#i accidentally wrote an essay | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

riddlerosehearts · 4 months

Text

thinking about how people who watch the emperor's new groove and somehow come out of it shipping pacha and kuzco, or thinking yzma only became evil when kuzco fired her and that she would've been a better ruler than him, are both so wrong in so many different ways and are also missing one of the things that i absolutely love about the movie. which is that, the way i see it, pacha and yzma are counterparts. as parental figures to kuzco.

like, just to get this out of the way first, yzma was a dismissive asshole to a peasant whose family was starving. and yeah, if kuzco had been in her place he definitely would've also done that, which... is why she would not be a better ruler than him. she'd just be the same because they're both horrible people in the exact same ways. her reaction to being fired is to plot murder, and as soon as his funeral is over she sets everyone to work on replacing paintings of kuzco with paintings of herself and covering the palace with imagery that makes it clear that it's all about her now. i'm not even sure why this is a discussion tbh.

and also, kuzco is literally a teenager. he's barely 18 years old. source: in the movie, yzma says at his funeral that kuzco was "taken from us so tragically on the very eve of his eighteenth birthday." she also claims in the movie to have "practically raised" him, to which kronk replies "yeah, you'd think he would've turned out better". and sure, she could be exaggerating, but what evidence do we have that she is? we learn absolutely nothing of his parents, who are never mentioned even once in the movie, or of anyone else who could've raised him, and she's his advisor who for some reason sees no problem with attending to royal duties in his place. most likely because she's his regent. also, i'm not exactly a fan of the sequel tv series "the emperor's new school" but it does have something that backs up my point: kuzco is revealed to be an orphan and just before his father went and got lost at sea, he asked yzma (who was also his advisor) to take care of kuzco if anything happened to him. so, yeah, the writers who worked on the series clearly thought that yzma genuinely did raise kuzco, and nothing in the movie contradicts this.

and i find the idea of her being his only parental figure for pretty much his whole childhood incredibly interesting because, and this also goes back into why she wouldn't be a better ruler than him--she mirrors him as a reflection of what would've become of him if he'd never met pacha. they're both incredibly arrogant, power-hungry, selfish, and cruel, with a tendency to blame their problems on everyone but themselves. yzma was even originally going to have her own reprise of kuzco's theme song "perfect world", which i really wish had been kept:

[ID: Lyrics that read:

I'Il be the sovereign queen of the nation And the chicest chick in creation I'm the cat with all the cream and ooh-la-la This deadly concentration Will put an end to my frustration Now this perfect world begins and ends with moi

What's my name? Yzma, Yzma, Yzma Yzma (what's my name?) Yzma, Yzma (What'd you say?) Yzma (Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!) Yzma. End ID]

(this song can be fully heard in "the sweatbox", the documentary about the making of the movie, and is also on youtube btw)

anyway, i'm sure yzma would not exactly have been the most nurturing or hands-on guardian, especially given that she and kuzco don't exactly treat each other like family. but it makes a lot of sense to think that her behavior influened kuzco's throughout the years. and for the entire movie, she remains determined to kill him. when he tries to reason with her and admits that he should've been nicer, she says the same thing to him that he originally said when he fired her. she never grows or changes and in the end, she hurts the one person who was willing to stand by her (and even then, kronk had never fully been on board with her plan) and he ends up trying to crush her with a chandelier. kuzco on the other hand is able to realize the error of his ways, come to regret who he was in the past, and start taking steps toward being a better person. his theme song gets a reprise where it's changed from a song about one person being the center of the world to a Power Of Friendship song. why? because, as i've already mentioned, he has pacha.

pacha, who similarly to both yzma and kuzco is in a position of authority as the leader of the village but unlike either of them is gentle and humble. who isn't afraid to stand up to kuzco and be honest with him even though he's the emperor, who agrees to take him back to the palace but has no obligation to be so helpful, kind, and caring toward him--and just about every reason not to be--and still chooses to be anyway. pacha who is 45 years old (also stated in the sweatbox documentary) and can see that kuzco is practically still a kid, not a single day over 18, who has time to grow and change. pacha, who already has a wife and two kids with another on the way, but practically treats kuzco like one of his own. who acknowledges that if kuzco dies all his problems will be gone and then still worries about him and goes out of his way to rescue him after he wanders into the jungle. who sees kuzco shivering at night and covers him with his poncho, who carries him when he's genuinely too weak to keep walking, who refuses to give up on him even after repeatedly being betrayed by him because he believes there's good in everyone.

also, while yzma ends up repeating kuzco's harsh words of dismissal as she tells him of her plans to kill him, kuzco had previously repeated pacha's words that "nobody's that heartless" after he saved pacha's life. and as the movie progresses kuzco and pacha's relationship becomes more and more equal and is constantly contrasted by moments of yzma being cruel and unappreciative of kronk's kindness. a good example of this is how kronk is constantly being forced to carry yzma everywhere on his back while yzma literally walks all over him and steps on his hands when she gets down, whereas when pacha briefly carries kuzco after the latter collapses he tells him he'll have to walk the rest of the way later and kuzco doesn't even protest.

idk if i'm even explaining well what i'm trying to say here. but basically, if yzma actually raised kuzco and contributed to his current behavior, then she and pacha both are figures who guided him and helped him grow. only yzma helped him become the tyrant that he was at the start of the movie, who was selfish and callous and saw everyone else as beneath him. whereas pacha helped him see the value in being selfless and considerate of others. and in the end, yzma is stuck as a cat and nobody is concerned about her. kronk has found a new job that makes him genuinely happy, while kuzco has decided to build a hut on the hill next to pacha's and effectively joined his family. in the sweatbox documentary it's even mentioned that chicha and the kids were at risk of being removed from the film, but it was decided that they needed to be there because having just pacha as a single guy who lived alone wasn't interesting enough--kuzco needed to go from having basically an empty world where he had nobody to being able to come together with pacha's whole family. and i just think that's incredibly satisfying and beautiful. it also leads up to one of the few things i really do enjoy about the emperor's new school, which is the fact that during the show kuzco moves in with pacha and chicha and pretty explicitly thinks of them as basically his parents while he's like a son to them.

idk. i feel like my mind went in a million different directions while i was writing all this. but i guess i just think that for all of the praise the emperor's new groove gets for its comedy and for how hilarious yzma and kronk in particular are as a duo, the movie also has a lot of genuine heart that gets overlooked. kuzco's character growth and his unique dynamic with pacha is, for me, really what elevates the movie from just a funny movie that i like to one of my favorite disney movies. and i wish more people appreciated that aspect of it and saw it as a found family story in the same way that treasure planet, brother bear, and lilo and stitch are all found family stories.

#disney #the emperor's new groove #help i wrote a whole essay about this movie #and i didn't even mention how much i love the way kuzco's home life is contrasted with pacha's #ugh. they have one of the most interesting and unique dynamics ever in a disney movie. i love them #love how kuzco gets away from yzma's toxic influence by way of accidentally being adopted #by the guy whose village he almost destroyed for a theme park #they're ENEMIES to FOUND FAMILY.... sobs #kuzco #pacha #yzma #kronk

548 notes · View notes

waiting-down-the-hall-for-me · 4 months

Text

Ok so I know everyone’s talking about the choice to use ‘Logical’ by Olivia Rodrigo for Sally Jackson but it actually fits so well:

First the word logic is derived from Ancient Greek

Fell for you like water/ now the currents stronger- He’s literally Poseidon, god of sea (or water)

I couldn’t get out if I tried- she’s already in too deep because she had a child with him

I’m the love of your life- Poseidon’s immortal, he doesn’t have a life per se, and she knows all the myths, she knows he’s had so many affairs and will continue to do it

'Cause if rain don't pour and sun don't shine- believing in the Greeks means that rain doesn’t pour because Zeus is the one controlling it and the sun doesn’t actually shine, it’s Apollo or Helios, so everything she’s believed in up til then is wrong

Changing you is possible- even Hermes said it the gods are stuck in their ways, changing something that has stayed the same for millennia is really hard, she knows deep down she can’t

You built a giant castle, With walls so high I couldn't see- he has a castle under the sea, and unless he helped her get down there she physically couldn’t see him, he technically held the power

The way it all unraveled- I’m pretty sure Sally didn’t know about the Big Three Pact or she wouldn’t have had kids with Poseidon in the first place, she had no clue and he never told her

I'm sure that girl is really your friend- again Sally knows the stories, she knows what he’s like and as much as he loved her in the moment he literally had a wife at the same time

I know I'm half responsible, And that makes me feel horrible- it’s about Percy saying he’s a troubled child, and she knew he wasn’t but she couldn’t tell him til he was older because then the monsters would find him

I know I could've stopped it all, why didn't I stop it all?- she blames herself just as much as she blames Poseidon for the trouble Percy would have to go through, she should’ve stopped as soon as she knew he was a god

And bonus ‘I’m reading in to this too much’ point:

Olivia repeats logical three times, but on the third she repeats the ‘love is never logical’- Poseidon is part of the big three, and also what cabin is Percy? Number three

#thank you for coming to my ted talk #oops I accidentally wrote an essay #percy jackson #percy jackon and the olympians #sally jackson #olivia rodrigo #logical

150 notes · View notes

eyestrain-addict · 9 months

Text

I just realized why lestat marked Tom, like the big stupid idiot I am

(I know everyone else probably already figured this out, but this is MY blog and I get to post whatever deranged thought crosses my pea brained mind.)

When I watched that scene in episode 5 where they're at the bar talking to Tom, I was confused as to why exactly. Why does Lestat mark Tom? If he's marked to kill, why does he wait almost 2 decades later? Well I realized, as all realizations come, in the shower.

Lestat has been planning on killing Tom the whole time.

(Warning before you click read more, this post is a lot longer than I first intended holy fuck)

Well not the whole time. Just right when Louis realized that Anderson and Fenwick had screwed him over. Maybe even longer if he knew it was a trick ("ridiculous of you to mix human and vampire business it always ends poorly"). Notice how he's upset with louis when he kills the guy who's microaggressive with him, cus lestat wasn't there (even if he was there I have my doubts Lestat would understand microaggressions, but he would have definitely killed him for touching Louis.) But tells Louis he's proud of him for killing Alderman. I think this has to be because he witnessed the disrespect first hand. He didn't give a fuck about the money, what he DID care about was that those two disrespected not only him, but Louis.

Even with Lestats little understanding of race relations of the time in America, he did understand hierarchys. He's from 1700s France for God's sake. It's no coincidence wanted to be king of mardi gras. Lestat came to New Orleans and saw himself as the king, even if no one knew it. And he wanted Louis to be his queen. Honestly I could make an entire other post about how Lestat almost literally saw himself as if he was a King and Louis his beloved Queen, which is why he thought it was okay for him to sleep with other women (mistresses and playthings of the king should mean nothing compared to the queen in lestats eyes) but that's getting off topic. I only bring that up because I'm trying to paint a picture of how I think Lestat sees disrespect done to Louis. To him that goes beyond disrespect or rudeness, it's irreverence.

You begin to notice if you watch scenes with them together. Because while I wouldn't say lestat is good at controlling his anger, he's definitely great at concealing it until it erupts (props to Sam Reid have to be given here) lestat is always on the verge of fury when talking to Tom. It starts as a distaste then as he begins to fall more in love with Louis and become more protective of him, his anger builds. Claudia was wrong about one thing, it was no petty slight that was the reason Lestat killed Tom first, it was a loooonng time coming.

I could list every detail I think supports this but I'm sure you get the gist by now. My main point is really the layer of complexity this adds to not only the story, the characters, but also lestat and louis' relationship. Consider it for a second, Lestat saw all his violence as justified, everything he did one can see it through the lense of him punishing the disrespectful (take a shot every time I say disrespect in this post jesus christ). "I bring death to those deserving" indeed. Lestat has a god complex out the wazoo, and every attack, torture, and death he caused was righteous to him and thus enjoyable. Louis on the other hand didn't see himself so highly. He may seem confident but if you look through the cracks it's apparent Louis's self worth in near nonexistent and he's horribly insecure. I think lestat thought when Louis was made a vampire he would see himself as Lestat saw himself, and as Lestat saw Louis. But again, another post for another time.

Despite Louis' insecurities (or perhaps because of them) louis revels in the violence lestat commits for his sake. That's probably why louis is so quick to forgive lestat about the priests. For a brief moment Lestat truly said the truth to Louis and Louis could forgive him because of it. As lestat says, he doesn't kill the priests to intimidate Louis, nor does he do it just because he enjoys it. He does it because he sees them as humiliating Louis, charlatans that don't deserve Louis' sorrow. Louis didn't want the priest's to die, but he could understand why lestat killed them, simply because for once in his goddamn life lestat told the truth, and louis loved that truth. That truth being that lestat killed and mutilated and committed such horrors not just because he liked it, but because he did it out of a fucked up sense of protection. Him killing the priests was essentially a knight killing a dragon to earn the princess' hand in marriage.

The worst part is that Lestat doesn't even realize it. Not fully anyway. Let's be honest with ourselves, lestat doesn't understand Louis. Obviously there's the race, background, culture differences that lestat doesn't understand nor seems inclined to try, but there are better posts about that made by smarter people than moi. I'm mostly talking about lestat doesn't understand louis' mind itself (louis' mind in a vacuum I suppose you could say) he understands Louis' desire for violence sure, but he doesn't understand the core of that want. Honestly I'm on the fence of if he ever understood that Louis loved it when lestat was protective in the first place. I guess it can be dumbed down to Louis wants Lestat to kill to protect Louis and to protect the family (and anyone who deeply disrepects them), lestat perhaps understood a little at one point, but since he sees everyone as a threat and everything is a slight to him, he has no trouble and qualms with delighting in the torture of people Louis views as innocent. Louis' heart is a bit dark, but ultimately human, so he's disgusted by lestats violence towards the undeserving. Lestat can no longer read Louis' mind and even if he could, Louis doesn't quite understand the difference himself (that's why he tries to hunt for criminals briefly) so the cracks of miscommunication starts to form, and neither of them even realize there is miscommunication.

Therein lies the importance of Tom Anderson for season 1. Not much of a character, more of a plot device in human skin. Claudia can see that Lestat hates him, but doesn't understand why, nor does she care to get to the depths of that. (*Mr house voice* understandable) I think it's notable that Louis rarely brought him up, he didn't understand the depths of lestats love. Nor did he know about Lestats 3 decade long grudge, all because Tom disrespected Louis.

Now I'm not excusing Lestat's actions, I just think it's interesting how this one throwaway character reveals a whole level of complexity to the relationship between him and Louis, and better sheds light on not only Lestats personal philosophy but louis' as well. Even Claudia to a degree.

Anyway, uh. End of essay. Bye.

283 notes · View notes

gaybearwedding · 2 months

Text

hi hi hello i have been gone forever due to various reasons such as “work” and “mental illness” and “having developed a kpop hyperfixation that has been occupying most of my attention recently” but i need everyone to know that i saw off book live twice last week (in philly with a friend and then in nyc with my girlfriend) and it was truly so everything. i didn’t get many pictures but i did get a few and none of them are very good but one of them is of jess’ amazing stool balancing act and that’s all i need really

#flow of the rings a volcano story i love you forever and ever #tryin’ the musical i love you also #also i asked a question during the talkback at the philly show :]#if it gets released as an episode and you hear someone named will asking about the hedgefrog logo that’s me <3 #i want to be active on here more i miss it #i’m thoroughly enjoying being a little unhinged about kpop with my friend bee (the one i saw the philly show with actually)#but it does make a little sad that i haven’t been as fixated on zach and jess lately #they are still everything to me though don’t get it twisted #it’s very much a Special Interest TM so i will probably have other z&j phases #but regardless i do enjoy this silly little corner of tumblr #and i love that pibe has like Actual Fan Content now it’s beautiful #and i AM going to finish and post my malpal fic i PROMISE i just. don’t know when 😭#accidentally wrote an essay in the tags whoops #anyway i can’t promise i won’t disappear again but i’m gonna try to be more active #mine #off book #play it by ear #pibe #zach reino #jess mckenna

27 notes · View notes

glorfindel-of-imladris · 1 month

Note

Glorfindel and Erestor for the ship alignment chart?

Glorestor is so funny because of course it compels me, can you not tell from my blog and entire shipping, even pre-AO3 career? I have been shipping these two for 20+ years, but whether they make sense or not depends on who you ask and what you mean by “makes sense”. I am very aware that Glorfindel and Erestor are shipped literally by virtue of them standing next to each other—twice, mind you, which in the 90's and heydays of shipping, was plenty. (Once, after all, was enough. 🤣)

I can write (and have written lol) entire essays about why I love this ship so much. Glorfindel is my one true favourite Tolkien character—my one true favourite fandom character, period—and have devoured every lore available for him to come up with pretty solid headcanons for the guy, if I do say so myself. Erestor, on the other hand, is pretty much a result of my by now life-long quest to give Glorfindel the most delicious happy ending an absolute Best Boy™ can deserve. These two characters on their own are individually compelling. Glorfindel easily just is, because how good must a person be to be returned from death, to be released from Mandos early, to become an emissary of the Valar, to be reborn better than before, equal to the Maiar? And Erestor—who even is he? What does it take to become the chief counsellor of one of the wisest Elves of the Third Age, in Imladris where Elves who have seen the light of the Trees still dwelt? I even read in a forum (lol omg remember forums) once where people wondered who even had the higher rank: Glorfindel or Erestor. Imagine being at a level where one could potentially be Glorfindel's superior—it blows the mind. But also personally for me, I love the idea that someone like Glorfindel could get quite lonely returning to an unfamiliar world—not only is Gondolin gone, but it's not even Beleriand anymore. I also imagine that returning from Mandos comes with its own grandeur that would set him apart from younger Elves in Middle-earth. It comforts me to know he would still have equals in a world like that, who would not be intimidated by him and with whom he could forge a trusting friendship.

The other thing that works for this ship is the setting with which they could meet. I have said in the Russingon post that the First Age is a painful age to me. Not only that, it's comparatively short; Glorfindel was “Glorfindel of Gondolin” for a mere 400 years (even less) before he died. Meanwhile, assuming he returned to Middle-earth c.a. 1600 in the Second Age (which is the most likely among all “canon” possibilities), the Second Age spanned for a good 3,000+ years; the Third Age, another 3,000+. Lindon under Ereinion Gil-galad’s reign saw the longest peacetime, and Rivendell once made and ruled by Elrond is arguably the most comforting Elven realm ever made. There is simply much more one can do in a setting like this, with characters like this who have so much history—or, in the case of Erestor, potential history. It's that ✨ potential ✨ that I find most compelling, and honestly I have been writing for these two for years and I feel there is still so much one can do and unearth with them.

#man i wrote another essay for glorestor #oh well #add it to the many accidental essays i've written for them over the years lol #thank you for the ask!#glorestor #glorfindel #erestor #ship grid #ask game

19 notes · View notes

em-allay · 2 years

Text

“Tommy will understand. Tommy will understand- I- I know- he’s going to take a bit of time to understand. You know what- we’ve had our differences recently, but I know- I KNOW he will be a good helper for this, he will really. I’ve seen, I’ve seen how he acts . He’ll come around, He’ll come around” --Wilbur Soot

So I found this quote while I was trying to fact check something during the Pogtopia era, and in case anyone is wondering, he says this at the end of cc!Wilbur’s video Am I the Bad Guy? For further context, c!Wilbur says this right after he makes the deal with Dream to rig up Manberg with TNT and blow it up during the Red Festival.

Now what I found so interesting about this quote is how well I think it could fit into Wilbur’s recent lore Inconsolable Differences. I could see Wilbur thinking this as he takes Tommy to the prison, as Wilbur knowingly traps Tommy with him and Dream, as he threatens to kill himself, as he gives Dream the discs and tells him to burn them in lava. I can see Wilbur thinking this as they head to the community house while Tommy is crying how Wilbur betrayed him again, while Wilbur reveals he didn’t actually burn the discs, while Wilbur calmly and patiently tells Tommy that he did it so Tommy could be free from Dream. This quote alone, and how well it can still fit within recent lore, goes to show how Wilbur’s perception of Tommy hasn’t changed one bit. While I 100 percent believe Wilbur would do anything, would give anything, to make sure Tommy is safe and sound, he fails to think about how his actions can negatively affect Tommy.

Wilbur thinks he understands Tommy, because he knows him, he knows that Tommy will understand him. Yet, even as Wilbur tries to calmly tell Tommy that he did this for him, that now Tommy is free from Dream and he can do whatever he wants, Tommy is quiet. Tommy is quiet as he holds his discs, looking away from Wilbur, and when Wilbur asks Tommy if he understands him, Tommy only nods quietly. As he turns towards Wilbur, Tommy can only glance at him briefly before turning his gaze back towards the floor. Through his body language, Tommy is clearly showing how much these events have upset him- he can’t even maintain eye contact with Wilbur for longer than a split second. So even as the conversation ends with Tommy thanking him, I doubt Tommy truly forgives him.

Tommy thanking Wilbur doesn’t stop the hurt Tommy felt during the events of the prison, and when Tommy voices his frustrations by saying “every time you make whats mine about you. You make whats completely mine and you take it away from me and you strip it and make it about you” , though said in upset anger, I do believe he means it. Just because Tommy can technically understand Wilbur in this situation, because he most defiantly doesn’t always understand Wilbur’s reasoning for everything, doesn’t make what Wilbur did okay. You can argue that Wilbur was right that if Tommy didn’t fully believe they were his discs, that his plan wouldn’t have worked, but the means don’t always justify the end. Wilbur relies heavily on believing Tommy will always come around as long as Tommy can understand him and his logic. However, Tommy is a character that is completely driven by feelings and emotions. The only reason as to why Tommy always comes around is because of his love for Wilbur, his brother, and Tommy knows this, he knows he always ends up siding with Wilbur regardless of his better judgement.

Tommy has disagreed with Wilbur many times, but continues to follow him because he feels like Wilbur needs him, and he needs Wilbur, and in a sense, they do need each other. They both want the best for each other and will do anything to get that for one another. However, this leads to a continuous cycle. Wilbur will continue to make decisions without thinking about how it can emotionally hurt Tommy, while Tommy will continue to support Wilbur even to the determent of himself. Cause even though Tommy loves and cares about Wilbur, he doesn’t trust him, or as he says, “Wilbur makes me feel safe in the same way two guns pointing at each other feels safe.”

On some level, I believe Wilbur is aware of this based on how he keeps thanking Tommy for trusting him as they make their way through the nether towards the community house. This could also be one of the reasons as to why Wilbur hasn’t apologized to Tommy yet, because he subconsciously knows all of this. He knows he has hurt Tommy, even as he tries to justify it, he understands that Tommy will keep coming around and continuing to follow him. Maybe Wilbur doesn’t want to admit that Tommy is one of the people most deserving of his apology, because if he does, he also has to admit how much pain he has caused him, even if that wasn’t at all his intentions. Maybe Wilbur is scared that if he asks Tommy for forgiveness, Tommy won’t give him the forgiveness he desperately wants. Maybe yet, what Wilbur is truly scared of most, is that Tommy will forgive him.

#dear god this went way longer than i had planned #i really went on a tangent as i tried to rewrite it after accidentally deleting it the first time #dream smp #dsmp #wilbur soot #tommyinnit #crimeboys #dsmpblr #dsmp spoilers #mcyt #mcytblr #anyways i hope you enjoyed this actual essay i wrote #it's over 800 words #thanks for reading if you made it this far #youre the best #:D #essay #analysis

564 notes · View notes

ofsunhillow · 4 months

Text

"weight shaming" rant under cut bc i came out the shower with thoughts

tbh i dont think skinnyshaming is a real thing. this noon my family told me i looked anorexic as if worried and told me i had to eat more which yeah it was bad and made me feel shitty about my body for a moment (i imagine it wouldve had more of an impact if i wasnt already very secure) but i dont think id equate it to the shaming fat women endure. because these same people who tell me i look sick when they look at my back and my arms also tell me theyre jealous that i have a flatter stomach than them.

the difference is when you get comments about being skinny they're based on a false and shallow sense of worry while comments about being fat are always framed as a personal failure. and thats what makes it "shame" and not just negativity. even though the occasional concern is voiced about health, that's not the kind of comment the majority of the population receives and rather just for people who are visibly obese. and still then, from actually obese people to someone with love handles, it's somehow framed as something sinful that not only impacts you but the people around you even though this is bullshit. there's this underlying hatred of fat people and belief that their weight is tied to recklessness and gluttony that has to be shamed and called out to be fixed, i think

on the other hand what fuels negative comments towards skinny people, from what ive seen and experienced, doesnt come from a place of blame and hatred but from stigmatization of mental illness. the only times ive received negative remarks about my body it's been from people who saw me and saw something a little too similar to a drug addict or a person with an eating disorder, and that triggered a disgust-pity response, even if they know im healthy. the comments never include something about convenience or ugliness, only health. it sometimes also transcends into comparisons to physical illness and poverty, but when these comments are made within a middle class context it's always with the implication that it's self inflicted and something to have pity on.

for negative views of both cases, in women as well as in men, it's i think triggered by the fact that both fail to fit into the social standard for what a healthy person should look like. someone who associates body weight to health, health to beauty and beauty to personal worth, feels the need to subconsciously justify their shock and disgust at seeing someone who deviates that standard by lying to themselves and saying the reason why those people look the way they do must surely be a personal flaw to be treated

#okay i dont think this is about skinnyshaming anymore i was supposed to just be ranting and i accidentally wrote an essay

8 notes · View notes

impetuous-impulse · 11 months

Text

Wellingtons Sieg: Aesthetically Pleasing or Populist Potboiler?

This is a post responding to @empirearchives on this question: "Was Wellington’s Victory popular in Vienna because of the quality of the music itself or because of the political context (Austrians celebrating the defeat of Napoleon)?” I examine the background of Wellington's Victory and its audiences in reference to Beethoven’s heroic aesthetic and in comparison to the Eroica. In my final paragraph, I also attempt to engage with this post by @diagnosed-anxiety-disorder. (Hi! I love your enthusiasm for classical music and Napoleonic history! It’s just that Idk how to socially interact djflskdjf,,,) WARNING: LONG.

To answer the question, Wellington's Victory—or, in German, Wellingtons Sieg—was entangled with its political context in the outset, so judging its popularity by separating its context from its aesthetic qualities is impossible. Let me touch on the political and aesthetic qualities of the piece in turn.

Wellingtons Sieg was comissioned by Johann Nepomuk Mälzel (aka. the guy who gave Beethoven his ear trumpets) for celebrating Wellington's success in the Battle of Vittoria. It was, further, made to be played on Mälzel's panharmonicon, which was a mechanical orchestra based off of barrel organ technology. At the very same time, real barrel organists would have been in the streets playing lowbrow pieces that celebrated Wellington, so the piece had common themes with the popular music of the day. Thus it is unsurprising that Beethoven wrote Wellingtons Sieg was "nothing but an occasional piece" [nichts als ein Gelegenheitsstück], but he did not mean it pejoratively; he was acknowledging its historicity.

When discussing musical merit, the arbiter of a piece's aesthetic qualities are always its audiences. Austria in 1813 was a police state that censored anti-Royalist sentiments and lauded pro-Royalist ones, so Wellingtons Sieg, commemorating an Austrian ally's victory, would have inavariably been well-received in terms of aesthetics and political content. Laura Turnbridge, in chapter six of Beethoven: A Life in Nine Pieces (2020), points out that Wellingtons Sieg "premiered in the University Hall on 8 December 1813, at a charity concert in aid of Austrian and Bavarian soldiers wounded in the recent Battle of Hanau.” Turnbridge continues:

Wellingtons Sieg was enthusiastically received and played again and again, including at no fewer than five benefit concerts in which Beethoven participated, on 2 January, 27 February, 29 November, 2 December and 25 December 1814. At the first of these, at the Großer Redoutensaal, Beethoven played up the piece’s spectacular potential by having the French and British bands advance towards each other down long corridors on either side of the hall. The hall seated up to a thousand people and the orchestra was unusually large for these concerts, numbering 120 players, an aspect that Beethoven noted with glee in his diaries [...]. Beethoven attempted to add a further patriotic spin to the January concert, trying to arrange for a statue of the Kaiser, which stood in the hall, to be revealed from behind a curtain on being summoned by Zeus in his incidental music for Die Ruinen von Athen (The Ruins of Athens). The Russian Emperor Alexander and other leaders were invited to attend his academy on 29 November, which also included the Seventh Symphony and a new cantata, Der glorreiche Augenblick [...].

The sovereigns and soldiers that Wellingtons Sieg was made for certainly loved its aesthetic qualities, but said qualities had different qualifiers to our aesthetic preferences of Western art music today. This means the overtly political nature of Wellingtons Sieg makes it impossible to be judged by modern aesthetics. Nevertheless, it cannot be said Wellingtons Sieg was only popular with the public, for it was appreciated for its artistry, or at least for the composer behind it. In these contexts, Beethoven was lionised as much as Wellington, the subject of his piece. The following is from Nicolas Mathew, in his 2006 article "History under Erasure: Wellingtons Sieg, the Congress of Vienna, and the Ruination of Beethoven's Heroic Style”:

Shortly after attending the Akademie on 2 January 1814 while in Vienna, the Romantic poet and Beethoven fanatic Clemens Brentano, brother of Beethoven's friend and correspondent Bettina, sent his hero the “Vier Lieder von Beethoven an sich selbst" (Four Beethoven Songs to the Composer Himself) and an effusive, barely coherent covering letter. The third poem resounds with a confluence of archaic musical and military imagery, taking the transposition of Beethoven and Wellington, Leyer und Schwert [lyre and sword], as its central conceit. "Du hast die Schlacht geschlagen, Ich habe die Schlacht getont" (You have fought the battle, I have set the battle to music), it begins, eventually reaching this exhortative finale: Die Rosse entspann' ich dem Wagen Triumpf! auf Tonen getragen, Zieht mein Held ein, der Ewigkeit Pforten Rufen in meinen Akkorden, Wellington, Viktoria! Beethoven! Gloria! [I slacken my steeds from the chariot Triumph! Carried upon tones, my hero moves into the Gates of Eternity Summoned in my chords, Wellington, Victoria! Beethoven! Gloria! ]

There was more fanboying, but you get the idea. Nor was the popularity of Wellingtons Sieg limited to the Congress of Vienna—it was celebrated long after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. In 1824, the highbrow musicians and music lovers who begged the increasingly reclusive Beethoven to put on a concert in Vienna (to combat the dominance of populist Italian opera) referenced only one of his compositions: "For years, ever since the thunders of the Victory at Vittoria ceased to reverberate, we have waited and hoped to see you distribute new gifts from the fullness of your riches to the circle of your friends.” Beethoven was evidently comfortable with the popularity his ode to Wellington’s victory earned, as he alludes to the piece when writing to Count Franz Brunsvik on 13 February 1814 about the progress of war: "no doubt you are delighted about all the victories—and mine also.” It is implicit that Wellington’s victory is also Beethoven’s triumph—while Beethoven's heroic image was constructed in Napoleon's Eroica, his heroic credentials are equally prominent in Wellington’s Sieg.

To me, the Eroica and Wellingtons Sieg are two articulations of the same heroic theme (regardless of how “bad” they sound). A. B. Marx, a Berlin critic that Beethoven admired, compared both works in a dialectical analysis. Aside from defending the unsutble tone painting of Wellingtons Sieg, he posited that Wellingtons Sieg was an external realisation of the internal Kampf-und-Sieg of the Eroica—two sides of the same coin. As Mathew puts it,

Wellingtons Sieg—with its fanfares and marches, its battle, its realism, its extrinsic historical derivation, its sheer explicitness—offers a perspective on the poetic content of the Eroica. By turning the Eroica toward the world—by providing a concrete realization of its guiding poetic idea, as Marx would have it—Wellingtons Sieg becomes a hermeneutic key, a kind of musical exegesis.

While Marx toned down the narrative foiling of the Eroica and Wellingtons Sieg in a later biography of Beethoven, he cannot deny that both works spring from the same heroic seed—Beethoven’s struggle-and-victory model of composition. Their popularity as of 1813 in large part came from its famous composer, whose name made it part of the Viennese repertoire. From an artistic perspective, rather than being partial to either side of the political conflict, Beethoven's heroic approach to music simply found the next Great Man to eulogise. In doing so, he transcended the “greatness” of both his subjects, a greatness that is only beginning to be deconstructed by scholarship.

It was only when the Napoleonic era grew increasingly distant that Wellingtons Sieg was seen as problematic by critics. Mathew points out that while there were mixed responses to the piece, it was a more than decade later that "contemporary critical misgivings about Beethoven's imitative music prompted a fully argued polemic against Wellingtons Sieg" (notably, Gottfried Weber's 1825 review of it in his journal Cäcilia, who Beethoven responded to with his profanity-laden quote). Weber’s opinion shaped musicology’s indictment of Wellingtons Sieg. It was certainly aesthetically pleasing to the shell-shocked veterans of 1813, and continued to delight highbrow and lowbrow audiences until political and musicological circumstances pushed it into obscurity. Finally, let’s face it—Wellingtons Sieg simply didn’t fit the image of apolitical, isolated artistry that Beethoven enthusiasts wanted to elevate him to, by conveniently forgetting that Beethoven had to eat too.

Serious analysis aside, here’s a hot take: I think Napoleon would have enjoyed Wellingtons Sieg a lot more than Beethoven’s famous works. According to the article @empirearchives has linked for us (a good starter guide), that man’s music taste was so out of line with what we think is the Western canon today! Paisiello certainly isn’t being revered as the Italian genius of the 1790s by the general public. And which average classical music enthusiast has heard of Jean François Le Sueur, much less broadcasted the music of Napoleon’s coronation on the radio? The musical hegemony of Beethoven, apparent sympathiser of Napoleon, has ironically shoved the pleasant, simple melodies and the opera that Napoleon liked out of the spotlight. And that was exactly the type of music a great number of Beethoven’s contemporaries liked—give Napoleon catchy motifs based on war marches, easy melodies, and some tone-painting, and he’s a happy audience.

I hope my response isn't too confusing and that it shed some light on the question. If you want any further sources or proper citations, please ask and I will reply accordingly!

#clickbait: accidentally wrote an essay on wellingtons sieg #ludwig van beethoven #napoleon bonaparte #classical music #congress of vienna #wellington's victory #to everyone whose posts i haven't read!! sorry!!! i'll catch up on them when i can ;;;;;

25 notes · View notes

hecatesbroom · 8 months

Text

Thinking about how the combination of comedy and drama works so well when done right, because humour is an intrinsic part of human connection and when we laugh with a character, we'll be all the more likely to cry with them too. I think humour plays into a part of our connection to characters that "pure" drama simply can't, and it can make all the difference during emotionally charged scenes

#(donna noble being both a comic relief AND one of the most heartbreakingly tragic characters etc etc)#i accidentally wrote like half an essay about this at night so maybe i'll have to finish that up at some point lmao #alys.txt #also not saying drama can't make an emotional impact because of course it does. but there's just something about combining it #with comedy that's just another level of heartwrenching if done well

19 notes · View notes

izzibeeb · 5 months

Text

as I get nearer and nearer to senior year I start to wonder. is anyone ever going to explain to me what a college essay is or are we just supposed to figure that out by ourselves

#it’s not an argumentative essay right ? because. it’s not an argument #is it still five paragraphs? do you have to cite evidence ?#I feel like every prompt I’ve heard of is like ‘tell us about a life-changing experience you’ve had’ and ummmm #I have never ever written an essay for a prompt anything like that #how do you format that?#someone once told me she got distracted in the middle of her college essay and accidentally wrote a short story. what #how does that even happen #WHAT is going on in that essay #beebs blabbing #DO YOU HAVE TO INTEGRATE RELEVANT QUOTES?? ARE THERE SOURCE DOCUMENTS??#HELP?

7 notes · View notes

pillowmoment · 4 months

Text

does anyone wanna see my character essay on- [gets shot in the face]

#pillow activities #I write too much about my favorite characters to the point where everything I write about them is an essay #One of my for fun essays is technically two. It’s on portal and symbolism #And I accidentally wrote WAAY to much about Wheatley & GLaDOS and how they’re opposites and stuff #I’m very passionate about everything ^_^#Point of this post is: if I show you one essay I will show you another. If you give a mouse a cookie it fucking kills you

4 notes · View notes

pealeii · 9 months

Text

newtmas playlist 🥲

#listen to in order !!#broke myself while making this #i have so many thoughts on the song choices i accidentally wrote an essay on one of them last night #newt tmr #thomas tmr #newtmas #thomas maze runner #newt maze runner #ship playlist #my playlist #Spotify #the maze runner #maze runner #my playlists

7 notes · View notes

threewaysdivided · 5 months

Note

Hey ! i'm a longtime follower of your blog and I've read a lot of your YJ analysis and why the latter seasons totally flopped. I haven't seen you comment on Young Justice Phantoms, although I guess your opinion remains the same. However I'd love to read it one day.

PS : I do think Greg Weisman is a decent writer, but not that good at characterization and desperatly needs editors and not enablers *sigh*

Hey nonnie!

Glad you’ve found my YJ writing critiques interesting.

The reason why I haven’t commented on Young Justice: Phantoms (or the final Targets comic) is that I haven’t watched it, haven’t read a synopsis and have no plans to ever do so. My interest in the series went pretty cold as far back as Invasion but at the time I was willing to give the showrunners good faith on their claims that they had a plan to bring things together and that the problems were mostly production issues. However, after how bad Outsiders was (and having seen similar awfulness from Greg Weisman in other franchises) I don’t have any good faith or trust left to give them.

I talked at length about how Outsiders left the show with no compelling narrative as part of this big Invasion breakdown (grumpier TL:DR version here), but here are the most relevant sections:

In terms of the Central Conflict, the Light are proved utterly correct: by Outsiders the Original Team are callous, hollow husks of their former selves, who have replicated a worse version of the same status quo the Team originally formed in response to. Dick, Kaldur and M’gann’s Anti-Light are a new upper echelon of older heroes who keep even more secrets from the next generations, who exclude the new generations far more strongly from knowing their plans, who give them even less reason to trust or communicate with them, and who do so for less just, less honest and less narratively justified reasons than their own mentors’ understandable (if condescending) desire to shield the proteges from the parts of the Life they may not yet have been equipped to face. Not only that but their constant lying with the intent to control others, and refusal to hold themselves accountable for those actions goes directly against both the League’s stated heroic ideals of “Truth, Liberty and Justice” and Red Tornado’s conclusion that caring is “the human thing to do”. By the end of Outsiders, even the existence of the Team itself is undone; decommissioned into the exact kind of safe training space that the Season 1 characters were desperate for it never to be. […] With Outsiders, any actual narrative set by Young Justice Season 1 is over. By their own standards the Team have lost, and lost entirely.

The meta-narrative of Young Justice Animated is that of a show that started with a promising initial season and strong sense of narrative identity, only to discard every part of that identity. With Invasion the show discarded its original characterisations, themes and ideologies; replacing them with contradictory and often antithetical ones. Outsiders would then shed even the surface trappings of its aesthetic (in favour of the more generic “modern DC” art-style) and mission-based narrative structure. There is nothing left, save for some superficial proper nouns and call-back references: the textbook definition of an In Name Only Sequel.

I didn’t bother with Phantoms (and am frankly a little artistically insulted by its existence) because I knew it was doomed from the start to be a narrative stillbirth. Having actively abandoned its original identity, Young Justice was left desperately scrambling to forge a new one, by clawing at the one thing it had left: people’s nostalgic attachment to the Season 1 iterations of the cast. But this could never work because every season since has been engaged in a performative pretense of not acknowledging the character-breaking contradictions and hypocrisies forced upon the original cast by the poor writing decisions. Phantoms would have to thread an impossible needle: wanting to be about the “journey” of the original cast for nostalgia reasons, while not being able to acknowledge that the last two seasons (and attaché comics) have resulted in all of them either actively failing or being tragically soft-locked out of their explicit character arcs without breaking that kayfabe of performative ignorance. And, in trying to tell a story without engaging with that story's content or how broken it had become, what would they have left but to fall back yet again on canonical filler, sidequests and references held loosely together by contrivance?

It could only ever be a zombie-fic of itself: having long-since concluded or abandoned any remaining character or plot threads, driven forward solely by the stream-of-consciousness compulsive-writing of a production team desperate to remain present, relevant and profitable. And from the feedback I’ve heard from the general community and fandom friends who kept watching, it seems like Phantoms did indeed pull down the curtain on that empty, directionless, hollow-automaton-filled narrative for a lot of people.

As for Greg Weisman himself, while I agree that he is a particularly poor character-writer, I will respectfully but firmly disagree that he’s otherwise decent. I think the fact that we have to caveat “he’s a decent writer” with the condition “so long as he’s surrounded by a team of strong editors and directors to keep him from being awful” kind of reveals that he isn’t. I also don’t really accept the premise that the main fault lies with the people around him for not stopping that. They certainly haven’t helped but he’s a grown adult who can make his own decisions. Enablers don’t generally induce behaviours; they simply amplify or become complicit in the behaviours that are already there.

In the video Plagiarism and You(tube), Hbomberguy did a great job of laying out the difference between “honest mistakes” – which can be easily cleared up by good-faith apologies and explanations – and “dishonest behaviour” – where the person(s) is aware that what they are doing is not appropriate and falls back on reputation-protecting deflections and “non-apologies” to avoid consequences when caught. Weisman would not so-frequently disrespect his colleagues’ work with contradictions, or write patterns of misogyny, queerphobia, casual racism/ableism and abuse apologism into his stories if he did not fundamentally feel entitled to do so, was not comfortable and in agreement with those beliefs, or did not think he could get away with it. And the way he has routinely responded to even gentle, good-faith comments by fans expressing frustration/confusion with inconsistent characterisation/structure indicates someone who knows he has done the wrong thing but resents being questioned or held accountable. And then we see him continuing the same behaviours. A “decent writer” should not need an editor to hold their hand and explain why directly contracting explicitly-stated characterisation is bad practice. A “good ally” should not need someone to tell them that disproportionately subjecting queer/non-white characters to shock-value violence, writing minority characters to be dirty/dangerous/less valid in their identities, erasing/demonising/misgendering AFAB trans and bisexual identities, rewriting strong female characters to need motherhood or men to “tell them who they are”, writing gay men to be secretly misogynistic/racist, and framing victims as being equally responsible for their abuse is offensive. All of which he has either directly done or tacitly allowed under his lead. Multiple times. Across multiple series.

These are not isolated incidents of “good-faith mistakes” from a newcomer learning the ropes (if they were, it wouldn’t bother me like this). Weisman has had multiple seasons - multiple franchises even - and decades to show himself to be the kind of sincere ally and visionary artist of integrity that myself and his fans wanted him to be… and that he has so benefited from presenting himself as. He has chosen not to. Say what you want about their stories, but you can’t claim that marginalised creators like ND Stevenson, Rebecca Sugar, Dana Terrace and allies like Neil Gaiman didn’t push back hard against their own publishers and make a lot of careful compromises in order to tell those stories in a way they felt was respectful. Weisman is in a very privileged position, with a resume that carries a decent amount of clout. He could have held himself to the creative standards he publicly expresses; could have worked improve his craft, could have examined his own biases and actually learned from the communities his stories speak about/over. But he didn’t – because obviously it's easier and more comfortable to keep being lazy, keep relying on his colleagues to carry him, to not question his own biases/privileges and then lie when caught. And with the money he makes, and all the second chances and new jobs he keeps getting handed, what incentive does he have to change that behaviour?

So, personally I don’t buy his attempts to position himself as an UwU Nice Guy Ally whose haters are taking him out of context and whose nasty publishers keep forcing him to do incoherent bigotry. He’s a grown-up, who can own his own behaviour. And, even with a generous reading, this is at best the behaviour of a fair-weather sell-out who is willing to abandon his principles at the slightest hint of pressure from above. That is not what respect looks like. I wanted to give him good faith, but in light of all this, I find I can no longer trust him to keep his word or be honest about his intentions.

This is kind of the other reason why I choose not to support or engage with YJ Phantoms (or the revival in general): on top of being utterly disinterested, I just don’t want to incentivise this kind of creative behaviour with more money or attention. I also can’t ignore what could be a pattern where Weisman makes grand promises that he likely never has a plan or intent to fulfill, then deliberately leaves holes/timeskips/inconsistencies in his narratives in order to generate ongoing demand for separate-purchase side content which promises to “fill those gaps”… but which never does because there isn’t actually a plan to facilitate that (thus creating an endless cycle of demand and profit). To me that cuts a little too close to the potential for a privileged creator to be exploiting their clout and the good-faith belief of their fanbase in order to grift those fans out of their time and money. I don’t find that acceptable.

So, yeah. Not to deploy the GIF again but:

It'll be a big, fat doughnut on YJ Phantoms content from me 🍩. Sorry!

#Hope this doesn't sound cross nonnie #I'm not mad at you or anything #I just spent way too many years down a rabbit-hole of accidentally finding out MORE BAD STUFF about Greg Weisman #so he's kind of a sore point for me #I went off him as far back as Invasion because of the disingenuous non-answers but the revival really cemented my dislike for his writing #his resentment at being held accountable is something that bled through into the writing from S2+ and made the characters unsympathetic #I fundamentally don't agree with or accept his creative ethos or rhetoric. It's so antithetical to everything I believe about storytelling #and then I TRIPPED AND FELL into a bunch of former Gargoyles and MtG fans who had similar (and sometimes WORSE) patterns to report #One day I might document all those findings in detail (for posterity) but honestly I think he's had far too much of my time and oxygen as-i #(Seriously there is some potentially DEEPLY CURSED stuff in his creative closet and I hate that I am aware of it. Don't do it. Don't look.)#I wrote these essays because I needed to SOLVE why YJS2+ was so infuriating. And I found my answer. So I don't really need to keep watchin #So yeah - YJ Phantoms and any other revival stuff will be a hard skip from me #I'm a Season 1 only gal and my brain is much healthier for it #Young Justice #Young Justice Revival #Anti Young Justice Revival #Young Justice Phantoms #Anti Young Justice Phantoms #Young Justice Criticism #YJ Essays collection #Greg Weisman #Anti Greg Weisman #Anonymous #3WD Answers

6 notes · View notes

dinitride-art · 2 years

Text

I’ve been thinking about rainbows lately. They’re strewn throughout most of Stranger Things, but more so in seasons three and four. We’ve got El’s drawing in Hopper’s cabin, and the Rainbow Room, and Argyle- and so on. Even in Suzie’s house, we have a poster in her room with rainbows on it. These are just off the top of my head, there are a lot more- but that’s not what I’ve been thinking about. It’s been more about rainbows as a symbol. The relevance of rainbows as a symbol for queer identity in Stranger Things is conveyed through it’s genre, the specific time period and our understanding of it, and historical events that occurred after and prior to the show’s setting that have had long-lasting impacts on our society.

Stranger Things is technically historical fiction. It’s a work of fiction that is set in the past. We have relevant events like the Cold War between the USA and the Soviet Union, the Satanic Panic (D&D and unfounded fear of cults and Satanists), and general exploration of societal values relevant to the 80′s (basically the story is created with the allowed boundaries of normalcy in the time period in mind). This show wasn’t written in the 80′s. That changes how we view and analyze it because while that time period is relevant to the story, the subtext relevant to the viewer will more likely be relevant to our time period.

Bright colours and questionable fashion choices were very prominent in the 80′s. Rainbows were also wound up in that. If Stranger Things was made in the 80′s, rainbows would be rainbows. But Stranger Things wasn’t made in the 80′s. Readability in visual media is very important. If the audience doesn’t know what’s happening, then something is wrong. Rainbows have come to have an accepted meaning in our current time, that wasn’t really accepted/known outside of queer circles in the 80′s.

There is a lot of important queer history in the USA in the 80′s. In 1978, “Gilbert Baker, an openly gay man and a drag queen, designed the first rainbow flag. Baker later revealed that he was urged by Harvey Milk, one of the first openly gay elected officials in the U.S., to create a symbol of pride for the gay community,” (Britannica Article). The first gay flag was made right before the 80′s. (There are definitely better sources on this I was just looking for something quickly). However, “It was not until 1994 that the rainbow flag was truly established as the symbol for LGBTQ pride. That year Baker made a mile-long version for the 25th anniversary of the Stonewall riots.” This is after the time that Stranger Things is currently set in. However, Stranger Things is also being written after these events.

As an audience, we recognize rainbows as a symbol of queer identity in both media and in our actual lives. Stranger Things has to take our current society into account because it has changed since the 80′s and how we interpret certain ideas has changed. The relationship between an audience and a piece of media is interpretation. We need to be able to pick up on what the work is putting down or else it won’t be able to tell a story.

#you know when you type a thesis last because you accidentally wrote an essay #byler #stranger things #sorry but im putting this in the tag becasue i know who would want to read this #cant fucking believe i wrote an essay #this is bullshit #and it could be formatted better #but im not going to do that #because im anrgy #when will i be free from essay structure #whennnnn

42 notes · View notes