#far more liberated in certain aspects | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

viv-hollande · 5 months

Text

Ok, so this is a post that I should have made sooner. I've been somewhat out of the loop with regards to current events and the state of discourse on this website courtesy of a pretty serious depressive episode from which I am only just now recovering. As I have emerged from this state I have been pushed towards a conclusion about this website and the state of discussion around the ongoing Israel-Gaza War that I had thus far avoided due in part to my barely possessing the energy to keep myself alive and due in part to my denial that the conclusion could be true. But that denial can no longer hold.

It has become openly apparent that the pro-Palestinian camp on this website has become popularly infused with a degree of blatant, aggressive antisemitism that I, in my naivety thought impossible in the days just after October 7. I am trying to avoid turning this into a mea culpa because that would be unproductive and feel self-serving, but I do feel an obligation to admit that I disregarded prescient warnings from Jewish users whose warnings I dismissed as over-blowing a problem that I felt was real, but more limited in scope than they made out.

I'm neither an idiot nor am I ignorant. I am well aware of the long history of antisemitism in leftist politics and in the Palestinian Liberation movement. Back at the beginning of this crisis I was prepared to see the occasional instance of antisemites using the inevitable, overwhelming Israeli retaliation as an excuse to air their hateful politics. I was prepared to see both the well-meaning but ignorant and the malicious alike sharing tweets from antisemitic pro-Palestine accounts, spreading and normalizing low-grade, subtle antisemitism. Make no mistake, this should have been condemned. Antisemitism, like all bigotries, has no 'safe' level. There is no background level of antisemitism that society should just accept as normal. But I was more focused on the inevitable cacophony of suffering that Israel would almost certainly begin meting out, and so I failed to act.

The fatal blow to my denial was the increasing prevalence of the use of quotation marks around the word "Israel" and "Israeli". The first few times I saw this, I didn't really understand what it meant. Still laboring under the belief that antisemitism was a manageable problem on the left, I was certain that most of the users on this site, well-intentioned, goodhearted, critically thinking people that they were, would have recognized and called out even disguised antisemitism before it took over a good 20-40% of all posts about the conflict. I was a damn naive fool. For those, like past me, who have not cottoned on to the meaning of the quotation marks, they have become a way to express the denial of the legitimacy or even existence of, individually or all together, the State of Israel, the Israeli people, or the right of either Jews or Israelis to identify as Israelis.

CONGRATULATIONS TUMBLR! You have successfully revived from depths of 4chan neo-Nazi boards the (((fucking echoes))).

Are you serious? Are you fuckers for real? This, right here, encapsulates the pitch-black absurdity of this whole situation and why I remained in denial for so long. Never, in a million years, would I imagine that the proudly pro-Social Justice, anti-fascist, 100% Certified SAFE-SPACE(tm) website would end up using the same language as the goddamn Nazis on 4chan. I thought this website was smarter than that. But noooo, it turns out that I was a damn naive fool.

This was where the post was originally going to end. I say my piece, hope to change a few minds, and commit myself to actually fighting antisemitism instead of sitting back and dismissing the problem. But I figure, while I'm here and while I still have the driving forces of anger and guilt pushing me along, I may as well put pen to paper and spew forth my other thoughts on the ongoing crisis. I am thus compiling a much longer post detailing my thoughts on some aspects of the current situation. [EDITED ~1:25 AM GMT, 5 Dec 2023: add link to finished post] That post will definitely be long, probably be angry, possibly wrong on some aspect of fact, and will absolutely be pretentious, preachy, self-righteous and hubristic to a positively Hellenistic degree. Brief, non-comprehensive summary so you can decide whether or not get mad at me ahead of time;

Israel does apartheid, or near enough for government work.

Israel is definitely conducting a campaign of forced displacement, possibly amounting to ethnic cleansing, but I remain unconvinced of the claim of genocide.

Hamas may or may not be a anti-colonialist revolutionary group, but it definitely is an antisemitic terrorist organization with genocidal aspirations and actively supporting them is morally indefensible. Yes, this includes the Al-Qassam Brigades.

Anti-colonial and other revolutionary movements do in fact have fundamental moral obligations and suffering oppression does not give you carte blanche to do terrorism, even when an oppressor attempts to render peaceful opposition impossible. There is a middle ground between peaceful marching and 850+ dead civilians; aim for that.

The left is just as prone to unhinged conspiracism as the right.

Verify your sources, for fuck's sake.

Use nuance. It won't kill you.

There's more, but it's a little difficult to summarize an unfinished post. If you want to argue with any of these points, go ahead, just keep in mind that a longer, more comprehensive post is in the works that might have the answer to your argument/complaint/insult/intellectual disagreement. If that post isn't up by midnight GMT on Friday, assume I forgot about it and argue away. In conclusion, antisemitism is bad, apartheid is also bad, Tumblr is a hellsite (derogatory), "From the river to the sea" is, in fact, antisemitic, seriously, stop saying it, take Jews seriously when they warn you about antisemitism instead of writing them off like a damn naive fool, and last but not least, free Palestine.

#antisemitism #israel gaza war #israel #palestine #fuck hamas #politics #leftism #free palestine #israel palestine conflict #misinformation #here goes nothing #kicking the hornet's nest

339 notes · View notes

left-reminders · 3 months

Text

(Below are broad vibes for each of the numbers. They are not meant to represent every opinion one could have within those parameters. Some aspects of the description may apply to you while others won't. If you picked a number with a description that doesn't match your perspective, let us know what your actual perspective is in a reblog comment! Comments in general are nice too, of course 👍)

(You also might notice a bias in favor of 5; or at least a far deeper description of what it would entail when compared against the other four. This is partly just because I wanted to soapbox, but I hope it doesn't detract. I genuinely want to hear the perspectives of the 1s, 2s, and 3s, if you're out there and don't appreciate my potential oversimplification!)

1 — It does not factor in at all. Much of the discourse around green politics is a liberal distraction and/or a roadblock holding us back from organizing for socialism. Economic development and human concerns will always matter more. Capitalism was a necessary/justifiable component in the march of history towards socialism, even if it did have certain negative impacts on the environment. The ideal society looks like Star Trek or fully-automated luxury communism (FALC) — one where we overcome "the state of nature" and become masters of our own fate.

2 — It doesn't factor in much, even if I may recognize the reality of climate change and/or the need for environmental protections. We can solve the biggest climate problems with advancements in green technology or perhaps expanding resource frontiers into outer space. In general, other social issues take priority when building socialism.

3 — I care about combating climate change and solving ecological problems, but I find other issues to be more important in my life and I will leave most discussion of it to people more knowledgeable on the subject. The world could be doing far better on these issues and changes are needed, but most of the modern civilizational infrastructure should remain unchanged (albeit organized under a socialist mode of production).

4 — It is very important to my politics. We can balance socialistic technological development with the dire needs of a planet in crisis. Certain human activities and production methods will have to be curbed or eliminated entirely if we are to find this balance (fossil fuels, widget production, private jets, etc), while others will have to be uplifted (renewable energy, public transportation, shared living, etc). Modern civilization is ultimately redeemable, but it needs to undergo a radical transformation.

5 — It is among the most important factors in my politics. I take influence from eco-socialism, social ecology, degrowth, post-civ, anti-civ, deep ecology, or any number of other political perspectives which are ecologically-focused. Locally-organized economies; drastic reductions in working hours and energy throughput; rewilding of the land; emphasis on non-consumptive forms of leisure; an end to consumerism, growth-based economic metrics, and imperial conceptions of "development"; agroecology and polyculture as core methods for obtaining food; and a vast deconstruction of much of the civilizational edifice are all pieces to this puzzle and are required if we are going to have a habitable planet for the generations to come. The ideal society looks like a Miyazaki film, that yogurt commercial, or lightly-automated comfortable ecological socialism (LACES) — one where we "don't seek to become larger within socialism, but rather more realized" (Joel Kovel).

176 notes · View notes

yourtongzhihazel · 4 days

Text

The labor theory of value, which did not originate from Marx, forms a central pillar of Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of production. In short, it's this: labor adds value to a finished product which makes its final value greater than the sum of its raw materials and poduction costs. It is through this fact that profit can exist. Suppose a capitalist hires a worker at an hourly wage at market value, such that they are paid 10 monies per product made in an hour, to make a product that costs 20 monies in raw material and production costs but sells for 100 monies, then the worker has generated 80 monies of value through their labor but is only compensated for 10 monies of that generated value, letting the capitalist pocket a profit of 70 monies. So profit, then, is the excess value generated from labor which, instead of going to compensate the worker for the full value generated, is pocketed as surplus value. The ratio of compensation to profit is known as the rate of profit or rate of exploitation. Bear in mind that this ratio is different in every industry, firm, country, and community but generally follows that profit must be maintained due to the logic behind the capitalist mode of production: maximizing profit.

In our example, we see a worker compensated with a market wage of 10 monies per product (abstracted). In this example, the worker is "fully compensated" for the value of their labor in the market sense. That is, they are paid what the market agrees is a fair amount for their labor; the market price of the worker selling their labor for that job in that industry. However, there exists cases where this does not happen. Instead, the worker is paid significantly less than the "fair market value" of their labor. This process is known as super exploitation. In super exploitation, the worker is paid less than the market value of their labor and which allows the capitalist to pocket even more profit. Examples of this include plantation workers in Latin America, sweat shoo workers in Southeast Asia, ship crews across the maritime industry, and more. Note that while the vast majority of these examples are from the global south. Indeed, super exploitation is a key aspect of imperialism. Global south workers are paid significantly less than their imperial core counterparts due to several factors largely stemming from a weakened working class under the domination and control of imperialist powers through hard (e.g. coups or invasions) and soft (e.g. sanctions, "free trade" agreements, loans with restructuring, etc.) power methods. The reduced cost of labor in the global south makes them attractive to imperial core firms who seek to profit more and reduce labor costs. So, while global south capitalists benefit from super exploitation, they do not have the market power that imperial core countries have which allows them to truly reap the benefits of super exploitation. This is how bananas at a while foods in san francisco can cost a mere 19 usa cents per banana.

Here I must note that though super exploitation happens most commonly in the global south, it can also happen in the imperial core. Migrant or undocumented workers are exploited far more than their "native citizen" counterparts largely due to their vulnerable political-economy. Migrant farm workers in california, for example, work long hard hours for less than minimum wage solely because they do not benefit from the protections of labor laws. These workers are largely unable to agitate or organize against these exploitative practices because their political-economic position allows the bourgeois state to deport, detain, or otherwise halt their organizing. You'll also note, this is also a great case of liberalism in practice: the exception of certain groups from accessing the "universal rights and liberties" espoused by liberalism.

SN: AZ49

#super exploitation #mmp #AZ49

88 notes · View notes

dailyanarchistposts · 3 days

Text

A.2.15 What about “human nature”?

Anarchists, far from ignoring “human nature,” have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, “human nature” is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant “what humans do,” it is obvious that human nature is contradictory — love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of “human nature.” Of course, what is considered “human nature” can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of “human nature” and “normal” for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become part of “human nature” once states developed. Hence Chomsky:

“Individuals are certainly capable of evil … But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they’d be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. “If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we’re going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you’ll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves.” [Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158]

Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what “human nature” is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a “human nature” radically different from a libertarian one. So “when we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?” [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]

As such, the use of “human nature” as an argument against anarchism is simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. “Every fool,” as Emma Goldman put it, “from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?” Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism “stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” For ”[f]reedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.” [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]

This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by “society” (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky argues, “I don’t think its possible to give a rational account of the concept of alienated labour on that assumption [that human nature is nothing but a historical product], nor is it possible to produce something like a moral justification for the commitment to some kind of social change, except on the basis of assumptions about human nature and how modifications in the structure of society will be better able to conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our essential nature.” [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not “innate.” All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn — that much is obvious, we feel — and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression (Bakunin rightly considered ”the power to think and the desire to rebel” as “precious faculties.” [God and the State, p. 9]).

These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people “savages” or “primitive” is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against “human nature”? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.

As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of “human nature,” it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For “while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth — the rulers, the employers, the leaders — who, happily enough, prevent those bad men — the ruled, the exploited, the led — from becoming still worse than they are” we anarchists “maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority” and ”both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation.” So “there is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers.” [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.

Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. “It is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of privilege,” argued Bakunin, “to kill the mind and heart of man … That is a social law which admits no exceptions … It is the law of equality and humanity.” [God and the State, p. 31] And while the privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) “human nature” it produces.

Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For example, with the rise of “sociobiology,” some claim (with very little real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our “nature,” which is determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the “human nature” argument and have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this “new” doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in power — i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an “objective” and “scientific” basis to rationalise inequalities in wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin and Leon J. Kamin).

This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist Stephen Jay Gould notes, “the range of our potential behaviour is circumscribed by our biology” and if this is what sociobiology means “by genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree.” However, this is not what is meant. Rather, it is a form of “biological determinism” that sociobiology argues for. Saying that there are specific genes for specific human traits says little for while ”[v]iolence, sexism, and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviours” so are “peacefulness, equality, and kindness.” And so “we may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish.” That this may be the case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists themselves, who “acknowledge diversity” in human cultures while “often dismiss[ing] the uncomfortable ‘exceptions’ as temporary and unimportant aberrations.” This is surprising, for if you believe that “repeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive peoples is embarrassing.” [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]

Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both “normal” and “natural”). Bookchin refers to this as “the subtle projection of historically conditioned human values” onto nature rather than “scientific objectivity.” Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and history, being used to “prove” that the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! “What this procedure does accomplish,” notes Bookchin, “is reinforce human social hierarchies by justifying the command of men and women as innate features of the ‘natural order.’ Human domination is thereby transcribed into the genetic code as biologically immutable.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 95 and p. 92] Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously.

This can be seen when “hierarchies” in nature are used to explain, and so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies are misleading for they forget the institutional nature of human life. As Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, a “weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an ‘alpha’ male, much less retain this highly ephemeral ‘status.’ By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the course of history.” This “expresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is completely reversed in so-called ‘animal hierarchies’ where the absence of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about ‘alpha males’ or ‘queen bees.’” [“Sociobiology or Social Ecology”, Which way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes human society unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in society are hidden under a genetic screen.

The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to “human nature” (or sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite power — be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong … until now, of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to “human nature” and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!

The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn’t stopped. One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming that their new society is the “One True System” that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past systems did not.

Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same facts — conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to capitalist apologists that the theories of the “objective” scientists may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.

Kropotkin’s classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time, Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that “mutual aid” within a group or species played as important a role as “mutual struggle” between individuals within those groups or species (see Stephan Jay Gould’s essay “Kropotkin was no Crackpot” in his book Bully for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he stressed, a “factor” in evolution along with competition, a factor which, in most circumstances, was far more important to survival. Thus co-operation is just as “natural” as competition so proving that “human nature” was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage individuals.

To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against “human nature” for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being “human nature” is shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This means a hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits to dominate while an anarchist one would encourage others. As such, anarchists “do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the same nature will act differently under different circumstances.” Secondly, change “seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence” so “who can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his possibilities.” [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, pp. 360–1 and p. 360]

For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally good, see Peter Marshall’s “Human nature and anarchism” [David Goodway (ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127–149] and David Hartley’s “Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature”. [Anarchist Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145–164]

26 notes · View notes

mangle-my-mind · 7 months

Text

Todd Haynes on Mandy Slade

OM: How did you come to cast Toni Collette as Mandy? She doesn't strike me as an obvious choice for the role as it is written; her most famous part was in Muriel's Wedding where she played the podgy, Abba-obsessed ultra-hetero outcast.

TH: Mandy was the hardest part to cast in the film. It's a particularly demanding role due to the range Mandy has to display as she changes from the seventies to the eighties. This type of camp female character has basically vanished from our cultural landscape, as far as I can tell. The closest equivalent today is probably a Parker Posey-type character, but she's still quite different from the Liza Minnelli of Cabaret or the Angela Bowie of the glam era. Mandy has a theatrical, campy party girl persona that can be turned on and off at will, and owes a great deal to the gay male sensibility of the time. I think women around the world were liberated from all kinds of highly codified notions of femininity when people like Patti Smith entered the pop cultural arena. It had such a profound effect on women but girls today have no memory of that kind of camp femininity.

I saw so many strong actresses for Mandy, both in the US and the UK, and it was really tough to find the right one. We came close a few times, but it wasn't until I met Toni that it all clicked. I had no doubt about her acting ability, but the question was how to transform Toni Collette psychically, both for the camera and in her own self-regard into this very different, very confident, overly sexual creature. She really had to go off the cliff; I'm sure it was terrifying. And what you see in the film is such a transformation, such a complete commitment to the role that she almost becomes unrecognizable as Muriel in Muriel's Wedding. After a certain point, nothing was too scary for Toni. What you get with the character is what you get with the actress playing her - this range of changes and the effects of various cultures and various experiences on one extraordinary woman.

OM: Although the script informs you of Mandy being an American bisexual who reinvented herself, you get the sense of invention fully in the scene where she presents Brian with the divorce papers. She breaks down and you see the façade in a seventies context. It's a very moving moment and it's contrasted with Brian's coked-up emptiness. What did you discover in your research about the 'back-stage' women of the glam era?

TH: I guess Mandy's basic expression of real needs is made more vivid by that scene, but the beaten-down, hard-boiled Mandy of the eighties gives you the framework for that. She was definitely one of those people who was feeling and hurting and acting out at the same time. Often the casualties were the women of the male rock world. I really feel the film builds and develops complex sympathies for Mandy that you won't necessarily feel going in. The character is loosely inspired by aspects of Angela Bowie, and it's very easy to make fun of that kind of pop creature after the fact. But in all the books I read there was no argument on how fundamentally essential Angela Bowie was to the invention of Ziggy Stardust and to glam rock in general. She inspired risk-taking and flamboyance to a degree no one else can claim credit for. It wouldn't have happened without her.

Source - "Superstardust: Talking Glam with Todd Haynes", Oren Moverman.

Photo source

Emphases my own :)

#mandy slade #velvet goldmine #25yearsofvelvetgoldmine #velvetgoldmine25th #many things to think about from this.#first - Toni Collette's ever-changing accent through the film is a stroke of fucking genius #i will never understand people who criticize how all-over-the-place it is. that's the entire POINT #next - camp femininity!!!#Mandy really does more drag than the rest of the characters. I LOVE how performative she is with her gender #(also this interview is from when the movie came out and I think since then we've had plenty of displays of exaggerated femininity in pop)#then - often the casualties were the women of the male rock world!!!!#yes EXACTLY

80 notes · View notes

saintmurd0ck · 1 year

Note

Oh, Rhi. When I saw this, I knew I had to send in a request 😆❤️

And because I'm in such a fluffy mood, could I pretty please have some major fluff with Frank Castle? Maybe a love confession? 🙈

Feel free to ignore, I'm just a fluffball today and Frank needs some love 😍

death and taxes

frank masterlist | sleepover masterlist

awwww lily i am in a mortifyingly fluffy mood and simultaneously yearning for the man that is frank castle... so please rejoice in these thoughts with me. please note the photo is a little misleading cause this thing be angsty (a little) BUT ANYWAY i hope you like it!

frank doesn't know why it's taken him this long to say it.

he thinks it's partially denial, but like many aspects of his life, there's a thin layer of silt that's settled over this feeling, that causes it to numb, despite the heart loudly pounding in his ribcage in earnest. for you.

he glances at the alarm clock on the bedside table, wincing at the time. it's 4.24 in the morning. he looses a heavy sigh before turning back onto his side, staring intently at the steady rise and fall of your chest, at the blissful expression painted on your face.

the sun is far from rising, moonlight barely drifting past the curtains, but there's an ethereal glow about you. there's a dull ache that spreads in frank's chest, symbiote-like as it snakes outwards, reaching into every shadow-filled nook and cranny within.

it pains him--loving you pains him. it's a sweet kind of agony, one that pairs fitful sleep and tormenting nightmares with the goodness of your soul, the understanding and kindness that seep from your actions into the centre of frank's transgressions. after all, you're the only person left in his life that sees him for who he truly is.

there are days when he is weary, when his self-loathing echoes above your adoration, when he questions all of what he deserves. he doesn't know if today will be one of those days, where the roaring in his head dulls every other sense about him.

but he knows it's time. it's long overdue.

and he knows he's got a shot with you. it's a chance of redemption, even if the odds are slim.

frank grits his jaw as the phantom pain spreads, catching stiffly in his joints, in his breathing. this is real, he reminds himself. it's not a nightmare. he moves closer to you, pressing a gentle kiss to your spine, inhaling the scent that's become home to him.

as it does every once in a while, the voice of mario castiglione blossoms in his memory. frank's father. his lilting sicilian accent rings clear. 'when you meet the one, you'll know. you'll know, because the love will be as real as the two things in life that are certain.' frank can still see the two fingers his dad would hold up. 'death, and taxes.'

death and taxes, indeed.

frank chuckles softly, supplementing his father's memory with a new one of his own. "wanted to wait until you were awake to say this, but if i don't do it now, i'll lose my nerve."

he pauses as you stir, mumbling his name, resuming only when he's certain you're fast asleep. "shoulda said it the first time i laid eyes on you, sweetheart. but here we are."

he nudges himself once more. as real as death and taxes.

"i love you. i sure as hell don't deserve you, but you're here, huh? hell, i'll spend every goddamn day makin' it up to you... to, i dunno, prove myself."

the confession is freeing, easing the weight on his shoulders, one word at a time. frank can't remember the last time he's spoken to anyone with this sort of grace, or vulnerability. it's liberating, and he feels it--mind, body and soul.

"i love you," he whispers, scooping you into his arms, holding your bodies as close as he can muster. as if the dam has broken, it comes tumbling out; a mantra, a tangible prayer. "i love you, sweetheart."

'i love you i love you i love you,' his spirit sings.

tags {x} @marvelswh0re @murdock-and-the-sea @itwasthereaminuteago @devils-dares @mattmurdocksscars @castlesnchurches @mindidjarin @pedrito-friskito @sweetieswiftie @honeyedheartss

tagging some of my frank besties cause i'm so fucking proud of this one

#frank castle #the punisher #frank castle x reader #the punisher x reader #frank castle fluff #the punisher fluff #the punisher angst #frank castle angst #frank castle fanfic #the punisher fanfic #saintmurd0ck director's cut #rhi's mutuals 💗#rhi writes 💻

151 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 3 months

Text

Sociopaths across the globe finding posters of these kidnapped children. Babies, Holocaust survivors and tearing them down. I saw, they were all over the upper east side, the same posters of the 8-year-old girl, the 9-month-old baby, and someone had literally gone to the trouble of printing it out with the word "occupier" under it, if you would believe that.

And let me explain to you exactly why this is happening. These people have woke mind-virus.

In the woke mindset, there's no difference between right versus wrong. They see the world only through the lens of powerful versus powerless, and then they superimpose race onto that.

So, anybody who is a "person of color" has less power and thus is inherently virtuous, no matter what they do, and anybody who they perceive as a "white" person is inherently morally compromised and an oppressor and has no virtue and is evil.

And they code Jews and Israel as "white." And just like all white people, there's no such thing as an innocent white person or an innocent Jew to these woke people.

And so what they do is, when there's evidence of a Jewish victim, what could be more pure and innocent than a 9-month-old baby, they literally have to destroy the evidence because it destroys their mindset, their worldview.

And let me just tell you one more thing. You know, there's a lot of people walking around saying the Jewish people are shaking, the Jewish people are scared. We're not scared. We are livid. And if these sociopaths think we're going to cede this great nation to them, they're in for a big surprise.

"Another aspect of the construction of whiteness is the way certain groups have moved into or out of that race. For example, early in our history Irish, Jews, and Italians were considered nonwhite—that is, on a par with African Americans. Over time, they earned the prerogatives and social standing of whites by a process that included joining labor unions, swearing fealty to the Democratic Party, and acquiring wealth, sometimes by illegal or underground means. Whiteness, it turns out, is not only valuable; it is shifting and malleable." -- "Critical Race Theory, An Introduction" (Third Edition), by Delgado and Stefancic

The Role of the Moslem Woman: Article Seventeen: The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the Moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up the way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated. -- Hamas Covenant 1988

Critical Race Theory and Hamas both echo the same "Jews control the world" conspiracy theories as the far-right.

#Batya Ungar Sargon #israel #palestine #hamas #islamic terrorism #islam #hamas supporters #pro palestine #freedom fighters #israel hostages #oppressor #oppressed #critical race theory #jihad #hamas terrorism #religion is a mental illness

14 notes · View notes

bimboficationblues · 5 months

Note

is fight club a left or right wing movie?

part of what I like about the film is that it is politically idiosyncratic in a way that I find interesting, but I think I’d be hard-pressed to defend it as “leftist” without giant screaming caveats in a way I really wouldn’t if I wanted to make a rightist case. So take that as you will. I wrote about my feelings on it here so apologies if you read that and I repeat certain points below

Like another hotly debated Fincher movie, Gone Girl, I think that there’s a preoccupation with how we construct gendered identity and how it is shaped by class and conspicuous consumption and media systems. I find that quality really interesting, but I wouldn’t call it meaningfully leftist per se except in like an Adbusters kind of way - an interest in “authenticity” is something I’m both personally skeptical towards and also a grounding value of reactionary politics

I think it’s pretty unambiguous that Tyler Durden’s politics are a kind of nihilist, revanchist manhood, and his picture of an ideal society is a weird sort of “retvrn” take on primitivism. As far as authorial intentions go I think it’s likely that Palahniuk shares Durden’s worldview at least in part (which I personally don’t feel totally translates into the screenplay adaptation, perhaps in part due to the diminished homoeroticism) and Fincher seems at least sympathetic to it in his public comments, though he also seems to focus more on the economic aspects. But I don’t think author intent is the end-all of cinematic critique and I’m a lot more interested in how stuff is framed and structured and shot

I think what really seals the ambiguity is the lack of a meaningful alternative to Durden’s worldview even though that worldview is presented as wrong (quite literally delusional). Like, the reveal that Tyler is an idealized self looking to complete suicide and take the world with him (“liberating” it in the process), does sap the power of some of the salient critiques of consumption and advertising and alienation - the tradeoff being that it also undermines the stupid male resentment stuff. It almost becomes a kind of anti-politics. Is the idea that everything is actually fine? Is the critique unqualifiedly correct but the solution wrong - perhaps there *is* no appropriate solution and the status quo should just be accepted? Are the critiques a hodgepodge of semi-accurate complaints about modern capitalism distorted by male entitlement and fear of feminization, which leads to (or rather, justifies) bad solutions? That last one is probably closest to my personal reading, but I’m cognizant of the fact that it’s the one that most closely aligns with my own views, in that it resonates with how I understand certain reactionary modernisms. One of the most interesting details for me that supports this is how the fight club is meant to offer an alternative individualism to consumer culture’s pseudo-individualism, but the fight club is eventually subsumed into cultic, conformist behavior, the exact sort of mass manipulation that advertising and culture-industry engages in: people who dress the same, repeat rules they don't understand and had no participation in making, follow arbitrary orders, and only have identity in death.

On the flipside, there’s also a kind of interesting thread where like, the narrator is homoerotic with Tyler and views Marla as an invasive presence right up until the point where he’s reached disillusionment with Tyler and Project Mayhem, and at that point he pivots hard to a reaffirmation of his heterosexuality through desire for Marla. This might be a discomfort with M/M sexuality (note the adaptational change from the narrator meeting Tyler on a nude beach to meeting him on a plane), suggesting that the film's underlying anxiety is not Tyler's fear about emasculation and feminization creating a weaker society, but a fear of male homoeroticism and its supposedly destructive, anti-civilizational quality

These are all a lot of different, potentially mutually exclusive readings but I guess it points towards the answer of "I dunno, it depends on where you place your emphases."

18 notes · View notes

raayllum · 1 year

Text

The Cycle Speculation

So I was thinking about this post in regards to the cycle restarting and how TDP loves to parallel structures with escalation of stakes amid differing scenarios with similar dilemmas, and it got me thinking about how the Cycle has been perpetuated over the centuries / course of the show thus far, and the commonalities between the objects/spells used, and well...

Let’s strap on our thinking caps and wheel out a conspiracy board, which is to say: tracking spells, generational parallels, the symbolism of the Heart in TDP, and how I think the Cycle will be perpetuated in S5 / S6 - and possibly how part of it began, re: Aaravos and the Key. AKA my torment is over and I think I may have, honest to God, figured out what the Cube is and how it could be used thematically and plot wise going forward.

Tracking spell

So tracking spells are surprisingly important in TDP. They don’t seem to be at first glance, as often times the main trio are just wandering along until they find the right spot, or are embedded more generally into their world’s geography than anywhere extremely specific (most of S1, parts of S2, etc). However, tracking spells are crucial in both Claudia and Soren’s tracking spell to find the trio at the end of S1, bleeding into early S2.

We see the tracking spell repeated when Viren is searching for the magma titan, down to needing a piece of the victim (the Magma Titan, Rayla’s braid) down to the glowing jar, before finding the exact Titan the piece was from.

This journey, of course, sets off the death of the three queens, most notably Queen Sarai, whose death causes Harrow and Viren to perpetuate the cycle further in killing Thunder. But even more than that, The same jar used in this spell also coincidentally houses Sarai’s last breath until it’s used to fell Thunder.

This of course also made me think of the Key of Aaravos, which according to Callum’s Spellbook and featuring screencaps from the show, is routinely being pulled somewhere, leaving the same lines in the sand every time. Upon reaching Xadia, the marks got longer, although it is not clear exactly what direction they are in. We do know that the rolling of the cube always ends with the Star rune being faced most directly.

Which is to say: the previous things we’ve seen pulled rather unknowingly have all been parts or pieces of a previous tracking spell, and beyond that, ordinarily symbols of love. Rayla’s braid symbolized Ethari’s love and affection for her; the piece of the Magma Titan allows for its home to be invaded and for it to be murdered; Sir Sparklepuff is able to lead his strange new little family to Rex Igneous through an innate sense of knowing from Aaravos, and is clearly a part of Aaravos as well. Which goes to support that whatever the cube is, it is, or holds, a piece of whatever it is being pulled to, most likely Aaravos himself (after all, it is his Key and unlocks something in Xadia). But more on that later.

For now, let’s look at the generational parallels.

Viren, Harrow, Sarai / Callum, Ezran, Rayla

At first glance, it is very easy to slot the kids just into a single generational role, which is to say: Viren-Callum as high mages and brothers to the king; Harrow and Ezran as the actual brother kings; Rayla and Sarai as a compassionate moral through line. However, I don’t think it’s quite that simple for a number of reasons.

I’ve touched on it before, but all three kids are very much Harrow split down the middle and then some, each embodying and amplifying certain aspects:

Rayla carrying on Harrow’s martyr complex and hope for redemption / wanting to make a difference; by and large, personality wise she is the most similar. More in depth parallels here if you are interested, as well as the theme of what’s worth dying for

Ezran of course has Harrow’s responsibilities as king, but where being king was ultimate an experience of chains and a lack of freedom, Ezran is a child king and finds genuine liberation in his work. He is also the direct manifestation of Justice, paralleling Harrow’s assertion that “Above all else, I must be a Just king”

Callum wrestles most directly with the theme of Freedom in relation to Harrow, specifically the freedom to make choices and give up the temptation with Dark Magic. More discussion regarding this here. Callum also gets Harrow’s emphasis on fairness (in relation to justice, but also as its own thing thematically, re: fair opportunity within the system outside the accident of birth)

Additionally, Rayla has plenty parallels with Viren as well, with Ezran perhaps best embodying Sarai’s appeal for personhood: “Does it think? Does it feel? Does it have a family?” Furthermore, Callum also has parallels to Sarai; he really is his mother’s son.

But like, what’s the Point of all this? If there’s so many and Viren, Sarai, and Harrow all had specific places in perpetuating the Cycle largely in spite of their best efforts (Viren hoped by killing Zym that “all of this will finally, truly be over”) than how does this impact the current trio, thematically?

Going into S4 and in terms of behaviour / choices, Callum undoubtedly has the most in common with Viren and Harrow, specifically Viren with his loved ones (“I have always been ready to do anything to protect my family, however dangerous, however vile”) and being generally fine with the concept of dying to protect them, not necessarily out of any sense of rightness the way Harrow did. Callum’s S4 arc also mirrors Harrow’s arc in 3x06; trying to move on and focus on peace, while being undeniably angry and furious over the loss of someone he loves. So he’d be Viren-Harrow in about that order.

Rayla has likewise become more like Viren (willing to leave those needing help behind in 2x06 / 4x05), although her parallels to Harrow from the previous seasons are so strong I think they overrule. Additionally, her hair style is an exact match to Sarai’s old hair (the braid-bun combo, the three piece over her cheeks, etc) as well as her place in Callum’s life as a cautious moral through line. Moreover, her and Sarai’s pictures alone are hung up closely together. While we haven’t see this set of parallels come to fruition yet, I think we may in S5. So I’d place her tentatively in Harrow-Sarai.

Last but not least, we have Ezran, who I think is thematically embodying Sarai-Harrow with blessedly none of Viren, trying to carve a better path forward even if he feels in over his head, even if it will be exceedingly difficult, and even if it will take “decades of hard work”. He knows that there’s no monster he can slay to solve all his problems and unlike Rayla, he is not going to try.

So loosely, we either have Viren-Callum, Harrow-Rayla, Sarai-Ezran, or Viren-Callum, Sarai-Rayla, and Harrow-Ezran. Just as Arc 1 was about correcting and making up for their parents’ mistakes, it seems that Arc 2 is well underway to be about trying to make up for their own mistakes (Ezran ignoring anger, Callum trying to ignore his, Rayla leaving and more). Which is to say: all of this has happened before and all shall happen again.

Haunts The Very Heart of Xadia

Hearts are kind of important in TDP. There’s the repeated motif, used most commonly but not exclusively by Rayla, of a hand or first to the heart, also employed by Callum, Ezran, Viren, Terry, and many others. Most often this is in the context of a loved one or reaffirming pain / a decision to make.

However, it goes deeper than that. (Illusion) Viren and Avizandum are both stabbed directly in the heart (“That was her spear, my mom’s, and my stepdad put it into his heart”) which is particularly apt given it was revenge for killing “the love of King Harrow’s life, Queen Sarai.” This moment is also directly harkened back to in the majority of the S4 openings, although Callum’s, which could have been very different, also features his own more Star magic-y stone spell beginning in his heart.

There is also Ezran’s big speech from 4x03 that invokes the heart specifically as a call to action and compassion, stating:

It’s not that easy or simple. Because people are still hurting and they are still angry. We can’t ignore that, or pretend it will go away. Somehow, we have to hold it all in our hearts at the same time. We have to acknowledge the weight of the pain and loss, but open up our eyes and allow ourselves to hope and maybe forgive and love again. We have to give today’s children a chance to inherit a future filled with peace. To give them that, we have to hold pain and love in our hearts at the same time.

Which, one of S4′s big theme in particular is set up and discussion of when to, and when is it possible, to reconcile dualities, but more on that later.

The character most closely tied to this theme of Heart, in many ways, though is Rayla, from the very first episode.

My Heart for Xadia!

Your heart isn’t hard enough to do whatever it takes.

[To Ezran] You have a good heart. It’s super annoying.

Before you left, I told Runaan you were too good hearted for the work of an assassin.

You have true courage, and a big heart.

My only allegiance is to my heart and those that know it. (Tales of Xadia bio)

I remember how I felt when my parents left me to join the Dragonguard, like PART OF MY HEART WAS MISSING and I would never feel right again. (Dear Callum letter)

Please don’t let this hurt too much. But, if it does—if you feel that soft aching—know that that piece of your heart isn’t missing. It’s not missing at all, Callum: I’m carrying it with me! Always. (Dear Callum letter)

One of the most critical things S4 did was establish Rayla’s importance in the future outcome of Callum being possessed by Aaravos. Both that she will likely be what helps him ultimately break out of it, but moreover that she will do so at great possible cost. This comes back to “You let him live but you killed us all” and the possible consequences of sparing Callum at any cost, in a classic Duty VS Love conflict. Additionally, it also pushes Rayla precisely into the position and role she was supposed to fill after a season of belief that “We can’t save everyone” and being taunted by Aaravos, specifically, that she was incapable of killing. So it’s going to hit doubly if it becomes one of her cornerstone conflicts next season.

But wait, as I always say, there’s more.

Rayla identifying her parents and herself as a missing piece of her and Callum’s hearts, respectively, as opposed to the implied entire heart exchange between Runaan and Ethari (“My heart goes out with this one”) struck me as interesting, particularly when it’s the only time we’ve seen that separate signifier is in Rayla’s letter itself. So I was thinking about Rayla, and Rayla-Aaravos parallels per usual, and how the Cube glows a pure white in the 4x04 intro, just like the falling star when it makes the proper side Star sigil in the “Mystery of Aaravos” typography, as well as a remark from TDP’s head writer Devon that the Key may not be exactly what we think/thought it is, and...

I think the Key may hold Aaravos’ missing chest piece—a literal missing piece of his heart.

This is for a few different reasons. The first is that we know Aaravos had his chest piece in the 1x01 intro, and at one point he lost it. The intro appears to happen during the exiling of the humans, but it’s hard to tell whether that’s actually accurate given the singularity of the framing. If not for it, I’d say he put it in the Key to give to the human founder of Elarion as an act / presentation of love, that predates the fall of Elarion and subsequent expulsion (although we’ll return to her/them in a minute).

Although it would be tempting to say definitively that he lost it at the Fall of Elarion, Aaravos still walked Xadia for centuries, and the intro we see him in seemingly belongs to this, and he did not leave with the other Startouch elves. Zubeia frames it as though he was a Star until his treachery was uncovered and not that he Fell prior but was accepted past that point regardless. We also know that Aaravos isn’t at his full strength inside the mirror, even though the Star arcanum is all about time and space, and it’s hard to tell how his powers have been restricted otherwise. With all that in mind, it’s far more likely Aaravos was at his full power until Zubeia and the other archdragons /accomplices surprised him, ripped his heart out, and then tossed him into the mirror. Therefore, it means that it isn’t the mirror or its dimension necessarily keeping him restricted, but the fact the piece of his arcanum - his quasar diamond - was taken from him in the first place and its resulting physical / magical effects.

This makes sense for a few reasons.

A villain who is literally heartless is very juicy symbolically

Light has also been associated with bad things across the series, not solely good things (the specific Sunfire staff test of the Light to decide your fate for example)

Not only is Aaravos currently terrifying, but reclaiming his heart piece in some capacity would either 1) put him at full power, 2) allow him to get himself out of the mirror past that point on his own, or 3) both

Aaravos’ prison itself is surely powerful, but Aaravos himself is ultimately even more powerful and at this point, the most powerful character in the show:

As well as having multiple layers of thematic precedent. There is Aanya’s ring, also featured in this episode, given to Harrow and then passed onto Aanya after her mothers’ deaths, kept inside a sealed six-petalled flower, just as Harrow passes the six sided cube down to Harrow.

Then, there is also the fact we know, thanks to interviews, that a lot of Aaravos’ actions are motivated by a relationship/bond he had eons ago, presumably with a human and more specifically, the human founder of Elarion. If he loved this human deeply (particularly romantically, due to his short birthday story featuring being given an apple by a human, which is a very loaded symbol and almost always used for romance) and losing her/them is part of what motivated him to begin his thousand year long manipulation play, his heart would undoubtedly be a very important symbol. We’ve seen numerous characters to questionable or vile things for their loved ones or in the name of revenge (Viren with his family; Harrow using dark magic to avenge Sarai). Aaravos doing all of this out of a long broken heart would be very thematically in line, a heart that now only feels pain rather than love.

We also know, pretty blatantly, that Egyptian mythology has been an influence on the series (Ibis’ name and association with Callum; the centre of an ankh being a mirror and a diamond, just like the quasar diamonds). One of the traditions in Egyptian mythology was holding up a dead soul’s heart and weighing it against Ma’at’s Feather of Truth. If it was heavier than the feather, you were wicked and condemned. This makes the Orphan Queen holding it (whether it would eventually contain or already did contain) fall in line, as we get this voice over from Zubeia regarding the moment Aaravos’ treachery came to light and the truth was discovered:

This would mean then that the Key is both a key of Aaravos’ jail and a piece of Aaravos - a double meaning, a double key, related to its prisoner and its owner. It would fall perfectly in line with everything we’ve learned about the Key up to this point as well as its symbolism and foreshadowing while building on it with some twists and even higher stakes than we already had.

There would also be a few layers of delicious irony.

First, we’ve seen that dark magic has limits that it cannot overcome on its own, but presumably can with Aaravos’ help. Thereby, more than being offered unlimited power solely from dark magic in Callum’s 2x08 dream, he’s being offered unlimited power because of the Key as well. There’s also Callum holding what would contain a quasar diamond in the first place while literally asking if there is no gem for Star magic, not knowing that he has one in the very palm of his had (“Having knowledge isn’t the same as knowing knowledge” after all).

Last but not least, there is the fact that concept art of Aaravos, shared when he was identified all the way back in S1, has his chest piece being far more akin to a literal diamond than even the upside down Star arcanum it holds now.

Then, another factor I would be remiss not to mention because 1) I’m me and 2) it could be a very cool connection is that if the Key is indeed Aaravos’ missing piece, it makes this shot of Rayla when she re-enters Callum’s life in 4x02 all the more meaningful and make all the more sense in its framing.

While the framing is pretty blatant, given that Rayla is literally haloed in light seconds after Callum was saying, “In darkness, gaze upon a Fallen Star.” It clearly indicates that she is tied to this plot line of ‘darkness’ (which 4x07 confirms with “I need you to kill me [...] what if I’m on a path of darkness?” “Then take another path dummy”) even before it truly ‘begins’ in an inciting incident sense. So far so good, very straight forward. But even when seeing this for the very first time I wondered, why the fuck is the cube there? Because it absolutely doesn’t need to be. There were plenty of other scenes (like the one immediately preceding it for example) or times where Stella making the Star primal glow could’ve be shown. Especially since in the above shot many people are bound to be distracted by Rayla’s return and new appearance and not even paying attention to the cube held by her little monkey.

But, if the cube is the missing piece of Aaravos’ heart, and Rayla, as we’ve already said, is canonically / has identified herself as the missing piece of Callum’s heart, well, placing them together to foreshadow this specific importance of the cube makes a lot more sense. It’s a still a bit of a stretch right now because it requires reading Rayla’s letter, which is decidedly additional supplementary material, but the supplementary material is routinely used to foreshadow things exactly like this (Rex eating a jelly tart for example) so it also wouldn’t be out of line. Then as always I have my theory of Rayla’s life being exchanged for the cube, which if this heart parallel is true, would just make more sense and tie a tighter parallel than the whole thing already does.

Last but not least, there is the way this brings the Magma Titan plot line back full force thematically, and I actually think this is one of the most interesting parts, if not the most interesting part, of the whole theory.

It’s been previously accepted, generally, that in spite of the personal pain and moral ambiguity in hunting the Magma Titan, its murder was a necessary evil and its personhood debatable at best (cue Harrow and Sarai’s opposing views to begin with). I always figured that the biggest way this plot line would be used thematically, beyond a good example of the Cycle and Sarai’s death, is when Viren effectively turns his own soldiers into Magma Titans in 3x07 Hearts of Cinder. He strips them and they strip themselves of their own personhood and humanity while they prepare to do the same on an untold scale in Xadia.

However, if Aaravos’ heart was forcefully ripped out against his will, it would ask the exact question I’ve always posited when trying to get people to consider the messy ethical ramifications of the Magma Titan: how sentient does something or someone have to be before this would be considered organ harvesting? Would you view the spell the same if it had the Magma Titan had been some undeniably more human, like an elf, or even an elven child? Yes, I’m sure we’ll see precisely why Aaravos truly had to be imprisoned, but I think almost anyone would feel some unease about a violation on that level, if not sympathy. (And then of course the added layers of irony of Avizandum attacking the humans and killing the queens for ripping out the heart of the Magma Titan when he did the very same to Aaravos three centuries prior, if it was indeed lost pre-immediate imprisonment / Viren being compared to Avizandum in the intro and beyond is a pin the show has to return to eventually.

A heart (Thunder’s) for a heart (Harrow’s in Sarai) for a heart (the Magma Titan). A heart (Aaravos’ for ‘Elarion’) for a heart (the cube) for a heart (Callum’s in Rayla).

We also can’t ignore the emphasis placed on childhood and games with the cube. Love is often treated or thought of as a game outside of the series (blasting “the winner takes it all” and “blank space” among many others, but mostly “love’s not a game” from Crazy Ex Girlfriend), but the concept of children’s hearts are an important part of the show’s construction of how to break the Cycle. The Book One novelization lays this out very plainly with (although I’m too lazy to grab my copy and am paraphrasing) “Children see with their hearts, not just their eyes.”

Aaravos’ childhood and possible loss of childhood innocence/idealism is definitely something we are going to explore given baby Aaravos’ prominent placement on the Mystery of Aaravos’ star chart map. Aaravos playing a game was largely absent as a motif in the first arc save for whenever Rayla would speak about the cube in seasons 1-2, with S4 cementing the motif more firmly with Aaravos himself directly. Aaravos losing his heart in that sense and any hope he had left to be something Different than what he currently is would be truly heartbreaking, and showing that you can always undo what’s been done. You may be able to take elves out of coins and a dragon egg back home to its mother, but some things are too ruined beyond repair; a heart will never fit the same ever again, literally.

The Cycle

So what does this mean, going forward?

Well, as other people have pointed out, Harrow doing dark magic to avenge Sarai is the core thing that started the current Cycle the characters had to directly overcome, with Sarai’s death both a ghost and an inspiration and likewise, Callum doing dark magic to protect Rayla is what is allowing Aaravos to control / manipulate him into playing into his hands, and we know Aaravos will ultimately be successful / Callum has to fail in some capacity, otherwise Aaravos would never get out.

Therefore if we look at it even further back to see what started the Cycle, we return to that continual violation of having your heart ripped / being heartbroken, literally or figuratively. The Magma Titan’s heart being ripped out began this portion of the cycle, so Aaravos’ heart being literally ripped out began the much earlier portion, figuratively perhaps began his spinning of the wheel a millennia plus earlier, and it being restored will begin the next.

How’s that for Consistency?

Alternatives

As always, I try to do my best not to present a theory without any alternatives, if I can think of them at the time. The other main option, it seems, would be the Key not being used / having its secrets discovered in S5, which would greatly expand its possibilities.

This seems unlikely though, given the emphasis on Ocean and Earth when it comes to unlocking the key’s secrets whenever it is mentioned, as well as the fact that Aaravos’ prison is in the Sea of the Cast Out (and possibly literally underwater to begin with). This makes the scope of what the Key could unlock far more limited because it has less seasons to maneuver.

Then there is always the possibility it unlocks the Star Nexus or something along those lines, but unless it was given to Aaravos by other Startouch elves (before he began to hate him? Or when they didn’t know he did?) its connection to him is less unclear, but not impossible. This could be something that is revealed in S5 and we don’t see the key actually used until S6, particularly if it’s Book Six: Star, but it makes me wonder why give the Key such a heavy and consistent ominous foreshadowing (again, usually with Rayla as the mouth piece), the negative associations thus far given to the game motif, and why not call it the Key of the Stars, as TDP as no problem creating things like the Corona of the Heavens when they want something to be associated with Star Magic and not our favourite evil starry elf boy.

With all this in mind, thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed this meta. As for the key and the theory itself, what do you think? Am I on to something, do you have your own thoughts and alternatives I haven’t considered here? Do you just want Aaravos to be Big Sad and S5 Big Dramatic? Let me know! I would love to hear them. If you are interested in more posts related to this theory, I will link my specific tag for it here in case of perusal.

And last but not least, Dragons out, peace!

88 notes · View notes