to push him and his wisdom away during Ramonda's funeral. She even pushed away and tried closing herself off with Ramonda in the lab and river scene.
Namor's Desire
"All he wanted to do was push her to the extremes of grief so she would become reckless as she was."
Namor's true desire was safety for his people. He didn't want to move again or have to change who they are to survive. Namor later had a genuine desire for an alliance with Wakanda, a nation he canonically admires. Namor didn't want to "push her to the extremes of grief to become like him" because she already was like him. He just wanted to channel their shared feelings of reaping "destruction" to the common enemy.
“I think that a lot of the emotion that I was trying to put into it [Talokan] was this idea that Namor is not wanting to move his people again,” says Beachler. “So there is also, this sense of grieving, even there, of this idea of being encroached upon by humans, who are somewhat inconsiderate of them.”
"Instead you see a mutant emerging not out of genetics, but out of the crucible of oppression. Whereas mutants in the comics are born, in Wakanda Forever, they are made. And that history isn't the side story, it's the entire story. It explains Namor's rage, his desperation, and the path he takes which eventually leads to a collision with Wakanda."
It was never a case of Namor only loving and can love his people while hating everyone else, seeing them as inhuman. Namor was prioritizing what he loved the most above what he may also like, admire, or empathize with. He was fulfilling the role given to him he was forced to take from the moment he was born.
"I mean, “no love” is literally his name."
Let's slow down a bit and mayhaps rethink a little on using the meaning of his alias "Namor" as a point about him being loveless, no? That was a "name" given to him by a racist, slave-owning Conquistador priest who also called him, "son of satan" all the while he was burying his mother, the only and last immediate family he had. Namor took that alias to empower himself and take away the sting. He clearly does have love when all of his life he has been a selfless agent for his people. He thought a single or two lives were worth war over. Yes, he explicitly said it was to convey he had "no love" for the surface, but there is context to that.
"Wanting to destroy the whole world, funny enough, including other Mayan descendants who were enslaved or colonized"
When Namor burned down the Hacienda, slaves ran free. Only the Consquisdators were killed. The village elder relayed that they know of Namor's existence and were able to live with that knowledge. The only ones who died were the ones who sought him out with ill intent. The script also featured the factoid of Namor saving the elder and her husband from drowning on their wedding night, if that's worth anything. In the movie, he doesn't want to include Wakanda in the mix of the nations they're at war with either.
Clearly, he is discriminatory with who he'd kill. Who said he'd include Mayan descendants that were enslaved and colonized? The last time I checked, the only person who said anything about burning everyone was Shuri.
Namor: "It is no longer about the scientist. For centuries, the surface nations have conquered and enslaved people like us. Over resources. Since the day I buried my mother, I have prepared my people for the time they would come for us. And that machine? Is the sign that the time is now. I need to know if Wakanda is an ally, or an enemy. There is no in-between."
Shuri: "So you plan to wage war on the entire world, and want Wakanda to help you?"
Namor: [leans in and nods slightly]
Shuri: "That's madness!"
Namor: "There isn't a nation that wouldn't plunder Wakanda if given a chance. If we make an alliance, we can protect each other by striking them first. Then, when the threat of these nations have been eliminated, the scientist will be returned to Wakanda."
Namor wanting to remove the teeth from the lion's mouth and hitting first isn't the same thing as destroying everything and anything. Mind you, he is being chaotic, but he clearly has a concentrated target. Don't get it twisted.
Namor's Regret
It is suggested that Namor in particular felt regret and dislike for the situation in interviews, script, and in-film.
A) Namor is seen pensively on his throne, touching and cradling the shell phone as he awaits contact.
B) Namor's, "It could've been different."
C) Interestingly, Ryan and Joe Cole corroborated in The Movie Report panel interview, more regret was in every blow exchanged. Namor in particular did not want to exchange a fatal blow until he was pushed to impale Shuri on the rock in a desperate attempt to his life.
Equaling and Relating
Relating to someone is different from equalling someone. Out of all who were listed, whether it was Peter Parker, Riri Williams, or Namor, Namor is the only one out of those that is explicitly and purposefully depicted as equalling and relating to Shuri.
Namor And Shuri
The reasoning given for how Shuri works paired with Peter Parker or Riri Williams strongly applies to Shuri with Namor, so operating under the same logic, they largely work too.
"What makes both of these pairings work to a degree is the idea of them being equal in some regard(...) They clearly see each other as equal. They more or less agree on a common enemy and how to deal with said enemy, with morals and values that more or less align."
They do agree on a common enemy. That's literally half of the premise for Namor proposing an alliance where they protect one another. The problem just was how they go about handling things. Tragedy, trauma, and dramatic irony unfavorably played factors.
Otherwise, they're practically the same, and are now on the "same page". Their morals and values aren't far off either. Wakanda and Talokan are eerily similar, whether it be in having spying channels, an isolationistic approach, finding jurisdiction wherever they feel it (aka, if it regards and threatens them), only wanting to protect what they love, embracing-involving their culture-traditions, being environmentalists, and using defensive-offensive means if provoked by a perceived threat.
In visuals alone, they took great care to portray Shuri and Namor as Parallel Characters.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
The "boy without love" and the "child who scoffs at tradition." They do have a few healthy differences (I'll save that for another article), but they are equal and deeply relate.
As said on The Movie Report panel interview, Shuri became the Panther god (the Black Panther is canonically Bast's avatar), while he is the god of his civilization. They're both royals and leaders of their own nations. Said nations are sister nations, both having the power of vibranium and the highest levels of advancement. They are both broken and with a shared trauma etched deep in their hearts. They both have a righteous, divine fire and an acute sense of avenging. They both were haunted by similar grief and pain that pushed them to seek solace in one another.
Namor is described as lonely and with loneliness by Ryan Coogler, and that's exactly how Shuri felt in the beginning as well (see her Interlude), and unfortunately, later in the movie after Ramonda "dies" (but in the end, it's revealed that Ramonda, like T'Challa, is not gone.). They brought innovative technology and a new era of living to their people. They share the same love languages: acts of service and gifts.
There was an entire montage near the end of the film showcasing this.
Tumblr media
Riri Williams
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Riri Williams relates to Shuri in a sense of being young black women whose intelligence and talents aren't always respected by their elders. They can also relate to their fathers being murdered (if they take a page out of comics for Riri, see Ironheart #9) or the loved ones that taught them what they know being ripped away from them. Maybe they also know about diffusion too as geeks, but it stops there.
Riri, like Peter, is a teenager (19 years old) new to college (the same college Okoye states is the equivalent of a Wakandan elementary school), trying to grapple with her emerging life and school. Shuri is a princess of the most powerful nation and head of Wakandan Technology. She completed the journey of school and became a college assistant at the age of 13. Wakanda Forever was Riri's debut and entry into the game. Wakanda Forever was Shuri, who is already a non-teenaged adult at this point, journeying through her womanhood and immense grief. Shuri is not new to the game, having been in countless wars and accumulated countless experiences Riri has yet to touch.
Throughout the film, Shuri acted as the voice Riri didn't have that Namor would hear, largely due to T'Challa's influence. At the end of the film, Riri invites Shuri to a basketball game. Shuri says no, prioritizing her duties and having a full plate compared to Riri's less uncomplicated, lighthearted one. This alone highlights their differences in placement and mental space.
Big sisters do not "equal" their younger siblings. They guide and protect, having some level of authority and experience over them.
And That's Perfectly By Design
Riri and Shuri are not equals and have noticeable divergences where one cannot ever relate to or feel what the other does. Shuri won't know how Riri feels the need to prove herself as a black woman in a society where black people, black women, are given the shorter end of the stick. Shuri doesn't know anything about how it is for African Americans and law enforcement. Riri won't know the privileges or how it feels like to carry the burdens Shuri does to the extent she does. Riri does not entirely relate to Shuri's grief either. Riri was a fish out of water who constantly wanted to go home despite the beauty and safety in Wakanda. They belong to two different worlds.
It is great that they have these differences because, in the words of Dominque Thorne, they can learn from each other. Their relationship in the film is contextualized as Shuri perceiving Riri as her reflection and then taking on a mentor role. Riri is, in Letitia's words, a reflection of T'Challa's choice. There are several parallels between Riri-Shuri and T'Challa-Shuri. It gives Shuri more of a personal incentive and investment in the outreach program her brother enacted. T'Challa had the connection, learning experience, and realization of the Lost Tribe and their struggles through N'Jadaka. Shuri now has that with Riri, but positively! Riri also can offer a breath of fresh air every now and again, fulfilling the chemistry she had (bubbly, plucky younger one) with T'Challa (the more composed, older, responsible one).
Whether you want to mold and configure this into a romantic dynamic, is up to you. The point is that yes they relate, yes they do have chemistry, but no, Riri and Shuri aren't equals.
Peter Parker
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Hypothetically, Peter relates to Shuri in their intelligence (although I'd argue Shuri is smarter, Shuri's probably smarter than everyone), but that doesn't at all suggest they'd have the same interests. It doesn't work like that.
Peter (2001 baby) is younger than Shuri (1997-1998). He is just starting college. Shuri is around 22, 23 years old due to the snap. She was 19, 20 in Infinity War. Peter was 16. It's not a big age gap, but I wouldn't say they're peers. Age proximity doesn't indicate relatability either, especially if the maturity levels and experiences differ.
However, I will say, I think Peter and Shuri can relate to being orphans that do feel lonely (although Shuri lost and later gained family, Peter is left off completely alone), going through personal dark arcs, and suffering immense pain that changes the trajectory of their lives. They used to be more lighthearted, but now were forced to grow up and their perspectives darkened.
That's about it though. They aren't on the same wavelength or of the same caliber when it comes to their types of threats, challenges, and predicaments. Namor could entirely relate with her being another nation of vibranium of a culture the other nations seek to destabilize, destroy, or conquer, as well as someone with a similar depth and sense of grief. Riri could relate as a black woman living in America (lost tribe) who'd know a thing or two about persecution and was thrown into the mix between the Talokan-Wakanda conflict. Peter?
This isn't factoring in their standings either, with Shuri being an heir apparent and leader of the strongest nation on the surface with Peter being "your friendly (and now depressed) neighborhood Spiderman" that occasionally gets thrown outside his payroll.
Peter and Shuri can probably relate and it's easy to assume they'd have chemistry and may do a little chemistry together. But they do not equal either.
In Conclusion
Yes, ship and let ship. These are all great fictional characters with compelling dynamics. Shipping is largely for fun and often depends on the person's taste.
Looking at this from a perspective of a writer and storyteller, there's no such thing as it "not" working or "making sense" unless you have, excuse my language, shit and uninspiring writing.
219 notes · View notes
familyabolisher · 8 months
Note
Apologies for bringing up a topic you've already discussed at length, but I've read through your posts on "anti-intellectualism" and completely agree with you on all counts. But I'm just now curious about how you'd define the increased culture of outright rejection of critical analysis (vague though the term is) as opposed to simple disinterest. Situations like people dismissing any deep analysis of systems, media, texts etc with "It's not that deep", or hostility towards fuller and in depth responses to statements (especially on social media with the ever prevalent "not reading that"), with the result often times being that anything requiring slight effort to engage with, or that isn't entertaining is dismissed completely.
Although I understand that these are just peoples reactions on the internet, and not systemic or material issues, I'd love to know your thoughts on how that cultural behaviour and trend could be classed, if not as anti-intellectualism.
(there are obviously a huge amount of external reasons (the attention economy, media, education etc) for people to react in that way, so I'm not blaming people personally, nor do I think everyone needs to go read Hegel and become a master critical thinker, but I do think it is a trend that has some damaging effects, especially as a response to any criticism of capitalism)
talked a little about it here—i guess i would ask what you're actually seeking to accomplish with the word "define," because there's no one explanation that can neatly account for every individual rejection of the practice of critical reading, and nor should we be seeking to find one. certainly 'anti-intellectualism' doesn't cut it, so i would just reiterate the point i made in the initial piece—how people feel about critical analysis, what their base skill level in critical analysis actually is, how that skill level is articulated, what their relationship is to the work or works in question & the respect with which they are willing to treat it are all highly contingent questions which cannot be easily explained away but instead merit thorough materialist investigation. ultimately as marxists we have to be materialists; our investigations should seek these material explanations, which means interrogating normative epistemes, education & academia, how we define "literacy" & its social use + social distribution, who benefits and who winds up disadvantaged. the "anti-intellectualism" position is broad enough to be near enough useless when it comes to articulating actionable responses; i also find it cruel.
also tbqh whilst i do get impatient when people don't "want" to engage with challenging narratives in ways that i find intellectually stimulating and would rather watch marvel film #47384 or whatever, i think it's good to take a policy of, like, blocking and moving on, curating your feed, and remembering that you don't + shouldn't have access to that person's relationship to the media landscape and the sorts of analytical tools that they may well only ever have encountered in a hostile educational setting, as well as working towards showing that engagement with "difficult" works is a) possible and b) fun and worthwhile. often people's reluctance to engage with works that have a (perceived) higher entry barrier (however ethically questionable that perception might be) simply comes from the fact that they lack/believe themselves to lack the right tools for engagement, and don't want to be made to feel "stupid" by not "getting" it—they preemptively go on the 'let people enjoy things'-esque defensive to counter this. the more candidly we talk about critical practices & the more digital airtime we give to less "mainstream" work, and the more space we give people to not understand things/to ask questions/to communicate and share ideas rather than participating in the big pissing contest of who can be the most Media Literate, the closer we get to resolving these sorts of tensions, imo.
120 notes · View notes
savimatteo2810 · 7 months
Text
Quick analysis of the latest LU art which is so pretty btw
I love how Time and Wind are the only ones physically touching the tree
Tumblr media Tumblr media
I think that's a cool detail, considering (at least as far as I'm aware) the Great Deku Tree had the biggest appearance in their games and was the most critical for both of them.
(I know he's in BotW/TotK but considering its not required to even go to the Lost Woods, let alone talk to the tree and get the sword, I'm not counting it since he definitely had more impact on Time and Wind than he did on Wild lol, If I missed any other games that's on me ig)
In contrast to Wind, who was given a crucial item by the GDT that was required to proceed and the sage of one of the temples being from the forest the GDT guards, as well as Time, who was raised by the GDT and started his own adventure by trying to save him.
You can see that the others are barely touching the roots - at least not in the same way Wind and Time are. The others are just standing around and aren't really touching the roots because they haven't got the same connection. Meanwhile, Wind and Time are both reaching out to the roots and are right up in there while the others admire from a distance.
Tumblr media Tumblr media
This probably doesn't have any actual symbolism but I just think it's very sweet that Time and Wind are both saying hi to an old friend again
136 notes · View notes
chamerionwrites · 9 months
Text
This is the more charitable take (the less charitable one is that people are just being willfully dense for the sake of a straw man argument), but so many people in the Star Wars fandom appear to struggle with the concept that stories are constructed and can be critiqued as such. I cannot count the number of times I've seen someone respond to a critical read by saying, "Oh but George Lucas was involved, and we know he actually intends it to be read like so because he's talked about it!" as if this is in any way a compelling argument.
#1, "It can't be bad if George Lucas was involved in its creation" is a bold hill to die on when Attack of the Clones exists.
#2, If a story requires authorial clarification to hang together properly then imo it is almost by definition poorly told.
But most importantly, #3: Lucas is not a particularly subtle writer. I am extremely clear on how he intends the story to be read. And the disparity between that intention and the execution is exactly what I am criticizing!
Literally rule one of textual analysis is that what a text is stating is not the sum total of what a text is saying. "This story is stating X very loudly and bombastically, but is in fact saying Y" is an extremely valid line of critique. "The creator(s) clearly want my takeaway to be X, but have not succeeded in crafting a story that conveys X" is an extremely valid line of critique.
You can disagree with that critique. But going "Can't you read? Can't you see that the story is telling you X?" is at best a profound misunderstanding of what that critique actually is in the first place.
84 notes · View notes
sideprince · 1 month
Text
I wrote a reply to this post but OP has deleted it and even though I should probably leave well enough alone, it got to me that I could have sworn I saw this post months ago and then realized it was actually from yesterday. This is a long reply so I'm putting it under a cut, but after I went to OP's blog and saw a post from them complaining how mean everyone was to them on this post, I replied to say I'm sorry if they got any anon hate I don't know about but otherwise none of the comments on this post were mean or hateful, they just disagreed with OP. I pointed out that this is partly because they cited non-canon events as canon, and OP immediately blocked me (this may be why I can't reblog the post even from another user, though that's not how tumblr usually works so who knows). I can't help but feel that OP's post was made in bad faith, as a result, and I've seen enough people on this hellsite who are more interested in protecting their egos than admit when they could have been approached something more thoughtfully, so I'm diving in. If you're going to say a character "is very interesting to study" while doing the exact opposite, then you'd better have the critical analysis skills and textual evidence to back it up.
I think OP has some misconceptions that are frustratingly common, and seem to stem from people not having read the books, or not read them for a long time, and conflating the movies with canon. While I mostly agree with the replies above, I want to take this opportunity to cite the text to refute some of OP's points. I often forget details from the text, but I choose to either look them up before asserting unconfirmed points as fact (Potter Search is a great tool, or you can just do a ctrl+F search if you have the books digitally), or else I usually state clearly that I'm not sure if I remember something correctly and don't have the spoons to look it up.
I saw OP say in the comments in response to someone arguing their points:
"that's your interpretation, I have mine, I think both can coexist within the material we are given."
It doesn't sit right with me that so many people think that referring to their subjective memory of what the text meant to them is the same as actually citing it and offering an explanation. OP's interpretation can't exist within the material given, because some of it doesn't exist in the material at all, and you can't interpret what isn't there. OP is essentially claiming to have done critical analysis, and although no one is required to always critique a text analytically on a tumblr post, I find it upsetting when people claim to do so while failing to cite a single source to support their argument. To me it sounds like someone trying to pass off a creative writing essay as an academic research paper, and in an age of rampant propaganda and knee-jerk reblogs that eschew critical thinking, I feel an almost compulsive need to go through OP's reply and argue it with the textual evidence they conveniently avoided, if for no other reason than to show why it's important to discern between loosely formed opinions and informed ones.
I also want to explain why I don't accept the films as canon, because while I do think that canon can exist across several mediums (such as with Good Omens, in which at least one of the writers of the text is directly involved in writing the TV series), I don't think that applies to Harry Potter because the original author was only marginally involved in the films, in only a consultant role, and had little input on the writing. The HP films are an interpretation as written from the perspective of Steve Kloves, except for OoTP, which was written by Michael Goldenberg. I've gone into it on other posts, but suffice to say these interpretations did not prioritize story and character development and were often influenced by pressure from the studio to prioritize marketing opportunities over storytelling. Important elements like foreshadowing and themes were not carried over from the text to the screen. These changes affected the storytelling significantly and left out crucial elements. This, combined with the films having been written with little to no involvement from the original author, is why I feel the films can't be taken as canon. This doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed by any means, just that they scenes that appear in the films but not in the text, or are presented differently on screen than in the text, are not a reasonable basis for character analysis.
And now, on to OP's ask:
"I think he is a very good representation of a man who felt insecure in his manhood; his male ego was permanently wounded by James' bullying and he decided to make it everyone else's problem by being the most insufferable teacher at Hogwarts."
The first thing we have to establish is that the books are told from Harry's perspective, so we have to take narrative bias into account. Calling Snape "the most insufferable teacher at Hogwarts" is a subjective statement and I can only assume it's based in Harry's biased perspective as narrator, given that he and Snape have a bad relationship from the outset. I have a brief analysis here about how Snape dislikes Harry because in their first class together he interprets Harry's ignorance of the course material as a lack of curiosity and appreciation for his gifts as a wizard, while also recognizing something of his own experiences with childhood poverty and abuse in Harry. Harry, being ignorant of these factors, just feels singled out for hate by a strict teacher, and their relationship deteriorates throughout the rest of the series, until the end of the final book.
To pull back from the narrative bias, let's look at some of the other teachers are Hogwarts:
McGonagall:
“Miss Granger, you foolish girl, how could you think of tackling a mountain troll on your own?”  Hermione hung her head. Harry was speechless. Hermione was the last person to do anything against the rules, and here she was, pretending she had, to get them out of trouble. It was as if Snape had started handing out sweets. “Miss Granger, five points will be taken from Gryffindor for this,” said Professor McGonagall. “I’m very disappointed in you. If you’re not hurt at all, you’d better get off to Gryffindor Tower. Students are finishing the feast in their Houses.”
Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 10.
“I’m disgusted,” said Professor McGonagall. “Four students out of bed in one night! I’ve never heard of such a thing before! You, Miss Granger, I thought you had more sense. As for you, Mr. Potter, I thought Gryffindor meant more to you than this. All three of you will receive detentions — yes, you too, Mr. Longbottom, nothing gives you the right to walk around school at night, especially these days, it’s very dangerous — and fifty points will be taken from Gryffindor.” “Fifty?” Harry gasped — they would lose the lead, the lead he’d won in the last Quidditch match.  “Fifty points each,” said Professor McGonagall, breathing heavily through her long, pointed nose.
Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 15
In just the first book we see McGonagall punish Hermione for successfully defending herself against a troll and take house points, then sends her back to her common room without getting medical attention, as if a ten year old can be responsible for assessing how badly they're hurt. A few chapters later McGonagall takes several hundred points from students in her own house (more than we see any other teacher do at one time throughout the series), and assigns the students detention on top of it. As we later see in the same chapter, the detentions aren't even served with her directly, but instead the children - again, ten years old - are sent into the Forbidden Forest at night with only Hagrid to protect them, to hunt down whatever creature is vicious and cunning enough to kill unicorns.
Although it's said that Snape favors the students in his own house, he doesn't seem to be the only one:
“Potter's been sent a broomstick, Professor,” said Malfoy quickly.  “Yes, yes, that’s right,” said Professor Flitwick, beaming at Harry. “Professor McGonagall told me all about the special circumstances, Potter. And what model is it?”  “A Nimbus Two Thousand, sir,” said Harry, fighting not to laugh at the look of horror on Malfoy’s face. “And it’s really thanks to Malfoy here that I’ve got it,” he added. 
Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 10
Not only did McGonagall make an exception to school practices and allow Harry on his house Quidditch team despite being a first year, she used either school funds or her own (unclear) to purchase a first-rate broom for him. We know the school has brooms, as first years are not allowed their own and they are provided for flying lessons, and because “Harry had heard Fred and George Weasley complain about the school brooms” (PS ch. 9). And yet, McGonagall ensures Harry has his own broom, and an expensive one, new enough to be the show model in a shop window in Diagon Alley a few months earlier:
“Several boys of about Harry’s age had their noses pressed against a window with broomsticks in it. ‘Look,’ Harry heard one of them say, ‘the new Nimbus Two Thousand - fastest ever -”
-Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 5
If we're discussing which teachers are Hogwarts are the most "insufferable" then we also have to talk about Hagrid, who might mean well and be affectionate, but is also irresponsible and dangerous.
In Philosopher's Stone, Hagrid:
Punishes Dudley, a child, for his parents' offenses, the final straw being his father insulting Dumbledore (Ch. 4). While Hagrid acknowledges that he shouldn't have lost his temper, he also admits that his intention had been to turn Dudley fully into a pig.
Hatches a dragon in his cabin (Ch. 14), tries to raise it illegally and against the animal's need of care, and Harry, Ron, and Hermione (again, ten year olds) have to fix the situation and get Ron's brother to find some friends to take the dragon away safely and prevent Hagrid losing his job (Ch. 14). In the process Hagrid endangers himself as well as the children, and it's because of this that McGonagall gives them detention and deducts hundreds of house points. Hagrid not only allows the children to endanger themselves for his sake, but to be punished and subsequently ostracized by their peers also for his sake.
The reason he even has a dragon is, as we find out in Ch. 16, because he was foolish enough to accept it from a faceless stranger in exchange for unwittingly divulging the secret to getting past the three headed dog guarding the Philosopher's Stone (and the stranger later turns out to be Quirrel/Voldemort).
In Prisoner of Azkaban, Hagrid:
Starts his first lesson with a volatile creature (Ch. 6) and, although Malfoy acted irresponsibly, Hagrid was nevertheless the teacher and responsible for providing course material consistent with the experience level and maturity of his students' age.
Gets drunk and has to be taken care of by Harry, Ron, and Hermione (again, children) (Ch. 6)
Skipping ahead to Order of the Phoenix ch. 30, we find out Hagrid
Compromised his return from the mission Dumbledore sent him on by bringing a giant back to England.
Brought said giant into the school grounds and left him in the Forbidden Forest.
Asks Harry and Hermione (still children) to look after him if Hagrid is sacked.
Although Hagrid means well, his actions are consistently thoughtless and irresponsible, requiring those around him - often Harry, Ron, and Hermione - to fix the damage he causes. Although I think it remains subjective which teacher at Hogwarts is the "most insufferable" I think Hagrid is a strong enough candidate to qualify OP's interpretation of Snape holding that title as extremely contestable. Of course, since the books are presented through the lens of Harry's narrative bias, and he's fond of Hagrid, respects McGonagall, and dislikes Snape, an uncritical reading could lead one to OP's conclusions. However, a more objective analysis of the text shows that many teachers at Hogwarts are strict, punitive, biased, and wreak havoc on students in ways that make the Snape's actions look fairly tame, or at least the norm. And this is excluding an analysis of various DADA professors like Lockhart and Crouch/Moody, who were insufferable in their own rights (Lockhart was smarmy and dishonest to the point it risked students' lives; Crouch/Moodly transfigured a child into a ferret and humiliated him with torture as a disciplinary measure and deliberately triggered Neville's trauma in class).
OP continues their reply to say:
Add to this that he is a halfblood and only his mother was around, iirc?
They don't recall correctly. Snape, whose father was a muggle and whose mother was a witch, was indeed a half-blood (as is evidenced by him being revealed to be the Half-Blood Prince - I assume I don't need to cite a source as this is a pretty well-known fact and the literal title of an entire HP book, but should you need a reference it's in Ch. 28 of HBP). Both his parents were around in his childhood:
Snape staggered - his wand flew upwards, away from Harry - and suddenly Harry’s mind was teeming with memories that were not his: a hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in a corner …
-Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 26
‘How are things at your house?’ Lily asked. A little crease appeared between his eyes. ‘Fine,’ he said. ‘They’re not arguing any more?’ ‘Oh, yes, they’re arguing,’ said Snape. He picked up a fistful of leaves and began tearing them apart, apparently unaware of what he was doing. ‘But it won’t be that long and I’ll be gone.’ ‘Doesn’t your dad like magic?’ ‘He doesn’t like anything, much,’ said Snape.
-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33
We know that Snape's father was around because he's mentioned both in Snape's memories in OoTP that Harry accidentally invades during an Occlumency lesson, and when we see in Snape's memories that he gives Harry as he dies. Lily asks about his home life by referring to both his parents, implying that his dad is a consistent presence at home. We also know from JK Rowling that Snape's father "didn't hold back when it came to the whip" but this is supplementary and not mentioned in canon, so I don't expect anyone to refer to it when analyzing the text, I'm just adding it as bonus material.
Continuing on with OP's reply:
Snape, Voldemort and Harry all act like foils of each other in that sense, but whereas Voldemort fixated on his blood status as the main reason for his insecurities, Snape fixated on Lily.
So much to unpack here. Firstly, all of this should be backed up by examples from the text, as they are subjective readings that have significant bearing on character analysis.
Snape, Harry, and Voldemort don't act like foils of each other. For one thing, a character doesn't act like a foil, a character either is or isn't one. That being said, I don't know OP's background and there could be a language barrier because English isn't everyone's first language, I'm just being pedantic. Even with that in mind, the statement remains incorrect. A foil is a literary device - a character who contrasts with another character, often with the protagonist. It is not a choice a character makes or an action they take.
In Philosopher's Stone Snape is set up as a foil to Harry in order to misdirect the reader from suspecting the real villain, Quirrel/Voldemort. Snape is presented as secretive, sneaky, and nefarious, contrasting Harry's role as a protagonist who is outspoken, honest, and brave. As the series progresses, Snape, along with Voldemort, are eventually shown to have more parallels than contrasts with Harry. Snape and Voldemort were born into muggle poverty, and although Harry was raised in a middle class home by the Dursleys, they thrust poverty and neglect onto him in a way that parallels his childhood of neglect and want with that of Snape and Voldemort. Snape's father was abusive, as was Harry's guardian, Vernon Dursley. Harry, Voldemort, and Snape all had traumatic experiences growing up in muggle environments. If anything, Snape and Voldemort might be foils to Harry in that they both harbored resentment for their muggle fathers in ways that signified the separation between the wizarding and muggle world, while Harry's experiences with the Dursleys didn't color his image of muggles in a comparable way.
The contrast between Harry, Snape, and Voldemort is in the way each of them deals with their trauma. As Dumbledore says:
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
-Chamber of Secrets, Ch. 18
This becomes one of the overarching themes of the HP series, Harry, Snape, and Voldemort are all examples of how their choices took them to such different places in life from their comparable childhoods.
At school Voldemort was a handsome boy with talent, intelligence, and the recommendations of his teachers, but he chose to pursue power instead of success:
“He reached the seventh year of his schooling with, as you might have expected, top grades in every examination he had taken. All around him, his classmates were deciding which jobs they were to pursue once they had left Hogwarts. Nearly everybody expected spectacular things from Tom Riddle, prefect, Head Boy, winner of the Special Award for Services to the School. I know that several teachers, Professor Slughorn amongst them, suggested that he join the Ministry of Magic, offered to set up appointments, put him in touch with useful contacts. He refused all offers. The next thing the staff knew, Voldemort was working at Borgin and Burkes.”
Half-Blood Prince, Ch. 20
Snape chose to become a Death Eater for reasons we can only assume. We know he was in Slytherin during an era when Voldemort was in power and many of his allies had children in Slytherin house. At least two of Snape's dorm-mates, Mulciber and Avery, are canonically acknowledged to have become Death Eaters (both are present at the Ministry when Harry and his friends fight the Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries in OoTP Ch. 35). It's unclear whether Snape chose to become a Death Eater out of admiration for them or out of peer pressure, or perhaps a lack of other options, while at school:
'… thought we were supposed to be friends?’ Snape was saying. ‘Best friends?’ ‘We are, Sev, but I don’t like some of the people you’re hanging around with! I’m sorry, but I detest Avery and Mulciber! Mulciber! What do you see in him, Sev? He’s creepy! D’you know what he tried to do to Mary Macdonald the other day?’ Lily had reached a pillar and leaned against it, looking up into the thin, sallow face. ‘That was nothing,’ said Snape. ‘It was a laugh, that’s all -‘ ‘It was Dark Magic, and if you think that’s funny -‘ ‘What about the stuff Potter and his mates get up to?’ demanded Snape. His colour rose again as he said it, unable, it seemed, to hold in his resentment.
-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33
It's unclear what Snape thinks of Avery and Mulciber, as his reply to Lily is downplaying but doesn't defend their actions. We see Snape's indecisiveness later in the argument he has with Lily after he calls her a Mudblood:
'It’s too late. I’ve made excuses for you for years. None of my friends can understand why I even talk to you. You and your precious little Death Eater friends - you see, you don’t even deny it! You don’t even deny that’s what you’re all aiming to be! You can’t wait to join You-Know-Who, can you?’ He opened his mouth, but closed it without speaking. ‘I can’t pretend any more. You’ve chosen your way, I’ve chosen mine.’ ‘No - listen, I didn’t mean -‘ ‘- to call me Mudblood? But you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?'
-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33
Although Snape does ultimately choose to become a Death Eater, we see in his reply to Lily about both Avery and Mulciber and later her assumption that they all want to become Death Eaters that Snape doesn't argue for or against her accusations, but instead is evasive and unsure of himself. He opens his mouth to speak when she accuses him of wanting to become a Death Eater, but then closes it again without saying anything - he can neither argue against her point, nor state clearly, let alone with any kind of conviction, that this is indeed his ambition. It can be argued that it's the passivity of his choice that lands him with a Dark Mark on his arm, and it's the active choice he makes to risk his life in order to defect from Voldemort's ranks and turn spy that defines his character and without which Harry could not have defeated Voldemort.
Harry, as the protagonist, is also significantly defined by the theme of choice:
'But, sir,’ said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound argumentative, ‘it all comes to the same thing, doesn’t it? I’ve got to try and kill him, or -‘ ‘Got to?’ said Dumbledore. ‘Of course you’ve got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you’ve tried! We both know it! Imagine, please, just for a moment, that you had never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now? Think!’ Harry watched Dumbledore striding up and down in front of him, and thought. He thought of his mother, his father and Sirius. He thought of Cedric Diggory. He thought of all the terrible deeds he knew Lord Voldemort had done. A flame seemed to leap inside his chest, searing his throat. ‘I’d want him finished,’ said Harry quietly. ‘And I’d want to do it.’ ‘Of course you would!’ cried Dumbledore. ‘You see, the prophecy does not mean you have to do anything! But the prophecy caused Lord Voldemort to mark you as his equal … in other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy! But Voldemort continues to set store by the prophecy. He will continue to hunt you … which makes it certain, really, that -' ‘That one of us is going to end up killing the other,’ said Harry. ‘Yes.'
-Half-Blood Prince, Ch. 33
There's a clear point made by the author through Dumbledore as her proxy here, that choice is what matters, not fate. It's Harry's choices that make him the person he is and lead him to eventually defeat Voldemort. While Snape, Voldemort, and Harry all can be contrasted through the lens of their choices, this does not make them foils, as it is the the theme of choice and how it is exemplified by each character that makes them unique, but their experiences and many of their character traits (boldness, bravery, a personal sense of conviction) that make them parallels of one another. Each of them occupies their own place on the spectrum between the light and dark that the series establishes, Voldemort at the dark end, Harry at the light, and Snape in the grey area between them.
OP goes on to say:
His character is all about male entitlement, he was obsessed with her at Hogwarts and then showed to have no boundaries as he went into her house to cradle her dead body in front of her traumatized kid.
There's a lot to unpack here, and it's particularly challenging because you can't provide textual evidence for something that didn't happen in the text. After the above scene from Ch. 33 of DH in which Lily ends her friendship with Snape, we never see them interact again:
'No - listen, I didn’t mean -‘ ‘- to call me Mudblood? But you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?’ He struggled on the verge of speech, but with a contemptuous look she turned and climbed back through the portrait hole … The corridor dissolved, and the scene took a little longer to reform: Harry seemed to fly through shifting shapes and colours until his surroundings solidified again and he stood on a hilltop, forlorn and cold in the darkness, the wind whistling through the branches of a few leafless trees. The adult Snape was panting, turning on the spot, his wand gripped tightly in his hand, waiting for something or for someone …'
-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33
The scene in the corridor in front of Gryffindor Tower between a fifth year Snape and Lily leads directly into the scene where Snape begs Dumbledore to protect the Potters (which I wrote an analysis of a few months ago but is too long a subject to derail this post for). We see no more interactions between Snape and Lily, and therefore there is no canonical support for the idea that Snape behaved obsessively or failed to respect her boundaries.
There's also no mention of Snape going to Godric's Hollow at all after her death. Snape holding Lily's dead body is only shown in the film version of Deathly Hallows, and as mentioned, the films are not canon. That moment doesn't exist in the text and can't be considered in an analysis of Snape's character. The scene on the hilltop leads directly into the scene of Snape crying in Dumbledore's office:
The hilltop faded, and Harry stood in Dumbledore’s office, and something was making a terrible sound, like a wounded animal. Snape was slumped forwards in a chair and Dumbledore was standing over him, looking grim. After a moment or two, Snape raised his face, and he looked like a man who had lived a hundred years of misery since leaving the wild hilltop. ‘I thought … you were going … to keep her … safe …’ ‘She and James put their faith in the wrong person,’ said Dumbledore. ‘Rather like you, Severus. Weren’t you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?’ Snape’s breathing was shallow.
-Deathly Hallows, Ch. 33
This is the only depiction of Snape immediately following the Potters' deaths. The scene of him cradling Lily's dead body was Steve Kloves' invention and has no basis in canon. If anything, Snape's actions in canon can be interpreted to show that he respected the boundaries Lily set, and that even when her life was at risk he chose to go to Dumbledore - who he thought might kill him on sight - rather than talk to her directly after she ended their friendship. In addition, in all the information the text gives about the night Voldemort fell in Godric's Hollow and Hagrid collected Harry to take him to Privet Drive, there's no mention of Snape whatsoever.
There isn't much in the text to support the interpretation that Snape exemplified male entitlement either. So far we've seen him being as strict, if not milder, than other teachers at the school, his favoritism is also comparable to that of other teachers - implying it's more of a norm than an example of entitlement - and there are no canonical examples to support the argument that he was obsessed with Lily or violated her boundaries. Snape struggles to argue with Lily when she accuses and berates him, and the usual markers of patriarchal entitlement - silencing women, gaslighting, dismissing women's opinions, talking over them - are all nowhere to be found in any of their interactions. The only time we see him lash out at Lily is when he calls her Mudblood (OoTP Ch. 28) which, while inexcusable, he does under traumatic duress, and is not indicative of his usual interactions with her, as exemplified by the fact that she ends their friendship over it. As cited before:
'No - listen, I didn’t mean -‘ ‘- to call me Mudblood? But you call everyone of my birth Mudblood, Severus. Why should I be any different?’
There's a clear implication that Snape has never called her this before. An argument can also be made that it speaks volumes of Lily's own biases, or perhaps her own affection for Snape (who, not long before this, was still her best friend), that she excused this behavior from him when it was directed at others, and only took issue with it when it was directed at herself. That, combined with Lily's own acknowledgment that they were "best friends" shows that Snape's relationship with her was a balanced, consensual one even when it became strained, up until their friendship ended.
Continuing with OP's points:
He only saw Lily as a trophy to be possessed, which you can see from the way he hated Harry, because Harry reminded him Lily wasn't his and that Lily had sex with another man.
There's no support for this in the text anywhere and is pure conjecture. I can appreciate it being OP's headcanon, but it's certainly not a result of studying the text and relying on it to form opinions, but rather seems to be OP projecting pre-conceived notions onto Snape as a character and trying to find justification for it. I've written a whole post extrapolating Snape's first class with Harry, but the tl;dr is that Snape, who grew up in muggle poverty and knew Aunt Petunia enough to guess that Harry didn't fare well in her care when he showed up at school bearing signs of neglect, likely expected Harry to have the same hunger for learning that he himself did at Harry's age. Instead, Harry couldn't answer a single one of his questions and showed no curiosity or enthusiasm towards being a wizard as far as Snape could tell.
Nevertheless, even though Snape did seem to dislike Harry, hate is an awful strong word given that it is revealed at the end of Deathly Hallows that Snape has risked his own life to protect him. This isn't particularly surprising when you consider that this goal was established as early as Philosopher's Stone, when Snape protected him, which Harry initially interpreted as Snape trying to kill him:
Harry couldn’t take it in. This couldn’t be true, it couldn’t. ‘But Snape tried to kill me!’ ‘No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with you. Another few seconds and I’d have got you off that broom. I’d have managed it before then if Snape hadn’t been muttering a counter-curse, trying to save you.’ ‘Snape was trying to save me?’ ‘Of course,’ said Quirrell coolly. -Philosopher's Stone, Ch. 17
Again, the story is told through the lens of Harry's bias, but that doesn't mean his opinions of Snape reflect Snape's character. As another example, there's an implication in OoTP that Snape, having seen some of the Dursleys' abuse of Harry through his memories during Occlumency lessons, passed this information on in an effort to protect Harry, and that this is the reason why several Order members (Arthur Weasley and Moody in particular) show up at King's Cross at the end of the schoolyear and threaten the Dursleys to stop mistreating him. There seems to be no other explanation in the text for why these adults are suddenly aware of the abuse Harry experiences, except that Snape, who was abused as a child himself, and who is an Order member himself, is the only adult in the series who we see witness Harry's mistreatement firsthand. At no point in the narrative do we see Harry complain about the Dursleys to the adults he trusts or ask them for help, merely to spend his holidays away from them without explanation.
While Snape did indeed dislike Harry and often compared him to his father, his dislike for James had much more significant roots in bullying and trauma than in his concern for Lily's relationship with him. It's established in canon that James Potter and Sirius Black dislike Snape from the outset (as in the scene on the Hogwarts Express in DH Ch. 33). In their fifth year, Sirius - annoyed that Snape is so curious about where Lupin goes each month - tricks Snape into following the tunnel under the Whomping Willow to the Shrieking Shack, as Lupin tells Harry:
'Professor Snape was at school with us. ... Sirius here played a trick on him which nearly killed him, a trick which involved me -‘ Black made a derisive noise. ‘It served him right,’ he sneered. ‘Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to … hoping he could get us expelled …' 'Severus was very interested in where I went every month,’ Lupin told Harry, Ron and Hermione. ‘We were in the same year, you know, and we - er - didn’t like each other very much. He especially disliked James. Jealous, I think, of James’s talent on the Quidditch pitch … anyway, Snape had seen me crossing the grounds with Madam Pomfrey one evening as she led me towards the Whomping Willow to transform. Sirius thought it would be - er - amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree-trunk with a long stick, and he’d be able to get in after me. Well, of course, Snape tried it - if he’d got as far as this house, he’d have met a fully grown werewolf - but your father, who’d heard what Sirius had done, went after Snape and pulled him back, at great risk to his life … Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He was forbidden to tell anybody by Dumbledore, but from that time on he knew what I was …'
-Prisoner of Azkaban, Ch. 18
From this we can deduce that Sirius intended for Snape to die, or at least get severely injured, and that even as a grown adult Sirius doesn't regret trying to mete out this punishment to him as retaliation for curiosity. We can also deduce that Lupin was unaware of Sirius' intention and did not consent to be used as a weapon. For his part, Snape never did reveal that Lupin was a werewolf while at school, or even during that school year, until after Lupin ran amok on Hogwarts grounds, endangering others' lives, including Harry's.
There are other meta posts that go into Lupin's insecurities and vulnerabilities, but in short, he was grateful just to be allowed into the school as a student, let alone to have friends, and was in no position to challenge James and Sirius. Even as a prefect he didn't curb their behavior, as we see when he allows James to bully Snape later that year after their O.W.L.s:
'Leave him alone,’ Lily repeated. She was looking at James with every sign of great dislike. ‘What’s he done to you?’ ‘Well,’ said James, appearing to deliberate the point, ‘it’s more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean …’ Many of the surrounding students laughed, Sirius and Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn’t, and nor did Lily. ‘You think you’re funny,’ she said coldly. ‘But you’re just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter. Leave him alone.’ ‘I will if you go out with me, Evans,’ said James quickly. ‘Go on … go out with me and I’ll never lay a wand on old Snivelly again.'
-Order of the Phoenix, Ch. 28
James acknowledges that he has no real reason to bully Snape and uses violence as a bargaining chip to coerce Lily into going out with him (James' behavior reflects much more entitlement than Snape's, in my opinion). He also chokes Snape with a bar of soap and then assaults him by dangling him upside down and removing his trousers (threatening to remove his underwear but we don't see it happen).
Lily herself refers to James as arrogant, and it's this trait, along with the trauma from James' bullying of him, that Snape perceives in Harry. He doesn't resent Harry for looking like his father because it reminds him that Lily had sex with another man, he resents him for it because of all the trauma James inflicted on him. The conflict-laden relationship between Snape and the Marauders is a significant driver of the story through several of the books and OP seems subjective to the point of being problematic in ignoring it completely and instead focusing Snape's dislike of Harry onto an invented idea of sexual jealousy that doesn't exist in the text.
It's never stated whether Snape had romantic feelings for Lily, or vice versa, only that they were friends. The closest we see to a hint of this is when “The intensity of his [Snape's] gaze made her [Lily] blush," or when “The moment she [Lily] had insulted James Potter, his [Snape's] whole body had relaxed, and as they walked away there was a new spring in Snape’s step …”
Lily's blush could be interpreted as implying she was attracted to him, or conversely that she didn't and felt awkward thinking he might be attracted to her. Similarly, Snape's relief at her insulting James can be interpreted as indicative of his attraction to her, or of him simply being worried about a friend hanging out with people he perceived as dangerous and was relieved to learn she wasn't putting herself in the way of danger by becoming friends with them. Although JK Rowling has said that her intention was for Snape's affections towards Lily to be romantic, and that she may have returned his affection had he not chosen the path he did, this is - like the note about Snape's father whipping him - extratextual and more of an interesting fact than a bit of canon to be extrapolated from the text.
Finally, OP says:
His interest in the Death Eaters was only secondary to his obsession with Lily and I think Lily rejecting him pushed him toward joining the Death Eaters, because, once again, his male ego was bruised and he needed to replace it with something else.
We've already seen that Snape's interest in joining the Death Eaters was a big part of Lily's reason for ending their friendship. Therefore, logically, Lily's decision didn't push him towards becoming a Death Eater, but rather isolated him from having any support system outside of the DEs. She didn't reject him, because rejection is the refusal or dismissal of another person's advances or proposal. They were friends, meaning they had a mutually consensual platonic relationship. Lily therefore didn't reject Snape, she ended their friendship and, as already stated, nothing in canon implies he didn't respect her boundaries.
As we have also seen in canon, Snape was bullied at school and had, at best, a neglectful and dysfunctional home environment in his childhood. In addition, he shared a dorm with students actively interested in becoming Death Eaters, and his one social lifeline away from them was cut off when he called Lily a Mudblood. What OP interprets as Snape's male ego being bruised is actually a much more complex set of social and emotional factors being described throughout the series to eventually reveal the profile of a character - young Snape - who was a vulnerable youth primed for radicalization by a violent faction of zealots. Although the enforcement and upholding of patriarchal norms is often a huge element of these kinds of social movements, that didn't seem to be the driving force for Snape based on everything we learn about his character. Instead, what we see is a boy who comes from abuse, lives in abuse at school, who loses all the support systems that might give him an alternative to the fascist cult he's being radicalized into which - if it's like most hate groups - would have been more than welcome to both take him in and help him cut his ties to anyone else in his life he might escape from them to.
It also goes against the argument that Snape was sexually obsessed with Lily that he continued to risk his life in order to protect her son an defeat her murderer for almost two decades after her death. He knew it would neither bring her back from the dead nor bring about forgiveness, and it goes without saying that sex was no longer an option. Framing Snape's motivation as obsession dismisses the realities of the complex and meaningful relationship we form as people, and the lasting, transformative influence we can have on each other, which is what Snape and Lily's story illustrates.
Finally, OP concludes with:
He remained mysterious up till the end and his back-and-forth with treason was very compelling to read about. So I hate him (as a "person") but he is such a good character narrative-wise and he is very interesting to study
OP openly admits to hating Snape, ie. having a bias against him, while stating he is "interesting to study" - except no part of their answer has shown that they've actually done so. Their arguments are unsupported in several ways, one being that they don't offer any evidence, and the other being that none can be found in the source text. What's ironic is that OP seems to resent Snape's subjective bias against Harry (and misinterpret his reasons for it in baseless ways) while also showing the exact same kind of bias against Snape themselves. You don't have to like a character by any means, but claiming that the kind of unfounded, superficial, and unsupported opinions that OP stated in their response have a basis in any kind of study of his character is ludicrous and an insult to the intelligence of anyone reading it.
22 notes · View notes
petrichormore · 9 months
Text
AND ONE MORE THING: DRAMATRIO IS FINE
(Also to be clear: I like analyzing these things. I enjoy “arguing” over these characters - it’s like enrichment to me, it’s fun, I’m never actually mad I just like writing long posts. And yeah the following is about the characters, not the CCs.)
I see a lot of people talking about how the election is tearing apart friendships - specifically the dramatrio and how Bad and Baghera don’t trust Forever anymore and yadda yadda
And to that I say: Are you sure?
(loooooong analysis below cut)
Are you sure? Because last I checked all three of them greet each other warmly. All three of them care deeply about each other and get along well. All three of them have repeatedly stated that they wouldn’t mind if one of the others became president - and that’s still true. They are at odds politically, maybe, but I think people are overestimating exactly how much they disagree. They argue about politics and they criticize each other’s points, yes, but that doesn’t mean they don’t trust each other or that they think anyone would “become a dictator.”
And I’m seeing that a lot too, on twitter and on tumblr: this idea that Bad and Baghera are convinced Forever and Cellbit will become dictators. And while I think it’s interesting… it isn’t true. I can only imagine this came from the debate where Bad and Baghera criticized insaneduo’s perceived embracing of centralized power? (So did Gegg/Slimecicle, btw) But once again, it’s not Forever and Cellbit that they distrust (well Cellbit maybe a little), it’s a position of centralized power that technically only has to listen to the Federation. Which is a valid ground on which to criticize an opponent’s platform, at least in my opinion. (I agree far more with socio-anarchy aka Bad’s position than a centralized government of any kind so I’m aware I’m biased on that.) But I’m not biased in saying that Bad and Baghera definitely don’t think Forever and Cellbit would become dictators, they’re simply wary of what the Federation could do, and also aware that absolutely power corrupts absolutely.
And before I get to how Bad and Forever are still clearly besties, I do want to hesitantly broach the idea that the position of president - as it’s presented by the federation - is not inherently democratic. In fact, I’d argue it’s kind of more similar to a dictator role, or maybe that of a monarch. The president is not required to listen to anyone, the president does not have to have the peoples’ agreement. The only force the president is actually required to answer to is that of the federation. Just because the president is called “the president” and the federation is making people vote for it doesn’t mean the position itself is democratic in nature - just the process by which the position is decided. You could call the president “king” or “ruler” and it would fit just as well.
Anyway.
Bad said just today that he thinks Forever would make a great president; his problem is not with Forever, his problem is with the Federation. In fact, Bad is still completely okay with Forever entering his and Dapper’s home, and if Bad really felt like Forever was a threat? I assure you that permission would be immediately revoked. And yet it hasn’t been.
Bad and Forever literally spent time with each other on stream today, and neither of them discussed politics because politics doesn’t matter in regards to their friendship. This has always been the case, and nothing has really changed. People claim Bad got more distrusting of his friends due to the election and I’d say he didn’t get more distrusting of his friends in particular - he just got more distrusting in general, because people were being secretive. He’s paranoid, and he’s right to be. Also I know Bad told Etoiles that he might (MIGHT) help Foolish kill other candidates (besides Gegg and Baghera) and I’m saying: He’s not serious. He’s not being serious. He’s a silly guy. Like try and picture Bad genuinely trying to help Foolish kill Forever. You can’t. I know you can’t. Because he’s not serious. If anything, he’d probably just want to watch Foolish get killed trying. This is the same guy who proposed a whale pit of death as a viable assassination method - he’s not actually out to kill anyone (except elquackity) he’s just messing around. He thinks it would be funny, and he’s right. If Bad actually kills a candidate (that’s not Elquackity) unprovoked I will be so so proud of him.
Because if Bad wanted Forever dead - if he truly thought he needed to kill Forever or Cellbit to save the island - they would be dead. And Bad would do it himself; he would do anything to protect the island’s inhabitants, and he’s fully capable of it (I recall Baghera getting upset with him specifically because he refused to promise not to, under any circumstances, kill her.) Bad will kill if he feels like he has to - he just honestly doesn’t really want to. It’s that shrimple.
121 notes · View notes
Text
In March, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s colleagues laughed as the California Republican mocked President Joe Biden’s age, saying he would bring Biden “soft food” so they could negotiate over the debt ceiling.
But McCarthy apparently did not bring Biden anything to eat during their talks, and the President chewed up the GOP’s debt limit proposal instead. Republicans aren’t laughing anymore.
“Republicans got outsmarted by a President who can’t find his pants,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) tweeted on Tuesday, making clear she opposed the compromise legislation that came out of Biden and McCarthy’s negotiations.
Biden, 80, is the oldest person to serve as President of the U.S., and his age and alleged senility have been a constant focus of Republicans and right-wing commentators, despite assurances from his doctors that there’s nothing wrong with his mind. Polls have also shown that voters have concerns about Biden’s age.
During the debt limit standoff, McCarthy repeatedly said that by refusing to negotiate with Republicans, Biden was “bumbling” the U.S. toward a potentially catastrophic default. Even some Democrats criticized the President for not publicly engaging as much as McCarthy has in recent weeks. But as of Wednesday, default seemed unlikely, and the outlines of the deal appeared favorable to Democrats.
Asked if Biden had gotten the better of McCarthy, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), replied, “Yeah, I think that’s a fair assumption.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), meanwhile, said he believed McCarthy had simply been “misled.” He didn’t say by whom.
Even McCarthy conceded that he had been impressed with Biden’s negotiating team during the talks, calling them “very professional, very smart” and “very tough at the same time.”
But the Speaker has denied that he was outsmarted, touting the bill’s reductions to government spending and stricter “work requirements” for federal food benefits that Democrats opposed. The legislation would reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, in large part due to cuts to non-defense programs, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
“How were we outsmarted? The largest cut in the history of Congress. The biggest ability to pull money back,” McCarthy told ABC News on Tuesday. “We’ve got work requirements for welfare where the Democrats said was a red line.”
Still, Biden got plenty of wins in the bill, which cuts federal spending far less than Republicans initially hoped. And in a twist, the CBO said the work requirements won’t reduce spending or enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The program supports 20 million households and already limits benefits for unemployed adults without children or disabilities who are between the ages of 18 and 49, unless they work or perform some other qualifying activity for 20 hours a week. Republicans proposed expanding the work requirement to people in their early 50s, as well as restricting states’ discretion to exempt some recipients. The CBO estimated the Republican proposal would have saved $11 billion and reduced SNAP enrollment by 275,000.
Biden signaled early on that he was open to stricter work requirements for SNAP, just not “anything of any consequence” — a statement that drew mocking laughter from McCarthy and his colleagues as someone, apparently a lawmaker behind the Speaker, shouted, “Loser!”
Sure enough, Biden agreed to expand SNAP’s work rules to people as old as 54 — but the White House also won changes that render the net impact of the bill inconsequential, at least from a budget perspective. The CBO said that, thanks to brand-new work requirement exemptions for veterans and homeless people, the bill would actually increase SNAP enrollment by a small amount and boost federal spending by $2 billion.
The analysis was not a surprise to the White House; a senior administration official said Sunday that “we expect that the number of people subject to SNAP work requirements will stay roughly the same under this agreement.”
The deal also preserves key Democratic priorities like student loan debt relief, climate change funding, and the bulk of investments aimed at making sure the wealthy pay their taxes.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) likened the bill to a “shit sandwich” that Republicans would have to eat — a sentiment shared by other Republicans planning to support the bill in a vote on Wednesday.
That doesn’t mean Democrats don’t have concerns about the legislation. Progressives, in particular, are furious that Biden was forced to negotiate over the debt limit at all, warning that he set a precedent Republicans will exploit time and time again if the debt limit isn’t abolished.
“It rewards the hostage-taking that the Republicans have gotten so damn good at,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday.
Still, Democrats maintain the GOP has underestimated Biden at every turn, pointing to his many legislative accomplishments in the last Congress, including bipartisan investments in infrastructure and semiconductor research, and his signing of a historic climate change bill.
“If you haven’t figured out by now that our president is in the top 1% of negotiators, you haven’t been paying attention the last two and a half years,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told HuffPost.
107 notes · View notes
qqueenofhades · 3 months
Note
can i ask you for some advice on how to reach out to a professor (at a university you don't attend) to ask about helping them out with their research? i'm not currently enrolled in college for a variety of financial/logistical reasons, but i really care about research and i really want to gain the skill of doing good research. i like to think i'm good at writing and critical thinking, and i'm eager to both learn and contribute.
i know i'm going to have to cold email professors and show that i've read their papers and find their research interesting, especially since i don't have much on a resume. i've read conflicting advice on how to email people -- some sources say to keep it as short and easy to read as possible, and others say to provide in-depth analysis and possibly constructive criticism of the research they've done to show you're committed. i really don't think i'm in a place to provide constructive criticism on what professional researchers are doing, LOL, but it might help to provide some commentary to show i understand it.
so my questions are, how much is too much, and how little is (probably) too little? i'm thinking of aiming for the equivalent of ~two paragraphs per email. also, are there any reliable indications of how well a professor treats the volunteers or employees/grad students who work for them? (and whether they could use extra help?)
thank you so much for reading!! i hope you have a wonderful day, and i love your blog ❤️
I admire your initiative and your desire to improve your research skills, which is why I'll have to gently say that I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it. There are a few reasons for that, namingly that first and foremost, professors are very busy and overworked people. They don't have time to do all the things they actually need to do and/or are actually paid for, and having to take extra time to summarize their research and/or organize it for an outsider who doesn't attend their university is, I'm afraid, probably going to be a pretty hard sell for most if not all of them. There's also the fact that if they do have the kind of research where it's useful to have a student assistant, there is no reason for them to give that spot to you and not one of their own students at the university, who are already actively enrolled, paying for their time, and contributing to their job and institution's research goals and projects. Not to mention that there are university confidentiality agreements, work-study arrangements, and all the rest, which would all preclude a professor just hiring a random non-student assistant off the street. Speaking from my current spot in university/department administration, I can say that it would definitely be a non-starter for us for a number of reasons. We just had an issue with flagging a student who wasn't technically enrolled in our specific program within our constituent college, although she was enrolled in the university, so bringing in someone with no connection to the university at all wouldn't fly, alas.
If you're really interested in working with THIS particular professor for some reason and not just a name you picked off a department directory with a form email that you're sending to any likely-looking candidate, you'll have to explain why in considerable depth, what you're doing or what your project is for, why you think it would be valuable for you AND for them for them to collaborate, and why you're contacting them directly instead of say, central Human Resources or the Careers page for the college. There are sometimes spots for research fellows, part-time lab assistants, or other jobs with the kind of work you seem to be looking for, but that requires you to go through the formal application/interview process like any other job and isn't something for which you can just slip in the back door (a professor would, for one thing, not likely be willing to just take you on without you going through the regular selection process for these posts and being interviewed by the university's regular hiring people).
As noted, there are legal liability issues, restrictions on what kind of information they can share with people even within the university let alone outside it, and the fact that it's not their job to hire and screen potential assistants for a research project UNLESS they are running an active project as the Principal Investigator (PI) and explicitly looking for student volunteers/employees (which even then will likely be searched/filled from within the university first). A cold email out of nowhere asking if they have some work for you, Random Stranger, will, unfortunately, go straight into the junk folder. If they're feeling polite, they might respond by directing you to reach out to HR, but that's a stretch. If you are planning to attend this university in the future, you might lead with that, because then they'll have more incentive to discuss what kind of options are available and so forth, but yeah. It's just not something I would expect to have a very great success rate and I know that if I got that kind of email, I would discard it pretty much out of hand. (I did get an extremely weird email a few weeks ago from someone asking ME if I would help THEM with their research, wherein they never specified so much as the basic subject area, what university they were at, what the project was, how they would envision me helping, why they chose me to contact, etc. It was basically a cautionary tale in how not to ask an academic to collaborate, and yes, it went pretty much straight into the recycle bin without a reply.)
If you still think after hearing this that you have a legitimate option to contact and at least feel out the waters (after all, never say never, stranger things have happened, etc) then yeah, uh, don't go with the "absolute stranger the professor doesn't know from Adam makes an unsolicited critique of their work and then asks for a job." Academics are used to receiving constructive criticism and it obviously comes with the territory, but it also comes within structured forums and at expected times -- when you present a paper to your peers at a conference, submit to a journal, etc. Popping out of nowhere to give unsolicited academic crit is as rude as popping out of nowhere to give unsolicited crit on a fanfic or something else that you've posted outside of the specific expectation of receiving it, wherein some "I Just Wanna Help" obnoxious mansplainer (gender neutral) says a lot of "helpful" things that nobody asked them for and then seems shocked when this isn't well received. I don't know who gave you that particular little nugget of uh, wisdom, but as you think, it's not something that strikes me in any way as a good idea, and would probably piss the academic off in a way that would have them venting to their friends and colleagues, and might therefore do you more harm than good in a number of different ways.
If you want to independently improve your research skills and work within the structure of academia-adjacent realms, what I really recommend doing is volunteering at your local public library, history/science museum, or other similar institution. They're always eager for volunteers and/or part-time employees, they have a number of different tasks and skills that need doing, it's a great way to build professional and community connections and see how things are done behind the scenes, and it looks good on your CV when or if you do apply to college (and then have a much easier path toward working with professors in the way you want to do). So yeah, all told, that's strongly what I'd recommend -- good luck!
28 notes · View notes