#intent is to avoid political or social commentary

[andypantsx3]

Deceiving the Duke | 5 | Todoroki Shouto

pairing: Todoroki Shouto x Female Reader

length: 3.2k of 30k words | 5th of 9 chapters

summary: When Camie Utsushimi elopes on the eve of her society debut, scandal threatens to destroy the family’s prospects. It’s up to you, a maid, to impersonate Camie throughout the Season, long enough that her elder sister can make a match. The only trouble? Lord Shouto Todoroki is also intent on making a match—and that match, quite impossibly, appears to involve you.

tags/warnings: romance, regency au, class differences, hidden identity/identity porn, aged up characters, eventual smut

Over the next few weeks, you quickly grew even more familiar with Lord Shouto, though no closer to accomplishing your objectives.

Lord Shouto had taken to inviting you on outings, and asked for at least one dance at every ball you attended. You were always careful to utilize the time talking about Caroline, much to his persistent disinterest.

Time spent in more sharp-witted social circles than your own, however, made Lord Shouto very adept at steering the conversation his way, and more often than not, he found ways to turn things back on you. You found yourself divulging more facts about yourself than you had ever realized existed; dessert preferences—“Apricot cakes?” Lord Shouto had guessed with a horribly charming smirk—the previously promised list of your favorite novels, and para-political thoughts you later worried might reveal you as an outsider to the aristocracy.

In addition to Lord Shouto, Lady Asui and Miss Uraraka also seemed to have taken a liking to you. They appeared at your elbow almost as soon as you arrived to any party, taking you by the arm and leading you over to whatever corner they’d claimed for themselves, grilling you on Lord Shouto and any other gentleman foolish enough to ask you to dance, gossiping in return about their own would-be suitors, or other party attendees.

Through them, you learned which ladies had set their caps at which lords, which gentlemen were known for their wandering hands and were best avoided, and who had most recently snubbed who.

You were beginning to like them, the ease of their friendship, Lady Asui’s straight-shooter commentary, Miss Uraraka’s persistent cheer. They were good company. You would regret it, you thought, when the cloth had been pulled off of this charade and you had to disappear into the countryside.

Mrs. Utsushimi had noticed your newfound popularity, and had pulled you aside to whisper furiously about the danger to your operation. But her concerns were almost embarrassingly easily soothed, once she learned that you were taking any opportunity to speak well of Caroline, especially during any dance with Lord Shouto.

“They would make a beautiful match,” Mrs. Utsushimi said, her handkerchief clutched in one hand, vibrating with the force of her excitement. You could practically see stars in her eyes.

Some horrible little part of you rebelled at the idea of them together. You were surprised at your sudden impulse to squirrel Lord Shouto away for yourself, like a prize nut hidden in the hollow of a tree.

But obviously you couldn’t have him. And even if he had wanted you—once he learned of your deception, he’d hate you for sure.

That didn’t stop you from accepting his invitations, though—most recently for a promenade about the park. Ordinarily, you would have been the natural choice for Camie’s chaperone, in your capacity as a maid, but Lord Shouto, strangely, had seemed to think of this, supplying his elder sister, Lady Fuyumi and her husband—almost as if he had anticipated your household being short of chaperone supply.

“I recall the maid was indisposed at the time of my last calling,” he said vaguely when you asked, with a very carefully cultivated blank look on his handsome face that seemed almost…knowing.

But he couldn’t know, otherwise you’d have already been cast out of the capital and out of the Utsushimi’s employ.

Lady Fuyumi was incredibly kind and sweet. She asked you about your experience so far in the season, complimenting the stitching on your dress–which she could have no way of knowing you’d done yourself–and inviting you over for tea sometime.

Once you arrived at the park, she did you the good turn of walking some ways behind you and Lord Shouto. She chatted with her own husband just loud enough that you knew they were giving you some privacy.

She would make a lovely sister-in-law, and you found yourself jealous at the thought of Lord Shouto’s future wife. You hoped he chose wisely, someone who matched his thoughtful nature—you wondered if Princess Yaoyorozu was kind like him.

“There is an exhibit of Greek statues, at the other end of the park,” Lord Shouto told you as he fell into step beside you, his mouth turned up just slightly at the corner. “I thought you might enjoy it.”

You laughed, trying to scowl up at him for good measure and utterly failing. “You are incredibly presumptuous, my lord.”

Those mismatched eyes glittered down at you, a little bit mischievously. “Am I?” he asked lightly.

In direct sunlight he was even more beautiful than ever. His eyelashes left deep shadows over the tops of his high cheekbones, the colors of his heterochromatic gaze even clearer in the afternoon sunshine. He cut an especially dashing figure in his walking clothes–his shoulders broad under the dark fabric of his coat, the muscle of his legs almost too clear against his tight tan trousers.

Under his clothes, you imagined he looked exactly like the statues he meant to lead you to–a thought that had you flushing furiously under his gaze.

You sniffed imperiously, trying not to stare at him. “I should hope you would be more polite to Caroline, when you are reintroduced.”

Lord Shouto leaned in. “I should think you would not want to introduce her to any gentlemen you deem too presumptuous.”

You frowned. He always found some reason or another to avoid talk of Caroline.

Really. It was like he didn’t want to make her match! In your opinion, she was quite pretty. Tall, with large fawn eyes fringed with thick lashes, with tumbling strawberry blonde curls and a gentle manner. And she was the eldest sister besides, traditionally the sister with the largest dowry.

But Lord Shouto acted as though he did not care, finding excuse after excuse to avoid her at parties and in conversation.

“You know not what you are missing, my lord,” you told him.

He looked doubtful. “I believe I know exactly what I lack, Miss Utsushimi. I aim to remedy that by the end of the season.”

You almost tripped on the hem of your gown, your cheeks heating again.

A wife. He meant that what he was missing was a wife.

And he apparently had plans to obtain one by the end of the season!

You cast a sidelong glance at him, trying to determine what this meant. You did not miss the implications of him spending so much of his time with you, but the thought again was too absurd to consider. And there were the rumors of Princess Yaoyorozu besides. Even with him believing in your sham, why have the second daughter of an unlanded, barely-noble family when you could have a princess—the soon-to-be queen?

He was clearly associating with you in order to ward off other debutantes.

“Reign in your presumption by the end of the season?” you said, purposefully avoiding his meaning. “A bold undertaking, Your Grace.”

He laughed, a low rumbling sound that went right to your head.

“Your novels are not helping me,” he said in his low voice. “In fact, the hero always seems to possess presumption in spades. I would think you might have more tolerance for me, considering.”

You turned to stare at him, unable to help your delight. “You’ve been reading them?” you demanded eagerly.

Something like the hint of a smirk passed over Lord Shouto’s mouth, as if he knew how successfully he’d baited you. You couldn’t find it in you to begrudge him that.

“I have read three,” he said. “I can see why you like them. And also why they might be called a corrupting influence on young ladies.”

His tone was so carefully bland, you could tell he was teasing you. “You’re a corrupting influence,” you complained loudly. “Surprising young women in dark rooms, as I’ve said.”

Lord Shouto’s gaze flashed hotter for a moment, his smirk twitching even higher on the corner of his mouth—as if he liked the idea of being found a corrupting influence.

“You say it as if it is my habit,” he said. “When it’s happened only the once.”

You sniffed. “How am I to know that? You might have cornered half the ton.”

Lord Shouto stepped in front of you purposefully, so that you had to stop in your tracks, lest you bump directly into his chest. You gaped up at him, surprised.

He inclined his head towards you, as if leaning in to tell you a secret. “Half the ton has better aim, so I would not dare,” he whispered.

You laughed, grinning up at him helplessly. He looked rather pleased with himself at having drawn a smile out of you.

“The sculptures are down here,” Lord Shouto said, leading you off the path and onto a grassy slope that descended towards the burbling stream at the heart of the park. “Let me help you.”

He proffered his arm to you as he spoke. You could just see the shift of his strong shoulder under the thick fabric of his jacket and several butterflies fluttered to life in your stomach. Carefully, you reached out, taking his arm—and quite suddenly felt like you might faint, like a lady in exactly those novels you had just been discussing.

You could feel the shape of his arm under your hand, hard with muscle, flexing as he adjusted it for you. You hoped someone nearby was equipped with smelling salts, because you weren’t sure you were going to make it down to the sculptures. You clung tightly to his sleeve to keep you upright, heart racing.

Lord Shouto looked down at you curiously, those mismatched eyes sliding over you.

“I don’t want to fall,” you said quickly, digging out an excuse. A servant could very well descend a hill by herself, but you didn’t know if you were capable of unclenching your fingers from Lord Shouto’s bicep.

He led you down the hill, Lady Fuyumi and her husband descending after you, around a copse of trees to a patch of grass where the exhibit had been erected. There were roughly twenty statues in various states of deterioration, all equipped with their own carved plaques, explaining their stories and origins.

They had been laid out along a winding path that looped back on itself several times, leading the wanderer in a meandering but nevertheless purposeful course. The exhibition had clearly been laid out to tell some sort of story, but uneducated in the arts, you could not guess it.

Lord Shouto led you along the path, sidestepping families and chaperoned couples. You caught a few envious stares as visitors clocked Lord Shouto at your side, and you clutched his arm tighter in apprehension.

You also found very quickly that you had been correct: Lord Shouto was of a kind with the statues. Offensively, he was perhaps even more lovely than they were. The smooth marble of their skin, the strong cords of their fingers and throats, the sleek line of their muscle–it was all deeply reminiscent of Lord Shouto’s dashing figure–but even their features could not quite match his careful, clever beauty.

You resisted the urge to press your fingers harder against his bicep, as if to affirm he truly was a flesh-and-blood man beneath your fingers.

Lord Shouto led you over to the first statue, seeming to carve a path through the crowds like a blade. It was a marble carving of two sleeping, fat-cheeked children with wild curls, reclining over an unrefined hunk of the same stone. Little wings were folded across their backs, the feathers drooping down the other side of the stone. One of them was larger than the other, and looked to be swelling even larger–or maybe he was just taking a breath.

Lord Shouto bent over the inscription, some of which–obnoxiously–was in Greek. He flashed you something that might have been termed a smirk on anyone else before reading: “Eros, Greek god of love,” Lord Shouto gestured to the strange, swelling child. “And his brother Anteros, the god of mutual love.”

“Both sons of Aphrodite. In the company of Anteros, his brother Eros was said to grow larger. But if Anteros was away, Eros shrank back to his usual, smaller size. It is assumed to be a commentary on the strengthening of love by having one’s love returned,” Lord Shouto’s eyes flickered almost pointedly in your direction again.

You fought down a flush, appalled with your own sudden shyness. You might have liked Lord Shouto well enough, but love—love–-you did not dare. No matter how handsome or well-trained or attentive and kind Lord Shouto was.

It would be inappropriate of you to imagine any sort of feeling like that toward him.

You quickly schooled your features into a mask of disbelief. “You’ve made that up,” you accused him.

Lord Shouto blinked, a white eyebrow raising.

“Just because I can’t read Greek,” you sniffed at him. “Taking advantage of an innocent lady’s trust. Clearly it’s a commentary on infantile balloon disease.”

Both of Lord Shouto’s eyebrows rose into his hairline and his features went very still, as though he was suppressing a laugh.

“Balloon disease,” he repeated in a tone so bland and polite he might have been speaking to the king.

You flapped a hand at him. “I know a ballooning child when I see one.”

Lord Shouto hid his face in his sleeve, affecting a sudden cough, but you spied the tiny smile on his mouth when he looked at you again.

“Now be accurate or I’ll insist on a new guide,” you told him, not giving him any time to recover, and gestured him onto the next sculpture.

Lord Shouto cast you a long, searching look, as though he knew exactly what you’d just done to avoid a conversation on romance. But he offered you his arm again, and dutifully led you along.

Over the course of the next few hours, you slowly walked the course of the exhibition, Lady Fuyumi and her husband training behind you at a careful distance. Lord Shouto translated all the bits of the inscriptions in Greek, which you either accepted or discarded on a whim. He also helped supply some of the myths and stories the statues drew on, filling in the gaps in your knowledge neatly and expertly. You alternately spoke of the sculptures and the novels he’d read, and the level of careful attention he paid to both warmed you.

You liked the low, soft murmur of his voice as he explained things to you, and occasionally found yourself half-listening, getting lost in the shape of the syllables in his mouth, the deep richness of his tone.

You could imagine a thousand afternoons like this, clambering around some Greek ruins with Lord Shouto, listening to him patiently translate, watching him turn back to you with that small sliver of a smile whenever you added something ridiculous.

Eventually the two of you came to a statue in particularly good shape, a large man with a neat marble beard and a sly look in his eye.

“Dolos, the god of deception,” Lord Shouto told you, in a tone so light and devoid of any inflection that it sent a strange shiver up your spine.

You peered closer at his features, the shrewd fix of his mouth, his wiry curls, the sightless stare of his marble eyes. The god of deception–how utterly fitting that you should meet him here.

When you turned, Lord Shouto was looking at you strangely, those heterochromatic eyes glittering down at you.

“It’s…interesting,” you said, balking under his close inspection. “That they should have a god honoring such a thing.”

Lord Shouto’s mouth quirked. “Would you like to hear the inscription?”

You nodded, interested.

Lord Shouto read carefully, “Dolos was apprentice to the potter Prometheus, who had used all his skill to sculpt the form of Aletheia, the embodiment of Truth. As he was working, Prometheus was summoned away, leaving Dolos in charge of his workshop. Dolos used his time to copy Aletheia, completing a figure exactly like her, the same size and with identical features.”

You made sure to pay close attention this time, trying not to get too lost again in the smoothness of his voice.

“When he had almost completed her, he ran out of clay to use at her feet. When Prometheus returned, Dolos quickly sat down in his seat, shivering in fear–but Prometheus was amazed at the similarity of the two statues. He puth both in the kiln and infused both with life. But only Aletheia was able to walk, while her copy stayed stuck in her tracks, footless. It is like the saying a lie has no legs to stand on–something that is false can start successfully, but you cannot get away with it.”

A shiver really did crawl down your spine, then. “He created a copy,” you breathed, disliking the parallels between your own situation and the story. A lie has no legs to stand on–-you cannot get away with it.

But you had always known that. Your impersonation of Camie was always going to be discovered–you wondered if Lord Shouto would look back on this moment and see the twisted irony of it.

You hated to wonder how he would think of you, when all of this was through.

Any thought of wandering Greek ruins with Lord Shouto immediately vanished, and you drew in on yourself, remembering that your future only held the halls of a different home not your own, tucked away in the country where you would never see Shouto again.

If you were quiet for the rest of your interlude, Lord Shouto seemed to take it in stride, guiding you around the remaining statues and murmuring their inscriptions to you in his hypnotically low tone.

Eventually, Lady Fuyumi reminded Shouto that he had to dress for dinner–some invite higher in society than the Utsushimi family merited–and ushered you back to the carriage to deliver you home.

You followed obediently, your thoughts racing ahead through the end of the season, through the limited time you had left with Lord Shouto. This would all have to end so soon.

You didn’t know whether you should redouble your efforts to match him with Caroline, to end things sooner, or drag things out as long as possible, to carry the memory of this season with you forever.

You made polite conversation on the way home, avoiding Lord Shouto’s careful scrutiny, and chirped a sincere thank you as you approached the Utsushimi’s home.

It was only as Lord Shouto handed you down from the carriage at the Utsushimi’s front door that you truly realized the horribly romantic bent of your thoughts, the truth of your outing that you had been resisting the entire afternoon.

That you had liked your time with Lord Shouto, and that you wanted more of it–the one thing you could never, ever truly have.

#todoroki shouto x reader #todoroki x you #shouto todoroki x reader #shoto x you

[atarahderek]

So I saw Wish tonight...

Here are my first impressions:

While the animation is quite beautiful, as one would expect from the Mouse House, the storyline is serviceable, the songs are a standard mix of pretty good and pretty meh, and the villain is actually quite enjoyable, those elements just don't carry the film. The storyline is only serviceable. And not like Moana serviceable, where you can still enjoy being immersed in the world, drawn in by the memorable characters, and walk away with a hyperfixation on Polynesian navigation (or was that just me?). It was...entertaining enough...but left me feeling like something was missing.

Which is ironic, because they tried to cram everything into it. That was their mistake, really. They wanted to make as many references to other Disney films as they possibly could, and most of them felt shoehorned. The only reference that felt genuine to the world was basing Asha's seven closest friends on Snow White's Seven Dwarves. Everything else just felt forced. Magnifico made several puns in a row that all directly reference Disney properties, and they were just corny. So bad they came back around to being funny. But I'd rather they be funny for the right reason. And some of the references were so obscure that the vast majority of viewers aren't going to get them (e.g. Little John the bear, who is just called John).

I went into the movie knowing what the basic plotline was: Well-intentioned King Magnifico created an island nation where he hopes to protect everyone and their wishes from destruction, but as his power grows, he becomes corrupted by it. Asha, discovering that Magnifico is hoarding wishes, decides to start a revolution. It's actually a good commentary on government accountability, how easily power corrupts, and why you should never ever EVER give all your resources and rights away to a government that claims to have your neighbor's best interests at heart. Basically, this movie is anti-socialism. The characters voted their way into that system and have to effectively shoot their way out. Magnifico wants them to believe that he (i.e. the state) is the highest power there is, and no one is allowed to question that. Which is a great commentary. It really is. But it falls flat because the message gets muddied. The Aesop gets broken. Because while Wish says there is a higher power than a human-built and human-operated state, that "higher power" is...stardust. And if that's not corny enough, that stardust is said to be in every one of the characters, if they just "believe in themselves." So in the end, Asha's "higher power"...is human-built and human-operated. Yep, the movie tried to get theological, and it completely screwed the whole message up until it came full circle to the message that man is the highest power, and you shall bow, mortals, before whoever holds the wishes, be it an orphan king or a peasant who has an in with the orphan king's ex-wife. The writers could've avoided screwing over their message by developing their magic system more thoroughly and building an entire fantasy religion for their fantasy land, as so many other writers have done countless times over, so that it's still established that there is a higher power that transcends anything man can build, and therefore those who are oppressed by tyranny can look to that power to help them break free. But that would've taken time away from the big Easter egg hunt they wanted to set up. So their movie's message is a very atheistic, "Put your hope in nothing at all, because nothing is more powerful than politics." And the reviews show that people aren't fooled into thinking that that's somehow inspiring. It's a depressing message, and no amount of sparkles poured on it is going to make it any less so. It's just going to make it cringe worthy.

Now, if you can overlook that bit, or take the "stardust" to actually refer to the image of the God who made the stars, then you can see this movie as allegorical for faith overthrowing tyranny. But you have to squint. You can make this movie a case of Death of the Author, but you'll have to shoot the author yourself (metaphorically, Tumblr; don't give me grief just because you're so literal). If you manage that, what you have here is actually a lovely and entertaining little film.

Now for what I liked about the movie: Magnifico was actually the reason I kept watching. I do like how they showed his descent into villainy, rather than making him a straight up villain from the start. He had good intentions and was quickly corrupted by the power he wielded, even though he wanted to use that power to protect his people. He ended up inflicting the very thing he feared most on his people, becoming the hypocrite every well-intentioned extremist is. His villain song can't hold a candle to Scar, Frollo, Facilier or even Zira, but poor songs notwithstanding, he does deserve a spot among the Disney villains of legend. And we get to see him become that villain in a manner that, though a bit rushed due to the time constraints of the medium, nonetheless felt very natural and realistic.

My biggest complaint with Magnifico's character is not actually with him, but with Queen Amaya, who is not a villain and was shocked and appalled when Magnifico became one. She didn't get enough time to process that. She basically went, "Welp, he's evil now, so I'm gonna side with the teenagers and then file for divorce. Gonna really enjoy that alimony, too." I would love to have seen her express a mixture of sorrow, rage, regret and a desperate last grasp at hope for restoration--all the standard emotions that come with grief, especially over the loss of a relationship--but all I saw out of her was indifference. We got to see Alma ugly cry over losing her husband before going on to lead her own little magical kingdom; why couldn't we have that for Amaya? Pedro only ceased to have a physical heartbeat. Magnifico's very soul died. One would think that would be cause for even deeper grief from the loved ones left behind. I'm aware that watching your innocent spouse get carved like a turkey really piles on the PTSD, but what about discovering your spouse is the one doing the carving? Would that not hurt just a wee bit more?

All in all, this film is worth the price of admission, but only for the matinee. You won't be missing much by waiting until it hits Disney+. This is a movie that has a good shot at becoming a cult classic in a decade or two. But it's not going to find much love until then. The talking cat sequel from the Shrek franchise is always going to overshadow this film. Guess there's currently only room in the fans' hearts for one hybrid animation Spaniard trying to keep a wishing star out of the hands of a magic hoarder.

Also, if Dalia doesn't want those Magnifico cookies, can I have them?

#Wish film #Disney #Wish review #movie review #Asha #King Magnifico #Queen Amaya #Star #Evangeline #Blue Fairy #Encanto #Alma Madrigal #Pedro Madrigal #Scar #TLK #Frollo #HoND #Dr. Facilier #PatF #Zira #Puss in Boots #The Last Wish

[emmersreads]

Emma by Jane Austen | 2.5/5

I have been sitting on this negative review of Emma for over a year so pls pretend I am charmingly tortured by my mixed feelings for this beloved classic rather than just a little hater.

I decided to read Emma because the Austen girlies are unstoppable. Every day I wake up for my twelve hour shift in the content mines of tumblr.fuck (for the purpose of this sentence we are both grizzled elderly men sitting on a porch just go with it) and find another post about how Jane Austen is the best thing since before sliced bread. Eat your heart out Shakespeare; if only you’d done all your plays about falling in love. These posts are a bit of a mindfuck for me because as much as I love a costume drama, Austen’s actual novels have always been underwhelming. One of my best friends is an Austen girlie. She loves the things. I dunno man, these books do not spark joy. But maybe I was just young dumb and a hater. Emma (2020) is my favourite Austen movie, so when I decided to reinvestigate the author I thought I’d start there.

The movie is better than the book. Shocked gasps; questions asked at parliament.

Emma (2020) is a great adaptation in part because it’s well positioned to keep the best parts of the book. My favourite part of the novel was the dialogue, which the film is able to lift often ad verbatim (“Mother, you simply must sample the tart!”). The patter of conversation is excellent and Austen’s sense of humor comes across just as effectively on the page as it does when spoken aloud. To this the visual medium can add the incredible set design, including the beautiful Regency wallpapers, Emma’s many jackets and little hats, Anya Taylor Joy’s eyes that look like they’re exes trying awkwardly to avoid each other in the grocery store, Johnny Flynn as Mr. Knightley having a romantic tantrum so intense he has to take his pants off and lie on the floor. Relatable. These elements couldn’t be in the book even if Ms. Austen had wanted to describe Mr. Knightley’s buttock-baring emotion.

Unfortunately that paragraph has been my way of damning with faint praise. The inverse proposition of an adaptation that adds a lot of things I liked is the source material without much to like about it. This is a bit of a misrepresentation. I found most of the book to be funny and enjoyable in much the same vein of the movie: a gorgeously decorated vanilla sponge cake. I just hated the ending so much it retroactively ruined all 500 previous pages.

I don’t begrudge Ms. Austen’s choice to hew to the Georgian standards of propriety (hence no ass shots), but this is a safe space for us to admit that those standards have not all aged particularly well, or particularly sexily. I feel like I’ve been infected with terminal bookstagram brainworms. I also don’t want to be here arguing that a book published two hundred years ago is too old-fashioned for me. But at the same time so much of the narrative about Austen is a revisionist history of how all her work was secretly not only meaningful (this is true, Austen’s work is about capturing the atmosphere and concerns of a particular social milieu, which she does effectively; it’s not less worthy of capture because it’s a space exclusive to women), but progressive.

People love Austen. They love romance and they love period drama. They don’t love when that genre is criticized for being dated or regressive. I understand that people do not read these books for the 21st century social commentary or the politics. And I understand that a 21st century moral critique is ahistorical and in poor faith. Trust me, I feel the ‘just let people have fun’ brigade hanging over my head like the sword of fucking Damocles.

But here’s the thing folks, my largely pretty enjoyable read of Emma was soured by just that: important parts of it are dated and regressive and it ruined my day.

The premise of Emma is that the titular protagonist is a rich and witty young woman intent on meddling in the romantic lives of others, at their expense. At the conclusion of the film, Emma realizes she has behaved badly to her lower class friend Harriet by leading Harriet to overlook the farmer Robert Martin (Harriet’s social equal) in order to pursue the richer Mr. Erlton (her social superior). Emma apologizes to Harriet and tells her to reconsider her feelings for Robert Martin, which turn out to be genuine. Finally, when Harriet discovers that her father is a lower class merchant rather than a secret aristocrat, Emma says she will welcome Harriet into Hartfield anyway. It indicates that Emma has outgrown her judgemental nature and preoccupation with appropriate matches to see Harriet as a friend in spite of her being Emma’s social inferior. And they all live happily ever after.

In the novel, this resolution takes much much longer. Emma’s flaw is not that she toyed with her friend’s emotions to arrange a match that amused her, but that she encouraged Harriet to have uppity opinions and to seek to rise above her station. The story resolves with Emma and Harriet returning to their proper social classes, Emma with Mr. Knightley and Harriet with Robert Martin. Emma and Mr. Knightley commiserate over how foolish Emma was to befriend Harriet and how unpleasant Harriet has become now that she is a social climber, and Harriet is revealed to have been naturally ungrateful and grasping and unworthy of a young lady such as Emma’s friendship.

I’m not going to waste my time on whether this sort of thing was just as bad then as it is now or whether it was simple a different time. Austen’s writing is a reflection of genuinely (though not universally) held societal beliefs and she’s not going to rise from the grave to change it now. It is, however, a deeply unpleasant ending. Emma’s problem isn’t that she toys with the people around her for entertainment, but that she doesn’t participate appropriately in the class system. Technically both of these are about becoming more self-reflective and more thoughtful of others, but the devil is in the details. It’s hard to enjoy that as the conclusion to a romantic comedy. I don’t come to Austen for a window into the uncomfortable realities of the past, or really any particular connection to the past. I’m here for the fluffy romance.

Part of the reason talking about not enjoying Austen because of these novels’ dated elements is so frustrating is that the common narrative about Austen is super revisionist. Austen has endured a lot of lumps and I do think it’s stupid to claim that she was a poor writer and was incapable of writing incisive social commentary just because she was a woman writing about the recency woman’s interests and concerns. I also think it’s reductive to claim that the social dynamics of Austen’s world often get misinterpreted due to the modern reflex to see every society preceding our own as nasty, brutish, and short. But this isn’t a critique of Austen, this is a critique of reading Austen in 2023. It’s not just about hating to see a grilboss winning.

On the other hand, why do I feel like I’m trying to placate the ‘just let people enjoy things’ brigade again?

One of the most frustrating things about being generally a romance disliker is the climate of toxic positivity that surrounds any genre that is more about having fun than any ostensibly higher purposes. There is a sense that since the audience of these genres is primarily women and they are often targeted by bad faith misogynistic criticisms, that any criticism of them is inherently misogynistic. I’ve been tying myself up in knots because my observation is that a book from 1815 has some nineteenth century ass ideas about class. This should be self-evident. ‘Just enjoying things’ in not actually my goal when reading, and ‘just letting people enjoy things’ isn’t my goal as a critic either.

Here’s the rub: Emma is a fun and sweet romantic comedy with some of the English language’s best dialogue until the conclusion reminds us that there hasn’t ever been a romantic utopia with the sexy historical codes of practise but not the bad ones. Romance in Austen’s time was a function of the class system, not separate from it. And I don’t know, maybe I’m the patron saint of it really being that deep, but I had a hard time seeing the lighthearted romance in that.

#read in 2023 #emma #jane austen #book review #bookblr #bookstagram #book blogging #classics #romance #books #also its been so long i cant find any of the pics i took of the book so behold my lemon cake

[lightningblade1994-blog]

8 Fantasy Story Plot Ideas that Don’t Involve Quests (Editorial by_The Angry Noodle)

If you’re like me, you might be browsing the internet right now instead of writing because you’re stuck, cornered by the dreaded writers block. Fear not, friendos! I’m here to provide you with some fun fantasy plot ideas to get your brain juices flowing, some ways you could approach these plots, and questions to consider when you start writing.

Before we begin, I gotta add a quick Noodle Note on the fantasy plot ideas on this list:

Pretty much any conflict can count as a quest. If your protagonist has a goal and is striving to reach it, they’re undergoing a kind of quest. The intention of this article is to suggest types of plots that don’t necessarily follow the traditional “quest” plot line: a protagonist (or a group of protagonists) going on a lengthy journey and meeting all sorts of wacky characters in their hunt for…something. Treasure, the big bad, a magical artifact, an elusive figure, etc.

Take Lord of The Rings, for example: Frodo Baggins and his companions search for the One Ring to destroy and defeat the evil Sauron. The quintessential quest.

A journey, a goal, an antagonist, and major stakes. Quests are a fantastic plot with which to frame your story. But that ain’t what we’re here for today, folks. Instead, I’m here to give you all the fun plot ideas that aren’t quests, and some of the ways you can approach them.

Let’s begin.

1. The Political Uprising

Ahhh, the uprising. The moment the political tension that has been brewing throughout the expositional phase of your novel finally reaches a boiling point. When moves are made to replace the monarchy that’s been in power for centuries, or the council that’s been in power for centuries, or the theocracy that has been in power for centuries, or the oligarchy that’s been in power for centuries…you get the point.

The fun thing about this kind of fantasy plot idea is that protagonists can be on either side of the uprising. Has the government always been corrupt, selfish, and endlessly greedy? Then an uprising is just what you need! But has the government, while flawed, run the country well enough that they are the better option between they and some dark, powerful force seeking to usurp the throne? Hell, maybe you want to shake things up a bit. Maybe no one is the right side, and your protagonist is just trying to stay alive and avoid being crushed by either of these titanic, unstoppable forces.

The political uprising opens up a lot of opportunities for social commentary. If you use a plotline like this, you will want to show the pros and cons of each side. To do that, there are a number of questions you should ask yourself when building your world and determining your protagonist’s place in it.

Why would the people support either side? This is vital. Is there a side that serves as the “greater good” for the people? And if not, what other solutions might arise?

What kind of propaganda has been spread in favor of each side to sway the public?

What are the consequences of one side or the other coming to power?

Why would your protagonist support one over the other?

Is there some unseen solution that favors all parties somehow?

How are other nations handling this political splintering? Are they taking sides? Do any of them take advantage of the nation being in such a vulnerable position?

Because rulers often suck (eat the rich, ra ra ra!), how have they been royally screwing over the people in a way that would sway them another way?

A good story that involves a political uprising won’t just be a vague conflict between two sides. How is each of your characters impacted by this conflict? What do they stand to lose? Killing some crappy nobles is all well and good, but your reader won’t be as satisfied when the people break out the guillotine unless they get to see why it’s so important–especially to the protagonist–that one side wins over the other.

2. The Curse

Is this possibly cheating? Maaaaaaybe. After all, often times in fiction when a curse is involved, the characters will need to go on some kind of quest or journey to find a way to break it.

But I’d also argue that doesn’t always need to be the case. All of it depends on the following:

Where did the curse come from?

Who has been cursed, and why?

How does the curse impact the afflicted?

What needs to be done to break the curse?

Who would know how to break the curse?

Maybe your characters need to travel to an evil witch’s lair and slay her to break the curse. Or seek out a rare herb or gem to create the concoction that will cure them. I will admit, those scenarios would surely count as “quests” or “journeys.”

But what if the curse doesn’t work that way? What if the curse can’t be broken, and suddenly the plot involves finding a way to navigate a life post-curse, whatever the impact of this terrible magic might be? Or breaking the curse doesn’t involve a quest at all, but some kind of self discovery? Maybe the person cursed doesn’t even realize they’re cursed at all, and the entire plot is them dealing with obstacle after obstacle without realizing why they can’t seem to catch a break. Or they know what the curse is, but not its source (ex: Kevin Hearne’s Ink & Sigil protagonist Al MacBarris, who has been cursed for the past ten years and cannot speak aloud without risking the person he’s speaking to suddenly despising him with a fiery passion. He has no idea who cursed him, and therefore cannot take the steps to rid himself of it). What if you turn your fantasy curse story into a straight up mystery? A whodunit of magical proportions?

Curses have a lot of potential in that they’re a huge problem to the protagonist that is literally attached to them. Your curse can influence the plot in many different ways without the classic “go on a quest to break the curse” trope as the focal point.

3. The Warring Factions

Two factions at odds for as long as anyone can remember. Maybe there was a tenuous peace, but tensions have been boiling over for so long that war seems inevitable. There are so many ways that the ‘warring factions’ plot line can be approached, including the quest if you so desire. For example, the protagonists may embark on a journey in search of an ancient relic both sides are fighting over. Or to seek the wisdom of a prophet who can provide guidance as to how to unite the warring nations. Or even to say, “Fuck it,” and found an entirely separate nation where they can start anew, free of the petty squabbles of the greedy and prideful nobles they’ve lived under for far too long.

Traditionally, there are two major factions in conflict in these kinds of stories (Horde vs. Alliance, The Republic vs. The Empire, etc). But you don’t even have to limit yourself to that. Maybe your entire world is on the brink of collapse with every major society wanting to burn down the next. Maybe a giant, magical World War is taking place, and every country in the realm is forced to pick a side or risk being besieged by everyone.

Or maybe it really is just two factions who are really, really pissed at each other! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Some questions to consider when writing this kind of fantasy plot:

Why are the factions at war?

How many factions are involved?

What does each faction have to lose? To gain?

What is your protagonist’s connection to each faction? What’s their stake in this conflict?

How has the ongoing conflict been affecting everyone involved?

Most importantly, ask yourself how a situation so complex can be resolved. How do you bring peace to two forces that have despised each other for so long? And why is your protagonist the one who can pull it off? This kind of fantasy plot can involve a quest, sure, but it can also involve anything from a war to an assassination to a trial to even good old fashioned diplomacy.

4. The Magical Tournament

A quest without a (technical) quest. This type of conflict takes place in anime often (for example, The Grand Magic Games arc in Fairy Tail), and it’s easy to see why: your protagonists go toe-to-toe with enemy after enemy of a comparable or even greater power level in a fairly linear progression. Often there is one particular contender who has it out for your protagonist, or who your protagonist needs to take down to get what they want/need. There’s plenty of room for complexity when it comes to a fantasy plot idea like this, but it’s also a great way to write a plot that gets from point A to point B relatively simply. Some questions to consider include:

Which opponents will give your protagonist a hard time, and why?

Which opponents are significant to your protagonist in some way, and how do they know each other?

What does your protagonist have to prove by winning this tournament?

What makes this tournament you’ve created for your world different from other fantasy tournaments we might have seen in media?

What is the prize for winning the tournament?

Who would serve as the antagonist for a plot line like this? The host? A contender? The creator of the tournament? Or someone else entirely?

Will the protagonist have to face off against someone they’re close with? How will that impact their relationship?

While I’ve never written a “magical tournament” story, I’ve always loved this kind of fantasy plot. It can appear in sci-fi as well (who doesn’t love a good superhero tournament?), and it presents a chance for your protagonist to prove themselves in the most straightforward way possible: beat the living crap out of everyone until they’re the last one standing. Along the way, they are sure to make friends, make enemies, have their major climatic battle with the long-term rival, run into many obstacles in the form of extremely powerful contenders, discover themselves and what they are capable of, and maybe even realize that they don’t need to win some grand tournament to prove themselves to anyone.

You can’t go wrong with a magical tournament, folks!

5. The Star-crossed Lovers

Is your protagonist an immortal elf and their beloved, a short-lived, fragile mortal? Maybe a god or a spirit with responsibilities that mortals can’t even fathom, falling for the delightfully simple world the silly humans inhabit? A vampire struggling with their unending hunger, or a werewolf struggling with their unending curse and their loyalty to their pack? An alien trapped on Earth, finding help and (eventually) love in the form of an average human going about their day—literal “star-crossed lovers”?

The star-crossed lovers trope appeals to fantasy and sci-fi readers (and, honestly, readers in general) for good reason: we love to see (CONSENSUAL) love that seems impossible, and witness these wonderful lovers we’ve come to root for finally get their chance to be together. Sometimes it takes several books for it to happen, and not without many obstacles along the way. Sometimes it never happens at all. But god dammit, we’re rooting for it anyway! The major obstacles that prevent the characters from being together might not even be anything to do with magic, but instead status, family ties (Romeo and Juliet), or country of origin.

Some questions to consider:

Why can’t your characters be together?

Why do they want to be together? Readers won’t root for them if they don’t see what makes them so good for each other

How does the fantasy world you’ve built play a role in their relationship? For instance, if one of the lovers is an elf and the other a demon, what is it about your world that makes their unity such an issue?

Do they end up together? Why or why not?

I’m a sucker for paranormal romance novels, especially urban fantasies where the human has no idea about the supernatural until they stumble across it by pure chance. Ultimately, the “star-crossed lovers” plot comes down to this: when your two lovers come from entirely different worlds (sometimes literally), how do they overcome it and find each other against all the odds?

6. The Drastic Magical Disruption

My favorite part of any fantasy story is the magic. There are entire communities dedicated to building a magic system in one’s book (r/magicbuilding, r/fictionalscience) and these systems can be as hard (complex, detailed, strict) or as soft (vague, mysterious, no particular rules) as desired. They also make for a great fantasy plot idea if you’re looking to have a conflict that threatens the balance of the realm itself. What better way to challenge your protagonist than to dump them in a situation where the magical substance the world runs on is suddenly on the verge of an apocalyptic collapse? Or how about a situation where magic is vital for day to day functioning, until one day it vanishes entirely? What does this do to the world? Might it cause a societal collapse? Do cities run entirely on magic, and what happens to them if that magic is suddenly no longer available (imagine if the floating city of Dalaran from World of Warcraft lost all of its magic in an instant. Not pretty)? What becomes of those who specialize in the magical arts? How do they cope with a complete loss of purpose?

Some ideas for this type of fantasy plot can include:

The corruption of magic, causing magic users to go mad and magic items to turn cursed

The complete loss of magic in a world where the inhabitants rely heavily on it

A fundamental change in how magic functions (for example, the Weave’s collapse during the Spellplague in Forgotten Realms)

Most people don’t handle change very well. If you take something essential to their every day lives, especially something they never imagined they’d ever have to live without, how do they cope? How do they recover from the loss, restoring the magic that’s been disrupted or destroyed, and is it possible that the world can move on without magic entirely?

7. The Magic Environmentalist

While building magical worlds give you the opportunity to dismantle everything we know about the environment, society, and even logic and the laws of physics, you are still fundamentally making some kind of commentary that we can relate to here on Earth. That makes The Magic Environmentalist a delightful fantasy plot idea that lets you warn your readers about what happens when you 1. play God, 2. value profit over life, and 3. destroy the environment, and 4. ignore all of the warning signs when things start to go unstable. This one can be a bit similar to the Drastic Magical Disruption depending on what you’re writing about: maybe your world runs on magic, but your society’s greedy rulers have been corrupting it for their own gain for so long that it’s becoming destabilized and downright dangerous. There are other ways to explore this idea too, some of which include:

Greedy poachers killing off an important magical animal species. What happens to the world when a vital part of its ecosystem risks extinction?

A clashing of magic and technology. Can the two work in harmony, or is there some kind of friction that makes a merging of both dangerous?

Nature’s magical force turning against people. What happens when the animals and plant life you’ve lived in harmony with forever are suddenly very angry and very dangerous?

A protagonist who works with animals or plant life in this world slowly starting to notice that something is changing. Why might this be happening?

Just because your world might have magic, strange creatures, and ancient legends, doesn’t mean that it can’t also have douchebags intent on destroying the world or messing with the balance of things. The question for you is: what does this mean for your world, and how can it be saved?

8. The “Powerless” Protagonist

The final “fantasy plot idea” could actually apply to sci-fi stories as well, if science fiction is more your style. Whether we’re talking about superpowers, augmentations, or magic, “the ‘powerless’ protagonist” plot is extremely versatile and gives your protagonist a whole lot of struggles to overcome right off the bat, just because they do not have abilities that everyone else has been lucky enough to have.

Think My Hero Academia, but Deku never gets his powers. Or Sedgewick from the episode “Ice,” from season two of Love, Death, and Robots. Or Tavi from Furies of Calderon: everyone has powers, to the point where it’s expected and often required, but your protagonist has, by some unexplainable phenomenon, lived their entire life without. Sure, you can make your story a quest for discovery, where perhaps the protagonist learns they have a unique power that manifests differently from others (think Asta from Black Clover, who grew up without any kind of magic, but learns he wields a powerful kind of antimagic). Or perhaps they really don’t have any powers but find a way to obtain them, earning them where everyone else gets them by pure chance. Or maybe your story is about your protagonist navigating the world without powers entirely, proving that they don’t need any fancy abilities to be a hero or do great things.

I mention this one as a “plot without a quest” kind of story because there are directions I’d like to see this kind of story go that don’t hyperfocus on fighting or saving the world. I posted on Twitter my desire to see urban fantasy that isn’t a police procedural or some kind of “we must stop the baddie” adventure, but instead a slice-of-life story that focuses on the characters, this world of monsters, and what it’s like to live in a fantastical world.

But even if you don’t want to create some kind of chill sci-fi/fantasy novel or short story where the stakes aren’t very high, a protagonist lacking a tool that comes naturally to everyone else gives you the opportunity to make them shine no matter what the conflict is. Some examples include:

A mortal living among gods

A “mundane” living among witches/wizards

A human living among monsters

A non-super living among supers

A human living among giants

And some questions you can ask yourself when writing something like this:

What makes life different for this person, especially if they are the only one without powers?

If they aren’t the only one, what is life like for communities without powers?

How do others treat your protagonist?

If you are drawing parallels to the real world somehow, what parallels are you trying to draw, and how can you do so tactfully?

And that’s it! What kinds of fantasy plot ideas have you thought about writing? Is there a spin on any of these fantasy plots you’re considering?

#writing advice #editorial

[ramrodd]

Frank Turek Interviews Mike Licona on Jesus' Resurrection | @CrossExamined

COMMENTARY:

Bart Ehrman is a propagandist for the Post Modern dialectical Marxism of the Jesus Seminar,, The Jesus Seminar may have begun as a materialistic inquiry into the components of the historical Jesus, but it has been hijacked by John Dominic Crossan as a Post Modern weapon against the British crown in Northern Ireland, Crossan is a charming Irish Fabian who is right out of the Polugh and the Stars and, for all  intents and purposes, a chaplain for the  IRA, His thesis is to equate Judea during the 1st Century before the destruction of the Temple to Ireland during the Potato Famine under John Bull. Among other things Jesus was transformational and not a revolutionary, The people around him may have been, but He wasn't, Jesus was preaching what has become Pauline Theology as interpreted by N.T. Wright and the subtext to His ethic, as captured in Romans 13:1 - 7, was that Israel should embrace Pax Romana and transform the governing construct of the pre-Saul Judges by retaining the separation of powrrs of Priest, Prophet and King,  incorporating the King is a republican structure similar to the Roman Empire and include the People with a voice in the government structures. In words, pretty much the way Israel is organized today   The Post Modern Historic Deconstruction is the ideological construct the Students for a Democratic Society imposed on the American university system after the occupation of Columbia to justify their  avoidance of military service under the Seelctive Service System. They have a number of noble sounding rationalizations, but it basically came down to the fact that they were all scared shitless of going to Vietnam and/or interrupting their business career to play soldier for tow years like Elvis. The political strategy for the SDS was based on Trotsky's Insurgency Process that Castro had successfully implemented in Cuba . The Port Huron Statement in 1962 adopted this construct and actively exercised the dialectical Marxism in their expressed ideological methodology that resulted in the Police Riots in Chicago in 1968, Campus radicals like Jimmy Tabor employed these methods in their academic career to stay in school and avoid the draft , even after the draft ended with the All Volunteer Military, In the final analysis, Jimmy Tabor and Dom Crossan continue to advocate the radical agenda of the Weather Underground against the dominant social contract inherent in the federal government,   The irony of course, is taht the pro-war Conservative draft dodgers from the 60s have adopted the Post Modern libertarian logic of William F. buckley and Ayn Rand and created the Supply Side economics of white supremacy that has dominated American governmetn policy since 1981 and led directly to the January 6 attempt at the hostile take=over of America, by MAGA Conservatives and the neo-Nazi Jesus Freaks of Christian Nationalism, The thing is, Bart Ehrman has become a useful idiot and force multiplier for Christian Nationalism with the moral confusion generated by his business model based on his unsubstantiated claims of textual corruption. Cornelius the centurion featured in Acts 10 is the author of the Gospel of Mark and it is anchored on Pilate's lost euangelion to Tiberius conveying the the Talking Cross as the ratification of the blood covenant between the god of Jesus and the centurions in the Italian Cohort as represented by Cornelius. We know from Tertullian that Pilate sent this euagelion as an intelligence report to Rome and that  Tiberius acted upon it, We know from Tertullian that the Roman soldiers were calling Jewish Jesus Followers "Christians" before Jesus was arrested  We also know that this euangelion emerged from the events reported in Mark 15:1 - 16:9 We can infer from the universal SOPs of a diplomatic/military mission such as Pilate's role in Judea would have generated such an euangelion and that the "Tidings of Joy" was the Talking Cross which has been captured in the Gospel of Peter which was Peter's reemergence of the contents of th euangelion as told to him by Cornelius off-stage in Acts 10  And we know that the euangelion that Peter employed to vet Paul's version of the Gospel included not only the Gospel of Peter but Peter's confession of Jesus's ministry contained in Acts 10: 34 - 43, which become the narrative arc of the Gospel of Mark and which validates Gary Habermas's thesis that Christian doctrine emerged immediately after the ascension and Pentecost. All of which squash the Post Modern fairy tale of Bart Ehram, Jimmy Tabor, and Dom Crossans Jesus Seminar into dialectical mush which attempts to substitute the premise that the Gospel of Mark is derivative of Pauline Theology and was written after the Jerusalem Apocalypse, The Jesus Seminar is like the Oliver Stone version of Vietnam: it is based on the ideological convenience of a political agenda to enforce the narrative of conventional wisdom in the same manner as the ""Stop the Steal" campaign of the January 6 Reason.  

#youtube

[ramonawhitfield]

South Park Test: Master the Power of Satire

The South Park Test is a comprehensive assessment that measures an individual's knowledge and understanding of the popular animated television show, South Park. With 23 seasons and over 300 episodes, the show has garnered a large and dedicated fan base. This test evaluates a person's familiarity with the characters, storylines, and cultural references within the show, and can be a fun way to challenge and engage fans. Whether you consider yourself a casual viewer or a die-hard fan, taking the South Park Test can not only test your South Park knowledge but also provide a nostalgic trip down memory lane. So, put your knowledge to the test and see how well you know the irreverent, satirical world of South Park. Credit: study.com Understanding South Park's Satirical Genius     South Park is renowned for its unique brand of satire, cleverly using humor to shed light on societal issues. By dissecting the show's episodes, we can gain a deeper appreciation for its satirical brilliance. Each South Park episode masterfully employs satire to convey its message. Through exaggerated characters and comedic situations, the show challenges societal norms and highlights hypocrisy. - Irreverent humor - Parodies and pop culture references - Shock value - Subtle social commentary - Political satire - Clever wordplay South Park artfully satirizes various social and political issues, challenging conventional beliefs and pushing boundaries. Through its bold and provocative approach, it aims to provoke critical thinking and encourage dialogue about crucial topics. Crafting Your Satirical Voice In crafting a satirical voice, there are several steps you can take to develop a satirical perspective. Firstly, identify the social or cultural issues you want to tackle through satire. This could be anything from politics to celebrity culture. Once you have identified your target, research and gather information to form the basis of your commentary. Next, it's important to understand the techniques used in South Park for impactful satire. The show thrives on exaggeration, irony, and parody, blending different elements to create a unique voice. Analyzing episodes and understanding the humor employed can help you refine your approach. One crucial aspect of satire is balancing humor and message. It's essential to strike a balance so that your satire remains effective and doesn't lose its impact. Too much humor can dilute the underlying message, while too much focus on the message can make it heavy-handed. Finding the right blend will make your satire more compelling. In conclusion, crafting a satirical voice involves identifying issues, understanding techniques, and maintaining a balance between humor and message. By following these steps, you can develop your own unique satirical perspective just like South Park. The Essentials Of The South Park Test The South Park Test is a valuable tool for assessing the quality of satire. Originating from the popular animated TV show, South Park, this test helps determine the effectiveness of satirical content. The test's definition is centered around evaluating whether a piece of satire successfully criticizes its target subject while avoiding offense against marginalized groups. The South Park Test holds significant importance as it helps creators ensure their satirical content is not only entertaining but also responsible. It ensures that the intended target is the subject of critique, rather than unfairly attacking vulnerable communities. By applying this test, creators can navigate the fine line between humor and harm, generating content that cleverly exposes societal issues without crossing ethical boundaries. Applying the South Park Test to your own satirical content can help refine your message. It encourages reflection on the impact and intent of your work, ensuring it remains thought-provoking without alienating or hurting others. By considering the lessons learned from South Park, creators can create satirical content that pushes boundaries while promoting understanding and empathy. Decoding South Park's Legacy In Satire The South Park Test explores the enduring legacy of South Park's unique brand of satire. With its irreverent humor and fearless social commentary, South Park has been pushing boundaries and challenging taboos since its debut in 1997. Over the years, the show has evolved its approach to satire, tackling a wide range of controversial subjects with clever wit and sharp criticism. One of the most memorable aspects of South Park is its ability to create satirical moments that have a lasting impact on society. From lampooning celebrities and politicians to critiquing current events, the show has consistently pushed the boundaries of what is considered acceptable in mainstream media. This has led to plenty of controversies, but it has also sparked important discussions and raised awareness about various social issues. South Park has set the bar for modern satire by fearlessly taking on taboo subjects and challenging societal norms. Through its unique blend of humor and social commentary, the show has paved the way for other satirical works to follow in its footsteps. Building Satirical Content Like South Park Satirical content, like that found in the beloved show South Park, requires a careful balance of creativity and wit. To create compelling satirical writing, it's important to consider a few key ingredients. First and foremost, a deep understanding of the subject matter is crucial. By researching and immersing oneself in the topic at hand, writers can ensure their satire hits the mark. Another important consideration is avoiding common pitfalls that can diminish the effectiveness of satire. Striking the right tone, avoiding offensive language, and maintaining a clear satirical intent are all essential. One can learn a great deal from South Park's success stories and the methodology behind their satirical content. By studying the show's approach, writers can gain insights into what makes satire resonate with audiences. In conclusion, building satirical content like South Park requires a thoughtful approach, attention to detail, and a willingness to push boundaries in a respectful manner. Satire In The Digital Age With the rise of social media, satirical messages can now spread like wildfire. Satire, in the digital age, has adapted to the online realm, and one popular test to determine its effectiveness is the South Park Test. This test examines whether a satirical message can uphold its humorous and critical value while being distributed and consumed online. Social media plays a crucial role in spreading satirical messages, allowing them to reach a wider audience. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram enable users to share and engage with satirical content, making it more accessible and shareable. However, it's important to strike a balance between staying relevant and respectful. Satire that crosses the line into offensive or harmful territory can backfire, alienating audiences and damaging the message's impact. In the digital age, the South Park Test challenges satirists to ensure their content remains effective and impactful in the online world. By navigating social media's influence, satirical creators can utilize the power of the internet to spread their messages while upholding their purpose and relevance. Conclusion With the South Park Test, you can ensure that your SEO strategy is on point for optimal website visibility. By analyzing your site's strengths and weaknesses, this test allows you to enhance your online presence and drive more organic traffic to your business. By implementing the strategies shared in this blog post, you'll be well-equipped to conquer the search engine rankings and reach your target audience effectively. Start optimizing your website now and watch your online success soar! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig   Read the full article

[sul-ivanko]

Ok. I give up. :/

This, @sul-ivanko, was supposed to be my fun place, my safe space. My little slice of the internet to stalk fictional characters and look at cute cats and go shriek about gardening. Instead, it has become a reblog-blog full of near constant bad news and political and social commentary. I agree with the commentary I repost! And I think the information that I reblog needs to be spread! But I am not the one who should be spreading it.

My interest in gardening lead me to the concept of “solarpunk” and the many wonderful Tumbls out there who prescribe to it. I started following them, then following who they follow, and reclining whatever caught my interest or I thought should be spread. But in this day and age, most news is bad news and my dash has become a quicksand pit of depression and doom scrolling.

This is not what I am on tumblr for. I have successfully avoided Facebook and other social media sites all these years - managed to avoid the algorithmic apocalypse intent on making everyone so full of hate and fear over there - and yet somehow curated a blog and a dash that does nothing but make me feel simultaneously frightened and furious.

Current events are important and should be engaged with, but I’m not a newscaster or commentator. I’m a disabled, unemployed queer looking for fun and friends online.

So I’m taking the advice of that wonderful post that’s been going around and accepting that…

Anxiety is not Activism

… and will be stepping away from this blog.

I don’t know if it’ll be temporary, permanent, if I’ll come back and cull out some of my posts or leave it be. I’m not deleting anything but I’m not going to be here for a while. Ive started a new tumble with a new address and will be trying the “curate your own experience” thing with greater fidelity.

For those who I’ve been mutual-lurking with for a while, I love you all and I’ll miss you even tho we never really interacted.

Good luck out there, folks.

[djinmer4]

The Meeting (1/? House of M AU)

So I think it’s been more than a year since I claimed I was going to write this.

Ha.  Ha.  Ha.

Anyway, here’s the first chapter of my House of M AU.  Inspired by that first short in the 2010 Girl Comics.

~~~~~~~~~~

It had been a long mission, made even longer by having to fill out the mission report afterward.  Adrenaline had left Darkholme too antsy to go back to his apartment and crash in his bed, but at the same time, he was too tired to indulge in any of his usual hobbies like dancing or the Danger Room.  Spotting the new cabaret that opened up he decided a nightcap and some light entertainment would probably tire him out enough to put him to sleep.  He ordered a martini and listened to the MC introduce the first singer.

She was adequate, on key, and could keep time well enough, but her voice was a little weak.  In fact, it was weak enough that he could hear some commotion start behind the curtain.  He teleported backstage and saw the MC menacing one of the dancers with a knife.  “Don’t!” she cried out.

Clearing his throat, he got the attention of the two combatants.  The MC raised the knife against him (what type of idiot didn’t recognize a Red Guard uniform?) and Kurt tackled the man.  They exchanged a few blows, but then the MC sagged when the dancer hit the back of his neck with her shoe.  “Danke schon,” he told the curly-haired brunette.

“I have no idea what that means, but thanks for the assist.”  She lowered the pump and wiggled it back on her foot while he cuffed the MC.

“Do you want to press charges?”

She bit her lip, but after a second she straightened her back and the lines on her face hardened.  “Yes, yes I think I will.”

He tapped his wrist communicator, activating the record function. “Sehr gut.  I’m Captain Kurt Darkholme and it’s 10 PM, June XX, 19XX.  Could you please state your name for the record?”

She raised an eyebrow at the communicator but obligingly leaned in.  “My name’s Kitty Pryde.”

It was a couple of months later before he went back to that particular venue.  Things appeared to have improved a little, the place was a little cleaner, the servers looked a little less stressed out.  The new MC seemed affable enough, although the way he eyed some of the employees made Kurt a little uneasy.  Spotting the young dancer from before, he paid for a private dance in a booth.  “Fraulein Pryde.”

She squinted through the shadowed glass.  The dim lighting made her white dress glow angelically but prevented her from seeing who was on the other side.  “Captain Darkholme?”

“Ja, Fraulein.  I was wondering if you would have the time to answer some questions.”

She glanced over at the clock.  “Well, you did pay for 10 minutes.  As long as you don’t mind not getting your show and don’t go beyond that time . . . “

“Maybe next time.  I didn’t want to cut into your work hours.  So how have things been?”

She lit up in a way that matched the wings on her outfit.  “Oh, it’s been great with the new manager.  The bathroom stalls all got fixed, he’s been making repairs.  No one’s gotten stiffed on their pay the last few months.”

His mouth twisted down.  “Really?  The MC seemed a little . . . “ he waved one arm but realized she couldn’t see his expression with the way the booths were set up.  “He respects your boundaries?”

“Is this about the leering?”  Ms. Pryde shrugged, fiddling with her lace collar.  “Yeah, he leers.  But you know what this guy hasn’t done?  Hasn’t withheld anyone’s paycheck to force them to get handsy with the customers.  Hasn’t drilled any peepholes in the changing rooms and sold the view to perverts.  And he definitely hasn’t pulled a knife on anyone who said ‘no’ when he tried to sell more than they wanted to give.  This guy looks but he hasn’t said or done anything awful to me or any of the other performers, so we’ll put up with him undressing us with his eyes any day.”

Kurt was shocked.  He hadn’t realized the situation was quite so bad.  “From the way this sounds, things are much more abusive than I thought.  Perhaps I should bring this to someone’s attention-”

The dancer tapped sharply on the window.  “Hey, now, it’s not that bad.  I’ve talked to some of the other performers here, Genosha actually does a really good job with its sex workers, there is a lot more protection here than other places.  It’s just . . . this isn’t exactly the best place in Hammer Bay.  Some things are going to fall through the cracks no matter what.”

“Stil . . . I simply do not like the thought of you having to go through more trauma after what happened the last time I was here.  Perhaps you could find a job at a more reputable venue?”

“Err, that’s not a good idea.  For me anyway.”

Kurt leaned forward, even though he knew she couldn’t see him.  “Fraulein Pryde, are you being pressured in any way to work here?”

“No, nothing like that!”  Then she sighed and looked down at her hands.  “Truth of the matter is, this is one of the few places willing to pay its workers under the table.  That’s kind of important for me.”

“Explain.”

“Look, it’s nothing illegal.  It’s just . . . I came to Genosha on a student visa.  I’m not really supposed to be taking a job off-campus.  I’ve got a scholarship that covers tuition and board, but that’s it.  And my parents weren’t really happy with me going so far away, so I don’t like asking them for money.”

“I-”

“Your time is up.  Unless you want to shell out more money, we’re going to have to continue this conversation after my shift.”

“Another day then.”  Then before he make a fool of himself by saying more, Kurt teleported out of the building.

#kurtty #Kitty Pryde #Kurt Darkholme #Shadowcat #nightcrawler #house of m #intent is to avoid political or social commentary #you can see how long that resolution lasted

[clownvoy]

Why convoy news is failing us

I spent a couple hours watching the TV news again today.

It's a frustrating experience, for several reasons.

First, television carries with it expectations of a narrative. You expect something new. If it's a serialized, ongoing story, you expect progress. Yet nothing is changing in the anti-mandate protests. The protesters continue occupying, lying, and gloating, while the police and politicians express their grave concerns.

There is just no new information. Most coverage comes from either reporters on the scene, or from supposedly informed commentators. We almost never hear from anyone who actually knows what's going on.

For reporters, there’s very little to learn on the frontlines. Talking to individual protesters is almost pointless. Their energetic rants may sound interesting at first, but if you've heard two you've heard them all.

Virtually none of the protesters knows anything about their movement – how big it is, its motives, or its next steps. Their reason for being there – to protect freedom from overreaching government – is indefensible. Reporters can't even ask useful follow-up questions, because few protesters can articulate much beyond their initial grievance.

Another problem: the trucker leaders are shadowy figures largely absent from the news. They hold news conferences without the national media, or anyone who will ask hard questions. They stay in the background to avoid accountability.

Since the media's focus is on the battlefront, the convoy leaders don't get the scrutiny they deserve. Who are these people? Can you name any? What are their philosophies? What are their goals? Do they have any plans to end this standoff other than being pushed out by force? (Or is that what they want?)

We don't know the leaders' intentions because the media aren't talking about them. I've learned more about the leaders (and their associations with racism and separatism) through Twitter, Facebook and YouTube than I've learned by reading the paper or watching the news. None of them have ever reported convoy leader BJ Richter's promise of "massive disruption" in a YouTube interview two weeks ago.

(A Google search just now retrieved only my own tweets on this subject.)

There is valuable context on social media, and the mainstream journalists are missing it.

Significantly, what's missing from the coverage of the protesters is informed commentary from government and police officials. This may not be the media's fault. Our leaders haven't a clue.

We see them express outrage, and hear their whines about insufficient resources. But we haven't heard any strategy from them. Of course, they imply that they have plans, and they're sorry they can't share them. But what's become clear is that they don't know how to dislodge these protesters without resorting to violence. And they don't know how to overcome their positional disadvantages.

Finally, I see almost no discussion in the media of the implications of these events. I bet many people feel that something has changed in Canada, and that politics and protest will never be the same again.

I agree that nobody knows what will happen next. But it's important for leaders and thinkers to talk about likely outcomes and scenarios. Because without thinking through the consequences of our actions, we lose our ability to control events.

So if you're tired of watching these protests play out, you're not alone. Our leaders and our media have let us down.

Addendum: If you want to “do your own research,” I have found one of the best sources of information is TikTok. All day, from 7:00 a.m. till 2:00 a.m., you'll find #freedomconvoy protesters live-streaming their every move. You get to see and hear how they think, who they talk with, and what they're up to. You can watch them engage with their followers and supporters, as well as with trolls like me (i.e., anyone who defies their illogic, or ask them to go home). It will give you a much deeper understanding of their issues and their behaviour.

And a sounder context for interpreting the daily news.

Addendum Update, Feb. 13: Since the above post was published, the number of livestreams on TikTok seems to be decreasing. Perhaps life is no longer a party on the streets of Ottawa.

#clownvoy #politics #media #CONvoy #freedomconvoy #journalism #news

[nightswithkookmin]

What you think of fetus V who said in front of everyone "You seem to really like men" to Jimin? Youthful ribbing? Or a moment of insensitivity ? FWI saying you like girls or guys? Or calling close same sex friends u a couple? is actually common where am from. This has happened in my friend circle too actually. Except all of us are hets so no one take it seriously. Cant think a closeted person would find it that funny. Jimins lack of denial or even laughing it off always stood out to me tho.

What do I think of that comment?

I think we both know very often when people say they think a man likes men, they mean to say they think that man is Gay and very often when the g-word is used in a sentence, it is not meant as a compliment- imma give it to you straight, no bs. Lol.

The parlance gay and variations of it, in my opinion, is often used ubiquitously and traditionally as a slur slang among ignorant, non-progressive, anti homosexual individuals and is often rooted in malice.

And when malice isn't intended, ridicule is. The sad fact is, people adopt the terminology as ammunition to blatantly attack, dehumanize, belittle and strip away the dignity of queer folks and when the term is used in reference to non queer people it has a similar effect. It degrades them as well through the irony and humor of comparing them to gay people.

Gay jokes, if you will, is a subtle art of passive aggressively slurring gay folks if you think about it. I mean let's be honest.

Personally, I don't think Tae's intentions in that moment were malicious at all. I don't think he blurted out those words with the intension to ridicule Jimin either- stay with me. It will make sense in a bit.

But he called Jimin gay nevertheless. His comment if a joke, I'm afraid, reinforces these bizzare stereotypes of masculinity and promotes toxic rhetorics prevalent especially within Kpop shipping communities where every Male idol interaction is hyper sexualised and romanticized thus, suggesting a man cannot love another man, be affectionate or be fond of them unless they secretly lusted after them and harbored a desire to lay down pipes in their behinds- which, honestly is crazy coming from a guy with a cultural background such as the Korean culture where kinship is commonplace but more on that later.

I think whatever which way we want to look at it, it was an insensitive comment especially if you believe he meant it as a joke. It was definitely not his most woke moment, socially and culturally- and that's putting it lightly.

That 'gay' comment to me is right up there with all the problematic statements some, if not all, of the members have made over the years- the colorism, racist jokes, the ' eww, you too black,' 'akekeke- you too tanned shoo,' implying if you're black or tanned you are ugly. The fat jokes, the misogyny and misogynior- please don't ask me to give you examples of these. I don't want to ruin BTS for you. Lol.

There are commentaries on these out there on the internet. You can look it up for yourselves- You welcome. Lol.

For the record, BTS have since retracted, acknowledged and apologized for most of these questionable moments throughout the years and so we cannot hold it against them, forever- not to make excuses for them but they are human too. They learn, they unlearn, they make mistakes, they correct them, they grow and as NamJoon said, they really were a bit 'unsophisticated' and rough around the edges in their earlier years- even if it was just five years ago from now, chilee. They is a mess. Lmho.

I think it's all part of the human process honestly- don't worry BTS, I have a lot of space in my heart for y'all to be human and still love ya. Keep going sweeties. Y'all's doing greatness de la grande kind!! Bless y'all.

In V's case he was, since that incident, put as a judge on a show that allegedly featured queer folks and he seemed more welcoming of them than the other judges on the panel, excluding RM of course.

A year later, he would make a song that the LBGTQ plus fraction of Army would rally behind as a highly pro gay song- Stigma, which I find debatable but whatever. I mean, just because JK has stars, clouds and the sky in his lyrics don't make him an astronaut or an environmentalist fighting the good cause for the climate but to each his own.

Stigma was still something, I'll give him that.

Flashforward to five years later, and he would be recommending songs by gay artists, appreciating and promoting gay art and the artists behind them, sporting rainbow outfits, designing a BT21 character that is genderless, incorporating sign language in his speeches- he polished up. Woke the hell up. Politically correct. Yadda yadda yadda.

I think, like some of the others, he too learned his lesson. It's not ok to trivialize the oppression of others or make light of it-

Now that we've gotten the woke bit out of the way, on to our shipping business. Follow me, chop chop. Lol.

Firt of all, I don't think that moment is a big deal. But I find it interesting nonetheless.

Do I think Tae was teasing Jimin in that moment when he made that statement? It's not quite easy as yes or no.

Personally, I think he was clocking him.

This interview was conducted at a point in the timeline where I feel Jimin was shedding his image as the Maknae obsessed hyung in the group. He was coming into his own and embracing himself for who he is and that I think included his sexuality.

Prior to, he had in my opinion, since debut, slipped into the role of the queer jest of the group supplying queer humor and entertainment for listeners at radio shows by offering himself up for ridicule as the 'gay guy' within the group- I hated every bit of it. Lol.

You'd often hear the members refer to him as the one good with the guys, the boy in love with the Maknae- There is still a fraction of Army that see him as this persona but he has since outgrown that label and that phase.

RM was basically the Black jest of the group, offering himself up for ridicule for his darker skin tone right down to his blaccent. Can you do your black accent? They will ask him at interviews and he would proceed to deliver a walmart version of the Black American English. Sigh.

Compared to the previous year where he literally gasped and panicked when the members hinted at his sexuality or made statements that put his sexuality into question, Jimin seemed more in control and mentally prepared during this interview.

When the question was asked of him, the question of why he liked JK, his instincts it seemed was to steer the conversation away from his sexuality- a tactic the rest of the members would employ to avoid discussing Jikook a few months from that interview...

I mean, when Tae asked Jimin on JK's birthday that same year what he wanted to give JK, RM cut in before JM answered. Jimin had done the same thing when in an interview JK was asked if Jimin wasn't his style and JK was stuttering not knowing what to say in response. JM asked him not to answer the question.

When interviewers ask these questions, they do so for entertainment purposes- because who doesn't like gay jokes, amirite?

For heterosexual idols I assume it's not slippery slope for them to engage in these kinds of humor. They can play gay without risking exposing their heterosexuality and when they do play gay it's for jest.

It's not the same for queer idols I think.

Jimin was basically done being the butt of the gay jokes in 2015, he was done selling himself as the JK shit rainbows and I'm the unicorn fixated on him kinda person and it reflected in that conversation.

'I don't like everything about this boy. He ain't all that. But he is the Maknae and he cute so whatever' lol.

Like I said, I think Jimin was steering the conversation away from his sexuality but Tae's comment steered the conversation right back to it. 'I just think he likes men.'

Most South Koreans I've met in person and on the internet spend a considerable amount of time and energy trying to dispel the western notion of gayness projected on to Korean men for their skinship culture.

We like to glamorize gayness in these streets but in reality gay is stigmatized especially in places like South Korea. People don't readily read gay in Male interactions unless they were being homophobic or socially unaware.

To me, Tae's statement was more of an observation about Jimin, one which he felt a need to contribute to the discussion they were having, perhaps to provide insight into the inner workings of Jimin rather than as a joke or jest- or may be he did both.

Jimin managed to avoid opening himself up for the gay jokes and to this Tae then responded, I just think you is gay sir- The emphasis has been mine. Lol.

The thing about Tae is, in the earlier days he used to have a habit of 'exposing' Jimin whenever Jimin told half truths and what not.

For example, in 2014 during an interview when JM was asked what he wanted to do on his free days he had said he wanted to spend time with his family or something and Tae immediately checked him saying he was lying. Jimin then said he wanted to be with Jungkook which had JK fuming.

Was he teasing JM when he called him out for lying about his true desires? May be but I think he meant it too. Know what I mean?

He did the same thing when during their Paris VLive, Jimin got nervous when JK was singing 'know you love me boy, so that I love you,' in the background and Tae asked Jimin if he was nervous. Jimin snapped out of whatever whipped trance he was in and asked 'why would I be nervous' or something along those lines.

Why would Tae assume JM was nervous listening to another man sing? And why would Jimin be nervous in the first place?

And if at an interview Jimin is asked, why don't you like listening to the Maknae sing and JM responded that he is cute but he can't sing and Tae says well I think listening to Jk sing makes him nervous- would that be youthful ribbing or tea? Do you see where I'm going with this?

I see Tae as very observant- If not more observant than Jk. Their jokes are punchier because it is rooted in truth. He is stating his opinion, his observations and when he felt JM's answers were dishonest or inconsistent of his general notion of him, he called him out on that.

It's like him saying JM likes to pretend to be drunk in order to tell Tae he loves him- allegedly. Was it funny, yes. Was it a lie? I don't think so.

Jimin likes to pretend, we been knew. His boyfriend don spilled that tea already. I mean Jk said JM faked being asleep when he noticed the cameras filming him. He said also JM knows he is cute so sometimes he intentionally acts cute.

Tae used to tease Jimin a lot- hell he still teases him a lot to this day. Lol. Had Jimin looking at the back of his head like he wanted to quick punch him in the throat in the recent run, chilee. Lmho.

But you gotta ask, where is the lie in all those jokes?

The question I ask myself, and I think we ought to ask ourselves as shippers is, what about Jimin gave Tae that impression of him in the first place?

What made Tae, coming from a culture and background where 'gay' is a taboo and skinship is prevalent assume that if Jimin liked JK then it was because he liked men or was gay?

Even if Tae meant it as a Joke- no one laughed. Lol. That awkward silence that ensued... now that's how you know he had deadass made a 'gay comment' for real. Lmho.

They were all silent, waiting for JM's response and only laughed when JM responded to Tae- isn't that how it usually goes when you are the one queer person at the het dinner table? The tasteless jokes, awkward silences and stares? Just me? Oh, never mind then. Keep reading. Lol.

Imagine if JM hadn't responded or had gay panicked like he did a year before that interview, when RM revealed JK had been sneaking into JM's bed at night?

Dude was legit ready to throw JK under the bus had it not been for the shady camera guy behind the cameras. Deadass, Jimin was pointing accusing fingers at JK and everything- so much for gay love. Lmho.

The question still remains, what makes you look at your heterosexual friend and go- hey, that's gay. Think about it.

If Tae thought Jimin liked men, even as a joke, it's probably because Jimin had been giving him a reason or reasons to believe he actually liked boys beyond the usual daily doze of gay prevalent within K-culture.

It's similar to JK feeling uncomfortable when Jimin in 2014 described their relationship as one between love and friendship. Jimin responding with male friends can love eachother too without being gay would imply JK was interpreting his words and actions towards him as laced with romantic and sexual subtext or intent.

Now why would JK assume this if men touching men and feeling up on eachother in their culture was a normal thing?

There are gay men in Korea you know?

Tae and Kook were both hyper aware and curious of Jimin's sexuality in that period- for different reasons of course. In my opinion.

Not sure if Jimin's androgynous features played a role in these suspicions and assumptions they had of him in the early days because androgynousity in men is often ignorantly profiled and stereotyped as queer.

Tae seemed convinced JM was queer at least and JK was projecting his own queerness on to Jimin a lot- cough, cough.

It seemed to me also that Tae for whatever reason had the impression JM had a thing for him? I'll save my VMin agenda for delulu Fridays but chilee I don't know, Jimin has been on an agenda to friendzone that man since those manly mans thawed off his chest. Lol.

VMIN... ok.

I mean Jimin's response to Tae was more to deflate Tae's ego than to deflect or evade the issue and I wonder why. 'You are so full of yourself' 'I may like men, but I don't like you' and Tae responds with 'really' as if he's been challenged or dared- ever had your straight friends assume you like them just because you are queer?

Anywho, for whatever reason, Jimin seemed to be the only member in the group around the early days whose words and actions were put through the queer litmus test.

Also, I think a distinction ought to be made between calling two same sex friends a couple and calling them gay.

Calling two friends a couple is inconsequential- except when their sexuality is on the line. Calling two same sex friends you know are straight a couple is nothing but a gay joke.

BTS do this all the time. Jimin called Namjin a couple, Tae kook a couple, himself and Suga a couple, himself and JK a couple.

Jk has equally referred to others within the group as a couple, made heart signs above them, and have even held his chest and said he never thought he would fall for a guy.

In none of these instances did he or any of them imply that they or the persons they were referring to were queer or liked men and I wouldn't make much of such comments.

When JK was called out for gifting a present to Jimin and not the others, Tae teased JK as well and his gestures implied to me, 'it's ok to like him, I know you like him, you like JM don't you, uWu' and other variations of these.

But he in no way hinted at the sexuality of JK explicitly or implicitly- not in a way that prompts a response or rebuttal from JK like it did in Jimin's case.

I guess what I'm saying is that, that moment is nothing but something at the same time. You look at Tae's personality and his reputation within the group as the one with no filter who blurts out things that often has BTS running helter skelter- that 'I want to see your children" comment at Festa almost gave RM an aneurysm. Lmho.

Then they had to literally take his mic away from him when he started talking about meeting a pretty chick or something at a fansigns.

You consider the history between him and Jimin, the context behind that comment and the things that was said after that comment- the interviewer said 'well JK is really handsome...' which means he took the 'joke' Tae had made to mean JM had romantic interest in JK- something I feel JM was trying to avoid.

I don't think Tae meant anything by it. I don't think he knew at the time JM was queer but I do believe he suspected he was.

Hope this helps,

Signed,

GOLDY

[sumukhcomedy]

How To Cancel “Cancel Culture”

In his speech at Mount Rushmore, President Donald Trump attacked “cancel culture.” It had been one thing to see this phrase constantly brought up on social media but now we were seeing the leader of the free world bring it up on the anniversary of the country’s independence. I have no idea where the term “cancel culture” came from and it doesn’t even matter anymore anyway as it has become yet another term that has been molded into its own strange definition by whomever may use it. In a general sense, “cancel culture” appears to now be pared down to the erasing of something because it’s offended someone.

The problem to “cancel culture” is that it’s become a broad term to represent many complicated, in-depth concepts. I’m going to put what’s been labeled as “cancel culture” into 3 separate groups (there probably could be more but, for the sake of this essay, I’ll keep it to 3).

1. Legitimately disturbing or criminal acts that were done by individuals

2. Correcting a wrongful history for the betterment of society and our nation

3. Revisionism in an effort to address uncomfortable topics

The first, “Legitimately disturbing or criminal acts that were done by individuals” is seen most prominently in entertainment and politics. As a comedian, I’m going to look at the most recent claims against Chris D’Elia and then subsequent backlash towards the “boys club” mentality that exists in stand-up comedy that led old videos of Joe Rogan, Joey Diaz, Theo Von, Brendan Schaub, and others to surface on Twitter. Diaz is a good example of where “cancel culture” goes wrong but it’s where it’s also not well-defined. Almost immediately after the disturbing commentary of Diaz drew widespread attention on Twitter, numerous women in comedy defended him and discussed how he helped them. Diaz has always had a unique and honest sense of humor. He addressed on his podcast that he’s talked about the mistakes he’s made in the past and getting better. It is the crux of his act and his brand of humor. But, on his podcast, he then goes off into talking about “cancel culture.” These situations are always framed under the notion that it’s an attempt to get the comedian “cancelled.” The reality is that all it’s doing is to open up a more intelligent discussion on why this behavior is occurring, holding responsibility for it, and ensuring that a culture that has long existed within stand-up comedy and treats women as less doesn’t continue. In D’Elia’s case, the accusations against him were criminal. They didn’t come out of nowhere. They came from one woman opening herself up on the Internet and then other women connecting with that and revealing that they had also been victimized by this man. This is not some sort of conspiracy to end D’Elia’s career. It’s women opening up that a high-profile man is a predator and ensuring that he does not continue this behavior and hurt others with his position. For D’Elia, he needs to address it and hold responsibility for it and, for now, he only appears to be showing the usual behavior from high-profile men which is to deny the accusations without any further discussion. From this point, there isn’t really a “cancellation” that is even happening. Look at Louis C.K. The story came out and still C.K. has a career and there are people that wish to watch him and do business with him. His career didn’t end up being over even though his apology was terrible and he hasn’t particularly shown any sense of remorse or compassion. Sure, he doesn’t have a TV show or movies anymore. But he also isn’t a destitute hermit. He’s still existent and earning money in this capitalist, patriarchal structure of entertainment.

The second, “Correcting a wrongful history for the betterment of society and our nation,” is seen currently with the removal of statues, which was the major reason behind Trump bringing up “cancel culture.” This is about properly addressing the negative and detrimental history of our country. A statue is a form of honor. This is why if anyone receives a statue, they express a great deal of gratitude for it. No one really learns anything from a statue because, unless all the history you want to learn is on a small plaque in front of the statue, there is not much to be gained from something placed in a public place as opposed to a museum or a book in a library. The statue is there for one reason: to glorify the individual and what they represent in history. What does the Confederacy represent in history? A group defeated in the Civil War and whose flag now stands as a piece of racism more than anything else. What does Christopher Columbus represent in history? More of a violent raider than a peaceful explorer. This is a history that you wish to glorify with a statue? This is a history that you want to have where you live? There is no need for this type of history and glorification in public places. That’s like saying you’d rather have a statue of Donald Sterling outside of Staples Center in L.A. rather than Magic Johnson. And this history isn’t going to go away. Pick up a book, watch a documentary, and really learn about it. That’s more history and nuance than any statue can provide, and it can do it without turning villains into heroes.

The third, “Revisionism in an effort to address uncomfortable topics” is where the people angry at “cancel culture” get their most energy from. It’s again most seen in Hollywood because Hollywood, for as liberal as it may seem, is still as backwards and uncomfortable with race and history as conservative America can be. This is best seen as of late with production companies and streaming services beginning to remove episodes of shows because they may touch on race in an uncomfortable way. A good example was Hulu’s decision to remove an episode of The Golden Girls, “Mixed Blessings,” in which Blanche and Rose appear in “blackface.” The episode occurred in 1988. Even though they are wearing mud masks and not specifically blackface, is it uncomfortable to see that as a source of humor in 2020? Definitely. But, the point of the episode is about Dorothy’s son entering into an interracial marriage. It’s about Dorothy coming to grips with that and the age difference between the two of them as well. Hollywood doesn’t seem to be capable of telling the difference between a piece of art that comments on our society’s racism as opposed to a piece of art that is flat out racist. Nor does it seem to factor when the art was created. Sure, I don’t like that The Golden Girls writers and producers made such a decision in 1988. But it was 1988. The episode still addressed important issues in 1988 and did so with the best intent. This is highly different than, for example, D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, which was as racist in 1915 as it is today or Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will in 1935. You may laud them for what they did for film but you must teach that they were racist propaganda. They were not well-meaning films at all and they, in fact, contributed to a deadly history. There is no purpose to banning this art. But it’s important to provide better education, better understanding of intent, and better knowledge of history when it comes to viewing this art. Blackface is terrible and has no place in 2020, but in order for it to have no place, people have to understand its history, the manner in which it was used, and the reasons why it is bad. The reality is that few people of color are asking for this third type of “cancel culture.” It’s more so coming from well-meaning white people who do not know how to properly handle race.

“Cancel culture” has become a simple term tossed out by individuals who simply do not want to address their own behavior, responsibility, or history. They would rather say to themselves that they are right than to challenge themselves that they could be wrong, that our society could be better, and that they could progress. All of these situations of “cancel culture” get labeled by the opposition as being “You’re too sensitive!” as opposed to “Let’s have an intellectual discussion to make this better.” It continues to be passed off as some sort of offense or political correctness issue when it’s just an effort to address one’s potential role in a bigger issue in society (whether that’s racism, misogyny, sexual assault, etc.)

“Cancel culture” is just an easy phrase. It’s an easy card to play to avoid dealing with one’s own behavior, speech, history, and art. Strangely enough, it’s a term that’s dismissive when it’s defending itself out of a fear of being dismissed.

#cancel culture #cancel #donald trump #mount rushmore #statues #confederacy #statue removal #christopher columbus #columbus #chris d'elia #joey diaz #comedy #stand up comedy #hulu #golden girls #blackface #sitcoms #black lives matter #blm #hollywood

[personalcoachingcenter]

Research Paper: Language Matters

New Post has been published on https://personalcoachingcenter.com/research-paper-language-matters/

Research Paper: Language Matters

Research Paper By Charlene Moynihan (Ability Coach, UNITED STATES)

Introduction

A man is worked upon by what he works on. He may carve out his circumstances, but his circumstances will carve him out as well. –Frederick Douglass

Diversity is inherent in everything we experience such as nature and its multitude of variance, and, people and their cultures. If we are to truly celebrate differences, we must begin by knowing and understanding those differences. As coaches, that knowing/understanding must begin with ourselves. As one who will work with those who have a relationship to a disability, I must have knowledge and awareness of disability culture.

Moreover, as an individual with a disability, I must understand what it is that makes me different than others if I am to truly approach this endeavor with a celebratory mindset.

ICA teaches us that

Culture exists in the minds of the individuals that have learned from other human beings what is acceptable in their interactions with other human beings. Culture allows us to communicate with one another in a language that we have learned and share in common. -International Coach Academy

With the understanding that coaching sessions are about the client and not the coach, how to promote my work to potential clients has much to do with who I am and how I present myself. I felt I needed to address the issue of how much of my personal experience to share in the promotional process since how I am perceived affects the assessment of a good fit between coach and client.

This brings up the dilemma that many potential clients will face, exactly what, when, and how much is appropriate to disclose when it comes to disability. As a person with an acquired disability, it was a question that I needed a comfortable answer to. If I can understand the process it takes to answer that question, I can recognize a similar struggle and the need to address it with my clients.

I looked to disability theory with a particular focus on the language used to speak about disability for some insight. The language we use communicates much about who we are, how we think, and what we believe. This paper will focus on the language used to speak of disability.

Let’s start with an explanation of the predominant models of disability theory.

Disability Theory

The Medical Model

The medical model of disability talks of it in terms of impairment, deficiency, and/or abnormality. It is something that exists within the body/the person and it is the person’s responsibility to learn how to deal with it. The medical field seeks to cure and/or treat the disability with therapies that are aimed at making the person function more “normally”. Most of the language used by the medical community to discuss/describe disability are negatives, suffering from, and afflicted with for example. These words communicate that disability is not something desirable and reflects an attitude of negativity in the way the non-medical community thinks about disability.

The Social Model

The social model sees disability as simply a part of who one is; no different than gender, race, or age. The problem of disability is viewed as one of interaction in a society that is often inaccessible and unaware of the severity of the struggles it presents. The social model seeks to fix these struggles through a change in society, through awareness and accessibility. The language used by the social model is person-centered as opposed to identity-centered, a “person with a disability” vs. a “disabled person” treating the disability as only a part of the whole. These phrases are far less negative.

These are the two major models of disability at play. They are far more complicated than I have related and the advantages and consequences of each warrant much consideration. Many interdisciplinary approaches to these models exist and are not dissimilar to those related to issues of sexual identity and race when it comes to disclosure and discrimination. But the brief descriptions demonstrate incredible differences in the way people think and speak about a disability.

The Research

For this paper, I will limit my discussion to that the language used to speak of disability and its impact on the members of the community. It is the language we use that reflects one’s understanding of disability. It is also the language others use that impacts a decision to disclose ones’ identity to the speaker or not. Comfort level and confidence in the speaker’s understanding are paramount. In this cancellation culture, what language does one choose when speaking about disability? How does one speak of disability in a way that communicates comfort and confidence? My research offered some insight into these questions. I was able to locate two papers addressing this issue that struck a note with me.

A lot of controversies exist around the use of the word disability. In #SaytheWord: A Disability Culture Commentary on the Erasure of “Disability” the authors say, “The literature indicates that despite the importance of language on attitudes toward disabled people, attempts to avoid the term ‘disability’ remain and may have unintended consequences.” -Andrews, E. E., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Mona, L. R., Lund, E. M., Pilarski, C. R., & Balter, R. (2019). Some thought by removing the word disability and substituting things like “differently-abled” would remove some of the associated negativity in the same way that person-first language helps to minimize labeling and categorizing people by identity-first.

The concern is that the use of euphemisms can serve to reinforce the idea that disability is negative and can be indicative of bias or prejudiced thinking. Such euphemisms, like Photoshop, take something less appealing and make it more acceptable to the viewer; that the viewer may feel more comfortable/more pleased with the subject matter. This reluctance to use the word disabled is more about the needs of the non-disabled who have bias and/or prejudice thinking that underlies their discomfort, and, the disabled who fear being stigmatized; the primary reason reported for not disclosing a disability. Yet many are reclaiming the word disabled. It allows self-identity and serves to place them into a community that can protect against the stigma (and fear of) by “externalizing rather than internalizing disability prejudices.”Andrews, E. E., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Mona, L. R., Lund, E. M., Pilarski, C. R., & Balter, R. (2019).

In “Disclosing Our Relationships to Disabilities: An Invitation for Disability Studies Scholars”, Joan O’TooleCorbet writes, “…we need to examine our reluctance to support public disclosure, open academic inquiries into public signifiers, encourage public disclosure, and use signifiers of one’s relationship to disability.” I found this a fascinating perspective. She writes about how disclosure is managed in the disability rights community. Corbet goes on to say that in this community, they are “expected to locate themselves about the lived disability experience.” One would say, for example, I am disabled, or, I am the parent of a disabled child, or, I am a non-disabled teacher of disabled adults. The reasoning behind this sort of disclosure is that it explains perspectives based on the nature of the relationship to disability that goes beyond the binary disabled or non-disabled identity. It respects that each relationship to disability has valuable information to be shared. Stating a relationship to disability is not the same as sharing specifics of the nature of one’s disability. That remains a personal decision. The rule of thumb is that you may state your relationship to disability but you must not speak to the experience of another as it presumes that you know the lived experience of another and you cannot. This understanding can be applied nicely in the coaching session.

Another positive here is that “Public disclosure of the relationship to disability increases the number of people discussing and identifying disability oppression.” Disclosing one’s relationship to disability provides community membership, support, and strategies to combat ableism. Ableism is to the disability community what white supremacy is to communities of a minority race. Stating one’s relationship to disability opens a space for productive discussion of disability-related issues and helps combat ableism.

Analysis

In any discussion of oppressed populations, it behooves one to understand the issues at play. I will be focusing the efforts of my transformational coaching practice on serving clients with acquired disabilities. We live in a world demanding political correctness and the cancellation of those who are not. Use of language that, either intentionally or not, communicates negativity towards any group/community and/or culture inhibits trusting relationships and has no place in coaching.

I have chosen to use the word disabled in my marketing/promotional materials. I will use it without the shame and negativity it carries for some. My intent will be clear. I will use it to identify membership within a supportive community. As one with a relatively invisible acquired disability, I know the isolation that comes with not speaking about disability. I want my potential clients to know that they need not feel the isolation that comes with keeping silent and that there is a way to speak of it without the need to disclose one’s diagnosis and specific limitations. That information is disclosed on a need-to-know basis and most simply don’t need to know. I want them to feel welcomed to experience membership in that community, that culture that offers support and advocacy if they so choose.

I will also speak in terms of my relationship to disability because of its ability to communicate differing perspectives on disability. I cannot share my lived experience by sharing a diagnosis. My relationship to disability is relevant to my clients because of its ability to communicate perspectives and open lines of communication on the subject of disability. Since I have identified people with an acquired disability and those with a similar relationship, it also explains my desire to expand services to family, caregivers, friends, and professionals working with my clients of choice.

I will share my relationship to disability as follows. As a child, I attended a summer camp for developmentally disabled children with my siblings (where my mother worked as a camp nurse). I grew up laughing and playing with children who were different but very much the same as me. I was a friend of disabled children. I worked in schools and residential homes for adults with multiple disabilities. I was non-disabled support professional. My father became disabled due to chronic illness. I was the daughter of a disabled man. I was diagnosed with a disabling condition when my children were young. I am a disabled person.

My child has a disabling condition. I am the disabled parent of a disabled adult. I have multiple friends with disabilities. I am a disabled friend of disabled adults. I ended my career as a Disability Claims Specialist at the Social Security Administration (S.S.A.). I conducted in-depth interviews to uncover and document the specific physical, psychological and cognitive phenomenon that results in meeting the legal definition of disability used by S.S.A.This gave me an intimate look into the lived experience of many disabled individuals. I am a disabled individual with intimate knowledge of both my own and the disabling conditions of others.

This communicates so much more than disclosing that I have Multiple Sclerosis. Do you feel the difference? Asking for and providing one’s relationship to disability provides relevant and useable information in discussions of disability. The provision of a diagnosis generally either suppresses conversation due to discomfort with the disclosure or leads to additional (and inappropriate in many situations) questions regarding the personal limitations of the disabled person. I would much rather enable a productive conversation than suppress or encourage inappropriate ones.

Conclusion

I change my thoughts, I change my world. ~ Norman Vincent Peale

We are taught at ICA to, “Be aware of personal strengths and weaknesses when it comes to one’s own Coaching Mindset.” ICF talks of “the criticality of a partnership between coach and client, and the importance of cultural, systemic and contextual awareness.” For these reasons, I undertook this study. My coaching mindset needed nurturing. If I am to be a focused partner with clients, I must feel confident that I have communicated, upfront, what is appropriate for my clients to know; that they can then decide if they want to develop a partnership with me.

Despite my years of work with individuals with disabilities, I needed to look at the bigger picture. My experience was job-related and focused on meeting their needs. More caregiver than a coach. My perspective needed to shift. I needed to understand how to speak of disability in a non-directive way. More importantly, I needed to understand how the language I use communicates my thoughts, values, and beliefs. I needed to understand the mindsets of others who participate in the discussion of disability. I needed to understand disability at a different level; one that addressed the need for cultural, systemic, and contextual awareness.

The journey has been well worth the time and energy. It is no longer my role to meet the physical and emotional needs of those with whom I work. I know in my heart that they are entitled to self-determination, just as I am, and I will support and empower them to pursue their goals no longer as a caregiver but a coach. I have learned much about the language used to speak of disability. I have also come to understand the intent behind my need to do this research. I have never spent much time thinking about nor identifying myself as a person with a disability. I needed to acknowledge myself as a member of the community and find a way to communicate that membership in a way that felt comfortable. In doing so, I have resolved my questions regarding how to communicate my thoughts, values, and beliefs by the language I will use to speak of disability with my clients and promote my business. First impressions matter and the language we use speaks volumes about who we are and what we value.

Sources:

Websites

Critical Disability Theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/win2019/entries/disability-critical/

Disability and Justice. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disability-justice/.

Disclosing Our Relationships to Disabilities: An Invitation for Disability Studies Scholars. Corbett Joan O’Toole 1 (disabled) 2 Independent Researcher. https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3708/3226.

Disability Studies Quarterly.Siebers, Tobin. Disability Theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008. Reviewed by Michael Davidson. https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/160/160.

Medical Model of Disability versus Social Model of Disability. Living with Disability and Chronic Pain. https://canbc.org/blog/medical-model-of-disability-versus-social-model-of-disability/.

Disability Studies Quarterly. Un/covering: Making Disability Identity Legible. Heather Dawn Evans. https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/5556/4550.

Andrews, E. E., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Mona, L. R., Lund, E. M., Pilarski, C. R., & Balter, R. (2019). #SaytheWord: A disability culture commentary on the erasure of “disability”. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000258.

https://docs.google.com.

Original source: https://coachcampus.com/coach-portfolios/research-papers/charlene-moynihan-language-matters/

#aboriginal language #aboriginal languages #achieve all your goals #anti-urinal arabic language #arabic language #best personal development coaching #black lives matter #body language #business success #chinese language initiative #coaching #communication through language #contact language #endangered languages #excellence language matters #executive coaching #inclusive language #indigenous language #indigenous languages #language #language (quotation subject) #language bill #language learning #language matters #language revival #languages #leadership coaching #online coaching #optimize your success #personal development coaching

[gffa]

@ap-trash-compactor replied:

1/7 I wanna preface this by saying I agree with everything you’re saying here but I think there’s another layer to how Raffa’s story functions both textually and meta-textually, and to what it illustrates about how many people in the Galaxy /might/ perceive the Jedi, which I personally haven’t seen addressed yet. Sorry in advance if this is something you’ve heard/read/discussed ten million times already, but... 2/7 If you took Raffa’s story out of Star Wars and put it into a contemporary drama, changed the word “Jedi” to the word “police,” and made the particulars about a high-speed car chase? I think it would sound pretty believable. And I think this illustrates something Palpatine does through the mechanism of the Clone Wars to make the position of the Jedi especially vulnerable or precarious wrt to public opinion. 3/7 Even if every single Jedi engages w the power and authority of their military or police role only in the best intentioned, most good-faith way imaginable (which the Umbara arc tells us doesn’t always happen), any time you are in a role where you, even have without wanting or intending to, exercise the power of life and death other lives, you will cause pain and be a target for resentment. Someone will lose someone, and be angry. 4/7 No matter how good or how well-intentioned or how compassionate they are, during the Clone Wars the Jedi are forced into the role of a state authority exercising the power of life and death. They are not only a cultural minority during the Clone Wars. They are also a branch of the state, and in that role they sometimes either kill people, or are involved in events where people die and where, no matter their intentions, they are the face of the state and the voice of authority. 5/7 Many of the military and police actions shown in different episodes of this series leave destruction in their wake. The Jedi’s participation is barely by choice and almost never by preference— but if you are one of the Raffas of the galaxy and your parents just died, the distinction probably does not matter much. I think this is a corner Palpatine absolutely wanted to paint the Jedi into, because it absolutely serves his goals. 6/7 There are not many Jedi during the Clone Wars. Certainly there are not many compared to the problems they are trying to fix. I have no doubt Luminara tried her best, wanted a different outcome, and gave Raffa all the comfort she had the time and the opportunity to give... But if you are one of the Raffas of the galaxy and your only direct experience of the Jedi is like the one Raffa describes? You’re probably primed to consume all of Palpatine’s worst lies. 7/7 If you’re Palpatine, making the Jedi rush from violent crisis to violent crisis doesn’t just distract them from the fact that you’re a Sith Lord — it also makes the Jedi into the face of a lot of negative, hurtful interactions with the state, which is going to impact the way people see them.

I think you and I are very much on the same page!  I have discussed this before (the public’s turning on the Jedi), but I’m always down for discussing it again!  Especially when I love pretty much allllll of this. If you’re Palpatine, making the Jedi rush from violent crisis to violent crisis doesn’t just distract them from the fact that you’re a Sith Lord — it also makes the Jedi into the face of a lot of negative, hurtful interactions with the state, which is going to impact the way people see them. You are spot on with your summation, to the point it’s almost hard for me to respond with anything because I feel like all I can do is bang my fist on the table and go, “Yes!  This is what I’ve been talking about!”  Though, of course, there is a lot going on here that’s making it complicated. This post that you’re responding to is focused more specifically on the theme of unreliable narrators + the close associations this season has had with Revenge of the Sith (the moments that make us sit up and go, “Oh, that’s foreshadowing for stuff in ROTS!” like Padme’s pregnancy, Anakin’s advice to Rex, etc.), but there’s also what you’re talking about here--that it’s been a long-running theme in the GFFA that public sentiment turned against the Jedi and that the causes of that are fascinating. I said a bunch of times that Rafa’s hurt in this episode is valid, that there’s room for both the Jedi acting with honorable intentions and that people don’t trust them, don’t draw comfort from them, that these things are not mutually exclusive and you’re hitting on exactly why--because they were put into a situation where, if they’re not 100% perfect, then they’re going to fall off the pedestal they’ve been put onto.  That any flaw they have will then get magnified a hundred times. Luminara seems to have made a point to go back and try to talk to Rafa, to tell her a phrase that is narratively meaningful within Star Wars on a meta level, like, that says to me that she has really good intentions!  But that Rafa doesn’t draw any comfort from it, as a non-Force sensitive and someone who probably is left to the Republic’s shitty welfare services (which isn’t the Jedi’s jurisdiction, they’re not social workers and we can’t expect them to be), doesn’t undercut Luminara’s presumed good intentions, just as Luminara’s presumed good intentions don’t undercut Rafa’s hurt. And that it’s understandable--because, as the Maul arc in season 5 says, the Jedi aren’t doing the things that they used to do, that crime is flourishing because they’re being so busy with this war they’ve been drafted into.  Even Star Wars: Propaganda makes it clear that public sentiment turned against the Jedi because of a cultural absence, rather than anything they actively did. This is all by design from Palpatine, that he’s keeping them so busy putting out tire fires on Ryloth (who were being slaughtered by the Separatists), on Mon Calamari (who were being enslaved by the Separatists), on Kiros (who were being kidnapped and taken into the resumed Zygerrian slave empire), that they don’t have time to do the things they used to, like take care of a lot of the criminal elements or the outreach programs that we see hinted at in the supplementary material. The Jedi had to make a choice between fighting in a war where entire worlds were being enslaved, that there were only so many of them and they were dying, that they died in droves on Geonosis in Attack of the Clones and they’re dying every day in the war, that they were literally one out of six billion in the galaxy at their height, and that they had a million expectations placed on them.  They have very little political capital/power, yet they’re expected to solve all the problems in ways that will last.  They’re expected to police the Underworld, but also not police the Underworld because then they’re restricting people.  They’re expected to be social workers.  They’re expected to fight and die in a war that the public itself refuses to stand up in.  And when they don’t live up to those impossible perfections, they’re torn down. This is not to set aside that of course there are instances of people like Trace and Rafa, where the destruction wreaked by chasing down someone like Ziro is going to sometimes cause people to get hurt and, honestly, I don’t feel like Rafa really blamed Luminara for that, given the acknowledgement of the crowded platform she was trying to avoid.  But if she had?  That, too, would have been reasonable and understandable!  That it doesn’t matter if the Jedi were doing literally everything they could, that doesn’t mean there’s not also room for Rafa’s hurt.  And that, even if I think there was absolutely nothing that Luminara could say that would have given Rafa comfort, that doesn’t make Rafa’s hurt/viewpoint any less empathizable. My blog tends to focus on the Jedi side of things because those are the characters I’m interested in, not because they’re the only element that matters. In the meta we’re responding to, a lot of the focus is on Luminara and the Jedi because that’s my jam, that’s the part I thrive on, but we’re definitely in agreement that Rafa’s feelings are not wrong and it’s not hard to see where they come from! I do take issue with the idea of--whether it’s true or not, we can all argue about it all day long, but it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not--that if the Jedi are remote and distant from the galaxy, that that narratively is approved of how they then “kind of brought their downfall (aka, violent genocide) on themselves”.  That’s something I’ve seen skirted around in commentary from the creators and I’m wary of it leaking into the narrative in a more substantial way.  But that’s an entirely separate issue from the fact that anti-Jedi sentiments exist in the narrative and that they led to the Jedi Purge/Jedi genocide. As part of the propaganda and manipulations Palpatine did, yes, absolutely, that is one of the most fascinating things!  And that doesn’t mean that there’s not validity to those feelings, even if they’re rooted in propaganda and manipulation! But that, just as there’s room for Rafa’s hurt despite Luminara’s intentions, there’s room for the Jedi’s good intentions despite the public’s hurt and/or mistrust. My thing is that I tend to look at why the Jedi act the way they do and I usually come away with empathy for how they got into the situations they did.  Like, take their alignment with the Republic, which was an organization with corruption down to the roots by the time of the Twilight of the Republic, that that association absolutely led to their downfall/genocide.  But what else could they do?  Being part of the Republic in that way allowed them to actually help people, to have negotiating power, to form treaties that would be honored even when they were no longer on a given planet.  If they weren’t under the jurisdiction of the Senate, they could not have helped as many people as they did, especially because how would they even be able to afford starship fuel or housing costs?  Would they charge people for their services?  That’s a disaster waiting to happen! There’s room for both “the best option for the Jedi was to be part of the Republic and try to improve the system from the inside, which is what they did” AND “the being part of the Republic is what ultimately fucked them”, those things are both true! but if you are one of the Raffas of the galaxy and your parents just died, the distinction probably does not matter much. I think this is a corner Palpatine absolutely wanted to paint the Jedi into, because it absolutely serves his goals. Spot on!  I have fun looking at what Luminara’s intentions likely were and what the context of the structure of the show entails, that Rafa’s character doesn’t have to be a reliable narrator to be valuable (and I say this as someone who actually really loves the unreliable narrators of SW, which honestly is almost literally every single character, very few are ones you can take at face value without seeing the circumstances for yourself), but to Rafa it doesn’t really matter what Luminara did or didn’t say, because that’s not what she was looking for or what she got out of that conversation.  I can’t say I would act differently in her position! And that’s exactly what Palpatine did.  He pulled the Jedi in so many different directions, made them responsible for things that literally no group could possibly have survived with public sentiment intact, and even if the Jedi had been literally perfect (which they weren’t), it wouldn’t have mattered, given that the entire point of the prequels is that you gotta choose between Shitty Option A and Shitty Option B. It’s the galaxy’s worst ever version of, “Which would you rather?” except its real and you have to play the game, because not playing gets you fucked over even faster, like it did with Mandalore.

#rafa martez #jedi order #meta #tcw spoilers #long post

[grubbyduck]

No Man’s Land - an essay on feminism and forgiveness

I have always proudly named myself a feminist, since I was a little girl and heard my mum proudly announcing herself as a feminist to anyone who would listen.

But I believe the word 'feminist' takes on a false identity in our collective imagination - it is seen as hard, as baked, severe, steadfast, stubborn and rooted. From a male perspective, it possibly means abrasive, or too loud, or intimidatingly intolerant of men. From a female perspective, though, these traits become revered by young feminists; the power of knowing what you think and never rolling over! My experience of being a feminist throughout my life has been anything but - it has been a strange and nebulous aspect of my identity; it has sparked the familiar fires of bravery, ambition, rage, sadness and choking inarticulacy at times, sure, but at other times it has inspired apathy, reactionary attitudes, bravado and dismissivness. And at other, transitive times, it caused me to rethink my entire outlook on the world. And then again. And then again.

In primary school, I read and re-read Sandi Toksvig’s book GIRLS ARE BEST, which takes the reader through the forgotten women of history. I didn’t feel angry - I felt awed that there were female pirates, women on the front line in the world wars, women at the forefront of invention, science and literature. I still remember one line, where it is revealed that NASA’s excuse for only hiring six women astronauts compared to hundreds of men was that they didn’t stock suits small enough. 

When I was 13, I tried to start a girl's rugby team at my school. I got together 15 girls who also wanted to form a team. We asked the coaches if they would coach us - their responses varied from 'maybes' to straight up 'no's. The boys in our year laughed at us publicly. We would find an old ball, look up the rules online, and practise ourselves in free periods - but the boys would always come over, make fun of us and take over the game until we all felt too insecure to carry on. I shouted at a lot of boys during that time, and got a reputation among them as someone who was habitually angry and a bit of a buzzkill. Couldn't take a joke - that kind of thing.

When I was around 16, I got my first boyfriend. He was two years older (in his last year of sixth form) and seemed ever so clever to me. He laughed about angry feminists, and I laughed too. He knew I classified myself as a feminist, but, you know, a cool one - who doesn't get annoyed, and doesn't correct their boyfriends' bulging intellects. And in any case, whenever I did argue with him about anything political or philosophical, he would just chant books at me, list off articles he'd read, mention Kant and say 'they teach that wrong at GCSE level'. So I put more effort into researching my opinions (My opinions being things like - Trump is a terrible person who should not be elected as President - oh yeah, it was 2016), but every time I cited an article, he would tell me why that article was wrong or unreliable. I couldn't win. He was a Trump supporter (semi-ironically, but that made it even worse somehow) and he voted Leave in the Brexit referendum. He also wouldn't let me get an IUD even though I had terrible anxiety about getting pregnant, because of his parents' Catholicism. He sulked if he ever got aroused and then I didn’t feel like having sex, because apparently it ‘hurts’ men physically. One time I refused sex and he sulked the whole way through the night, refusing to sleep. I was incensed, and felt sure that my moral and political instincts were right, but I had been slowly worn down into doubting the validity of my own opinions, and into cushioning his ego at every turn - especially when he wasn't accepted into Oxford.

When I was 17/18, I broke up with him, and got on with my A Levels. One of them was English Literature. I remember having essay questions drilled into us, all of which were fairly standard and uninspired, but there was one that I habitually avoided:

'Discuss the presentation of women in this extract'

It irritated me beyond belief to hear the way that our class were parroting phrases like 'commodification and dehumanisation of women' in order to get a good grade. It felt so phony, so oversimplified, and frankly quite insulting. I couldn't bear reading classic books with the intent of finding every instance that the author compares a woman to an animal. It made me so sad! I couldn't understand how the others could happily write about such things and be pleased with their A*. As a keen contributor to lessons, my teacher would often call on me to comment in class - and to her surprise, I think, my responses about 'women's issues' were always sullen and could be characterised by a shrug. I wanted to talk about macro psychology, about Machievellian villains, about Shakespreare's subversion of comic convention in the English Renaissance. I absolutely did not want to talk about womb imagery, about men’s fixation and sexualisation of their mothers or about docile wives. In my application for Cambridge, I wrote about landscape and the psyche in pastoral literature, and got an offer to study English there. I applied to a mixed college - me and my friends agreed that we’d rather not go if we got put into an all female college. 

When I was 19, I got a job as an actor in a touring show in my year out before starting at Cambridge. I was the youngest by a few years. One company member - a tall, handsome and very talented man in his mid-twenties - had the exact same job title as me, only he was being paid £100 more than me PER WEEK. I was the only company member who didn’t have an agent, so I called the producers myself to complain. They told me they sympathised, that there just wasn’t enough money in the budget to pay me more - and in the end, I managed to negotiate myself an extra £75 per week by taking on the job of sewing up/fixing any broken costumes and puppets. So I had more work, and was still being paid 25% less. The man in question was a feminist, and complained to his agent (although he fell through on his promise to demand that he lose £50 a week and divide it evenly between us). He was a feminist - and yet he commented on how me and the other woman in the company dressed, and told us what to wear. He was a feminist, only he slept with both of us on tour, and lied to us both about it. He was a feminist, only he pitted me against and isolated me from the only other woman in the company, the only person who may have been a mentor or a confidante. He was a feminist, only he put me down daily about my skills as a performer and made me doubt my intelligence, my talent and my worth. 

When I was 20, I started at Cambridge University, studying English Literature. Over the summer, I read Lundy Bancroft’s book ‘Why Does He Do That’ which is a study of abusers and ‘angry and controlling men’. It made me realise that I had not been given the tools to recognise coercive and controlling behaviour - I finally stopped blaming myself for attracting controlling men into my life. I also read ‘Equal’ by Carrie Gracie, about her fight to secure equal pay for equal work at the BBC in 2017-2019. It was reading that book that I fully appreciated that I had already experienced illegal pay discrimination in the workplace. Both made me cry in places, and it felt as though something had thawed in me. I realised that I was not the exception. That ‘women’s issues’ do apply to me. In my first term at Cambridge, I wrote some unorthodox essays. I wrote one on Virginia Woolf named ‘The Dogs Are Dancing’ which began with a page long ‘disclaimer for my womanly emotions’ that attempted to explain to my male supervisor how difficult it is for women to write dispassionately and objectively, as they start to see themselves as unfairly separate, excluded and outlined from the male literary consciousness. He didn’t really understand it, though he enjoyed the passion behind my prose. 

The ‘woman questions’ at undergraduate level suddenly didn’t seem as easy, as boring or as depressing as those I had encountered at A Level. I had to reconcile with the fact that I had only been exposed to a whitewashed version of feminism throughout my life. At University, I learned the word Intersectionality - and it made immediate and ferocious sense to me. I wrote an essay on Aphra Behn’s novella ‘Oroonoko’, which is about a Black prince and his pursuit of Imoinda, a Black princess. I had to get to grips with how a feminist author from the Renaissance period tackled issues of race. I had to examine how she dehumanised and sexualised Imionda in the same way that white women were used to being treated by men. I had to really question to what extent Aphra Behn was on Imionda’s side - examine the violent punishment of Oroonoko for mistreating her. I found myself really wanting to believe that Behn had done this purposefully as social commentary. I mentioned in my essay that I was aware of my own white female critical ingenuity. For the first time, I was writing about something I didn’t have any personal authority over in my life - I had to educate myself meticulously in order to speak boldly about race.

As I found myself surrounded by more women who were actively and unashamedly feminist, I realised just how many opinions exist within that bracket. I realised that I didn’t agree with a lot of other feminists about aspects of the movement. I started to only turn up to lectures by women. I started to only read literary criticism written by women - not even consciously; I just realised that I trusted their voices more intrinsically. I started to wish I had applied to an all female college. I realised that all female spaces weren’t uncool - that is an image that I had learned from men, and from trying to impress men. The idea that Black people, trans people, that non binary people could be excluded from feminism seemed completely absurd to me. I ended up in a mindset that was constructed to instinctively mistrust men. Not hate - just mistrust. I started to get fatigued by explaining basic feminist principles to sceptical men.

I watched the TV show Mrs America. It made my heart speed up with longing, with awe, with nerves, sorrow, anger - again, it showed me how diverse the word Feminism is. The longing I felt was for a time where feminist issues seemed by comparison clear-cut, and unifying. A time where it was good to be angry, where anger got stuff done. I am definitely angry. The problem is, the times that feminism has benefitted me and others the most in my life is when I use it forgivingly and patiently. When I sit in my anger, meditate on it, control it, and talk to those I don’t agree with on subjects relating to feminism with the active intent to understand their point of view. Listening to opinions that seemed so clearly wrong to me was the most difficult thing in the world - but it changed my life, and once again, it changed my definition of feminism. 

Feminism is listening to Black women berating white feminists, and rather than feeling defensive or exempt, asking questions about how I have contributed to a movement that excludes women of colour. Feminism is listening to my mother’s anxieties about trans women being included in all-female spaces, and asking her where those anxieties stem from. Feminism is understanding that listening to others who disagree with you doesn’t endanger your principles - you can walk away from that conversation and know what you know. Feminism is checking yourself when you undermine or universalise male emotion surrounding the subject. Feminism is allowing your mind to change, to evolve, to include those that you once didn’t consider - it is celebrating quotas, remembering important women, giving thanks for the fact that feminism is so complex, so diverse, so fraught and fought over. 

Feminism is common ground. It is no man’s land. It is the space between a Christian housewife and a liberated single trans woman. It is understanding women of other races, other cultures, other religions. It is disabled women, it is autistic women, it is trans men who have biologically female medical needs that are being ignored. It is forgiveness for our selfishness. It feels impossible.

The road to feminism is the road to enlightenment. It is the road to Intersectional equity. It is hard. It is a journey. No one does it perfectly. It is like the female orgasm - culturally ignored, not seen as necessary, a mystery even to a lot of women, many-layered, multitudinous, taboo, comes in waves. It is pleasure, and it is disappointment. 

All I know is that the hard-faced, warrior version of feminism that was my understanding only a few years ago reduced my allies and comrades in arms to a small group of people who were almost exaclty like me and so agreed with me on almost everything. Flexible, forgiving and inquisitive feminism has resulted in me loving all women, and fighting for all women consciously. And by fighting for all women, I also must fight for Black civil rights, for disabled rights, for Trans rights, for immigrant rights, for homeless rights, for gay rights, and for all human rights because women intersect every one of these minorities. My scoffing, know-it-all self doing my A Levels could never have felt this kind of love. My ironic jokes about feminists with my first boyfriend could never have made any woman feel loved. My frustration that my SPECIFIC experience of misogyny as a white, middle-class bisexual woman didn’t feel related to the other million female experiences could never have facilitated unity, common ground, or learning to understand women that existed completely out of my experience as a woman.

My feminism has lead me to becoming friends with some of those boys who mocked me for wanting to play rugby, and with the woman that was vying with me over that man in the acting company for 8 months. It is slowly melting my resentment towards all men - it is even allowing me to feel sorry for the men who have mistreated me in the past. 

I guess I want to express in this mammoth essay post that so far my feminist journey has lead me to the realisation that if your feminism isn’t growing you, you aren’t doing it right. Perhaps it will morph again in the future. But for now, Feminism is a love of humanity, rather than a hatred of it. That is all. 

#Feminism #yooo i have written a thesis lol #didn’t mean to do that it all kind of flowed out #intersectional feminism #forgiveness #carrie gracie #mrs america #why does he do that #lundy bancroft #equal pay #equal rights #literature #university #school #oroonoko #aphra behn

[ramrodd]

What are some possible reforms that could be made to the universal service obligation?

COMMENTARY:

Back in the ’60s and the anti-draft movement, I always thought that the Peace Corps should count as national service equivalent to military enlistment.

As an Army brat, I was an atheist on the idea that I would not be a soldier. I began to seriously prepare for a military career when I was 15 and going to Vietnam was part of my career and estate planning. I expected to spend 30 years working with Green Berets like Stanley McChrystal in a life of thrills and danger. The mission of the Green Berets in Vietnam was defined by General Marshall’s just war doctrine of nation building as a military solution.

Now, at that time, I saw the mission of the Army in Vietnam in terms of NATO as an instrument of the United Nations and in the same nation building business as the Peace Corps, which was JFK’s essential contribution to the success of the Marshall Plan and the New Deal. I’ve had cousins from Greg Pence’s Indiana Congressional District who were among the first generation of volunteers after Sargeant Shriver took over. In retrospect, I considered the Peace Corps to be a practical implementation of Eisenhower’s 1956 Presidential Platform and captured the anti-war intent of Eisenhower’s program.

Here is one of the things that is missing from the Oliver Stone version of Vietnam that is essential to actually learned the lessons of how it played out and why. Here’s the thing about Tucker Carlson and the Ivy League Socialism of the John Birch Society that lost the battle of Vietnam was the assassination of the Diem brothers that was engineered and implemented by John Birch Society activists inside the State Department at the work flow level of the Oval Office and CIA Bay of Pigs cowboys who were still trying to improve their effectiveness across the Burma Hump. People like B. Gordon Liddy, the Peter Pan of the OSS conceits of the FBI under J> Edgar Hoover.

But the assassination of the Diem brothers violated our stated ideals of sovereign democracy, no matter how messy it was. This is where Oliver Stone gets part of it right in JFK about a evil cabal in the Pentagon, but it was totally outside the boundaries of the Army Chief of Staff. They knew these Fascists were at State because they had a front row seat to the success of the ur-John Birch Society at State at preventing Jews from escaping Hitler.

Anyway, all the momentum that had been building around the success of the Marshall Plan was seriously stalled by the assassination of the Diem brothers by basically the same people who are currently represented by the January 6 majority in the House. These people have been committed to sabotaging the American Christian Just War Doctrine that began to evolve from General Marshall’s reform of the General Staff to include G5: Civil Affairs. The intent is to avoid the mistakes that were made with the failure of Reconstruction and the League of Nations, but to actually deploy American constitutional capitalism in the restoration of battle damage immediately behind the Forward Edge of the Battle Area. Organic to the leading edge of the Battle Area.

That was my understanding of becoming a career Green Beret in 1962 and I considered the Peace Corps to be the reason why we were in Vietnam and Africa in the first place. I mean, DC Home Rule is based in no small measure to the success of community building at the Peace Corps level.

And the white supremacists at State and CIA Cowboys fucked it up for everybody jus like they did for Nixon and Watergate as the Plumbers. Pat Buchanan brags about being on the phone on Air Force One trying to sabotage Nixon’s China Policy as part of Nixon’s staff in the Mao-Nixon “Leaky Umbrella” Summit. Pat Buchanan was Nixon’s Ivy League Socialism advisor and the essential liaison to the Plumbers. He was very careful to keep his fingers clean, but his political intent was to implement William F. Buckley’s manifesto for the Nazification of America , the Sharon Statement, which was committed to preventing Eisenhower’s 1965 Presidential Platform from transforming the Cold War physical infrastructure to the Star Wars social infrastructure made possible by Apollo 11.

The January 6 majority is the last cunt hair in the way of the critical mass necessary to trigger the transformation of the Quantity of the Cold War to the Quality of Star Wars. So, it comes down to the reality that the only cunt hair in the way of Biden’s program to become 2001: A Space Odyssey is the 14th Amendment and that ‘s how a healthy constitutional process processes.

So, if there was any one thing I would add to the current avenues of national service within the legal boundaries of the 2nd Amendment, I would add the Peace Corps to the mix and expand the Veterans Administration to accommodate volunteer veterans the same as the grunts. Same mud. Same blood.

Of course, the 14 Amendment is what being woke is all about. Never forget Dan Sickles was the Tommy Tuberville of Gettysburg. The 1st Minnesota paid the price, but Dan Sickle’s leg gets all the glory.

So, my vote goes to the Peace Corps.

[marjanefan]

‘It’s only a tin full of Humans’- an Analysis of ‘Sardines’

Spoilers- please only read after watching 'Sardines'

Sardines was the first ever episode of ‘Inside No.9’ to be both filmed and broadcast (if I am correct it was the pilot episode for the show). The episode is a terrific statement of intent. It illustrated how Pemberton and Shearsmith would use a single location to skilfully tell a complex story and how they would manage to take the narrative of each episode in surprising and frequently dark directions.

Shearsmith and Pemberton have spoken about the fact that the original intention was to write an episode to see how many characters they could fit into the wardrobe. They managed a very impressive twelve. To this day this remains the largest cast of named characters of any Inside No. 9 episode. You can absolutely enjoy the episode for the way the wardrobe gets more and more full and the social comedy of the interactions this causes. It carries on the tradition of dark social farces of Alan Ayckbourn. Pemberton and Shearsmith have both appeared in stage productions of Ayckbourn plays (indeed Pemberton actually appeared in Ayckbourn’s ‘Season’s Greetings’ alongside Katherine Parkinson) . Their long-time producer Jon Plowman suggested the dark ending.

The game of Sardines in this episode acts as a metaphor for the claustrophobia of the relationships between the characters. It is symbolic of people get trapped in a social situation with people they would rather avoid. Rebecca is forced to interact with her fiancé Jeremy’s ex -girlfriend Rachel and confront the fact he has not moved on from her. It is symbolic for the fact that several of the characters have secrets or agendas they want to hide from others that will eventually be revealed by this enforced closeness (such as Mark and Elizabeth who want to use Andrew to get a business deal). But most importantly it acts as a metaphor for the claustrophobic relationships caused by a significant secret involving several characters that is revealed at the end of the episode.

The ostensible plot of the episode concerns the character of Rebecca (played wonderfully by Katherine Parkinson) who is celebrating her engagement party. While Rebecca is the central character and we have a plot centred on her growing discomfort at her fiancé Jeremy’s apparent closeness to his ex girlfriend Rachel who is also attending the party, the episode actually turns out to be about something very different…

For it turns out the apparently mild mannered and socially awkward Ian (Tim Key) has decided to use the party as the occasion to take his revenge for the for abuse he suffered as a child. Tim Key is excellent as ‘Ian’ and he is absolutely chilling in the final moments of the episode.

But ‘Ian’/Pip (as I will call him) was not the only victim. The implication in is that Rebecca’s brother Carl ('We weren't all that lucky, were we John?') and John (Marc Wooton) were also abused by Rebecca and Carl’s father Andrew (brilliantly played by Timothy West). ‘Stinky’ John will not wash because the smell of soap reminds him of the abuse he suffered. John’s unwashed smell upsets the other characters not just because it is unpleasant but that it is an unconscious reminder that there is something amiss in these characters past (he quite literally creates a ‘stink’). It also explains Carl's fear of intimacy and his anger when Stuart confronts him about it (and why he gets annoyed when Stuart discusses the smell of carbolic soap with him). We also see he is deeply uncomfortable being back in his childhood home.

There are some clues early on that ‘Ian’/Pip is not what he seems. He makes several morbid jokes such as the date of Rebecca’s wedding being 11/9 and his initials being RIP. These are not just a product of his social awkwardness. They foreshadow his later murderous actions. He also acts in a creepy manner toward Rachel when asked if he is dating anyone (‘I’ve had some experiences’ could refer to his abuse)

It could be argued that ‘Ian’/Pip is the Id to Carl’s Superego. They look alike, are dressed similarly and both wear glasses. When ‘Ian’/Pip accidentally calls Rebecca a bxtch and apologises, Carl jokes he is right. ‘Ian’/Pip ‘misinterprets’ Rebecca’s explanation of Carl and Stuart being partners. This causes Stuart to explain in no uncertain terms what the nature of their relationship is (something Carl himself is unable to do). Carl is the one character that shows any sympathy or anger on Pip’s behalf at the end and he tries to talk to him when his identity is revealed. ‘Ian’/Pip starts singing the Sardine song (written by Spike Milligan) to reveal his identity and Carl’s anger when his father sings this song shows he also associates it with his abuse. It is no accident that ‘Ian’/Pip’s revenge happens at the very location that the abuse of several characters occurred. We see Carl’s discomfort at being in the room (which Rebecca picks up on). He also says he hid in the wardrobe as a child. So ‘Ian’/Pip’s actions also reflect Carl’s own anger at what happened to him and the people who hurt him.

Andrew is shown to be a powerful overbearing character. He thinks nothing of bullying everyone, forcing Stuart, Lee and John into the wardrobe (probably sealing all the characters fates), belittling Carl and shattering Mark’s business hopes. He refuses to admit he did anything wrong and cares nothing about Carl’s discomfort at his behaviour. Perhaps Andrew is so keen on the game of Sardines as it reflects how he enjoys controlling the actions of others and keeping them in a space where he has ultimate power. Similarly Rebecca seems keen on the game and forcing others to play it because it allows her a measure of control over them and events. She cannot control the situation with Jeremy and Rachel but she can make them play this game. As several reviewers have also noted Sardines is a children’s game so it says something about Rebecca she seems so keen on it and the other guests that they go along with the game. Geraldine mentions Rebecca and Carl’s sister Caroline, who is married with young sons, is not attending the party. Rebecca’s discomfort when this is pointed out may indicate Caroline is aware of Andrew’s abusive behaviour and does not want him around her and her children. She quite literally refuses to play the game and put herself into this claustrophobic unhealthy situation (saving herself from the assumed final fate of the characters in this episode).

The episode does include some pointed class commentary in the treatment of Geraldine (Anne Reid). She had been Rebecca and Carl’s nanny and assumes that she has been invited as a guest to honour her role in their life. She is not aware she is still perceived as a servant as she had actually been invited to serve drinks. Ian may be rude when he demands she serve him champagne but at least he is not being hypocritically polite like Rebecca. The other characters make fun of her appearance (‘feed the birds’) even though she has probably gone through a lot of effort to appear well dressed for the party. It is worth noting ‘Ian’ makes a pointed comment ‘Shouldn’t she be using the staff toilet?’ about the other character’s attitude toward Geraldine. Geraldine remains blissfully unaware of how the other characters real feelings toward her and even sides with Andrew against the accusations ‘Ian’/ Pip made about him. This shows her lack of awareness of how the family she worked for actually view people who are not of the same class as them. In the end she gets punished along with the other characters by ‘Ian’/ Pip for this. Indeed his actions seem to be punishment toward the type of people who allow people like Andrew to operate.

It is worth analysing the relationship between Carl and Stuart. We have to assume they have been together for a reasonable period of time as they live together and are at the old married couple stage of bickering. Why would the highly repressed Carl choose to be with a man who is so extravert in his behaviour and open in his sexuality? Carl seems almost embarrassed and ashamed of Stuart during the events of the episode. Perhaps there is a clue in when Stuart explains his relationship with Carl to ‘Ian’ (When he says ‘We’re queer dear, get used to it’ it seems as much aimed at Carl as ‘Ian’). Carl doesn’t need to bother to explain Stuart’s role in his life or be public about his sexuality because Stuart does it for him. Could it be that Carl got together with Stuart because he knew that this would happen? This places a huge emotional burden on Stuart of being ‘out’ on behalf of both of them. He also has to deal with the hurt of Carl refusing to be more public about their relationship. When Carl calls him his ‘flatmate’ Stuart reacts by leaving the wardrobe and his hurt is evident. This explains some of why he acts so outrageously. He is both trying get Carl to be more open about being gay and to acknowledge they are a couple in front of others. Indeed, Stuart is the one character in the whole piece who is open in his sexuality and who is comfortable discussing sex.

This is symbolic of Stuart’s more open and outgoing nature. Stuart tries to put the other people in the wardrobe at ease by joking with them like he does with Geraldine and Rachel (even if his jokes may be inappropriate!). Stuart is also the one character (seemingly) who cannot be contained by the wardrobe and he leaves it at least three times. He does not have any hidden agenda in attending the party unlike several of the characters. Stuart is also obviously from Northern England and presumably working class in contrast to rest of the party attendees (bar Geraldine) who are southern and upper-middle class. Did Carl chose to be with a partner who was from a completely different background because of his feelings of discomfort at his own background?. It is also interesting Stuart does not wear a suit like all the other male characters (bar Ian who is considerably younger than the other men). Shearsmith is just fabulous as Stu, managing to convey the vulnerability beneath Stu’s camp exterior.

Stuart has also had to deal with Carl’s fear of intimacy without having any explanation. Carl is so locked in his pain he finds it hard to reach out to Stuart . Pemberton invests the line ‘You have no idea!’ with such power- indeed his performance as Carl manages to bring out all the pathos and repressed anger of the character (Worth noting Reece Shearsmith confirmed in a twitter exchange with Charlie Higson Carl’s look is based on the personas of the artists ‘Gilbert and George). Both have been unable to communicate in a healthy manner about the issues at the heart of their relationship. But according to a tweet Reece Shearsmith sent shortly after the episode was broadcast, there was a section where Carl and Stuart were reconciled

https://twitter.com/ReeceShearsmith/status/431805111888003072?s=20

While this section has never been aired it may be supposed it built on Stuart's realisation of what Carl had been through as a child and its impact on him and Carl’s realisation of the pain his behaviour was causing Stuart. This mutual realisation would have hopefully offered them a way to move forward together and communicate more openly. It would have also shown they did genuinely care for each other and want their relationship to work. It is a pity the BBC has not released the scene as a DVD/Blu Ray extra. It would have made the eventual resolution of the episode even more powerful.

It is worth noting that 'Sardines' was filmed around the time of revelations about historic child sexual abuse involving powerful men in the UK. This primarily focused on figures in entertainment in the 1960s/70s (Operation Yewtree) but would also involve investigations into MPs and other figures of authority (such as Operation Midland and Operation Athabasca that looked at Cyril Smith and his associates). When discussing this episode in the South Bank show about their career Steve Pemberton said he and Shearsmith were keen to treat the topic sensitively and with care. Certainly the episode shows the long term damage to several men of both the abuse they subjected to and the fact their abuser was allowed to silence them.

The episode seems to be saying that failure to address such abuse ends up destroying all involved- the abuser (Andrew), the bystanders who turned a blind eye (such as Geraldine) , those associated with the abuser (Mark and Elizabeth who want to get a business deal through Andrew), those who were too young or powerless to do anything to help (Rebecca) and even the abused themselves (Carl and John). If Andrew had not been allowed to get away with what he did to Pip and been made to answer for what he did earlier, Pip Carl and John might have found some resolution and peace. Pip would also not have taken the form of revenge he did.

This is just my analysis and reading of the episode. It remains one of my favourite episodes of Inside No.9

#inside no.9 #Timothy west #katherine parkinson #reece shearsmith #steve pemberton