#its just something everyone has seen either willingly or unwillingly

[houseboywife]

Where in the world is Drangleic?

Perhaps you've seen it, maybe in a dream. A murky, forgotten land. A place where souls may mend your ailing mind. Long ago, in a walled off land, far to the north, a great king built a great kingdom. I believe they called it Drangleic. Perhaps you're familiar. No, how could you be. But one day, you will stand before its decrepit gate. Without really knowing why... Like a moth drawn to a flame.

Dark Souls 2 is a very cryptic game: possibly even more so than the other entries in the series, which aren't known for being particularly transparent with their lore either. One of the game's many mysteries (which is never really elaborated on) is: where, exactly, is the kingdom of Drangleic located compared to Lordran?

There's a certain strangeness to Drangleic, certain parallels that seemingly ties it to Lordran. The most obvious is the 4 Lords that inhabit it, possessing the 4 Lord Souls from the first game: the Old Iron King, the Lost Sinner, the Rotten and the Duke's Dear Freja possess the Souls of Gwyn, the Witch of Izalith, Nito and Seath respectively. How did they end up here?

But there's more. When Manus died, its essence was split into four parts. These parts all ended up here, as the four queens that corrupted (willingly or unwillingly) the four monarchs that resided here. And again: the Chaos Flame, born from the Witch of Izalith turned Bed of Chaos, was found under the frozen City of Eleum Loyce. And again: the Chasm of the Abyss is accessible from Drangleic, and is seemingly inhabited by NPCs you previously faced in Dark Souls 1. What is going on?

One interpretation I have seen is that Drangleic is none other than future Lordran, a kingdom that fell and rose again a countless amount of times, until the memory of old vanished, leaving only the ruins. It would fit with the themes of the game, but I personally do not believe it to be the case. The reasons are multiple: for example, I find it hard to believe that the entirety of Anor Londo would just disappear without a trace. But the reason, mostly, is Dark Souls 3.

Even if there is clearly a preference for the first installment of the series, Dark Souls 3 makes a pletora of references do 2 that clearly identify Drangleic as a foreign land.

Armour of the Drang Knights, proclaimed descendents of the land known for the legend of the Linking of the Fire.

Admittedly, I'm unsure why Drangleic and not Lordran would be the land known for the Linking of the Fire, but perhaps it has something to do with the Throne of Want (seemingly adapted in the Thrones of the Lords of Cinders) and the breaking of the curse for the (former) Bearer of the Curse. In addition, in the Ringed City DLC, we come across an area that, while very different, is identified as the Earthern Peak, presumably converging towards Lothric Castle as a result of the infinite cycle of the world, as stated by Ludleth. Also there's the fact that, you know, Anor Londo and Gwyndolin are still there as you left them in Dark Souls 1 despite not appearing in Drangleic, which would make little sense as Dark Souls 3 takes place after 2. Time fuckery? Perhaps, but I'm unconvinced.

So, what in the hell is going on here? Let's look at some other things we know about Drangleic. First off, it is a place intimately connected to the curse of undeath and the endless cycle of fire and dark. While in Lordran most people were attempting to link the flame, the travellers to Drangleic are here to find an escape from the curse for themselves. Some have even come close to succeeding, like Aldia. In addition, the Kingdom seem to have been funded relatively recently by people coming from outside.

Let's also look at the place you cross to enter Drangleic. A location known as "Things Betwixt". A place between places, a gateway. Judging by the opening narration and cinematic, you were looking for something and somehow ended up there without really knowing why. The same is true for everyone else there. And, seemingly, you can't leave this land without fulfilling your objective.

Bearer of the curse… Seek souls. Larger, more powerful souls. Seek the King, that is the only way. Lest this land swallow you whole… As it has so many others.

So here is my headcanon. Drangleic is a purgatory for those who are seeking something. A purgatory for wandering souls, left without a body and looking for a way to reincarnate: after eons of being lost, eventually both the Lord Souls and the Shards of Manus found their way here, as many other souls of enemies you killed have done. And it is also a purgatory for undead seeking answers: Lordran might be the epicenter of the curse, but Drangleic is the final destination for those who are desperately yearning to rid themselves of it (provided they do not go Hollow first, of course). One has to look for it to find it: and once they do, in time, they may find themselves here.

But the answer, of course, is that there is no answer. Drangleic might be the key to ridding oneself of the undead curse: but it is also the key to understanding that the real curse, the First Sin, cannot be escaped. One goes to Drangleic in the hope to find a purgatory, and at the end of it, redemption. Very few exit Drangleic, and those who do exit become aware that the entire world is a purgatory, and that there is no redemption. Linking the Flame, snuffing the Flame: it matters not. And yet.

There is no path. Beyond the scope of light, beyond the reach of Dark... What could possibly await us? And yet, we seek it, insatiably... Such is our fate.

#Dark souls 2 #Dark souls #Dark souls lore #soulsborne #Souls series #Drangleic #Aldia #Headcanon #Dark souls 3 #nicothoughts #long post

[ladyonfire28]

Adèle Haenel: "And the fight against racism, is that a black thing?" (March 1, 2016)

Her raw talent and her unique personality are shaking up French cinema. With two Césars in her pocket, the actress from Les Combattants became an icon of auteur cinema in Les Ogres and soon with the Dardenne brothers. Interview with a thoughtful and shady feminist.

The first vision we have of Adèle Haenel when we enter the hotel room, where she has just been photographed, is that of a tall girl in denim and worn-out suede boots looking for cotton to remove her make-up. She says that it's too much, that it's not her, that we have to take it all away - this sticky femininity - and right away.

She announces her color: strong, fierce, temperamental, a little prickly, when, during the interview, she frowns and throws your questions back to you - always with great relevance. She is beautiful and abrupt, her adolescent brusqueness (even though she is 27 years old), gives the impression of robustness: a sportswoman with the shoulders of a swimmer but the face of a femme fatale from the inter-war period, green eyes and a pulpy mouth. This is an unprecedented combination in French cinema, which tends to be dominated by young first-time coquettes looking for contracts with luxury brands. We have never seen Adèle H. at the front row of fashion shows, her appearances on the red carpet - the playground of her fellow female cast members - did not stick in our memories, and that's good.

We've been keeping an eye on her since Water Lilies (2007), by Céline Sciamma, to whom she declared her love at a César Award ceremony. She won two of them, hands down: for Suzanne, and then, last year, for Les Combattants, an emblematic film that created a new image of a virile heroine in French cinema. Adèle Haenel, an icon of auteur cinema, was thrown at the heart of the system: she is the most coveted actress of the moment and has just finished in Liège The Unknown Girl, by the Dardenne brothers, who will inevitably be screened again at the next Cannes Film Festival.

You have to hear her talk about cinema, with her eyes fixed and uninterrupted flow, to understand how incandescent this girl is. In Les Ogres, a choral film by Léa Fehner that talks about the daily life of an itinerant theater that performs Chekhov, she plays Mona, actress and pregnant. The diary of this tribe that travels from city to city, a tent on their back, also draws a universal portrait of actors, truculent monsters full of love and violence.

Madame Figaro - Since the success of Les Combattants, you intrigue people...

Adèle Haenel. - I can see that the demand is stronger, but I'm not chasing after advertising and I don't intend to invade the public space. I think we have to remain discreet. Notoriety hasn't changed anything in my life and it certainly won't change my desire to make films following the same line.

What is that line ?

I make a film to carry a message. I can feel when a director has something to say. I feel something, a desire, a vibration. There is a thread, an intuition, a truth that imposes itself on me. I know what I have to do, I can feel it. It is both mystical and very rational. What is interesting is to come out of a navel-gazing, to rise up, to talk about people, to talk about the world. I like the idea that everything fits together collectively: feelings, economics, politics. A film is a common story, and I want to be part of that dialogue. A film must be in direct resonance with its time: cinema is today. I do things for now, and it's not up to me, to us, to decide whether a film is going to stay, whether it's made for eternity. I feel extremely responsible.

You feel very inhabited when you talk about cinema...

I have many other reasons to live, but, yes, I am deeply interested in the representation of things. How does cinema fit into society? Who is it for? Cinema is obviously a political act. For example, even the latest Star Wars is political. I was really relieved to see so many women and different skin colors: it means that everyone can be a hero and that feels good.

It is said that in the movies women are taking over...

It's an evergreen content. They make a big deal out of it, but if you look at the numbers, it's not so true: women are still in the minority. I can't be satisfied with that.

Do you feel the prevailing machismo that is associated with cinema?

I'm not going to waste my time and energy educating these people.

Is it easier to succeed in this job when you are a man?

Your question is a strange one. Either we point out superficial phenomena - the decision-makers are men, they have the money and therefore the power - or we debate a broader question: in what world are we evolving? And there, it's always the same thing.  The world is cut in two: on the one hand, there is the man, the virile, all linked to superior qualities, and on the other hand, the lower part, the woman, the secret, the moods. Of course, all our representation is linked to this division. I often ask myself the following question: in a fair world, without discrimination, what is art? Art today is in dialogue with its time, so it does not abolish anything but is involved in the fight.

As we can't classify you, you have been labeled as virile...

I'd like someone to explain to me why people should always be defined. To be a woman, you would have to be a feminine woman, right? For me, it's redundant. I don't maintain any posture, I am myself. But the way people look at me doesn't bother me: make up your mind, there's no problem.

However, you embody a renewal at the antipodes of actresses on their first red carpets...

I don't know which ones you are talking about, but I will never be against other propositions from women. After all, they also are undoubtedly dealing with their inner truth. But then again, I don't want to comment on something that escapes me completely: the gaze of others. I realize that everything is complicated for actresses who are so solicited that they end up participating, willingly or unwillingly, in a kind of general cacophony.

Are you one of those ogresses that Léa Fehner describes in her film?

I've just eaten about twenty-five croissants, isn't that a clue? In Léa's film, there is an energy close to the one in Les Combattants: action as a solution to an era in crisis. Here, it's laughter and gluttony facing a personal anxiety and an era that values suffering. I think we need to wake people up, to make them understand that fatality is a terrible and disarming discourse. We are told that the planet is warming up, that people are being massacred, that entire populations are on the move. I am not saying that we are not powerless against this, but feeling concerned and responsible is already a first step towards action.

Are actors monsters?

I don't know and I don't care. I'm not here to tell people: I'm like this, I'm like that, I'm better than you. I don't have to deal with that. Why me? I don't know.

Yes, why you and not someone else? Actor, it's an elective profession...

What is an actor? Their hypersensitivity should not be overestimated. The key is courage. That's the most difficult thing, courage and sincerity: not hiding, committing yourself with what you have, with your face and your body, with everything, with no escape. We often say: "To be an actor is to be someone else" but above all, you have to accept being yourself. It's not the most well-balanced job on earth, but a healthy actor would be weird, wouldn't it?

Precisely, you are sometimes compared to... Depardieu.

There are worse critics. What I like about him is his poetic sensitivity, which is not fake at all. You can sense his love of texts. And then, come on, what an incredible freedom of acting!

Can you play everything?

I don't know. What I do know is that the feeling of comfort is dangerous. It would turn us into a small factory. As soon as I start a film, I don't sleep anymore. The first scenes are hell.

Is shooting naked a problem?

It annoys me. In all films, there's this double injunction from society or the audience: we actresses are asked to get naked but to feel guilty about it! But no guys, I'm not going to feel guilty so you can be fully satisfied that I hold this assigned place of the whore and the well-bred girl! The commitment I make when I make a movie is much bigger than that.

Your feminist side...

I don't have a feminist side, I'm a feminist simply because I want to exist.

Today, not all women are feminists…

So feminism is a girl thing, then? And the fight against racism is a black thing? It's not a power struggle or lobbying, it's not Pepsi against Coke. No, it's a fundamental question about humanity.

#adèle haenel #adele haenel #madame figaro #2016 #it's been a while since my last interview translation ! #i've always loved that interview #don't think it was translated before but who knows aha #here you go anyway ! #sometimes i translate things #les ogres

[love-takes-work]

The episode that hits you the hardest

There are many Steven Universe episodes that are basically designed to put your emotions through the spin cycle and hang you up to dry. We've all been there during one episode or another--excited, dismayed, inspired, devastated, blown away. But some of us have an episode that kicks us hard in the gut for personal reasons. An episode that's not just emotional, but intimately catastrophic for us. What's yours?

For me, that episode is "Cry for Help."

The character I relate to the most in the show, by far, is Garnet. A lot of people who love her say it's because she's ~so cool~ and aspirational with her self confidence (and believe me, I think that too) and because her relationship is inspiring, but for me, it's because I've never seen a fictional character get stability so right.

She may be on the stoic side and very much the strong and silent type, but she's not stable due to being unfeeling. She's definitely a squishy bundle of feelings under there. But she's utterly in control, knows her strengths and limitations, isn't ever self-deprecating about her talents, and understands herself in a complete and clear way. She can still be surprised or hurt. Being stable isn't about being numb.

Nearly all of the problems Garnet has to handle belong to someone else, and she rarely struggles with herself.

Characters like her and people like me find themselves, willingly and not so willingly, throwing life preservers and providing lifelines to people who are not stable. Many factors figure into why--you do it because you can, or because you know something about their problem, or because you love the person--but if you're a Garnet in a world of insecure Amethysts, inexperienced Stevens, and desperate Pearls, you've probably saved a person or two.

In "Cry for Help," we see Garnet exploited for her strength and stability--betrayed by Pearl, her literal oldest friend in the world--and we see how it (pretty much literally) tears her apart.

It's HARD to rattle someone as stable as Garnet so she shakes apart into her component pieces. It is very very hard to do that to someone with their feet so solidly on the ground. And when it happens, sometimes the pain that comes from it is so intense that you're not sure who you are anymore.

Let me elaborate in the context of the show. The Crystal Gems decide to destroy the partially rebuilt Communication Hub because Peridot's been using it to send messages to the enemy. But they can't destroy it the way they did last time because the Fusion chosen to handle the job, Sugilite, compromised everyone's safety. Garnet fusing with Amethyst is a no-go.

Garnet's handling of breaking that news to Amethyst left a few things to be desired, but ultimately, Pearl was so grateful and joyous to be chosen instead that it's hard not to be excited.

And even though Sardonyx was formed for a functional reason, it was also SO MUCH FUN!

They destroyed the Hub together and both personally enjoyed themselves. Even though Pearl was the most demonstrative about how much fun she had, you can see how caught up Garnet was in the joy. She loves fusion too, and she loves Pearl too, and she loves being Sardonyx too.

"Why don't we do that more often?" says Pearl.

Garnet and Pearl have an incredible history. They've known each other for over 5,500 years. They were allies and soldiers in a lengthy war, they endured hideous traumas together, and they are the only survivors of the final battle. They understand each other like no one else can. Surely they can trust one another.

Garnet found out she couldn't trust Pearl. It turned out Pearl enjoyed the fusion experience so much that she lied about similar threats to tempt Garnet into fusing with her again, and Garnet allowed herself to get distracted, never seeing the possibility of her oldest friend hurting her in such a personal way.

She was devastated. First it came out first as boiling, earsplitting anger.

And then it cooled to icy, silent rage.

What did Garnet say in the moment it happened? Almost all of her lines are about Pearl's actions derailing the mission.

"That's why I couldn't see us finding Peridot." "You've been fixing the Hub." "Peridot's out there somewhere and Pearl's been distracting us with NOTHING!"

She pretends the important thing is how she compromised the mission. But she also says another thing.

"You tricked me."

In this moment, everyone understands why she was furious to be misled. But I don't think the others recognized the depth of this wound because Garnet is very good at concealing her vulnerability. She doesn't want her team to think its leader has the capacity to be personally hurt in a way that limits her usefulness in a crisis. She's supposed to be strong and never let the others doubt her competence. And her confidence has never been a lie--she has never had to put on a face when it comes to that. But in this moment? She slammed all the doors shut. She had been sliced open with a very sharp knife and had to turn quickly so no one would see her guts. (Not the first time she’s done that, either.)

Because of the way she focused on the mission's importance, Pearl bumbled her way through antagonist-trapping attempts for multiple episodes trying to get back in Garnet's favor. And that was probably even more painful for Garnet--that Pearl fundamentally did not understand why a betrayal of this nature was so devastating. She had JUST been through a fusion-related trauma discovering the fusion experiments in the Kindergarten; the sanctity of consent in fusion had just been highlighted for her, in opposition to an extreme example of its violation, and then she gets personally subjected to false pretenses for fusion that negate her reasons for consent.

Pearl made up emergencies to steal Garnet's time and energy, and made her feel foolish for trusting her. She misrepresented the issue because she desired an intimate experience, and tricked Garnet into providing it under those false circumstances. Most importantly, she compromised the integrity of her body and mind using fusion--something Garnet is passionate about, something Garnet fought to defend and define, something at the core of Garnet's identity. Pearl perverted something sacred to Garnet and then she doesn't even realize how wrong it was. It must have been so awful for Garnet to discover that Pearl can lie as easily as she breathes just to get something she wants--something Garnet probably would have been willing to give to her if it had been requested in honesty!--and that she isn't really free to tell her how much it hurt because her longstanding trust had been used against her.

And that's the thing about relating to a character as strongly as I relate to Garnet. When you're the strong one but you're HURT, you still can't let yourself lash out at someone like Pearl. You could crush someone whose daily existence is so tortured and fragile. You know you won't do it. You'd be the bad guy if you stood there on your pedestal of stability and told them how much they've disappointed you, how much they've disgusted you, how much revulsion you feel at the breach of trust. Pearl and Garnet have both experienced trauma, but Garnet doesn't define herself by it--she has coping mechanisms Pearl lacks, and even at the peak of her anger she knows it would not be right to unleash all of that on a traumatized person who barely knows how to cope with her own destructive, damaged thoughts. 

Garnet is the victim in this situation, but she's still got to think about how her brittle friend will handle the process of healing from what SHE did to them both. The silent treatment was horrible for Pearl--it made her frantic and drove her to additional terrible decisions--but it was the kindest thing Garnet could do while still simmering under the surface, smoldering with her own unhealed bruises.

Garnet took herself away to handle the internal conflict Pearl's breach caused in her. She went away with Steven and Greg, who wouldn't really be as affected by watching her breakdown as the others would, and even though that breakdown wasn't strictly controlled or ideal either, it was a choice she made during a personal crisis. Garnet fell apart. 

I recognize this technique. Some people--myself included--can choose where and when to process emotions (including freakouts and breakdowns), but can first and foremost decide to hold it together when it's important. I could give you six examples from within the last two years when I had to do stuff like that. I'm not better than anybody else because I can. I have effective coping mechanisms. Many people don't have a choice about whether they freak out or if they get triggered. I'm fortunate. I use it to TAKE CARE OF THINGS IN THE MOMENT that I might have some nightmares about later, but I'm not going to fall apart NOW. I need to be able to do that for people who don't have the option. That's one of the things Garnet does well, too. That's why we've only seen her come apart unwillingly if she was lethally damaged or fundamentally shaken to the core.

When Garnet reconciled with Pearl at the end of "Friend Ship," she spoke very little about her own pain. She knew that making Pearl feel even guiltier about her betrayal was not going to be constructive. She already felt bad. She didn't go on at length about how hurt she was--she just said "I fell apart over this." "Ruby and Sapphire were in turmoil over how you deceived me." "I came undone." Most of what she said was focused on helping Pearl understand why her loneliness, her insecurity, and her weakness are not excuses to steal someone else's strength away from them without their permission. 

"You lied to me. You need to learn that there are consequences to your actions." 

"It's not easy being in control. I have weaknesses too. But I choose not to let them consume me." 

"I struggle to stay strong because I know the impact I have on everyone. Please understand, Pearl. You have an impact too."

Garnet knew all along that everything she said and did--even in a crisis--would be an example for everyone else. She's rarely allowed to have selfish moments where she gives in to whimsy, sacrifices responsibilities for self care, compromises others' comfort for her needs. She was caught in the crossfire of Pearl's desperation and was betrayed intimately, but even after all was said and done, she still had to counsel Pearl through the consequences she pulled down on herself. 

Even after all this, she does still care deeply for Pearl, and I'm sure it's painful to watch her struggle. But Garnet still had to be the one to answer "how can I make you forgive me?" with an explanation of why she can't. And you believe Pearl when she speaks about how useless she feels on her own. She's not manipulating Garnet or lying about how ineffectual and incompetent she feels. The problem is, she's still making all of that Garnet's problem. And Garnet accepts the responsibility of solving it.

She wants to be mad. The Ruby in Garnet is happy to state loudly that she DESERVES to be mad. Shouldn't she be allowed to stew, to rage, to feel? She was treated unforgivably and then had to tolerate Pearl doing backflips in the wrong direction to coax an undeserved resolution out of her. But she also wants to be practical. The fatalistic Sapphire in Garnet is ready to move on because she sees the big picture and knows her emotions aren't that critical when they're fighting to save the planet.

I went through a protracted "battle" like this recently. I had to solve a problem that was way bigger than me that started before I was born. I had to spend a lot of time, money, and energy learning things I never wanted to know and handling issues I wasn't even supposed to know about. And along the way I was treated horribly by several people, most notably the main person I was trying to protect. Sometimes it seemed like they were doing everything in their power to sabotage my efforts to help them, but I was patient and supportive, even when they were very rude, even when they refused to help accomplish the small things they could handle on their own, even when they treated ME like I was the source of their pain despite being the one trying to stop it. 

One of my allies said it was baffling that I kept helping at all considering how I was treated. They were gobsmacked how I still offered respect and kindness to someone who was inadvertently causing me so much stress. And I always said the same thing: I do it because I can, because if I don't the consequences (which I will ALSO have to handle) will be worse, and because everyone else is in way worse shape than I am. 

Yes, maybe I contain a little Ruby raging about how unfair this is and how personally hurt I am, but that's what texting my friends is for. I also contain a little Sapphire telling me I have to get A if I don't want B to happen, and I chose the uphill battle that let me achieve A. Ruby and Sapphire are both right. I deserved to be furious. I also needed to get the job done, and I did.

Ultimately Garnet learned that Pearl is a damaged person acting out of desperation, and even though the betrayal was personal and not okay in any way, it was rooted in loneliness and sorrow that Garnet does not experience. Stable people often help unstable people when they care about them. They shouldn't have to sacrifice themselves to do so, but they are usually able to figure out where the line is for how much they can reasonably give of themselves. Sometimes, when stable people still care about the people who hurt them, we feel like we've lost the rights to our feelings. That voicing those thoughts will just make it worse. That we will be the cruel one if we react incorrectly to being wronged. We solve it on our own. We go away and get a grip and come back ready to fight.

But seeing that, boy. Seeing the fresh wound in "Cry for Help" and knowing how that feels, when you're reeling and wondering how you're going to build yourself back up (while pretending nobody knocked you down), feeling so raw and punctured by someone you REALLY don't want to stop trusting . . . you wonder, if another person can do that to me, am I really that stable?

Or, conversely, would I even be stable if I didn't care about anyone strongly enough that their betrayal could be my undoing?

"Jailbreak" is my favorite episode, but "Cry for Help" eats me alive every time I watch it.

#steven universe #gif #long post #garnet #cry for help #personal tag #myblog

[mobius-prime]

173. Sonic the Hedgehog #105

You Say You Want a Revelation?

Writer: Karl Bollers Pencils: Ron Lim Colors: Josh and Aimee Ray

We're finally back to the main series plot! Sonic is disheartened to see Nate's things being moved out of his house, knowing that by leaving Nate behind in Robotropolis they consigned him to the fate of roboticization. However, he's not content to leave him in there without at least trying to rescue him, and so leads Tails and Uncle Chuck to the castle in the hopes of talking to Elias, unaware of his disappearance. In Robotropolis, Hope goes to her step-father along with her grandmother to voice her concerns about the Robians she saw escaping the city, stating her beliefs that her uncle created them. Colin initially refuses to believe her, but Eggman steps out of the next room with Snively, grinning evilly as he informs them that she's totally right. Back in the castle in Knothole, King Max is experiencing true regret for perhaps the first time since we've seen him come back from the Zone of Silence.

Sorry, Alicia, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree. A lot of this is Max's fault - he refused to listen to either his son or daughter, and picked someone who was clearly not cut out to be a leader to put in charge of everything, over his daughter who was trained her whole life to lead a kingdom. In Robotropolis, Eggman airs an announcement over every screen in his city that he's "discovered" that everyone is infected with toxic waste poisoning, and must come to him for treatment immediately lest they succumb and die. Colin is outraged, pointing out that Eggman should be infected as well then, only for Eggman to reveal his true colors - literally - as a robot.

Uncle Chuck and Sonic both explain their plan to use the sword to King Max, who seems somewhat apathetic, upset not only at the loss of his son, but the loss of Nate as well. He's uncertain, as he only knows of two people who can even use the sword's abilities: himself, and –

Max reluctantly agrees to Sally's plan, ordering her to take Sonic with her as an escort. Sonic is pleased, but finally notices Sally's somewhat lackluster responses to everything he says, asking her if he did something to upset her. Before she can respond, Mina suddenly rushes up, hugs Sally while thanking her profusely for saving her mother, and then races off again, leaving her speechless. Meanwhile in Robotropolis, Hope runs for her life through the streets, trying to hide in a back alleyway with Eggman's voice following her the whole way. He finds her through a hidden screen in the alley, and tries to manipulate her into surrendering by saying he'll spare her grandmother. Agnes, of course, yells for her not to listen, and as Hope watches…

Hope is surrounded by shadow-bots, but Sonic suddenly appears, smashing them up and ushering her over to Sally for protection. Eggman is furious to see her being rescued, until he hears Sonic's voice behind him, Sonic of course having run at light speed all the way into his headquarters. Eggman tries to grab hold of him to roboticize him, but Sonic smashes the floor underneath him, sending them both plummeting into the room below. There, Sonic is horrified to find a familiar, frozen face staring back at him.

Eggman gloats that the sword doesn't seem to affect roboticized Overlanders, and then, with the rest of the city's Overlander population gathered within the room, offers them a demonstration. He calls Snively forward, informing him that he, too, is poisoned from the toxic waste, and while Snively is upset, having thought that as his lackey he would have been protected, Eggman offers him a deal - take his hand. You see, apparently Overlanders only become frozen after roboticization if they're unwillingly turned, but if they take the offer of their own free will, they retain their ability to move and act… and with a grin, Snively takes his uncle's hand.

And that is the awful true scope of Eggman's plan. He let everyone live within his city for two months, ensuring that they'd become sick, and then offered them supposedly the one thing that could save them, making sure that they'd have to take his offer willingly and become his slaves. Of course, we just watched this backfire, but Eggman knows that by rejecting his offer and going with Sally and Sonic, all the Overlanders are likely to get even sicker and stretch the already strained resources of Knothole. However, we know that Sally is smarter than that, and there's already a hidden city of Overlanders - or sorry, humans - out there that might have some room…

Before we move on to the conclusion of Myth Taken Identity, we have another character file to peruse - this time, for Snively! Unlike the previous couple, this one actually contains some new information about his life - but first, the technical info. Calculating his real-world height gives us the absurdly-short height of 97 cm, or 3'2". For reference, someone is considered to have dwarfism if they're anywhere below 147 cm or 4'10" tall, so Snively definitely qualifies. (Nate Morgan probably would too, but we're never actually given any information on his measurements, so there's no way to say for certain.) Snively also weighs 38.4 kg or 84.5 lbs, and his birthday is on May 14. Interestingly, his birth year indicates that he's actually only thirty years old! He definitely looks a lot older due to male-pattern baldness, but if you think about it it makes sense - after all, he's Robotnik's nephew, and the original Robotnik was likely in his late forties or early fifties at the time of his death.

What really makes this entry noteworthy, however, is his life history. He was born Colin Kintobor, Jr., which is an ordinary enough name, and his mother died giving birth to him. He was treated terribly by his father Colin Sr., who is actually the one who gave him his nickname. You'd think it would have been Robotnik who stuck him with such a humiliating nickname, but no, his own father called him Snively because of his lack of social skills. He compensated all throughout his childhood by immersing himself in the world of technology, and found a way to take advantage of every friend he made. He was kicked out of the house as a teenager, and with nowhere to go, turned to his uncle Julian, whom he helped seize power over the Kingdom of Knothole. However, he soon found himself being mistreated by his uncle as well, and as we know, eventually grew so resentful that he rigged the Ultimate Annihilator to target only Robotnik so he could be free of him once and for all.

While one could argue that these are the actions of a sociopath, or a narcissist, I'm gonna go ahead and say that Snively would have had a very different personality had he actually grown up with a family who loved him and looked after him. All this poor kid ever knew was bullying and emotional abuse. He's been taught, by life and by the actions of those around him, that the only way to look after himself is to be selfish, and to latch onto those more powerful than him for security. I touched on once before that Snively seemed to be basically in an abusive relationship with Robotnik, and didn't know how to go on after he thought he was dead, but this page confirms that things are only sadder than we originally realized. It was this page, plus some other events further into the comic, that made me realize that I actually liked Snively as a character, and wanted to see him break free of Eggman's control and come into his own. Unfortunately, having just allowed himself to be roboticized, that's not likely to be happening any time soon…

Myth Taken Identity (Part III)

Writer: Mike Gallagher Pencils: Nelson Ribeiro Colors: Frank Gagliardo

Guru Emu, upon discovering the dam from last issue, has found himself with rekindled hope that he can find and save his friends who have been kidnapped by the bunyip. He descends into the dam, discovering that it was originally constructed by Crocbot, who of course used it to power his various weapons and detention camps. It turns out that this dam is behind the strangely dry riverbeds and the disgusting lake, as it's been disrupting the local ecosystem, even more so now that it's abandoned and not being maintained. But what of Walt, Barby, and Bill? Well, as it turns out, they're also inside the dam, protected by an airtight compartment with a window through which they can see the bunyip gazing in at them. Barby, apparently, speaks many languages, including whatever ancient language the bunyip speaks, and convinced it that they're no threat. She gets it to explain its plight, as well as why it's been attacking everybody.

I mean, that hardly seems like a good excuse for just attacking random people on the street who clearly aren't Crocbot, but the Downunda Freedom Fighters want to help anyway. While Barby informs the bunyip that Crocbot was defeated some time ago, Guru races down the hallway toward them, having overheard everything. He has discovered a room full of explosives elsewhere in the complex, and so…

The bunyip is grateful, and leaves to spend its happy days in the clean water, and though the D.F.F. briefly consider inviting it to join their team, they ultimately decide that they'd rather stay as a four-person group from now on, knowing that no one can replace Stu.

And now we have one last character file to look at for the issue, this time for Dimitri! Dimitri is actually the tallest individual so far, at a height of 133 cm or 4'4". That's a full foot taller than Sonic! He weighs 39.9 kg or 87.7 lbs, and his birthday is on September 28. He's 378 years old, finally giving us a clearer idea of exactly how long the Brotherhood has existed, considering earlier issues were very unclear and inconsistent on the matter. Like Sally and Julie-Su, however, his character file doesn't give us any new information, merely recapping the previous events of the comic as well as history we've already been shown. Still, in a way, having such inconsequential information as his height, weight, and birthday really kind of serves to humanize him in a way - or, er, "Mobianize"? Eh, whatever, you know what I mean.

#nala reads archie sonic preboot #archie sonic #archie sonic preboot #sonic the hedgehog #sth 105 #writer: karl bollers #writer: michael gallagher #pencils: ron lim #pencils: nelson ribeiro #colors: joshua d ray #colors: aimee r ray #colors: frank gagliardo

[beatrice-otter]

The myth of the “good” master

TW for talk about slavery and racism.

For those of you who don’t follow Star Wars stuff, @fialleril has lots of really good meta and stories fleshing out Tatooine slave culture and how that shaped Anakin and Shmi and Luke.  And one of the parts of that culture is a hatred of “Depur,” the master(s).

Somebody just sent them an ask about if there are any stories about good masters on Tatooine, who freed their slaves and provided cover for formerly enslaved people to do whatever, or who sold their slaves and got out.  (Asker replied to the response with an apology for using the word “sold”)  Fia had a good reply explaining why there wouldn’t, but I wanted to use Fia’s tags as a jumping off point for what I have to say about the myth of the “good” master, which is really prevalent in the US.  And shows up in fiction (written by White people) a lot, and it’s always really, really bad.  So let’s talk about both the problems with the myth, and the problems with the suggested stories about “good” masters.  First, Fia’s tags:

#slaves don't tell stories about 'good' masters

#it's the masters themselves #and their descendants trying to feel less guilty #who tell those stories

#i mean this ask is in the context of fiction and that's important

#but i'm also aware that i say this as a white person in america #and i remember hearing all sorts of stories about 'good' slave masters as a kid

#but you know what? #white people are the only ones who tell those stories #it's a way of trying to get around the sense of collective guilt

#so i actually could see stories like this cropping up in a future gffa #where tatooine has been free for a couple decades

#but you can bet it's not going to be the descendants of slaves telling those stories

I’m white, but I’ve studied US History and read books by Black people about slavery.  Black people today do not tell stories of "good" slave owners.  Just like Jewish people don't tell stories of "good" Nazis. I've heard Black interpreters at living history exhibits talk about how horrifying and exhausting it is to deal with White people trying to find a way to make the slave owner a good person.  They just keep asking and asking and posing what-if after what-if and trying to find SOME WAY that it's okay to participate in the system of slavery.  Some way to excuse what their ancestors (or the ancestors of their culture) did.  Some way to exonerate the ones we came from.  And the black re-enactor has to deal with this crap, and it is horrifying for them.   It is some of the most degrading emotional labor I can imagine.  At its heart, the insistence on “good” slaveowners comes from a place of arrogance and privilege and selfishness.  It’s saying “My desire to sweep my ancestor’s sins under the rug and pretend the evil they did was not evil is more important than the pain and suffering they caused, and it’s also more important than the pain and suffering I’m causing the Black people around me by trying to justify the people who hurt their ancestors and would hurt them too if they’d lived back then.”

Pretty much every study of slavery in the US I’ve ever read that went into any detail found that slavery was an intensely corroding social mechanism for everyone at every level of society who participated in it, willingly or unwillingly.  To participate, you had to either actively degrade and abuse other human beings, knowingly allow other human beings to be degraded and abused, or be degraded and abused yourself.  Not all slaveowners thought the system was right; not all slaveowners were vicious to their slaves.  But even the ones who disliked the system and were not personally vicious depended on the threat of selling their slaves to others who were worse than them to keep their slaves in line. And if you were a slaveowner, even one who consciously believed that slavery was wrong, well, human beings are terrible at admitting when we’re wrong.  There are all sorts of ways in which you slip down the path to justifying your actions.  “Yes, it’s wrong, but...” “Yes, I’m a slaveowner, but I’m not like those other slaveowners,”  “I’m a good slaveowner, so my slaves should be grateful to me because I’m so nice to them.”

Women, do these justifications sound familiar to you?  It’s #notallmen!  That’s what it is!  Except there really are men who treat women well and don’t perpetuate rape culture and the patriarchy, and there is no way to be a slaveowner without being part of the slave system.  Yes, all slaveowners did evil or facilitated evil or profited from evil.  Some of them just chose to use others to do the dirty work.  Owning slaves is inherently degrading and oppressive and abusive.  There’s no way around it.

Probably the best exploration of the “good slaveowner” myth I’ve ever seen is the 2016 movie Birth of a Nation by Nate Parker, about the Nat Turner slave rebellion of 1831.  The film is mostly about Nat, of course, but it also deals with the family that owned him, a “nice, good” White family.  They’re nice people.  Good, by the standards of their society.  They are a stark contrast to the horrifying evil of the slaveowners around them.  And yet ... they participate knowingly in that society.  They know it’s wrong and they still want to be respected by their neighbors whom they know do evil things.  So they themselves keep saying and doing things that get worse and worse, things that they know are wrong, because they choose fitting in to an evil society over doing the right thing.  It’s very accurate to the choices and reactions of most people we would label as “good” slaveowners, and in a lot of ways it made them more horrifying than the slaveowners who delighted in torturing their slaves.  The torturers were twisted and evil but they didn’t know any better.  The “good” slaveowners knew better and still did it anyway.

For decades there has been this idea (among White historians) that, even for those who accepted that there were no “good” slaveowners, White women whose families owned slaves could still be “good” slaveowners because they didn’t directly own slaves (married women not being allowed to own property) and were powerless to do anything to stop it.  A Black historian recently challenged this by showing that there were all SORTS of legal workarounds for this, and many married White women routinely owned their own slaves; many were given their first slave as a child and owning slaves was part of their identity.  In the places she’s studied, about 40% of slaveowners were women.  Interestingly enough, by comparing various primary sources by and about specific White women slaveowners, some of them seemed to be consciously creating the myth of a “good” slaveowner whose treatment of their slaves is a net benefit for the slave.  These women she’s pretty sure, knew that was false, but they wanted to be seen that way.  They know it’s purely selfish, but they want to be seen as altruistic.  So they lie.

The ask suggested a “good” slaveowner who freed their slaves and let them do whatever as cover.  The thing is, someone who frees slaves is, by definition, NOT a slave owner.  They are not maintaining power over any person. They are not benefiting or profiting from owning people in any way, shape, or form.  The idea that they could then pretend to be a slaveowner and use the privilege it gives them in order to cover for the actions of escaping slaves is bogus.  There is no way to maintain a position of power in a slave society without participating in enslavement.  Why?  Because the other slaveowners will notice if all your slaves disappear.  And they will not be happy.  And they will, at best, exclude you and not trust you.  If you free your slaves, you lose all status.  Unless, what, you free them and they keep working for you as cover for being a stop on the underground railroad?  There's easier and cheaper ways of setting up stops that don't involve formerly enslaved people having to act like slaves.  Can you imagine what that would be like?  You could not really be free, not inside your head, because you would have to keep playing that part.  It would be incredibly corrosive to the psyche of both "slave" and "master."  Because when we repeatedly do or say something, our brains incorporate that as right or good or natural even when we know better.  That's how brainwashing works.  If you repeat a lie often enough, even knowing that it is a lie, you begin to believe in it.  Formerly enslaved people setting up ruses that involve pretending to be enslaved for a brief mission is one thing.  A former master setting up something where the formerly enslaved people have to re-enact their enslavement ... yikes.

If we were talking about a real-life situation, would it be possible for it to happen in a way that was not bad?  Maybe for short temporary skirmishes into slaveowner society.  But given how much racism is wrapped up in the “good slaveowner” myth in American society, how much we cling to that myth and how much damage it does to real black people here and now, this is not a story we should be telling.  If a Black person wanted to write that story, okay, fine.  I highly doubt any would, because like Fia said earlier, Black people really do not tell stories of “good” slaveowners.  But in the here-and-now, given how much racism is wrapped up in the myth of the “good” slaveowner, I guarantee you that any White person trying to write such a story--even set in a fictional universe like Star Wars!--there’s pretty much no way for a White person to tell that story in a way that doesn’t reinforce current-day racism and slavery justifications.  And that goes for pretty much any story set in any fantasy, SFF, or alternate universe where slavery is present.  Not all slaveowners have to be mustache-twirling villains.  You can do complex things with them and relative moral states.  But if you ever start thinking of any of them as “good” stop right there and take a step back and take a good, hard look at what you’re doing.

OP also suggested a master being “good” for selling all their slaves, which they later realized was a stupid thing to say.  I’m glad they realized it, but I’d still like to address it.  "Oh, poor me, I have realized that it is wrong to treat people like property!  Boo-hoo!  I cannot own them any longer!  But if I free them, I will lose money and status!  So I will sell them to other people!  They're still slaves, but I'M such a good person because I have realized it's wrong to own people and now I don't any more!"  The slaveowner realizes that slavery is wrong and SELLS their slaves instead of FREEING them.  That does not make them a good person, that makes them a selfish person more concerned with feeling good about themself than actually doing something to reduce the harm they are causing.  This is a common thing humans do; “I don’t want to feel bad about having done this bad thing, so I’ll stop doing it in the way that has the least consequences for me, even if that screws over the people I’ve already screwed over.”  And it’s far more likely in situations where we think, consciously or subconsciously, that the people they screwed over are not their equals or not really people or don’t really matter.  When we realize we have hurt people we are biased against, we are often more concerned with salving our conscience than restoring the wrong we did.  This sort of conscience-salving is not the same as actually doing good, and it’s something we should all be on the lookout for in ourselves.  It can be very effective in a fictional character, as long as you don’t buy into the character’s self-justifying BS.

Please don’t dogpile the OP or abuse them.  I’m pretty sure it’s just a Clueless White Person who’s heard the story of Good Slaveowners all their life and bought into it.  Correction is one thing; dogpiling is another.

#slavery #racism

[forceprojecdin]

Mortis Explained (In Star Wars Rebels & The Clone Wars)

SPOILERS about Rebels season 4 ahead.  “Ezra, it’s art, everything has a meaning.” -Sabine Wren. Rebels season 4, ‘Wolves & A Door.’  Before I begin, keep this quote in mind. Nothing done in these episodes is an accident. Every detail is utterly and completely intentional. They just told you so. This post will be an ever expanding explanation of all things Mortis, as seen in Star Wars Rebels and The Clone Wars. Hopefully, this might aid some people in a fuller understanding. The Clone Wars ‘Mortis Trilogy’ (season 3) was essentially George Lucas explaining in greater detail, what The Force is to him, and now by extension, his Padawan Dave Filoni. I even see a lot of this in The Last Jedi (but that’s another blog!) As Joseph Campbell writes: “It will always be one, shape-shifting yet marvelously constant story that we find, together with a challengingly persistent suggestion of more remaining to be experienced than will ever be known or told... It would not be too much to say that myth is the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestation.” The Mortis stuff (even the Yoda arc. TCW season 6 etc ) is the attempt to further express these inexhaustible energies. Before I go further, we need to understand the true purpose of all this stuff through the lens of Joseph Campbell. and we need to see through it translucently. As Campbell noted, “The problem of the theologian is to keep the symbols translucent, so that it may not block out the light it is supposed to convey.” What needs to be cleared from the lens is the view that Mortis could be anything other than what spirituality has always been in mythology through the ages: an attempt for the hero to return and show us that all is One. That all physical life in space and time is actually literally one with the spirit realm. This is what Campbell was on about and by extension (as it is more that well documented), this is what George Lucas was intentionally on about, in directly translating Campbell’s ideas to screen. The truth is that SW conveys spiritual ideas of the world – the ones that all the spiritual teachers have spoken of through time - SW does not make up its own spirituality. So to understand Mortis, one must understand Campbell’s view on spirituality in myth, more than Star Wars. Finally we need to understand what Campbell was telling us about the symbols. Their importance is not in the literal meaning, but in how they seem to magically transport us to the other world. They have always been used to this great effect in Star Wars. I.e. It is not so important to literally understand who The Father, Son and Daughter are in Mortis episodes, as it is to feel the “tone” that they bring through a common “Trinity” archetype, like The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, or Thought, Word & Action, or Body, Mind and soul, etc. Now, let's get started! The Two Kingdoms Are Actually One Let’s start with this George Lucas quote and then compare it to one of Campbell’s: “The role of the artist is to find the common threads that make all people one.“ In contemplating this quote, we begin to see that Lucas was making his intent very apparent. Yes, this is totally in line with everything Campbell was saying in his work. The mission could not be more clear! Compare to Campbell: “And here is a great key to the understanding of myth and symbol – the two kingdoms are actually one… and the exploration of that dimension, either willingly or unwillingly, is the whole sense of the deed of the hero.” Simply watch the Mortis stuff with that quote in mind - the two kingdoms (i.e Heaven and Earth) are actually one - and you will begin to notice your awareness of its metaphors telling you something. As the character of The Father said, “What happens here (on Mortis) will happen in your universe.” This may seem like something mysterious and bewildering, but it is in fact something that is actually quite utterly clear; he two kingdoms are actually one. This is why in The Clone Wars season 3 Blu Ray special features, director Dave Filoni said that he would not explain” Mortis - because it would rob the viewer of their ability to understand the metaphors. That is the purpose of this blog post, to uncover the language of the symbols. Which Star Wars did not make up, it is using, and always has used, the tried tested and true one. We finally see more of a conclusion to the “Mortis Trilogy” episodes, in Star Wars Rebels season 4, titled ‘Wolves And A Door’ and ‘A World Between Worlds.’ And wow what a conclusion! Everything that has been given so much more clarity. As I had been speculating, it is fully apparent now that Ezra Bridger’s last name was chosen to symbolize that he was to be a “bridger” between the Two Worlds. In the latter episode, Ezra comes to “understand” the Mortis mural on Lothol’s Jedi Temple, and thereby is able to walk through to the spirit realm. Interesting to note that religious art in cultures all over the world has always been thought of as a “window” as such, by the devout. In the Easter Orthodix Christian tradition, their painting are literally thought of as “Icons”  that mysteriously actually transport one to the oether realm (like this famous Holy Trinity Icon by Russian Iconographer Andre Rublev). Here is a screenshot of the mural. Anyhow, once there, Ezra walks along pathways encountering many circle shapes, which turn out to be actual windows through time (more on that later), but here is my instagram post and screenshot of the circles.  They are essentially a symbol for wholeness of the universe, and even the cyclical nature of time. Noted concept artist and Star Wars commentator Paul Bateman shared this Taost view on the circle symbol, on a post of mine on facebook. Paul commented, “It's all in the Tao - or Enso if you prefer. Microcosm to macrocosm, from the atoms to the spiral arms... it's all circles my friend from the womb to the tomb. The nothing and the all.” The microsom of the macrocosm is inside us all. Oh, it should be noted that Ezra Bridger was also walking across bridges to get to the circles. “Bridger.” Bridging the Two Worlds.  The Great Deed Of The Supreme Hero After a careful re-reading of the The Hero With A Thousand Faces, I noticed Campbell was saying (repeatedly to make a point) that the hero’s great deed is essentially that he/she discovers that everything in life and the universe is one, that there is literally no separation between oneself, the cosmos and the spirit realm. He wrote, “The great deed of the supreme hero is to come to the knowledge of this unity in multiplicity and then to make it known.”   Anyhow, Campbell adds the modern psychoanalytical side: that unconscious is also where we find the symbols and that other realm. Therefor, the Mortis trilogy starts with Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Ahsoka fall asleep into the dream world, the unconsciousness. In the Jungian psychoanalytical view, we enter this other world symbolically through dreams.  Once there, there our three heroes find they are one with dark and light (Son and Daughter) and even other ‘dead’ beings like Qui-Gon Jinn, who says “I am here because you are here.” This statement could actually not be any more unambiguous; when all is one, you are connected to everyone everywhere, whether “dead“ or alive, simply because you exist. Again, the physical, spirit and unconscious realms are literally one.  Anakin even sees a vision of himself as the future Vader. Even time is one, meaning time all happens at once. More will be said later on the nature of time in a universe where there actually is no such thing as time. For now, let’s quote Campbell, “What is understood is that time and eternity are two aspects of the same experience-whole, two planes of the nondual ineffable.”    In Rebels episode ‘Dume’ (s.4 ep. 11) the Wolf tells Ezra his name is “Dume.” This could also not be more clear, in this sprit realm that Exra has been transported to, Kanan (Caleb Dume) and the wolf are one and the same, and the oneness of Kanan, the wolf and the entire universe is already and always inside us. Here is another Campbell quote to clarify even more: “And so it is that the cosmic symbols are presented in a spirit of thought bewildering sublime paradox. The kingdom of God is within, yet without.” That bewildering sublime paradox, of The Force being both within you, yet also everywhere outside you, is Mortis, as Mortis itself is both within our heroes and without them. It is an apt metaphor of the microcosm and the macrocosm. I can’t think of two better words than bewildering and sublime to encapsulate Mortis!  We Are The Light And The Dark George Lucas’ explained this stuff to The Clone Wars writing team, available as an easter egg special feature in the saga Blu Ray set: “We have a selfish side and a selfless side, when those two are kept in balance, we can do a lot of good.” I paraphrased a little, but I’ll watch this feature again sometime soon to get the exact wording. That’s the scene where Anakin tames the Son (Dark) and Daughter (Light). It’s that simple. Even the Dark and Light sides are one. The obvious lesson here from Lucas (and all the mystics through time) is that if we repress our dark side, and pretend it is not there, it will grow uncontrollably and take us over, to a point of imbalance.  Campbell explains the wholeness of these sides with the Taoist view: ‘Yang, the light, active, masculine principle, and Yin, the dark, passive, and feminine, in their interaction underlie and constitute the whole world of forms… They proceed from and together make manifest Tao.” By acknowledging the existence of our dark sides, we can understand and see clearly what we do not want to chose. We can begin to chose more selfless actions, and thereby live more fully in the light. The Eternal Moment Finally, a heavy idea and concept idea finally explained more fully in the recent Star Wars Rebels‘Mortis episodes, is the idea of time and space and how it relates to the galaxy and the ‘Cosmic Force’ in Star Wars. Today’s New Spirituality has admirably attempted to expand it’s understanding alongside science, with a concept that is sometimes called The Eternal Moment, where everything is happening all at once. Where even time and space are one! Walking around that circle, as the Wolves do in the Rebels episode ‘A World Between Worlds,’ would be the ultimate symbol for that, as there really is no begging point nor end to time. I’m no scientist, but the basic understanding of modern science is that there is no such thing as time, and I understand that basic premise. Some teachers and gurus in modern spirituality, also call it a “Divine Dichotomy.” If time is happening all at once, one would assume the future is written, so how could one have free will? The simple answer can be found in the idea of multiple parallel universes. We experience our differing chosen fates on different planes of existence, simultaneously. You might be saying “rubbish”, that’s okay, just follow me a little further here. The important thing here in mythology is not whether this is true or not, the important thing is that the symbols and metaphors of myth evolve and continue to attempt to express the insights of it’s time. I commend Star Wars creators for continuing to follow George Lucas’ intentions in doing this! The Daughter expressed this to Anakin on Mortis, “I am the beginning, the middle, and the end.” So basically, in the Rebels season 4 episode ‘A World Between Worlds’, Ezra peers through one of the circles (a window through time and space) to save Ahsoka from being killed by Vader on Malacor in the Rebels season 2 finale. This is also insight into “The victory for all time” that Yoda spoke of in the very last episode of The Clone Wars - the victory of all time is to exist all the time! But I digress. The knowledge that Ezra gains here is that he needs to learn from Kanan’s final act, to also selflessly let go of his attachments - and further, to accept the will and intentions of others. Ahsoka explains this to him, as she herself choses to return (travelling through time) back to her “decent” into the temple on Malacor. Finally, this now further clarifies why The Father made Anakin forget his vision of his future as Vader on Mortis in The Clone Wars season 3 episode. Anakin sees but one of his possible futures, but he needs to forget if, if he is to have true free will, when the moment comes for him to chose. Interesting that they have The Father touch Anakin’s Third Eye as he makes Anakin forget, using Hindu symbolism. Oh! By the way, this is also why when Anakin, Ahsoka nd Obi-Wan wake up from their Mortis “sleep”, it only registered as an instant in time. Just another Eternal Moment! Your Focus Determines Your Reality (Even In The Other Dimensions) Other concepts in modern spirituality heavily focus on thought as manifestation of reality. This is something I am convinced that George Lucas was studying heavily between his two trilogies (see my final note in this blog for recommendations of who to start checking out). Qui-Gon Jinn’s quote from The Phantom Menace defines what I have come to believe was Lucas’ key artistic statement regarding spirituality in the Prequels, “Your focus determines your reality.” This is essentially what Anakin did, he focused on Padme’s death, and that focus made that his reality. He killed her. He created this fate through thought. Dave Filoni further explained how this works even faster in the Cosmic Force. He explained: “You have to be careful when you’re moving through these big powerful dimensions and what you’re wishing for. Everything he [Ezra] wishes for, out loud, is a dangerous thing to do. If you watch and listen when Ezra talks and he makes certain statements, there’ll be a thunder clap, and that thunder is representative of something else listening.” The time between what you think and what is created is instantaneous, like thunder. Thought is creation. Or as more commonly heard in the Western religion, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was made flesh." Through this lens we even begin to understand other quotes from the Mortis Trilogy. When Qui-Gon responds to Obi-Wan, “I am here because you are here”,  we see that it's because the two worlds are actually one, and everyone is always already connected to everyone else - even through the oness of space and time. It just takes a willingness to be aware of that. Or it takes  being a Jedi who’s awareness is more honed, while also on a specially connected nd Force strong place like Mortis or Lothol.  The Mortis Mural As a Fine Art college grad and someone who apprenticed with an Eastern Orthodox “Iconographer” for many years, I was struck by how on point the Mortis mural on Lothol was. It reminded me most of this famous Eastern Russian Orthodox "Icon" by Rublev. Especially with use of hand gestures and the way the Daughter turns and bows her head to the central figure. This bog is getting long, so for brevity I’ll just say that the basic concept of “Icons” are that they are actual windows to heaven. Not painting but actual doors. So the Mortis mural pays homage to these iconic “Trinity” paintings, and uses the symbolism most appropriately. The Two Worlds Are Actually One.  I love that they keep telegraphing what they are doing by using key words that clearly and utterly indicate what language they are doing. Another moment like this, is when the Trandoshan worker say’s, “Lord Hydan, we have discovered more symbols. Symbols. Another word Campbell repeats to ne end. Sabine even say’s that the mural is a “language,” and calls the Father, Son and Daughter, “Archetypes”. It’s a language of “archetypes” and “symbols”. That’s Campbell. That’s the power of Myth, That much should be totally and completely clear by now! The Message Continues In Rebels, &The Sequel Trilogy So, even though the answers were there all along in symbol and metaphoric language, we now have more clarity on the Lothol Wolves, the Owl and Ahsoka. Ahsoka basically expresses that the Owl is another manifestion of The Daughter in who once helped her to survive. The Wolf is clarified as a manifestation in The Force of the “will” of Caleb “Kanan” Dume. Now that we know time is a circle, happening all at once, we see why Caleb Dume appeared to our characters even before Kanan had died! The Eternal Moment. This is great mind blowing stuff! Star Wars is so concisely expressing some of the heaviest concepts of spirituality and the universe. We see that dialogue has been obviously happening between Dave Filoni and the creators of the Sequel Trilogy. There are endless ties to cite that show this, like the Ying / Yan mural on Mortis to the one in the cave pool on Ahch-To, but I’ll stop there or this blog will go on forever. Dave Filoni is obviously Lucas’ Padawan with this stuff, for now I’ll just start with something Filoni said in the Rebels Recon episode on the season 4 episode ‘Jedi Night.’  "I could just see his (Kanan's) eyes, that's a moment where he could see here (Hera). In this moment, because he's in this point where he's this kind of energy, where he's about to die, where he's more one with everything than he's ever been, he'd have this moment of clarity, where things like physical sight just doesn't matter." Again, actual literal oneness between the physical and spiritual realm.  The title of Rebel episode ‘A World Between Worlds‘ is literally a riff on what Joseph Campbell repeatedly said is the great “deed” done by every hero in mythology, they return from their hero’s journey to show that “the two kingdoms are actually one.” Ezra has now returned from his bridge just in time for the series finale! We will see him return, like all heroes, to bring the treasure of “One final lesson” - to make his community one and whole again. The circle is now complete. 

Photo: Anakin was “chosen” to be whole with himself, everyone else, and the entire universe, by balancing his light and dark sides. As is Ezra. As we all are too. *  *  * Here are  few of my related blogs on this theme: A blog on a spiritual phrase used often in The Clone Wars - “Who You Really Are.”  This is an essay on Ahsoka’s fate in the Rebels season 2 episode finale. A blog about Luke Skywalker’s Buddha and Jesus-like hero’s journey in The Last Jedi. * All Joseph Campbell quotes are taken from his classic book, The Hero With A Thousand Faces.  If you truly enjoy this stuff, please check out Joseph Campbell as a starting point for these concepts in traditional world religions and mythologies.. If you are intrigued by how modern spiritual teachers speak of this stuff, please check out the writings of Neale Donald Walsch, Eckhart Tolle and Wayne Dyer to name but a few. Try some of the great poets like Kahlil Gibran, or even a great speaker like Alan Watts. They are all saying the same thing.  But remember, these new teachers are only expanding on the core messages of the mystics through the ages, in all mythologies and spiritualties!

#mortis #star wars rebels #the clone wars #dave filoni #george lucas #the force #spirituality #joseph campbell #the heros journey #the hero with a thousand faces #myth #mythology #lucasfilm

[argetcross]

Here a Witch, There a Witch

Witchhood, Celica’s Act 5 arc, and Treatment of Women in Echoes (aka several thousand words of musings. Coherency not guaranteed. Spoilers of course.)

I find the narrative choice of turning Celica into a witch who is then saved by the intervention of Mother Mila a really weirdly interesting one? 

First off, I skimmed the Gaiden script and this doesn't happen. This is probably the weakest part of the whole story for me in Echoes, and, in Gaiden, it's even more confusing.

Jedah: Alm's trapped in Dragon Mountain. You must want to save him.           If that's so, then follow after me.           If you offer yourselves as sacrifices to Lord Doma, Alm's path shall           also open up once more!

Witchhood, the soul of a Branded child, Duma needing both Alm and Celica, all of that isn't spoken about, so it's not certain what exactly Jedah is doing all that time. So it's literally a game device to force you onto a linear Alm path. At the very least, turning Celica into a witch makes a bit more sense if you assume that there's some equal power exchange, which Jedah hints at. Celica's soul, her Brand, her magic, all are things valued by Duma, namely strength. Taking both Celica and Alm’s soul would restore Duma to a sanity and power he’s been lacking for ages. Okay, sure.

The idea of sacrificing your humanity for a love one is supposed to foil to Rinea and Berkut (and to a smaller extent, Jedah and his daughters, probably).  The idea of witchhood is so interesting because you get many different 'witches' in the game. You have those that chose the contract of their own accord (Nuibaba) and kind of exists outside of Jedah's faction. You have the witch sisters, which Sonya says it was Jedah's sacrifice to Duma that turned them to witches, but Jedah counters her, saying they offered up their souls willingly. You have Delthea who for all intents and purposes gets witch like powers when controlled by Tartarah. Finally you have Celica who, even after having her soul offered up to Duma unwillingly, is controlled but also is mentally present enough to tell Alm to kill her.

The idea of men sacrificing women for power is one that happens a lot in this game. The villains, Fernand, Berkut, Jedah, all destroy their relationships with women in their lives and women who reject notably megalomaniac men survive (Sonya, Mathilda). The masculine and feminine dichotomy of Duma and Mila is pretty slanted towards the Father who destroys and the Mother who gives life. This is echoed in the paternal relationships in Echoes (Rudolf + Alm, Lima + Celica) all being quite toxic ones while the maternal ones (Liprica + Celica is the most significant, Mother Mila being redeemed is another example) having positive connotations.

(Side Note: Given the eternal sleep of Duma, Sonya, no matter what her ending suggests, could not have become a witch by offering up her soul to Duma. The ending therefore, one could argue, is simply trying to demonstrate the futility of retrieving souls already sold, and Sonya could have easily taken up residence in Nuibaba's manor with ill rumors abound.)

(Second side note: The time when Alm is saved by Celica's pendant, notably that comes from Celica's mother as one of the gifts. Was it meant to protect Celica against the influence of witches? Lady Liprica did not want Celica to stand in front of Mila - did she fear Celica to lose her soul to not a god but a goddess? Was Celica's giving nature what allowed Alm to succeed even when he wasn't prepared for Duma's true might, possibly crippling her own protection in the self-sacrificial nature she had? The last one is almost certainly a yes.)

You also have quite a bit of 'liberation' through the protagonist's part (Delthea, Mathilda, Celica) in contrast to the hordes of witches that you can't save due to their lost souls to Duma. So why can you save who you can save?

Berkut and Rinea are easily understood. Berkut volunteered himself up to Duma, Rinea, being sacrificed but also unwilling to leave Berkut's side, is unable to be redeemed. Simple enough.

Delthea is controlled not by Duma but by Tartarah and notably against her will. Upon killing Tartarah, she's freed - so attempts to create witches can be thwarted through destroying the arcanist controller. Also- the soul didn't actually get to Duma in this case. Nuibaba did not actually sell her soul to Duma. Her contract was with Medusa and she's referred to as an arcanist despite her witch class.

Marla and Hestia - it's hard to tell if you can believe either Sonya or Jedah's story as the total truth. They were almost certainly coerced on some level, but Hestia mentions that she should have lived her life freely like Sonya. Again, a scrap of her own personality and some hint at a decision she made? It's hard to tell, but it's likely we couldn't save them because again, there was something in their process of becoming a witch they couldn't recover from. Did they make that decision out of their own lust for power? It’s likely.

Now to Celica, the strangest of the potential witches, not only does she get her soul returned to her- it's through stabbing her with the Kingsfang/the Falchion. She gets her soul returned to her despite Jedah being convinced her soul is already devoured. How on earth does Mila have Celica’s soul if Duma has taken it?

Well game logic suggests that by killing Celica, Duma loses her soul. You see this with Berkut and Rinea, in death, they are freed from Duma’s control. Suddenly, Hestia’s last words make sense. Duma’s not all-powerful. 

In the same vein, Mila finally gets over her fear of selling out her brother. Of note, Duma never used the Kingsfang on Mila and Mila never took an advantage to kill her brother. They fought bitterly but they also, like overgrown siblings, never wanted to kill each other. They were, in some ways, too proud and far more concerned with their own interests rather than those of humans’. 

So maybe from this viewpoint, it makes sense how Celica’s self-sacrifice spurs Mila into finally releasing her seal on Falchion and entrusting her brother’s fate to someone who was able to do something she could never bring herself to do - trust in her opposite and sacrifice each other for the greater good. 

Of note, in Gaiden, instead of the witch dialogue, you get this:

Cellica:   It won't work. Judah possesses some mysterious power that's           obstructing all our attacks.           Besides, countless Bigles keep coming to entangle us. We can't even           move anymore.           We're probably already done for...           Sorry, Alm.           I wasn't able to do anything for you after all.           I've had a strange premonition...           A feeling that something terrible will happen to you...           That's why I came this far on a quest to rescue Mila...           That's why, until then, I didn't want you to fight.           Because of that... I acted so cold. I'm sorry... The truth is, I've           always...

This is after the crypt. I mean logically, this is because the game wants you to play as Alm as the hero and Celica now steps into a role similar to Zelda in TP - both a maiden to be saved as well as the wise queenly character to aid the hero. What's interesting is Echoes actually plays up Celica's self-sacrificial nature and her inherent importance, because of the part about giving up her soul. Gaiden's Celica actually makes less sense - she has no plan, she is just feeling defeated and like she failed Alm. Even if Echoes Celica makes a bad decision, she's takes action that makes a lot of sense for Celica at this moment - that is, a Celica abandoned by her goddess and used to bearing a lot of survivor guilt about her existence as princess.

For comparison, the Echoes dialogue goes:

Celica: Back on the island, I had a dream. A dream where something terrible happened to you. So I decided to petition Mila for the strength to protect you. Yet for all my travels, you’ve still faced terrible danger. And you were even forced to end your own father’s life. …I’d seen it all. I knew it was coming, but I couldn’t change a thing. I failed to keep you safe, Alm! Alm: That’s not… Celica, none of what’s happened is your fault. You’re not to blame for any of it! Celica: But I won’t lose you… I won’t let any of you die! I don’t want you to fight Duma. I don’t want anyone to be hurt or killed. That’s my only desire in this life.

Why did Celica believe Jedah? A lot of people kind of groaned when she bargained with Jedah, but I think, stepping back for a moment, looking at how Celica views the gods is important. Even if she doesn't agree with Duma, she still reveres him. Her ending dialogue with Duma is pretty much that. She recognizes what he did for Valentia but seeks to free him from his madness. However, at the beginning, she believed if the gods were lost, the land would become barren and humankind would surely die. She's not at Duma tower to kill gods, she's at Duma tower to retrieve a god and restate the natural order of Valentia. Celica, who was looking for Mila in order to circumvent the sufferings and the destruction of humanity, of course would turn herself into the problem. It's not that she trusted Jedah, but I think Celica at this point had been coping with a vast body of knowledge and pressure about the gods and their effect on the world that Alm never really considered. She makes a hard decision in absence of her own faith and confidence, in her eyes, a choice that would protect everyone.

The problem is Rudolf, in moving against the Duma Faithful, has already broken the Accord and set in motion events that means Celica's mission is a failure. The gods HAVE forsaken her. Mila notably doesn't come to her senses until the two branded children are about to kill each other in front of her. (Honestly, I think the Fire Emblem team has a small fetish for stabbing your loved ones, especially under possession. Awakening flashbacks anyone?)

Celica upon seeing Mila in stone, has a crisis of faith essentially stalls her entire arc. Is this weak writing? Yeah, it really is. Celica’s arc lacks its personal climax. Alm has his Rigelian heritage and Berkut on top of this. Celica’s arc gets absorbed into Alm’s. Celica needed something else to restore her faith in herself, especially after her mental surrender. 

Is the answer faith in loved ones? Partially. That part is already in the game though.

Celica: I do. It’s as Mila said… We’ve had the strength to live and fight for our world this whole time. I lost faith in that somewhere along the way… But right now, it seems the most obvious thing in the world. I trust in mankind like I trust in you, Alm. Absolutely, and without hesitation.

The issue I think that would resolve this best would be actually in how they handle Mila. What would have strengthened Celica's final decision would be Mila reaching out to Celica rather than Alm, acknowledging how it was Celica that uncovered the mystery of where she was, came all the way to save her with her own, very human powers. That her journey to Mila gave her a greater wisdom and understanding of the relationships between gods and men that Alm couldn’t have known. 

Isn't that a kind of strength even the gods couldn't predict?

#fe15 spoilers #fe echoes #celica #alm #mila #fe gaiden #arget rambles #my meta #duma #what even is this #feel free to talk to me about this #as much as I love this game #and the emotional arc was super punchy #I think the way they handled this was just #good bad weird and yet still emotional #so who even knows what's going on #maybe I just need to write fanfic or something

[wesingingstigmata-blog]

On the tail of the international 'Woman's March', I post this. Again, this was commissioned. Then rejected. Which is all good. But doesn't matter how many platforms reject my writing for whatever reason. This shit needs to be said.

BORN BEYOND THE REEF: Identity, Autonomy and Being Policed in Public Spaces.

This year on Saturday the 7th of January, I was told by two security guards (one male and one female), to leave the New Lynn Public Transport Centre’s waiting area on the grounds that I looked 'indecent'.

[Disclaimer: Even though its not relevant, it was a hot Auckland summer’s day and I had just come from the gym (the way I was sweating could rival a waterfall). And just in case you were wondering, I was wearing a beige cap, a beige triangle-shape sports bra that showed no cleavage whatsoever,high waisted beige underwear that went up to my ribs, a long black dress shirt tied around my waist, men's size black basketball shorts, army boots, and a big black bag on my shoulder. Anyone that knows me will know that this is a ‘tame’ version of how I can dress. But what is important to remember is that I can wear whatever I want, and I will never apologise for it.]

So before I was told to leave, I was sitting in the waiting area because it is a designated 'safe space’, as the New Lynn public transport area is notorious for being having potentially dangerous people walking around at times. I spent a lot of time around New Lynn as a high school student, so I knew this area like the back of my hand. I had always felt incredibly comfortable here. Like most days, I frequent the New Lynn Public Transport Centre before heading into the city. But unlike most days, I was confronted by these two security guards while waiting for my train. They approached me immediately after I had sat down, and this ensued:

- I was told that I ‘can’t sit in here looking like that’. - I was told how I was dressed was 'against the law'. - The security guards argued that I was 'only wearing a bra', as I was being stared at like I was a prostitute or the child of Lucifer (either of which I don't really mind but I still consider inappropriate from strangers). - I was told that unless I put my coat on, which was a men’s heavy XL suit jacket, I had to leave the area. - I was told that I am not allowed to dress this way here, after I said proudly that ‘I can wear whatever the fuck I want’. - It was also explained to me that they 'don't let shirtless men in that area so why should they let me sit there looking like that'.

And what gutted me the most was that I was told all of this by a fellow Pacific Island woman. They then called their supervisor. During most of this exchange I was shifting between being entirely confused, offended and saddened, and I met most of their argument with responses like ‘But I don’t understand?’, ‘What do you mean?’, ‘You can’t tell me to leave’, ‘There is nothing wrong with the way I dress’, ‘I can wear whatever the fuck I want’, and ‘This is bullshit’. After I argued with them for about 10 minutes I left, stating that I was going to complain. The female security guard then said to me, "Well do it, we have you on camera.” Which I was completely confused by because what had I been captured doing? Sitting in a waiting area and being hassled by security guards for no reason? This felt like some sort of weak threat. But that is exactly how I left the waiting area feeling: threatened. And as the anger slowly drained out of me, I was left with a feeling that I had known for a long time: being the other.

And here is a bonus fact: this is not the first time this has happened to me. Last year, I was told to leave Denny's Restaurant in the city because 'it was a family restaurant’ and how I looked wasn’t acceptable. I was then told to put clothes on or leave. (I was wearing a black sports bra and black high waisted baggy pants and boots).

When events like this happen to me, it always manifests into something more than what it appears. This is not a one-off moment. This is a prevailing attitude and system that I encounter daily in many different ways. This is a prevailing attitude that many of my friends and peers in different communities encounter daily in many different ways. But for the most part, I do not feel hurt or concerned for MY own safety or well-being in the way that you may think. With this event, I read more into what was not overtly stated, and I reflect on the context of the attitudes I was challenged with here. And even though my experience is valid and necessary to the global conversation, I feel more anxious about the experiences of others who do not have some of the privileges I have inherited, and who might not come out of those situations as safely as I did.

This may seem unrelated at first, but follow me here: As a mixed-race woman of the Moana living in Aotearoa, New Zealand, aka ‘Beyond the Reef’. I am already a daughter of diaspora, so I have inherited an internal conflict. I have always seen myself as a body of warnings for an environment that does not know how to translate me. And for the most part, I have spent a lot of my time as a young woman silently begging for forgiveness from anything, or anyone, that in my eyes embodied my fantasy idea of the Pacific better than I did. Which they usually did. For some reason, I was begging for forgiveness for an act I that I wasn’t completely sure I had committed, and I was craving a sense of belonging to house that I wasn’t completely sure had ever been built. But when you have already been born ‘beyond the reef’, you spend most of your childhood re-creating what you think might be inside the reef - you recreate your island, or home, within your own body. You do this because your brown skin is all the proof you have that the Moana knows you, and at that point it’s all you have got to navigate your way back. Through self-expression and accumulated identity you have taught yourself a new identity, a new tongue, which is a pretty amazing feat. Your new language makes sense to you. But the thing is, it won’t always make sense to everyone else. And most days this is proven to me.

So as I write this, I am thinking about those who identify as women of colour. I am thinking about my sisters of the Pacific. I am thinking about the overwhelming forces of tradition, religion and elders in the South Pacific. I am thinking about this undercurrent of conservatism creeping into my house. I am thinking about the gods that were present before ‘the’ God. I am thinking about the way we consume brown bodies and how media barely portrays us as whole beings. I am thinking about the movie ‘Moana’ and what truly lies for her ‘beyond the reef’. I am thinking about the fantasy of the South Pacific. I am thinking about how the world is reflected as a woman’s body. I am thinking about my sisters. I am thinking about belonging in the midst of rejection. I am thinking about how I have had to be my own elder for a long time. And I am always thinking about trying to lead by example.

The incident in the New Lynn Public Transport Centre is unacceptable and shouldn’t have to happen to anyone. There is something to be said about one person feeling they have the authority to police the physical appearance of another in a public space. It is humiliating and exposing. But there is something even deeper to be said about it being members of the same community. How we are publicly and privately engaging with each other’s bodies, but especially the bodies and lives of our daughters, sisters, friends, mothers and grandmothers? What is the present, historical and future context of our bodies? Do we share any of the same stories with our mothers anymore? Are we coming from a place of love, complexity and patience? Are we projecting a learnt shame onto one another? Who taught us this shame? Is this what lies for our daughters beyond the reef?

Whether we like to acknowledge it or not, in New Zealand we live in a nation that feeds on hyper-masculinity and champions an archaic idea of strength through ownership and control. The sexual assault cases that make the news are too consistent to be comfortable with, and the ones that don’t make the news are too horrific to even mention in everyday conversation. The spectrum of sexuality we use is limited, learnt and monitored through the media, ourselves and our own elders, and differs from community to community. The ‘code’ and ‘rules’ you must learn as a young person is overwhelming. To walk in the world hand in hand with the fear of bring raped or harassed has always been deeply disturbing. Our general culture of shame that we religiously perpetuate amongst each other through daily micro-aggressions is complex and relentless. Don’t believe me? Talk to young people. Talk to young women. Talk to older women. Talk to indigenous/pacific/immigrant/LGBTQI communities. Check our suicide states. This is us.

So here is where I shift the conversation. I don’t speak for everyone and I don’t assume I do. I speak with those that resonate with me and I don’t intend to end this as a critique on New Zealand’s relationship to it’s women, or any other community because there are plenty of well-written pieces on any of those topics. But the thing is, is that there is a responsibility I have, that we all have.

I am not worried about me. I am worried about the young women who are navigating these situations without the tenacity and thick skin I have accumulated in my journey so far. I am worried about young women who will absorb these experiences and let it hinder their growth or expression of themselves and their ever-evolving culture. So with this in mind, I leave the end of this piece as a love letter for my fellow sisters of the Moana, for those born beyond the reef, for those identifying as women of colour, for those who aren't recognised in society as women even though that is what you are, for those who are missing their homeland, for those who willingly or unwillingly fall into the ‘other’ and for those who are wanting to express themselves in multi-faceted ways without being shamed:

My sisters, I see you. And I get it. Do not apologise. You do not have muddy blood. It is known that one of the most dangerous transformations is when a woman begins to converse with the many women she holds within her form. This transition is when she begins to understand her own devastation and divinity simultaneously, and she learns to surrender to and master it. The most ‘dangerous’ woman is a woman fully aware of all the worlds within herself. A woman fully realised. And a woman fully realised, is a woman fully equipped. And my sister, you have everything you need. Some people won’t understand you, and that’s okay. You aren’t made for everyone. You are never too much. You are never lacking. You are always enough. You are the meeting grounds of the Pacific, of survivor’s guilt, and of the people of the Moana. Your body is a genealogy of resistance. Your body isn’t all of you, just an expression of you. Your body is every sign you have ever asked for. Your body is wonderful. Your body can be sexy. Your body doesn’t have to be sexy. Your body isn’t anyone else’s. Your body is complicated. Your body is your country. Your body is life, and must be respected. Your body knows your history and can see your future. Your body is the reef. Your body is loved. And YOU are loved beyond your body.

Now sis, your ancestors are speaking to you constantly whether you are fluent in your native tongue or not, because you are the your people’s most recent attempt at immortality. You have every right to be here. The dogs won’t bite harder than you will. The gods can’t scream louder than you can. Walk with pride and gratitude, and do not be afraid to challenge your environment. The world will never be prepared for you, but you must always prepare yourself for it. Knowing yourself is a life work, and there are people everywhere who are willing to help you with the load. Acknowledge those who have come before you and prepare the way for those on your heels waiting to be born. And on the days you feel alone, remind yourself how hard you have been fought for.

And never forget: You can wear whatever the FUCK you want. Because Jahra said so.

#beyondthereef #imstartingawomenscircle #andprobablyacoven#hitmeupforapplications #letsfucksomeshitup Photography: Vocable / Jocelen Janon

#pacific #women #womans march #intersectionality #image #moana #woc #identity #body

[criticalthinkingbafayr2]

FVella Ba Fa 2nd yr Critical thinking essays

Entry 1

Schon’s reflective practice.

Donald Schon’s reflective practice is one that works in-action and on-action. In-action is when one is going to do something in response to what is happening and why ex. While attempting to mix together 2 components (plaster and water) to make a mould. I notice that its forming too slowly so in response I added more plaster to solidify the mixture and why did I do this, because from previous experience I know that I might have mixed the wrong amounts and, so I now would have to correct my error by adding or else just leave as it is and start again for the next time (Meierdirk.C,2017)

This is where the on-action would occur as now what would one think after and reflect on after the event has been done. One would see how he/she could do better and continue on how they would improve themselves. As for me I would’ve hopefully learned from my mistakes and by later asking for advice on how I could’ve done it better (by for example, having mixed the parts correctly in the first place) I would have better results in the future. (Gaynor.A,2013.)

Clearly, it’s a practice that is used and should be used on the daily by many, even in the most simple and mundane situations. All can be improved upon by simply thinking and reflecting on whatever it is you’re doing or have previously done. And not just ignoring the at times simple facts and doing nothing to improve themselves even after one has done and has seen the results of their actions.

 References

Charlotte Meierdirk, 2017. Schon's Reflective Practice. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzjz-l8L1lc> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

Gaynor, A., 2013. Reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. [online] Hhs.hud.ac.uk. Available at: <https://hhs.hud.ac.uk/lqsu/Sessionsforall/supp/Sch%C3%B6n%20reflection-in%20and%20-on%20action.pdf> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

Mark K. Smith, 2005. Donald Schon (Sch�n) - learning, reflection and change. [online] Dsmgt310.faculty.ku.edu. Available at: <http://dsmgt310.faculty.ku.edu/AdditionalMaterial/Donald%20Schon%20-%20learning,%20reflection%20and%20change.htm> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

  Entry 2

Arts and Crafts vs fine art are they both really art.

Arts and crafts and Fine arts both involve skill and thought, yet can have both or neither at the same time.

An example is a nicely made mass produced urinal being sold in a home improvement store and the same urinal placed on a pedestal in a museum. Are they the same or does the context give the piece it value and worth? Is it the meaning that gives it the title of an art piece or is it the execution as long as its supported by a deeper meaning? Then what about art for art sake, going back to the urinal like with Marcel Duchamp’s ‘’Fountain’’ and the Dadaists who created for the sake of creating which was is what a lot of people do, but because they have no name they get disregarded as arts and crafts at best or simply trying to be pretentious (Green.S,2017.)  

Does one have to be a devoted artist to create work or can one not be an artist and still create art works like Shia LaBeouf who mainly an actor but seems to unwillingly utilizes his fame to promote his pieces. Are they art because he got them out there or simply because he had the name behind him from another industry and utilised it for his other interest in this case fine arts and social commentary. But going back, Duchamp had already made a name for himself before exhibiting his ‘Fountain’ so that fact alone could be what made his work and art work and not some average person doing the same thing with nothing to back it up (Florczak,R.2014.)

I thought that all art is on an equal playing field but a common thing is where the average viewer thinks that some modern art piece is just trash trying to be pretentious to get attention. Then we show that same piece to art student or teacher who will tell you that that piece is so powerful and influential and could practically be called a masterpiece even though to the average viewer I might just seem as it had no thought put in it. Even if it did some might still just say that they could’ve done it themselves but the thing is, they didn’t.

 References

Paul Joseph Watson, 2016. The Truth About Modern Art. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

PragerU, 2014. Why is Modern Art so Bad?. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

The Art Assignment, 2017. Art or Prank? | The Art Assignment | PBS Digital Studios. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZlrHyzIwcI> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

The Art Assignment, 2015. I Could Do That | The Art Assignment | PBS Digital Studios. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

 Entry 3

Benefits and disadvantages of learning over the whole academic year.

In primary and secondary you get to learn or rather you are obliged by the law to learn/attend a wide array of subjects that by norm are considered as a basis for the rest of your life but only a handful of subjects truly can be utilized on the daily by the average Maltese citizen. Although by the government doing this way back, it did raise the nation’s level of intelligence and knowledge. But how the system is set up now, the person just jams as much information in their memories just to blurt them out on an exam at the end of the year and for the most part forget and never use them again (Brown.D.,2015.)

Having going to school engrained in our systems does develop a schedule and a habit of waking up early and not always allowing us to learn and do what we want with our time which would help when having a typical dead end desk job but what about those people that would like to stray from ending up like the majority, does he or she have to willingly stay in this system of jamming as much information to pass the tests and final examinations and getting their Masters and Phds (Tgsg,2017.)

Let’s say one is interested in music, art or drama he or she must learn all the other subjects they’re being thought in school which usually delve in depth that would be good if you’re continuing on the subject and profession but have no real use to someone who isn’t going to do that. This person has to go out of her way during their academic year to learn their preferred subject while still keeping up with schoolwork and homework.

Once again this can be good because if they decide they don’t want to continue on their previously preferred subject and have something to fall back to but what about the ones have to ditch the normal scholastic system (ex. 6th form, university) after secondary to continue on their ambitions as usually businesses like art, Music and drama which although do require study, more than that its based-on practice and the contacts you make in the business which are the things that makes you.

Have all the previous years been in vain or are they an necessary evil that is the standard of education that employs the average for the everyday jobs but what’s going to happen when that person wants to go further in life but can’t afford to stop working they’ll either have to do the same thing when they wanted to learn a subject that was not provided in school and do it in their free time but this is a luxury that not many can manage because just like school and work one would usually be too exhausted to do so.

 References

Boyinaband, 2015. Don't Stay in School. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xe6nLVXEC0> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

Pearson, A., 2017. Year-Round School Advantages & Disadvantages. [online] Education.seattlepi.com. Available at: <http://education.seattlepi.com/yearround-school-advantages-disadvantages-2521.html> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

The good schools guide, 2017. The advantages and disadvantages of homework | Good Schools Guide. [online] Good Schools Guide. Available at: <https://www.goodschools.com.au/insights/education-updates/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-homework> [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].

Entry 4

Morality In Art.

Art and morality seem to go hand in hand but this was not always the case as pieces of art that were usually skilfully done paintings and sculptures but only existed to be an immaculate rendition of the real life thing. Back then they were just considered to be a highly skilled craft rather than an art piece. Nowadays we call something an art piece when it’s more than just a skilfully done thing and typically has a deeper meaning. But just like with everything that’s not the case for everyone just like morality. What’s good and just for one might be bad and unjust for another (Manaraj,S,2012.)

It all depends on how one sees the world, through their individual concepts and experiences which determine what they see as good or bad. An example is spray-painting on street walls, it might be simply seen as vandalism and quite juvenile and at the same time it can be moving and powerful. As although the wall has been ‘defaced’ it has been given a new light which portrays a message that wouldn’t be as potent if it only was in a museum. Because in the street anyone and everyone one who will eventually pass, will see but with a gallery you have to voluntarily go out of your way to enter. The multiplicity of the piece makes and impact and a point even if one tries to ignore it, same as with having all those same repetitive posters for events and such on walls all around a city. A lot can dismiss it but if a lot of others give their time to read and/or appreciate it we have 2 truths. Something which is contradictory to most as typically there is only one truth but in reality, there are more than just one truth. An example is that one can show power by dressing up, but another shows their power by dressing down. Just because they get to an end point using different means it doesn’t mean that one of the ways is invalid it just means that not all of us experience and see the world the same (Miss Me,2016.)

With all this said morality is something that usually keeps one in check but if that person’s morals are beyond comprehensible to the majority that’s where the problems start as what do you do to a person who just went on a killing spree and murdered 8 people. At first glance one would probably look down upon him/her but what happens when one finds out that all the people that got murdered were killers themselves. Did he/she do the world a favour by getting rid of 8 killers and now we have a killer that killed with good intentions but will have to pay the consequences in jail. Or do we now a have a new cold-blooded killer in the world that has to go to jail just because the laws oblige us to do so. This is the dilemma with morality as it’s very objective and not completely set in stone as just like with everything it changes and evolves from a person to the other, a generation to the next.

 References

CrashCourse, 2016. Aesthetics: Crash Course Philosophy #31. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDL4Zf2yEa4> [Accessed 21 Dec. 2017].

Mangaraj, S., 2012. Essay on the connection between Art and Mortality. [online] Preservearticles.com. Available at: <http://www.preservearticles.com/201103284770/art-and-mortality.html> [Accessed 21 Dec. 2017].

TedX Talks, 2016. How a vandal's conception of morality will make you rethink society | MissMe | TEDxHECMontréal. [online] YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL0OBCmTc4o> [Accessed 21 Dec. 2017].

#f.v