#just superficial appeal to the things that certain fans want to see

[paperstarwriters]

*Sigh* Ok, ok, firstly, I just wanna know where the people who don't mind the culture shift, but also still don't really like the show are. Like — I actually really like the casting choice for The Addams They're really cool and I really like them. Personally, I'm particularly fond of Wednesday and Gomez but still.

I just… don’t really like some aspects of this remake. One being that the actors for Gomez and Morticia felt so...uncomfortable while performing. Like the 1991 & 1993 movies, Gomez and Morticia were so clearly and so fondly in love and were very comfortable with expressing that, with their over-dramatic expressions of love feeling very easily expressed and normal for them. Here, I don't think the actors were quite as comfortable in performing that kind of expression of love, which just kinda made their romantic interactions just uncomfortable to watch.

Also, it's disappointing that they kind of just... abandoned the murderous core of the Addams? Like, I understand that there may be more appeal in having the Addams keeping the torture to themselves rather than bestowing it onto unwilling victims, but I think it just feels a lot like... telling us that they enjoy torture and fighting rather than showing it. In all the scenes where we see them, the Addams seem so uncomfortable when it comes to causing or receiving torture or harm. They flinch at needing to kill someone, and yet they say that they revel in it? Gomez takes insult at being told he isn't a person capable for murder and yet as far as we know, he is?

It makes their whole torture ordeal seem like it's just for show which feels disappointing and sad. It just makes it feel like this show is trying to call the old 1991 Addams family fake. As if they too were only ever really putting on a show to impress or (more accurately) surprise people, which I just really, really hate. Originally, the Addams family felt like a group that cried out that you did not have to conform to the ideals of the people around you to be happy, which speaks a lot to queer communities and neurodivergent people—even people of color. By implying that they're just... faking being strange or odd, it just makes me feel like I'm attempting to exclude myself.

Thing, I think is practically their only indication for being odd or strange and yet he's often set aside, and just acts like a strange yet funny sidekick amidst these Addams. He kinda feels like the token character to remind the audience that these are the Addams who have very strange and murder-y things with them.

I think, largely the issue here is that we don't know these Addams. here, the Addams are an entirely new set of characters separated from the older 1991 and 1993 movies, but because of the opening with Wednesday and Wednesday's typical demeanor amidst the entire thing, I kinda felt like I was led to assume that it would comply with the older movies, only to be unpleasantly surprised.

I know they're trying to set up a huge mystery surrounding who the Addams are and how that's tied into this school and the town, but with the way the story is currently going, I feel like we may never know.

It feels like I'm reading an alternate universe (AU) fanfic where the characters are represented differently than in the original source material, but it is not readily obvious. Like sure, the setting is a little different, and their situation seemed to have changed a bit, but the story implies that it's the same characters who have lived through the same events as they did in the source material. While some people may be interested to witness or understand why this change exists, most people will feel like the characters are being OOC and will quickly abandon the story because they don't understand why their favorite characters are so different.

Because this story is so clearly different from the 1991 Addams family, the show probably should have established not only how and why the family was different but also how they are tied into the original Addams. They should have been introduced as if they were entirely new characters. Show what they're like when they're in their element. When they're killing and murdering or if not that, torturing and being tortured. If they don't kill, establish that. Maybe make a statement along the lines of, "Addams don't Kill, we don't want to cut their torture off short, do we Wednesday?" which would help us to better understand why Gomez and Morticia would react that way to a murder.

Idk, maybe I'm just biased because I liked the 1991 Addams family and the 1993 Addams family values movies, and because I know that version of the Addams family so well, I just can't appreciate this new iteration of them.

#wednesday netflix #addams family #the addams family #Not to mention how they seem to name-drop a lot of political issues in the show while never ever going any more in depth than that #Like it feels like they're just trying to score brownie points with people watching #trying to be as ''woke'' or ''politically correct'' as possible #like don't get me wrong #many of the issues discussed are important and do need to be discussed #but there is no discussion here in the show #like — it's basically fanservice #just superficial appeal to the things that certain fans want to see #except instead of shots that are overly focused on a person's body #it's random commentary on real world events in events where none of that is connected to the actual plot #my sister said that it's like watching old Disney channel tv shows and yeah It kinda does #Im just saying if you put a laugh track after every time someone mentioned some politically important event....

[edwardseymour]

15,16,17,18,25

🔥 choose violence ask game 🔥

15. that one thing you see in fanart all the time

the ariana grande-ification of anne boleyn in fanart is truly something. and as an olive skinned white woman, i don’t think white tudor fans know what olive skin looks like. also i think there is a frankly bizarre relationship certain tudor fans have with race (ab as an Other™️ because she was supposedly swarthy, trends surrounding coa being fair and spanish, jane seymour being ‘so fair that one would call her rather pale than otherwise’).

16. you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

i truly do not understand the appeal of characterising female historical figures (largely royal, aristocratic) as powerless victims — with no thought to their complicity in an inherently unjust institution. catherine of aragon (as one example) was immensely privileged to the detriment of the majority of people: she believed in this superiority as morally just and fought for it. remembering what her queenship meant should colour how we talk about her: lauding her as brave for fighting for her status can and should coexist with acknowledging what she was ultimately fighting for.

17. there should be more of this type of fic/art

i myself am guilty of this, but we absolutely need more content about non-courtiers (and content in general that is active and honest about acknowledging the fundamental value of those outside of the aristocratic sphere). wolf hall came close but veers into trying to have it both ways; ‘she [Mantel] wants to relish the bejewelled surfaces, the highly wrought fabrics, the flashing beauties of the Henrician age, while also having a go at the people and the institutions which enabled that agglomeration of riches. The aesthetic delight and the political outrage are on a collision course’. becoming elizabeth’s take on kett’s rebellion was hateful. one of the best jobs i ever had was transcribing local court records for an archive, and getting to meet dozens and dozens of men and women, and hear them talk about their lives.

18. it's absolutely criminal that the fandom has been sleeping on...

critical thinking skills 🥴

i would be remiss if i didn’t plead katherine howard’s case yet again. she’s such a force of personality — charming and delightful and ‘fired with ambition’, when i think her ability to be as successful as she was as queen, given her lack of experience and the brevity of her reign, is nothing short of remarkable. i think people are genuinely missing out on someone so engaging when they dismiss her as either whore or victim. it’s a constant frustration, for me, that the way we talk about her remains so superficial.

25. common fandom complaint that you're sick of hearing

god, i have so many of these; you could just send me 25s repeatedly atp haha. i think the most annoying thing though is the people who get weirdly offended by the insinuation that this fandom is, indeed, a fandom. there is this hypocrisy over how legitimate engagement can be — but ofc., certain people can be called ‘stans’ (indeed, ab fans can invent terms like ‘heneven eleven stans’ and ‘seyhive’, because people are just that painfully uncreative) but god forbid somebody, in turn, calls them ab stans. ‘i’m not a stan, i have a BA/BS/BE/LLB’; you write fanfiction — you are not serious people lol. it’s not an academic conference… nobody cares about you. you can leave if you’re not having fun, nobody is forcing you to be here.

#💌 #i will never not take 1000 years to answer asks lmfao . they rot in my drafts …

[fuckyeahilike]

The irredeemably evil character in [Harry] Potter has dehumanized himself. Voldemort has consciously and deliberately made himself less than human, and we see the natural conclusion of what he's done to himself through very powerful magic; what he's left with is something less than human. And he's done that purposely. He sees humanity as weakness. He has reduced himself to something that cannot feel the full range of human emotion. 

There's a huge appeal - and I try to show this in the Potter books - to black and white thinking. We should mistrust ourselves most when we are certain. Interestingly, the two characters that caused the most furious debate were Dumbledore and Snape. People wanted Dumbledore to be perfect - he is deeply flawed - but to me, he is an exemplar of goodness. But he has to make decisions, difficult ones, like those we have to make in the real world. Meanwhile, Snape can be a bully, he can be mean, he can be sadistic, he's bitter; but he is also courageous, he is determined to make good what he did terribly wrong, and without him, disaster would have inevitably occurred. 

I have had fans very angry at me for not categorizing Snape in particular as just a really bad guy. And I said, No I don't agree with you. First of all, because I know him. Second, people can be deeply flawed, can make mistakes, can do bad things - in fact, show me the human being who hasn't- and they can also be capable of greatness. And I mean greatness in a moral sense.

-JK Rowling

See, shit like this is why women who made the choice to stay with their horrible, abusive husbands until it literally became a matter of life or death, such women should not be allowed to then become the voices for all women who are victims of domestic violence. 

Most women don’t choose to stay, they just have nowhere else to go. They hate the man who martyrs them, they hate their enemy, they just can’t save themselves. And they are the majority.

In the mean time women like Amber Heard and FKA Twiggs and JK Rowling endure all manners of brutal disrespect from their man for years because they can’t bring themselves to believe that, deep down inside, their man doesn’t love them and doesn’t have some essence of goodness. After all, to think otherwise and hate them would constitute black and white thinking and we just can’t have that, now can we? Or maybe it’s their narcissism that makes it impossible for them to accept that a man just doesn’t love them.

A man may want to possess you so he can have you as property, not because he loves you. A man who sees you as ownership is one of the most dangerous enemies you will ever have, not a lover than you have the obligation to forgive and still love no matter what. 

Not that any of these women ever understood it, seeing as to this day both Amber and Twiggs still say that they love their former abuser (that’s a direct quote from both, separately, I shit you not, they state that they still love them). And as you can read for yourself, to this day JK Rowling still gaslights children into thinking that it makes them shallow and superficial to not acknowledge Snape as a man of greatness who loves and is brave.

Let’s make this very clear: a man who murders your husband and child doesn’t love you. Love is as love does. And even a bastard, provided he is brave, will at least commit his own murders instead of sending someone else, and Snape could have taken advantage of numerous opportunities to kill Voldemort and he didn’t because he’s a spineless coward, too revolting to be believed.

Stuff like this is why women who have the freedom to leave their abuser should never be given the pulpit on matters of domestic violence. They will never understand the profound horror of domestic violence, what it’s like to see only too clearly the nightmare of being wedded to a monster that you genuinely can’t liberate yourself from. 

I dare you to show me - show me right now, I mean it - a woman who was the prisoner of a man whom she genuinely could not leave, and who later says that in spite of everything she still loves the fucking bastard who nearly ended her life, or the woman who having managed to slip through the monster’s clutches thinks she’s being profound when she chides children who still retain the ability to recognize irredeemable evil when they see it for being very shallow and fascistic and “judgy” about a monster.

An author who cared about nuance and shades of grey would have made Harry a monster, because that’s what happens when you are raised as a monster. Monster aren’t born, they’re made. By any rights Harry should have been Voldemort, a person who cut out his heart and is capable of any kind of cruelty. Instead, because this is a book for children, JK obeyed the conventions that are there for a reason and she wrote him as a well-adapted, charming and prematurely mature boy who isn’t afraid of anything. If she had wanted realism his home life wouldn’t have been written as comic relief but rather as Horror for adults, like the protagonist in Thomas Harris’ Red Dragon.

Snape and Dumbledore turning out to have been in league against Voldemort is a great plot twist, and that’s all that it is, not a profound observation on the myriad nuances of human nature. In spite of the dramatic surprise it will always feel wrong because evil people can’t be good. Harry should never have named his child after him because Snape plotted to kill him and his father so he could fuck his mom. 

I’m right about this, as is everyone else who agrees - meaning that we’re correct in what we say, not shallow. Hey, at least we don’t think those who commit murder so they can fuck the widow are still capable of greatness, that you should trust them to still be capable of doing the right thing. End of story.

#shia labeouf #FKA twigs #amber heard #johnny depp #jk rowling #VAWG #celebrity culture #feminism #Harry Potter #literature #darvo #misogyny #domestic violence

[rotworld]

Ayo Rotty, what are your thoughts on the fleshlings now? Have any of them changed? Also I wanna hear your opinions on Machete 🥺🥺

can i answer this question without devolving into incoherent, thirsty rambling? let's find out.

this post contains major spoilers for the price of flesh.

the only thing that's really changed is that i now like characters other than derek lmfao

mason's route is my favorite. i was kind of surprised honestly, he's not the type i usually go for. but you cant go wrong with getting hunted in the woods, and i found him charming in a weird way. his environment was my favorite. we don't have mountains where i live lol but there are woods and it does get dangerously cold, and i connect with settings like that easily. on a superficial level i guess i felt some kinship with him. getting away from the world and doing your own thing in your cabin with nothing but woods all around is appealing. i'm not as thirsty for mason as i am for certain other degenerates but i found myself really fond of him by the end.

if i start talking about the swamp, i will never stop. but i've got a lot to say and hope to do it in some fancy prose soon. all of the visuals and events related to lawrence have me by the throat, it's all i think about. this route's secret ending is the only one i haven't gotten yet (i'll do it eventually but right now i need my pages upon pages of saves right before important scenes for writing reference lol) but i have a feeling it's going to give me even more to think about.

the desert was everything i hoped it would be and more. i've written a lot of derek in the usurpers series and i felt like i had a good handle on his character, but actually seeing him in action still showed me new, exciting things. the first time i killed him, i was still tiptoeing around the desert nervously for like a day and trying to watch the time before i realized...he's dead. he's not going to show up. it was such a weird feeling. i kind of regretted it lol the certainty was gone and i already missed him. i mentioned it before but i came away from the game a big fan of jack. i was joking with a friend that he out-alpha'd derek and that's why i changed sides so fast lol from the art and tidbits we got before launch, i knew he was going to be "in charge," so to speak, but it was something else entirely to experience it. i'm weak for every single one of his events and cgs, it's so embarrassing. the majority of the writing concepts i've got so far are for him. i feel like i'm still processing the lizards, but i love them both. i love their tag-team approach, i love their creepy little cave hideout, and holy shit i love getting sacrificed on an altar. i want to explore that transition from "garden variety human hunters" to "let's summon a demon (that demon, in particular)," that's mostly what i've been thinking about with them.

holy shit machete lol this ending was such a shock. i always saw him as the worst and the scariest. in hindsight, that image with the desert hunters and a word to describe each of them had "mercy" behind his portrait. i forgot all about it right up until that ending. he's easily one of my favorite characters. i'm awful and therefore i don't thirst for him like i used to because of the reveal lmfao but i really, really like him anyway. an unexpected problem that comes with writing a lot is that you get really familiar with narrative structure and it can be hard to feel the full impact of twists and reveals. it's been a little while since something surprised me like machete. i think it's partly the way gato teased art and information lol it was easy to make assumptions and lump him in with the rest but also set him aside as "extra threatening" because we knew so little. thirst or no thirst aside, i'd still like to write him, too. i just have to give him more thought right now.

speaking of the demon, i made some unholy noises when i caught my first glimpse of strade lmfao what a wild feeling. btd!strade was my gateway drug into this weird, wonderful world of horrorporn and i'm always going to be fond of him for that. i wrote about summoning demon strade a while ago but this incarnation of him is an entirely different thing. he feels so much bigger now. i still have to think about him a bit lol but i love him. somewhere out there, the protagonist of every nuance of misfortune just got an awful feeling like someone walking over their grave.

and finally, celia! i knew i was going to like her lol when it comes to fictional women, my tastes (appearance-wise) are a little narrow, but she's still great. when she's in domme mode i'm just a puddle lol and her personality was also more complex than i expected. the donut scene really sticks out to me. needing to balance on that razor edge of perfection resonates partly because i've been a woman in a professional space lol it's easy to relate and almost envy the violence she gets to inflict. thinking about nasty stuff is my favorite of course but celia is the character that i entertain the most soft, wholesome thoughts about.

holy fuck we need to talk about ren. i got a message from a friend saying "what if ren was daddy" and i said "no thats not possible," and i was a fool and i will admit it. how did this happen? i'm going to be haunted by it forever. he looks so sharp in that suit and that smirk is going to kill me. the night after the game launched i was up at 5 am scribbling down plot ideas y'know like a normal person, and thinking to myself "i'll have to apologize to gato for reigniting Auctioneer Thirst," but then i got the secret ending and i have nothing to apologize for after all, because look at him!!!!!!

#rotpeach answers #tpof #tpof spoilers #apologies in advance for all the vague allusions to other stuff ive written in this post #tpof made me feel really nostalgic but i bet other people feel similarly #i swear to god half my playtime has been spent gazing lovingly at the cg gallery

[sugar-petals]

🌙 hacks for people who don’t like their natal chart:

- if you think a placement or aspect is just terrible, and even other astrologers or extensive research can’t seem to find the silver lining in the interpretation: remember that transits will constantly alter the way your placements and chart aspects will play out. and i really mean constantly. day by day, minute by minute. especially the moon transit is immediate since the planet is so close to us. in the end, the effect of your not-so-favorable placement will never stay the same. never. it could even be completely neutralized or dormant for years when those super slow outer planets come transiting in a trine or sextile to your wonky planet or tricky aspect.

- talking about the moon: sometimes, changing lanes gives you comfort. you could become a lunar-focused astrology fan/practicioner instead of keeping everything centered everything around the sun and ascendant. or, if you don’t like your moon sign, a venusian astrologer (which is very popular, you’ll find your fellows easily), or jupitarian! these planets are huge benefactors, after all. you could specialize on a certain planet or even asteroid. but fully discovering what your moon sign is all about — and not sticking with superficial descriptors often found in solar-focused astrology — is the best thing ever. it’s going back to the basics that are often cut short in the first place, or laced in all too brief cookie cutter interpretations. your moon sign is vastly important. there’s a reason why lunar calendars and full moon events and the lunar year are still a thing.

- the absolute game changer: your chart evolves with time and never goes back. all the planets travel forward. yep. you don’t settle on a natal chart to begin with. that’s just your back-then toddler life. you are not that kind of persona anymore. that’s why it’s called birth chart, not the me this year chart. few people know about those so-called progressions depsite the concept being revolutionary. because every year, you could update a chart where your original sun has moved on by one singular degree. this progression reflects the new you. it is the up-to-date chart, the human in the now. i was born a libra, but am now a scorpio: 25 years passed and i switched signs because of it. it reflects everything that happened around me and with my character, too. my chart now has a satisfying grand trine and other cool stuff i enjoy. your birth chart is already no longer your birth chart, and your sun sign has likely switched unless you’re born at the beginning of a zodiac’s season and haven’t passed the age of 30 (since each sign consists of 30 degrees). you might have become the sun or moon etc sign you always wanted to be, or a sign you like more, and don’t even know it. your progressed solar chart is likely what appeals to you and resonates the most anyway since you already embody it. long story short: for the love of your t-square... progress your chart. tons of calculators on google, it’s quick to achieve.

- this one goes out to everybody who just can’t with their ascendant and/or sun sign. yes, there’s a way you can actually ‘get rid’ of those completely. i found a way to cheat the matrix. even if your natal chart on earth will always be the same. but no joke: you can eliminate it forever and roll with an entirely ASC-less, sun sign-less chart. try switching your calculator, if possible, astro.com has that function, from geocentric to heliocentric lmao! surprise, surprise. it’s the ultimate cop-out and way to troll your natal chart like it just got punk’d. 🎶never gonna give you up! 🎶 but seriously, you will be shocked what happens when you see your chart from the sun’s perspective, not the earth’s. on the sun, your rising sign does not exist! 😂 because the ASC is where the sun rises on the earth horizon. you don’t have a sun sign either here, but an earth’s sign for obvious reasons. not earth sign as in, taurus/capricorn/virgo, but our literal blue marble in space. i got annoyed with being libra sun and rising for life and was both pleased and refreshed to find out that if i was standing on the sun chilling in the flaming burn, i’d be an ‘earth in aries’. funny reversed way of looking at it. since then, i don’t take the birth chart from my silly home planet all too seriously anymore. sadly there are no calculators for the other solar system standpoints. would be interesting to know your planets if you were standing on mars, for instance. anyway. i love the heliocentric chart, it’s so weird.

- you can always ditch your tropical chart for the sidereal one, or the ever-elusive draconic chart. these are clever alternatives. the sidereal or vedic chart gives the more exact position of the stars on your DOB, and the draconic chart spins the wheel back to aries at zero degrees by virtue of your north node which is the natural and original state of the birthchart. it’s so much neater than your birth house placements. i find either versions charming, more ‘primordial’, and treasures for interpretation fun. there’s a lot more to detail about these alternatives, just know that they exist and are equally valuable main charts. they might explain things your tropical chart doesn’t cover.

- and if we’re talking vedic: many people have changed schools from the ground up! and are now in love with the vast ancient world of indian astrology. vedic charts are the shit and people who love to learn are well-served by trying out this branch of astro enthusiasm. the methods are completely different, the interpretations are not like you’re used to either, so your natal chart could mean something else entirely. this type of chart reading is also more definite. vedic astrologers are never wishy-washy, but to the point, whether it’s something positive or negative or neutral. career and love life and family, it’s all predetermined already in these charts. predictive tools are far more certain, too. if you want the ultimate ‘this is the case and this will happen, and this placement means this for sure’, vedic is your best friend. it’s also based on moon decans rather than sun signs which makes it unique.

- deepen your knowledge about the natal wheel itself, not what’s in it. for instance, how individual chart degrees impact your planets rather than just broad signs and houses. chart quadrants and hemispheres are also worth looking into, it adds a dash of being more well-rounded when you go for an analysis. on top of that, different house systems can really shift things around, maybe to your liking. koch, placidus, equal, pullen, meridian, campanus, whole signs, the list goes on. so many ways of drawing houses into the wheel, what the hell. see which one works for you, though.

- and the most tenacious effort: maybe you missed out the crucial info about something, haven’t understood something from the inside out yet. maybe the astrologer or content you read wasn’t 100% complete or accurate (say, the same could be said for this post!). maybe you got the wrong impression. maybe there’s too much bias. figure out different interpretations of certain aspects and planets you don’t like in your chart, widen the horizon of it. the more you learn, the more interesting and complex your natal wheel will get. or, deliberately constrict everything by turning to super traditional astrology. yes, go back in time. that means discarding all of the outer planets and returning to a much more set in stone way of looking at houses. the whole point is, barge head first into the chart at hand and dig deeper on your own for the time being, and if you still feel like your chart is not it, you can always click the ‘anyway bestie... switch to heliocentric i’m out of here’ button lol!

conclusion | now, you can officially say to your frustrating natal chart: begone, demon. you done goof’d! there are so many clever methods to shift things around, to redraw things, to change perspective, and more modern ways to leave the old behind (or vice versa, going for extremely old methods like vedic and traditional astro to learn something new). for the most part, especially your tropical natal planets may or may not belong in the astro trash can... for a due time-out, at least. you really don’t have to be stuck with this one chart when you can love an alternative or an ‘update’ that is equally a big deal. and even if your natal chart sits right with you most of the time, and you are indeed never gonna give it up, it’s still amusing to discover and play around what else there is.

#astrology #birth chart #natal chart #sun sign #moon sign #vedic astrology #venus #jupiter #draconic chart #sidereal chart #heliocentric chart #traditional astrology #natal chart houses

[baya-ni]

The Queer Appeal of Sk8

Recently @mulberrymelancholy reblogged a post of mine with a truly galaxy brain take about how Sk8 “is a show made for queer fans” and generally how sports anime often depicts love and relationships in a way that’s more accessible and relatable to ace/arospec people than other mainstream media does.

Just, *chef’s kiss* fucking brilliant. I urge you to read their post here (note I’m referring to the reblog not the actual post).

And basically, it got me thinking about this concept of Sk8 as a Queer Show, and the kinds of stories and dynamics that tend to attract queer audiences in droves, regardless of whether its queerness is made explicit or hell, whether that queerness was intended.

And that’s what I’ve been pondering: What are the cues, markers, or coding, in Sk8 that set off the community’s collective gaydar?

I obviously can’t speak for the community. So here’s what aspects of the show intrigued me and what, for me, marks Sk8 as a Queer Show beyond the subtextual queer romances: a punk/alternative aesthetic, Found Family, Shadow as a drag persona, and The Hands.

1.) The Punk Aesthetic

All three of the above screenshots are taken from Ep 1, and every single one of them depicts background characters. They’re nameless and ultimately unimportant characters, yet each of them designed so distinctly and so unique from one another, one could mistake each of them for the main character(s) of another story.

Of what little I know about Punk subculture, I do know this: that the ethos of Punk is heavily built around a celebration of individuality and non-conformity. Sk8 seems to have incorporated this ethos into the very fabric its worldbuilding, and the aesthetics and culture upon which it takes inspiration appeals specifically to a queer audience.

I don’t really need to explain why Punk has such deep ties with the queer community. For decades, queer people have found community and acceptance within punk spaces, and punk ideology is something that I think is just ingrained in the queer consciousness as both lived experience and a survival tactic.

Therefore, a show that adopts punk aesthetics is, by association, already paying homage to Queer culture, intentional or not.

Queer fans notice this- like recognizes like.

2.) Found Family

This also needs little explanation.

Too often, queer individuals cannot rely on their “born into” families for support and acceptance. Too often, we are abused, neglected, and abandoned by those who we were taught would “always be there for us.”

And so, a universal experience for queer people has been redefining the meaning of Family, having to build our families from scratch, finding brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers in people with whom we have no blood relation, and forming communities tied together by shared lived experience rather than shared genetics.

And this idea of Found Family is also built into Sk8′s narrative.

Like, for example, the way that Reki promises MIYA that he and Langa will “never disappear from [his] sight,” filling the void that MIYA felt after his friends abandoned him.

And in the way that JOE becomes a paternal figure for Reki, teaching him ways to improve in skateboarding, and ensuring that Reki doesn’t self isolate when he’s feeling insecure.

And in the whole Ep 6 business with Hiromi acting as babysitter to the Gang.

Hell, even ADAM (derogatory) is associated with this trope. Abused as a child, he finds solace in an underground skateboarding community and culture he helped create- his own found family (or some powertrippy version of it anyway).

Again, queer fans see themselves depicted in the show, but this time in the way that the show gives importance to Found Family relationships between its characters.

3.) Shadow and Drag

This is one that’s more of an association that I personally made. But I was intrigued by the way that Hiromi adopts his SHADOW persona. He wears SHADOW like a mask, and adopts a personality seemingly so opposite to his day-to-day behavior.

Further, the theatricality and general “gender fuckery” of his SHADOW persona, to me, just seemed so similar to a the characteristics of a drag persona (I don’t know a whole lot about drag but enough that I’m drawing superficial similarities).

There’s also this aspect of a “double life” that he, and actually all the other adult characters of the show, have to adopt, which is a way of living that I’m sure a lot of queer viewers see themselves reflected in.

4.) The Hands

Ohhhh the Hands.

One of the things I noticed very early on is the way the show constantly draws our attention to Reki’s hands, which I thought was a little strange for an anime about skating. After all, skating doesn’t really involve the hands, or at least the show doesn’t really draw attention to hands within the context of skating.

I count 3 times so far between Eps 1-9 in which hands are the focus of the frame.

First, when Reki teaches Langa how to fist pump after Langa lands his first ollie, second, when Reki and Langa make their Promise, and finally, when Langa saves Reki from falling off his board.

And you know what they say, twice is a coincidence but thrice is a motif (no one else actually says this I think I’m the only one who says this lol).

I’m not really certain why hands seem to be such a shared fixation among queer people (at least among those I interact with). All I know is that gay people are just fucking obsessed with them.

I have a Theory as to why, and at this point I’d love for other people to chime in and “compare notes” if you will, but I think it basically has to do with repression. And in the same way that queer people have had to redefine the meaning of family, we’ve also had to redefine intimacy.

Being overtly physically affectionate with someone of the same sex, even if they’re your significant other, or often specifically BECAUSE they’re your significant other, can still be dangerous, even now despite the “progression” of society. Queer people know this, this vigilant surveillance of our environment and ourselves, always asking ourselves, “Am I safe enough to be myself?”

Already, Western culture is pretty touch-averse. That is, it’s considered taboo to touch someone unless they’re a family member or a romantic partner. And to touch a person of the same sex in any way that could be misconstrued as romantic (which is most things tbh) is a big no no.

There’s just A Lot to unpack there.

But basically I think that queer people, by necessity, have had to learn to romanticize mundane or unconventional ways of being physically intimate so that we can continue to be romantic with one another without “being caught” so to speak.

Kissing and hugging is too obvious. But a handshake that lingers for just a second too long is much more likely to go unnoticed, braiding someone’s hair can easily be explained away as just lending a helping hand, touching palms to “compare hand sizes” is just good fun.

But for queer people, these brief and seemingly insignificant touches hold greater meaning, because it’s all we are allowed, and all we allow ourselves, to exchange with others.

God, I’ve gone off and rambled again. What’s my point? Basically that the way the show draws attention to Reki’s hands, and specifically how they’re so often framed with Langa’s hands, is one of the major reasons why I clocked Sk8 as a Queer. It’s just something that resonated with me and my own experience of queerness, and I know that I’m not the only one who noticed either.

~

So in conclusion, uhhhh yeah Sk8 the Infinity is just a super gay show, and it’s not even because of the homo-romantic subtext (that at this point is really just Text).

Because what’s important to understand is that Queerness isn’t just about same-sex romance.

Queer Love isn’t just shared between wives/girlfriends, husbands/boyfriends, and all their in-betweens. Queer Love can be two best friends who come out together, queer siblings who rely and support one another, a gay teacher who helps guide one of their questioning students, a queer community pitching in to help a struggling member.

And that all ties with another important thing to consider, that what we refer to as the “queer experience” or “queer culture” isn’t universal. In fact, it wrongly lumps together the unique experiences and struggles of queer BIPOC all under one umbrella that’s primary White and middle class.

So I think what drives a lot of my frustration about labeling a show like Sk8 as Queerbait is this very issue of considering queerness and queer representation within such narrow standards, and mandating that a show must pass a certain threshold of explicit queerness to be considered good representation.

I get that someone might only feel represented by an indisputable canonization of a same-sex couple. That’s fine. But labeling Sk8 as Queerbait for that reason alone ignores the vast array of other queer experiences.

The aspects of Sk8 that resonate most deeply with my own experiences of queerness is in the way that Reki and Langa share intimacy through skating (intricate rituals heyo). For me, them officially getting together ultimately doesn’t matter- I’ll consider Sk8 a Queer show regardless.

Similarly, @mulberrymelancholy​ finds ace/arospec representation in that very absence of an on-screen kiss. A bisexual man might find representation in Reki, not because he enters a canon relationship, but in the depiction of Reki’s coming of age, growing up and navigating adolescent relationships. A non-binary person might feel represented through CHERRY’s androgyny.

That’s the thing, I don’t know how this show will resonate with other members of the queer community, and it’d be wrong to make a judgement on Sk8′s queer representation based on my experiences alone.

That being said, Straight people definitely don’t get to judge Sk8 as Queerbait. Y’all can watch and enjoy the show, we WANT you to enjoy these kinds of shows, and we want you to share these shows and contribute to the normalization and celebration of these kinds of narratives.

But understand that you don’t have a right to tell us whether or not Sk8 has good or bad queer representation.

And even members of the queer community are on thin ice. Your experience of queerness is not universal. Listen to the other members of your community, and respect that what you might find lacking in this show may be the exact representation that someone else needs.

#and scene #i was up till 4am writing this instead of doing my hw #bc i hav Opinions dammit #sk8 #sk8 the infinity #sk8 meta #sk8 theory #queerbait

[citrina-posts]

Avatar: Cultural Appreciation or Appropriation?

I love Avatar: the Last Airbender. Obviously I do, because I run a fan blog on it. But make no mistake: it is a show built upon cultural appropriation. And you know what? For the longest time, as an Asian-American kid, I never saw it that way.

There are plenty of reasons why I never realized this as a kid, but I’ve narrowed it down to a few reasons. One is that I was desperate to watch a show with characters that looked like me in it that wasn’t anime (nothing wrong with anime, it’s just not my thing). Another is that I am East Asian (I have Taiwanese and Korean ancestry) and in general, despite being the outward “bad guys”, the East Asian cultural aspects of Avatar are respected far more than South Asian, Middle Eastern, and other influences. A third is that it’s easy to dismiss the negative parts of a show you really like, so I kind of ignored the issue for a while. I’m going to explain my own perspective on these reasons, and why I think we need to have a nuanced discussion about it. This is pretty long, so if you want to keep reading, it’s under the cut.

Obviously, the leadership behind ATLA was mostly white. We all know the co-creators Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino (colloquially known as Bryke) are white. So were most of the other episodic directors and writers, like Aaron Ehasz, Lauren Montgomery, and Joaquim Dos Santos. This does not mean they were unable to treat Asian cultures with respect, and I honestly do believe that they tried their best! But it does mean they have certain blinders, certain perceptions of what is interesting and enjoyable to watch. Avatar was applauded in its time for being based mostly on Asian and Native American cultures, but one has to wonder: how much of that choice was based on actual respect for these people, and how much was based on what they considered to be “interesting”, “quirky”, or “exotic”?

The aesthetic of the show, with its bending styles based on various martial arts forms, written language all in Chinese text, and characters all decked out in the latest Han dynasty fashions, is obviously directly derivative of Asian cultures. Fine. That’s great! They hired real martial artists to copy the bending styles accurately, had an actual Chinese calligrapher do all the lettering, and clearly did their research on what clothing, hair, and makeup looked like. The animation studios were in South Korea, so Korean animators were the ones who did the work. Overall, this is looking more like appreciation for a beautiful culture, and that’s exactly what we want in a rapidly diversifying world of media.

But there’s always going to be some cherry-picking, because it’s inevitable. What’s easy to animate, what appeals to modern American audiences, and what is practical for the world all come to mind as reasons. It’s just that… they kinda lump cultures together weirdly. Song from Book 2 (that girl whose ostrich-horse Zuko steals) wears a hanbok, a traditionally Korean outfit. It’s immediately recognizable as a hanbok, and these dresses are exclusive to Korea. Are we meant to assume that this little corner of the mostly Chinese Earth Kingdom is Korea? Because otherwise, it’s just treated as another little corner of the Earth Kingdom. Korea isn’t part of China. It’s its own country with its own culture, history, and language. Other aspects of Korean culture are ignored, possibly because there wasn’t time for it, but also probably because the creators thought the hanbok was cute and therefore they could just stick it in somewhere. But this is a pretty minor issue in the grand scheme of things (super minor, compared to some other things which I will discuss later on).

It’s not the lack of research that’s the issue. It’s not even the lack of consideration. But any Asian-American can tell you: it’s all too easy for the Asian kids to get lumped together, to become pan-Asian. To become the equivalent of the Earth Kingdom, a mass of Asians without specific borders or national identities. It’s just sort of uncomfortable for someone with that experience to watch a show that does that and then gets praised for being so sensitive about it. I don’t want you to think I’m from China or Vietnam or Japan; not because there’s anything wrong with them, but because I’m not! How would a French person like to be called British? It would really piss them off. Yet this happens all the time to Asian-Americans and we are expected to go along with it. And… we kind of do, because we’ve been taught to.

1. Growing Up Asian-American

I grew up in the early to mid-2000s, the era of High School Musical and Hannah Montana and iCarly, the era of Spongebob and The Amazing World of Gumball and Fairly Odd Parents. So I didn’t really see a ton of Asian characters onscreen in popular shows (not anime) that I could talk about with my white friends at school. One exception I recall was London from Suite Life, who was hardly a role model and was mostly played up for laughs more than actual nuance. Shows for adults weren’t exactly up to par back then either, with characters like the painfully stereotypical Raj from Big Bang Theory being one of the era that comes to mind.

So I was so grateful, so happy, to see characters that looked like me in Avatar when I first watched it. Look! I could dress up as Azula for Halloween and not Mulan for the third time! Nice! I didn’t question it. These were Asian characters who actually looked Asian and did cool stuff like shoot fireballs and throw knives and were allowed to have depth and character development. This was the first reason why I never questioned this cultural appropriation. I was simply happy to get any representation at all. This is not the same for others, though.

2. My Own Biases

Obviously, one can only truly speak for what they experience in their own life. I am East Asian and that is arguably the only culture that is treated with great depth in Avatar.

I don’t speak for South Asians, but I’ve certainly seen many people criticize Guru Pathik, the only character who is explicitly South Asian (and rightly so. He’s a stereotype played up for laughs and the whole thing with chakras is in my opinion one of the biggest plotholes in the show). They’ve also discussed how Avatar: The Last Airbender lifts heavily from Hinduism (with chakras, the word Avatar itself, and the Eye of Shiva used by Combustion Man to blow things up). Others have expressed how they feel the sandbenders, who are portrayed as immoral thieves who deviously kidnap Appa for money, are a direct insult to Middle Eastern and North African cultures. People have noted that it makes no sense that a culture based on Inuit and other Native groups like the Water Tribe would become industrialized as they did in the North & South comics, since these are people that historically (and in modern day!) opposed extreme industrialization. The Air Nomads, based on the Tibetan people, are weirdly homogeneous in their Buddhist-inspired orange robes and hyperspiritual lifestyle. So too have Southeast Asians commented on the Foggy Swamp characters, whose lifestyles are made fun of as being dirty and somehow inferior. The list goes on.

These things, unlike the elaborate and highly researched elements of East Asian culture, were not treated with respect and are therefore cultural appropriation. As a kid, I had the privilege of not noticing these things. Now I do.

White privilege is real, but every person has privileges of some kind, and in this case, I was in the wrong for not realizing that. Yes, I was a kid; but it took a long time for me to see that not everyone’s culture was respected the way mine was. They weren’t considered *aesthetic* enough, and therefore weren’t worth researching and accurately portraying to the creators. It’s easy for a lot of East Asians to argue, “No! I’ve experienced racism! I’m not privileged!” News flash: I’ve experienced racism too. But I’ve also experienced privilege. If white people can take their privilege for granted, so too can other races. Shocking, I know. And I know now how my privilege blinded me to the fact that not everybody felt the same euphoria I did seeing characters that looked like them onscreen. Not if they were a narrow and offensive portrayal of their race. There are enough good-guy Asian characters that Fire Lord Ozai is allowed to be evil; but can you imagine if he was the only one?

3. What It Does Right

This is sounding really down on Avatar, which I don’t want to do. It’s a great show with a lot of fantastic themes that don’t show up a lot in kids’ media. It isn’t superficial or sugarcoating in its portrayal of the impacts of war, imperialism, colonialism, disability, and sexism, just to name a few. There are characters like Katara, a brown girl allowed to get angry but is not defined by it. There are characters like Aang, who is the complete opposite of toxic masculinity. There are characters like Toph, who is widely known as a great example of how to write a disabled character.

But all of these good things sort of masked the issues with the show. It’s easy to sweep an issue under the rug when there’s so many great things to stack on top and keep it down. Alternatively, one little problem in a show seems to make-or-break media for some people. Cancel culture is the most obvious example of this gone too far. Celebrity says one ignorant thing? Boom, cancelled. But… kind of not really, and also, they’re now terrified of saying anything at all because their apologies are mocked and their future decisions are scrutinized. It encourages a closed system of creators writing only what they know for fear of straying too far out of their lane. Avatar does do a lot of great things, and I think it would be silly and immature to say that its cultural appropriation invalidates all of these things. At the same time, this issue is an issue that should be addressed. Criticizing one part of the show doesn’t mean that the other parts of it aren’t good, or that you shouldn’t be a fan.

If Avatar’s cultural appropriation does make you uncomfortable enough to stop watching, go for it. Stop watching. No single show appeals to every single person. At the same time, if you’re a massive fan, take a sec (honestly, if you’ve made it this far, you’ve taken many secs) to check your own privilege, and think about how the blurred line between cultural appreciation (of East Asia) and appropriation (basically everybody else) formed. Is it because we as viewers were also captivated by the aesthetic and overall story, and so forgive the more problematic aspects? Is it because we’ve been conditioned so fully into never expecting rep that when we get it, we cling to it?

I’m no media critic or expert on race, cultural appropriation, or anything of the sort. I’m just an Asian-American teenager who hopes that her own opinion can be put out there into the world, and maybe resonate with someone else. I hope that it’s given you new insight into why Avatar: The Last Airbender is a show with both cultural appropriation and appreciation, and why these things coexist. Thank you for reading!

#this deleted idk why #so here is me reposting it #atla #avatar #avatar the last airbender #cultural appropriation #meta #atla meta #racism

[kingwuko]

Wuko in the Comics: Ruins of the Empire, Book 1 part 2

Welcome to my series of posts discussing Wuko in the Comics. In this post I'll continue to discuss RotE Book 1. There are some... interesting moments in the second half of this comic, including a very famous line that all but confirms canon Wuko.

Plot Summary

Fearing that Guan will use violence to stop the election, the Krew decides to bring Kuvira along with them to Gaoling, hoping that she can talk him down. When they come face-to-face with Guan, however, they discover he does not intend to use violence, but will run in Gaoling’s election. The Krew decides the best solution is to find another candidate with enough public support to defeat Guan fair and square; and they decide to ask Toph to run. It is revealed, however, that Guan does not intend to win fair and square. He’s planning to brainwash Gaoling’s citizens to vote for him.

Major Plot points in the second half of Book 1

We start off right away with the Sauna Scene. Everyone looks excellent. The ladies' sauna wear is lovely. Mako and Bolin have their classic swim suits seen in season 1. Wu is literally just wearing a towel. I found myself googling saunas and steam baths to see if it’s normal to wear swimsuits or just a towel, and everything I read said pretty much anything goes as long as you are comfortable, but I do find it interesting that everyone wears swimsuits except Wu. Maybe because he does steam baths more often and he’s just more comfortable in that setting? He seems pretty confident and not at all shy. I don’t have anything analytical to say about it, I just think it’s an interesting detail, that he doesn’t seem to have any hang-ups about being nearly naked around Mako his friends.

They are discussing Guan’s militaristic movement toward Gaoling, and tossing ideas around to handle the situation. Mako not-so-helpfully suggests using force with the united forces which Zhu Li shoots down right away, not wanting to escalate the situation. Wu agrees and wants to find a peaceful resolution. Korra, remembering her conversation with Kuvira, thinks she has the answer. She proposes bringing Kuvira along to Gaoling, which NOBODY is happy about. Asami is upset because she made it clear earlier she does not want to be in the same room as Kuvira, Bolin is distressed because Kuvira nearly had him killed when he defected from her inner circle, Mako points out that he nearly lost his arm taking down the mech, Zhu Li says she invaded republic city, Asami reminds everyone that Kuvira killed her father, and Wu boldly declares that we can’t forget she ruined his coronation… He quickly reads the room and apologises (character growth?).

Korra acknowledges everyone’s concerns and points out that she truly believes Kuvira can be an ally- she was their ally when Zaheer was trying to kill her and the airbenders; and when her spirit vine weapon ripped open a new portal to the spirit world, Kuvira thought she had died and Korra believes that changed her. Bolin points out that Kuvira is very persuasive and may have a good shot at convincing Guan to stand down. Everyone is convinced and declares their support for the plan.

Zhu Li orders Kuvira’s release and Korra brings her onto the airship taking them all to Gaoling. And, I’m sorry, this frame is like, the bitchiest collective look from Mako, Wu, Bolin and Pabu. I just love it.

They initially plan to restrain her, but decide it’s pointless when Kuvira points out if she wanted to escape that she would have already. They arrive at Gaoling and there’s no sign of Guan and his army. Kuvira is certain he’ll be there, and points out that she needs to change so she doesn’t meet with him looking like a prisoner.

Korra and Wu go to meet with the election candidates. Their portraits are on the wall and it’s revealed that the candidates are both elderly magistrates who have been working in the local government for a long time. They are practically indistinguishable from each other, which causes Korra concern. Wu isn’t happy about it either, he was hoping the elections would bring in new leaders to take the earth kingdom in a new direction. Instead, it looks like nothing will change in Gaoling or the rest of the earth kingdom if things play out the same way. They are both disappointed but Korra is optimistic that this is the first election and over things will improve as they iron out the political kinks

Back in the flying machine, they give Kuvira an outfit of Asami’s that is…. Like I can’t put it into words. I’ve never seen asami wear it and that is a shame. The word that comes to mind is “Dapper”. Like is we saw Asami wearing it when they first introduced her character literally everyone would have predicted Cannon Korrasami and immeadiately said “yup Asami’s gay straight women don’t dress like that”. Slacks, a collared long sleeve shirt, with a grey vest over top. Just like, amazing. I am so disappointed we never saw Asami wear this. Someone point me to a fanart of Asami in this outfit that canonically belongs to her please.

Guan arrives and Kuvira tries to talk to him, which goes about as well as you’d expect. So she tries to appeal directly to his troops and urges them to surrender, and they all say in unison “Hail Commander Guan!”. So Kuvira decides to challenge Guan and beats the crap out of him in a punch that looks like something directly out of a WWII propaganda poster or something.

Kuvira is literally about to kill him by bending the metal collar around his neck when suddenly Asami electrocutes her with some device she had hidden in the belt she gave Kuvira.

Once Mako and Bolin drag Kuvira away, Korra attempts to reason with Guan and tells him she won’t let him interfere with the election. Guan then reveals he has no intention of interfering- he plans on running in the election! He immediately turns in all the necessary paperwork to be on the ballot. He informs the Krew that soon, all the upcoming elections will have Earth Empire representatives running and once they have power in every territory, no one will question the Earth Empire's right to rule.

They reconvene back on the airship, where Kuvira is detained in the platinum box. They explain to Kuvira that she was wrong to provoke him, but right that he is an excellent strategist. Mako then tells Wu that he should just call off the election. Wu replies “Mako, you know I love you, but I’m trying to encourage democracy. I can’t just go around canceling elections because I don’t like one of the candidates. We need to see how this plays out”

…

Yes. “Mako, you know I love you”

…

We’ll discuss that at length in a bit.

They decide the best path forward is to find a new candidate who is popular enough to beat Guan. Korra excitedly suggests Toph. Which, like, wouldn’t have been the first person to come to mind for me, but I guess she’s the only person they know who is originally from Goaling? But everyone seems on board, except presumably Toph because she doesn't like to get involved in worldly affairs… So Korra announces they will just have to convince her!!

We then cut to Guan's encampment, where he is discussing Kuvira’s actions with a Doctor Sheng, observing that Kuvira just isn’t the same, and that the Avatar has corrupted her mind. The doctor suggests they “recalibrate” Kuvira’s mind and leads him into a structure where she shows him their latest “recruits'. We then see Goaling citizens tied up in chairs with devices on their heads. They are being brainwashed to vote for Guan! Yikes!

Mako and Wu Scenes

The Sauna scene

The meeting that took place in the sauna was at the behest of Wu. He said he was very stressed out so he couldn’t miss his steam bath. I know there are lots of jokes about Wu being high maintenance because he needs his spa days or whatever, but he is in a highly stressful situation right now and we know that self care is essential to maintain one’s mental health and in order to perform one’s job well. I think this was an interesting way to weave together his seemingly superficial hobbies with his new maturity and responsibility. I really loved this scene for that (though seeing all the hot people in sauna-wear is a bonus).

Also there is a recurring thing where Mako is just offering the worst advice to Korra. He wants the United Republic, a completely separate Nation from the Earth Kingdom, to just.. March into another country and ‘enforce’ their democratic process??? Like…. If you know anything about world history and current events we know that is awful and wouldn’t be received well and would be a recipe for political instability and long term conflict. Thank goodness everyone is like Mako no. I’m pointing this out because, as much as we think of Wu as being immature, irresponsible, whatever, the reality is that he has a level head while Mako is actually giving the irresponsible solutions here. It’s a really interesting evolution from the infamous Wu meltdown scene where Mako was the voice of reason, but here things have reversed.

Also, I want to point out the moment where Wu backs down after he adds his grievance to the list everyone is giving (She ruined my coordination!), it’s kind of played for laughs but like… Wu has a totally valid reason to be upset on par with everyone else, considering Kuvira had him drugged and kidnapped…. Why wouldn’t he have said that? Well, the simple and obvious answer is- the writers wanted to make a “Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking” joke. But since us fans like to give depths to the characters that they deserve, maybe Wu is genuinely traumatized and just doesn’t want to bring it up. And maybe everyone knows he’s traumatized and doesn't want to bring it up, because no one else is like “Wu, did you forget she had you drugged and kidnapped???” They just give him a look and he’s like “LOL oops sorry should have said my thing first!!” maybe Team Avatar understands that it was a really scary moment for him and they just let him shield himself with humor.

I know it isn’t isn’t exactly a strong Wuko moment, but the bitchy look that Moko, Bolin, Wu and Pabu give to Kuvira in the airship breathed life into me for some reason. I’m loving how they look like a group of mean girls who were just badmouthing Kuvira before she walked in. I think they were having a nice bonding moment before this.

Mako, you know I love you

Ok. So after Mako casually mentions just calling off the election, Wu flat out says “I love you” to Mako. This is a line us Wuko shippers just DIE for. The full line is as follows:

Mako: I say you call off the vote, at least for now. Make it impossible for Guan to win

Wu: Mako, you know I love you, but I’m trying to encourage democracy. I can’t just go around cancelling elections because I don’t like one of the candidates. We need to let this play out.

So. Like, what the heck are we supposed to make of this?

I’m not going to dig too deep and force my own interpretations and headcanons onto you. This I love you could mean a number of different things. I just want to pose some rhetorical questions about it and the context to give us all some things to think about.

Is Wu flirting? Does Mako actually know that Wu loves him? Is this an extension of Wu’s many other instances of flirting with complimenting Mako (on par with ‘my big tough guy” while staring at his ass)? Has Wu said “I love you” to Mako before? How many times has Wu said “Mako I love you” before? Is this evidence of them actually being in a romantic relationship during this comic? Or is it evidence of romantic tension building? Is Mako just totally oblivious to the fact that Wu said I love you? Or did he hear it and his brain blue-screened from the shock of being blatantly told I love you? Has Wu just gotten fed up that Mako seems oblivious to all his previous flirtations and he just decided to up the ante? Does Mako love Wu back?!

Lots of questions. Lots of interpretations. But (as far as I remember) Mako has only said I love you to two people- his brother and Korra (I don’t think he said I love you to Asami but I could be wrong). And if you’ve read this you know that Mako’s relationship with Wu is not brotherly. We’ve never heard “I love you” from Wu toward anyone else that I can recall so I don’t think he makes a habit of throwing the phrase around lightly. Also, worth noting: Literally no one reacts to the casual “I love you”. Everyone just goes on with the conversation at hand. The next frame that we see of Wu and Mako’s faces together, Mako is SMILING at Wu.

So like, he’s clearly not uncomfortable with being told that Wu loves him. And no one else is uncomfortable with it either. So what gives? Are they together? Are they flirting? Is everyone else just like “yup Wu said I love you Mako nothing out of the ordinary here because it’s painfully obvious Wu is into Mako, let's move on, nothing to see here”?

Wu and Korra

One thing I LOVE about these comics is the friendship between Korra and Wu. During the series, Korra tolerated Wu, warming up to him a bit at the very end when he told her his plan to abdicate. But through these comics there seems to be a comfortable familiarity between them. A bit of teasing, loads of moral support, and not a hint of her (or anyone) being super annoyed by him. He also doesn’t hit on her or anyone else except Mako, which is a very refreshing character growth because it was very tiresome to watch him objectify women in the animated series.

Korra and Wu spend a good amount of time together as she accompanies him to Gaoling’s city hall. They seem very comfortable with each other, comfortable enough that the writers included a fart joke.

Korra reassures Wu when he expresses worry about the election being pointless, she steps forward somewhat protectively when Guan shows up- the entire scene with Guan, Korra is standing between him and Wu.

Basically I bring this up because I genuinely love the idea that Korra and Wu are close and friendly, that they have moved on from his cringy behavior from the series (I like to think he apologized to both her and Asami?)

What this means for Wuko

If you are writing fic or just coming up with headcanon, there are two ways to look at the scenes. Either they are in a relationship, or they aren’t. You could easily just say they are in a relationship and are being quiet about it, because they aren’t ready to be fully public, or maybe because they are still figuring things out, or they are waiting for Wu to abdicate and move back to Republic City, etc. “You know I love you” is such an easy piece of canon content to make this your headcanon.

Likewise, one could say they are Not Together right now. Pre-relationship, if you will. Maybe they’ve danced around the idea, discussed feelings without actually getting together. Or maybe they are still clueless that there is a potential for a relationship. Wu might be putting out feelers to see how Mako responds to his flirtations. Mako might be wondering if he’s misinterpreting Wu’s affectionate touches and words. Lots of romantic tension, pining, each wondering if the other one has any feelings.

I also love the idea that Wu and Korra are friends and have discussed or will discuss Mako and Wu’s feelings for him.

So, in summary, Wu loves Mako. It’s canon. It’s right there in black and white. Make of it what you will!

Next post I will discuss Wuko in the first half of RotE Book 2. Wu goes on a life-changing field trip with Korra to meet Toph and confront a swamp-vision of his Late Great Aunt, while Mako gets captured and brainwashed by Guan. Wu and Mako are not together during these scenes but there will be lots of wonderful Wu backstory along with plenty of angst potential from the brainwashing storyline.

Wuko in Turf Wars

Wuko in RotE part 1

#Wuko #Wuko in the Comics #RotE #Mako #Prince Wu

[scripttorture]

I have no idea if you can help me, but I am working on a short story that starts after a Sami girl is recovering from being tortured by Christian police after her father is put on trial for witchcraft. This is during the witch trials in Norway. I wanted to focus on recovery in the community and her animistic religion. However, I don’t know what kind of torture she could realistically be recovering from and if, aside from punishment, it should religiously motivated. Do you have any English links?

I put this one off for a long time hoping that the virus situation would improve enough for me to a) have less stress at work and b) be able to access the university library in my town. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

 Norwegian history in the 1600s isn’t my strong suit. So my focus here is going to be advice on how to research this. I’ll also include the bits I found and some tortures so common that you can throw them in to virtually any setting without it standing out or being inaccurate.

 Before I get any further I don’t know anything about Sami culture. I’d strongly recommend trying to find Sami sensitivity readers if you haven’t already. Because it can be bloody hard to get accurate information on some of Europe’s oppressed minorities and I’d say the Sami fall squarely into that category.

 Historical research is fraught with pitfalls and when you’re starting out it can be really difficult to figure out which sources to trust. This only becomes worse when you’re working across a language barrier. And when the focus is torture it gets even more difficult.

 Torture has always been a hot button issue.

 The fact that virtually every culture has a history of torture doesn’t change that. Cultural ideas about what was ‘more painful’ or ‘more brutal’ or ‘shaming’ have all played a role in what was deemed ‘acceptable’ cruelty. So has the idea of who is an ‘acceptable’ or ‘deserving’ victim.

 And that means that misrepresenting the typical tortures of different countries, cultures, religious groups or past regimes has been part of political practice for literally hundreds of years. It is a very easy way to direct people’s hate and elicit an emotional response.

 I can’t stress enough how important it is to consider an author’s motivations, biases and abilities when you read historical sources.

 Think about whether an author was actually there for the events they describe. Think about their political and religious positions and what they may have to gain by pushing a particular message.

 Apologies if some of this comes across as teaching you how to suck eggs, but I know a lot of people don’t get this lesson in their history classes. So sources-

 Historical sources can be broadly categorised into primary and secondary sources. A primary source is something produced at the time. A secondary source is something produced later.

 Both can be untrustworthy/biased but a primary source gives you information about how events/practices were interpreted at the time, while a secondary sources tells you how they were remembered later.

 Primary sources can be things like diaries, court records of witch trials and objects produced in areas like Finnmark (northern Norway where most of the witch trials took place) at the time. Secondary sources might be things like how the witch trials are discussed in Norwegian history books and local history or stories about the witch trials that are told today.

 By reading about this in English you’re mostly being limited to secondary sources. The danger here is that secondary sources can misrepresent the time period they’re describing, deliberately or not. Authors make assumptions about how historical people lived, thought, what their actions meant and how their beliefs influenced their actions.

 Primary sources can also misrepresent what happened (deliberately or not) but with primary sources they are at least displaying the biases and concerns of the time.

 Generally historical research is about the collation and interpretation of primary sources. Which is a lot of work, requires a degree of expertise and often demands fluency in several languages.

 That level of work and knowledge appeals to some authors of historical fiction. But it isn’t for everyone. There’s nothing wrong with choosing to rely on history textbooks and the like instead of digging through transcriptions of things written back in the 1600s.

 Here’s the problem when you’re doing that for another country: English language sources are often very very biased in favour of other English language sources.

 This means if some bored academic in the 1930s made up a bunch of fan theories based on very little evidence it will probably still be used as a source today.

 And without having another language (with access to other sources it provides) it can be really difficult to spot that kind of fuckery.

 I am not saying that you need to learn Norwegian and believe me as someone with only one spoken language I understand how tackling a new one can be crazy intimidating.

 But I think you do need to know Norwegians. Particularly Norwegians with an interest in history.

 That’s all general stuff about researching historical periods in different countries.

 For torture in particular… I’m not gonna lie it’s a sack of angry snakes.

 Both primary and secondary often have considerable motivation for lying about torture. Historical accounts routinely downplay or outright lie about the damage different tortures cause. They are heavily judgemental about victims.

 And they run in to exactly the same issues we have trying to study use of different tortures today with the added difficulty that accounts from torturers are preserved far more frequently then accounts from survivors.

 It’s only once you start getting to the 1900s that you really start to see multiple survivor accounts of events. For the 1600s as a general period I can think of witness accounts and multiple accounts from torturers or their bosses in various countries. But the testimony of survivors is very very rare.

 This is an issue because we know from modern research that torturers routinely lie about what they do.

 There were laws in most European countries in this period that cover torture. They tend to define a sort of ‘accepted practice’: what torturers were supposed to do and for how long. And don’t get me wrong these are useful historical sources.

 But we know from comparing similar torture manuals used in the 1930s (and indeed more recently) to multiple accounts from torture survivors that torturers do not follow their own rules. I see no reason why torturers today would be less likely to follow ‘the rules’ then their historical predecessors.

 Looking up the laws of the land at the historical time period you’re interested in is a good place to start. But it won’t actually tell you everything that torturers did and it may not represent the most common tortures.

 It will give you a list of things that were definitely used at the time in that place though. Which isn’t a bad place to start.

 Look for history books that cover crime and punishment. If you can’t find one broad enough to do that (or give you a helpful summary of laws at the time) then I’ve found that accounts of specific historical figures in the relevant area/time often contain some of that information.

 The next major pitfall when researching historical torture is the bane of my existence: euphemisms.

 A lot of historical sources use vague or euphemistic terms for different tortures and then leave it up to the reader to figure out what they mean. This was probably perfectly clear at the time but now… less so.

 To use an example from something I’ve been trying to research for a while now I can tell you that the Ancient Egyptians definitely used torture. They say as much in surviving accounts of their justice system. They used it to punish, force confessions and attempt to gain information.

 They definitely beat people with sticks. They say they did, in multiple accounts. There are also wall carvings and paintings that show prisoners of war and enslaved people being menaced with sticks.

 However, I can’t find any definite suggestion that they used falaka, ie beating the soles of the feet with those sticks.

 Did they just hit people at random? This seems unlikely from a practical viewpoint as that’s a very easy way to kill someone. Did they ignore the feet and concentrate on other areas of the body? Did they use falaka and also beat other areas? Do I bring too much bias into this question because I’d love to find a historical point of origin for a torture that’s common throughout the Middle East today?

 Historical sources often just don’t contain the details we need to be certain about what torture they’re describing. Terminology is often vague. Descriptions can be contradictory. Often the only way to be certain is to come across an illustration or surviving device and even then this does not necessarily represent common practice and either piece of evidence could be contemporary propaganda rather then something that was actually used.

 When you’re talking about historical torture it is essential to find multiple sources and make sure they agree.

 Vague terminology like ‘water torture’ can cover a host of different sins. Finding a vague term or euphemism multiple times doesn’t even tell you if this was the same practice carried out in different areas or different practices with superficial similarities.

 If a source doesn’t give you enough information to be sure don’t use it. If a source suggests the meaning of a euphemism based on no clear evidence from the time period don’t use it.

 What I’ve found in my own small collection of books on witchcraft is very sparse on details.

 One of the older books I have suggests that there were almost no witch hunts or witch trials in Scandinavia which is complete bollocks. The book was published in 1959, so I’d suggest being wary of English language sources from that date and earlier.

 A much more recent (2017) Oxford University Press book on the subject gives an estimated 400-500 executions for witchcraft in Norway during the period of 1601-1670.

 This might seem like a small number compared to the thousands that were executed throughout the Holy Roman Empire but it seems a significant number given that the Norwegian trials were so concentrated in a small, sparsely populated region.

 Unfortunately this book is a very general overview of the perception of witchcraft and magic throughout Europe from the ancient world to the present. So it doesn’t really give any details of the kinds of tortures a Norwegian accused of witchcraft might endure.

 The author of the chapter on the witch trials was Rita Voltmer, University of Trier in case that’s helpful. She has published several papers on witch trials and the use of torture and at least one on witch trials in Norway. However a lot of her work is in German.

 These two papers/chapters in particular may be of interest: the english language document on torture and emotion in witch trials and the German paper on Norwegian and Danish witch trials.

 Several of the books I’ve got access to confirmed that Norway burnt witches and provided stories focused on shapeshifting and causing storms at sea. They also confirmed the use of torture in witch trials but nothing so helpful as the kind of tortures employed.

 I found multiple references to ‘water torture’. One of these implied that the particular torture was waterboarding alla the historical Dutch method. But the same source said this caused vomiting or possibly diarrhoea which seems to imply pumping.

 At a guess I’d say pumping is less likely because waterboarding can cause vomiting and so far as I know pumping wasn’t common anywhere in Europe during this period. However absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 ‘Water torture’ could also potentially refer to: a temperature torture, near drowning, a method of sleep deprivation or even dehydration. Without more detail it’s really hard to say which of these is being referenced.

 I found one mention of ‘burning torture’ a reference that I think referred to tearing the flesh with hot pincers based on the description of a torn wound. However given I only found this referenced once and I’m unsure of the source I found it in, I would not say this is a good one to pick.

 Which leaves me with common tortures.

 Whatever the time period, whatever the place, beatings the most common torture. Easily.

 If your character gets repeatedly hit, whether it’s clean or not, you are not being historically inaccurate. And I’ve got a lot of posts on beatings generally and clean beatings that can help you write that.

 Starvation and dehydration are also both really common regardless of culture and time period. So are temperature tortures or exposure though I think different countries have favoured different methods at different times.

 Torturous cell conditions were incredibly common across Europe historically. Lack of sanitation, wet cells, inadequate bedding, over crowding and conditions amounting to a temperature torture were all really common. They were also often happening alongside starvation.

 I have a masterpost on starvation and tags covering temperature tortures, exposure and prisons. I think the ‘prisons’ tag should give you most of the posts covering poor cell conditions, ‘historical torture’ and ‘historical fiction’ may also be helpful to you.

 I’m sorry I couldn’t come up with anything more specific.

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

Edit: So this should be my week off the blog but I’ve seen a lot of the responses to this. Most of them are extremely helpful, thank you to everyone who knows Norwegian that is offering to help.

However: if your instinct is to say that any torturer, historical or recent, is ‘honourable’ and follows a code of conduct then this blog is not the place for you. I don’t tolerate that kind of apologia or people using my work to spread it. 

#writing advice #tw torture #tw racism #tw sectarian violence #historical torture #historical fiction #Norway #witch trials #witchcraft #historical research #behaviour of torturers #attitudes towards torture #National Styles #writing victims #writing torture #Sami #the inconsistencies in this field in academia #and the lack of adequate accessible translations #will eventually make me turn into a livid ticking column of smoke

[theclockworkmonk]

No, it's not "unrealistic" for Slytherin to be "the bad guy House"

Over the years, I've seen lots of fan pushback against the idea that Slytherin is the "bad guy" house, and fans keep insisting that there's a lot of nuance to Slytherin if you read between the lines. But not only do I not see all the nuance that other fans see, more importantly, I don't see the lack of nuance about Slytherin to be a bad thing.

In the entire seven books, we meet exactly one Slytherin who was, explicitly, never at any point on the side of the Death Eaters: Slughorn, and he's still a huge asshole who buys into the ideas of blood supremacy at least somewhat. And it makes complete sense to me that Slytherin would be like that.

People keep saying that this is "unrealistic" for almost all the Slytherins to be evil, since they represent 25% of the wizarding population. They say that the lack of redeeming qualities for most of the Slytherins in the series is a failing on Rowling's part. They make elaborate headcanons for what Slytherins were really thinking when they said or did something terrible (like with the Malfoys or Snape or Parkinson), or they completely make up a bunch of "Good Slytherin" OCs, filling what they see as a massive hole in the text.

And whenever I encounter these people, I just feel like....gesturing around to the entire world. More than 25% of people in real life are either open or closeted bigots. The most abhorrent things you can think of will still poll at around 30% support. 30% of people still support Trump. So I have no problem believing that, in a society as explicitly insular and backwards-looking as the wizarding world, that at least 25% would either join the fascists, or claim to "not take sides," but still report anyone the fascists labelled as criminals. Any society that mythologizes its vaguely more glorious past is prime soil for fascism to grow, and all of magical culture does that constantly.

And there's a perfectly reasonable in-universe reason why all these kids would end up in the same House at Hogwarts. It makes complete sense for the Sorting Hat to basically quarantine all the fascist kids into one House. We know that the superficial personality traits that the hat says the houses are based on are mostly poetic bullshit, and part of the mythologizing. The most cowardly character in the series got put into Gryffindor, and the brightest witch of her age didn't get put into Ravenclaw. What the Sorting Hat actually does is put you where it thinks you'll succeed, and get along with the kids who are already in that House. And you're not likely to succeed if you spend your whole school career getting bullied by fascist roommates for not being fascist enough, and for being a "blood-traitor" for not hating muggles enough. As anyone who's visited an under-moderated online forum knows, if a community allows a core population of terrible people to form, they grow exponentially until they've taken over the community completely by pushing all the non-terrible people out.

And we know that the Sorting Hat considers the wishes of the student, so if Slytherin gets a reputation for being the fascist House, then all the non-fascist kids will beg to not be put there, like Harry did, and all the fascist parents will pressure their kids to try to be put there. This would give Slytherin more of a reputation, which would lead to more kids not wanting to go there, and it forms a positive feedback loop until Slytherin is the Bad Guy House.

HP fans get defensive about Slytherin because there seems to be this truism among critics and scholars that moral grayness is just inherently better writing than moral straightforwardness. That the hero dressed like a bat is always better and more interesting than the hero wearing an S (sorry, I have to word that carefully to avoid the spam filters). I think this truism even affected the author herself. Since the end of the series, she's injected a lot more nuance about Slytherin in interviews than she ever did in the actual text. I'm fairly certain that trying to appeal to this truism affected the end of the series, that gets really desperate trying way too hard to frame Snape not just as having been on the right side the whole time, but more than that was a tragically misunderstood good person. For all its commercial success, Harry Potter was never a critical darling, and to me this always felt like last-ditch attempt at "respectability."

But this truism is bullshit. There are indeed things that are straightforwardly evil. And....I dunno, I guess after living through the past 5 years, I'm a lot less interested in trying to "understand" fascists and the communities that keep producing them. All of media seems more interested in giving a spotlight to terrible people than their victims, from journalists interviewing white supremacists to every kids show giving the school bully a tragic backstory. In reality, bullies, bigots, and fascists aren't complicated or interesting, they're actually quite boring, basic, and banal.

#hp #harry potter #hp fandom #harry potter fandom #hogwarts #hogwarts houses #antifascism #slytherin

[mediaevalmusereads]

The Only Good Indians. By Stephen Graham Jones. New York: Little, Brown Books, 2017.

Rating: 3.5/5 stars

Genre: literary fiction, horror (?)

Part of a Series? No

Summary: The creeping horror of Paul Tremblay meets Tommy Orange’s There There in a dark novel of revenge, cultural identity, and the cost of breaking from tradition in this latest novel from the Jordan Peele of horror literature, Stephen Graham Jones. Seamlessly blending classic horror and a dramatic narrative with sharp social commentary, The Only Good Indians follows four American Indian men after a disturbing event from their youth puts them in a desperate struggle for their lives. Tracked by an entity bent on revenge, these childhood friends are helpless as the culture and traditions they left behind catch up to them in a violent, vengeful way.

***Full review under the cut.***

Content Warnings: blood, gore, animal death, violence

Overview: A friend who teaches horror fiction at the college level recommended this book to me, and I had fairly high expectations. I love a creepy novel, and I was looking forward to an Indigenous horror story that played with some of the tropes I was accustomed to seeing. Unfortunately for me, I had mixed feelings when I turned the final page. While some scenes were definitely evocative, and I liked some of the imagery, I ultimately wanted more of a sense of dread. I also found Jones’s prose style to be hit or miss (depending on the section), so as a result, this book is a 3-star read for me. Readers who enjoy horror, however, might like this a little more than I did. I’m admittedly a little picky when it comes to the genre.

Writing: Jones’s prose seemed to work really well for me at times and really hold me back at others. Especially towards the beginning, I personally found it hard to follow, in part because it felt like Jones was using a lot of slang I didn’t understand along with some unclear syntax here and there. There were also some sentences that felt like they were rambling, and while I think Jones was going for was a kind of laid-back style that imitates speech patterns, and that may work for some, it didn’t always work for me.

There were moments, however, when the laid-back style really set the mood of a particular scene. I think Jones’s rambling sentences and casual tone helped illustrate what life feels like for characters struggling not to become Native stereotypes, and I liked seeing the characters in their day-to-day lives (before the horror happens).

There were moments in these types of scenes, however, where I felt like Jones relied on a lot of telling over showing. Sometimes, Jones describes a character or object or event and then he’ll give a sentence or two of backstory or explain the significance of the thing, or else reference something that happens off-page or in the past, and it felt like I was being asked to absorb that significance right away so that the events in the moment had more meaning. I understand that a lot of these references are meant to evoke a kind of lived experience or “realistic” vibe, and overall, it wasn’t an overwhelming problem. I just happened to notice some sentences here and there.

Plot: This book primarily follows four friends as they are “hunted” down by a vengeful elk spirit (?). Without giving anything away, I will say that I didn’t quite feel an overwhelming sense of dread while reading, and I think it’s because I didn’t feel the psychological impact of the horror or past event. While characters were definitely affected by creepy images and phenomena, and there were probably some cultural implications that went over my head, I ultimately didn’t feel like the characters were mentally or psychologically affected by what happened in the past. Maybe I could say something about Lewis’ paranoia - and indeed, I think that was well done. But the others... not so much.

I also think the pacing felt a little off, and events didn’t really build on one another. While I did like reading about the characters’ everyday lives, it ultimately felt like I was reading literary fiction punctuated by a gory scene here and there. I’m picky about my horror, though, so this criticism might be personal preference. As a piece of literary fiction, this book would have absolutely worked for me. As horror, not so much.

Aside from that, there were moments where I thought characters ended up in situations or did certain things that weren’t wholly believable, and it made me think that Jones was writing them so plot things could happen. For example, in part two, Cass’s girlfriend, Jo, is hiding under the truck for some reason (did she see the elk spirit? We don’t actually know), and doesn’t come out when she hears Cass and Gabe fighting. She needs to be under the truck for something to happen (which I won’t spoil), and it just felt odd to me.

Characters: This book primarily follows 4 characters’ POV: Lewis (in part one), Gabe and Cass (part two), and Gabe’s daughter, Denorah (part 3). Personally, I found the character studies (rather than the horror plot) to be the best parts of this book.

Lewis is interesting in that he’s left the reservation and tried to make a life for himself with a white woman. I liked that he had his quirks - he liked to read trashy fantasy novels and worked on his motorcycle a lot - and I liked that his paranoia about the elk spirit created a kind of tension in the narrative. While reading his perspective, I wasn’t sure if the elk spirit was literal or something Lewis made up to symbolize his guilt, and I think Jones did a good job showing that Lewis’s paranoia made him think and act in strange ways.

Gabe and Cass are also well-developed in that they have their own lives on the reservation, but struggle to keep their head above water, so to speak. I appreciated getting a glimpse into what challenges they faced and how some of those challenges come from a clash between “traditional” and “modern/contemporary” culture. While I didn’t quite find Gabe and Cass as interesting as Lewis (in part because they barely remember the event from the past that triggers this whole “vengeful elk spirit” plot), they weren’t bad characters by any means. I liked Cass’s focus on horses and his plans for a future with Jo; and I also liked Gabe’s complicated relationship with his daughter.

Denorah was sympathetic in that she had some very clear goals for her life, and as a reader, I wanted very much for her to achieve those goals. She loves basketball, and readers can see that in the way she acts and thinks. But as much as I liked Denorah, I think her section (part 3) tended to drag out a little bit, perhaps because Denorah comes face-to-face with the elk spirit and the spirit’s vengeance felt a little misdirected. I also think the book as a whole ended somewhat abruptly; because the book ends with Denorah, I wanted a little more from her, like a commentary on the past and how she takes the pain of the past and uses it to move forward. Instead, it felt a little like a bunch of bad things happened at random, and there wasn’t much of a “lesson” (not that books need them, but I’m picky about my horror - I like the scary things to comment on something).

Supporting characters such as Lewis’s wife (Peta), Lewis’s coworker (Shaney), Cass’s girlfriend (Jo), etc. were likewise well-written and seemed complex. I don’t have much to say about them without giving away plot points, but I do think they served their purposes.

The elk spirit was... complicated. As a character, I didn’t really connect with her, despite Jones writing a couple of chapters from her POV. While I understand the desire for vengeance, I didn’t really feel it in my bones, so all the violence in the book that the spirit commits feels random and superficial. I think I would have connected with the spirit more if Jones had included more passages from her POV, getting us to empathize with her pain a little more or at least providing some kind of commentary on the rights of nature or something. But this might be personal preference, so take this criticism with a grain of salt.

TL;DR: Despite a lack of dread or suspense, The Only Good Indians is a welcome addition to the horror genre, using spooky, disturbing imagery to underline the struggle of four Blackfeet characters trying to make a life for themselves. While die-hard horror fans might find this book lacking, Jones’s novel will absolutely appeal to literary fiction readers, as the character studies are the strongest and most compelling parts of the book.

[rotationalsymmetry]

Fandom, social justice, and You Must:

Good morning all and happy Saturday. (Or whatever day/time of day it is when you read this.)

I just read a post about the Old Guard fandom that has some perfectly fine points about noticing which characters get more focus than others, and then moves on to suggesting an obligation for fans to change which characters and ships they personally focus on.

I think that, while the criticism is absolutely worth making, the solution side of the post is the wrong approach on multiple levels.

The first thing is: you ever read bad representation? Like, a character is technically a Diversity Win but in practice they’re a fucking caricature and have no personality other than their race, gender, whatever was going on with their group of people at a particular point in history, etc?

(There’s one series that is especially notoriously awful about this, the author is Philip Jose Farmer and the first book in the series is To Your Scattered Bodies Go. It’s a sort of big old historical crossover story, except it was mainstream published, and it is so bad. The female characters are women, that is their entire personality. The black characters are black and that’s it. Etc. So bad. Anyways.)

When people are writing (I don’t know if this is as big an issue with fan art) out of a sense of moral obligation or solely to teach a moral lesson without a love of the characters and a willingness to get dirty and do some things their ego doesn’t approve of, you get very flat, dry, stale writing. It’s unappealing. It’s not worth reading. Someone who’s engaging in fandom from a place of “oh, I don’t want people to not like me” or “I am going to be a Racial Justice Ally” is at significant risk of getting into that writer space.

Writing and fandom aren’t something like doing your taxes, where of you don’t really want to do it that doesn’t really matter. They’re more like playing a game with your child or a friend. Your emotional state, whether you’re into it or not, is actually going to influence whether you get the outcome you were hoping for.

So encouraging people to be open to specific possibilities and seeing if something clicks, is good. Gently attempting to expand your own capacity to love specific characters and really get into their inner life and drama, is good, just don’t force it if you give it a fair try and it’s not working. (Like dating? Maybe someone who isn’t the sort of person you dreamed about marrying at age 10 could be a great partner for you, it’s good to be open to the possibilities, but if you go on a couple dates and you don’t even really like spending time with them, it’s time to let it go.)

Nile is a very central character in the movie (I don’t know that she’s the protagonist, surely that’s Andy? We certainly see Andy a lot earlier), but the sort of person who loves Booker for his misery isn’t going to necessarily be able to transfer that over to Nile. Nile is bouncy and idealistic and doesn’t have that much angst and is going to be a lot more appealing to people who like badass fighters who are also kinda cinnamon rolls, which is a pretty different character type than Booker. And yeah, there is a shortage of black women characters who have that level of angst, because of social patterns around who is expected to give empathy and who is expected to receive it.

Some people are going to take a look at Nile or a Nile/??? ship (which...there’s a reason people are hesitant to ship Nile with other Old Guard members, there’s a lot of ways things could get unintentionally oogie there) and just not see anything to connect to in that and that’s OK.

Social justice work is a marathon, not a sprint. And which opportunities for Doing Something make the most sense for each person is going to be highly individual.

And...I’m not saying fandom representation is irrelevant? But...it’s one out of many, many issues that are relevant to social justice. There’s the cop stuff and education and childcare and workplace stuff and...I mean there’s a lot of things that need working on and picking one specific thing that’s relatively symbolic and relatively amenable to a very superficial “look at me I’m performing inclusivity” activism ...I don’t like it.

So, everyone makes this mistake once of trying to pressure people into specific changes that might not work for them, right? No matter how much I got into bicycle advocacy I was never going to get my mom to use a bicycle as a form of transportation. (And due to disability I don’t do that myself any more either.) Her contributions to a greener planet are things like driving a more fuel efficient car and getting thicker, more insulating windows put in and keeping the thermostat at arctic temperatures. You need to learn to be flexible and look for the people who are open to making specific changes and use more honey than vinegar and recognizing that there’s enough things that can be done or need to be done that not every single person needs to do any given thing.

Talking about personal experience can be really helpful here. For instance, talking about how you, personally learned to really love writing about a character that you’d previously dismissed. People need a roadmap, a path to follow. Because if you try to force yourself to love fandom in a way that just doesn’t work for you, well, loving people and loving things and loving fictional characters or ships is something of a miracle and you can be grateful when it happens but you can’t force it.

Oh, end note, I think we can learn something here from how so much of m/m shipping is not written by mlm and how sometimes that leads to things that actual queer men are kind of “wtf?” about? I’m definitely not saying that only black women should write black female characters. I am saying (and the person who wrote the post was white, so I’m not talking over black voices here or w/e) that when you have a situation where people in minority group x are mostly written by people not in that group, sometimes that goes off the rails in ways that are really uncomfortable or at least not actively good for people in group x. And people feeling obligated to write certain characters seems to me like a perfect storm for them writing them both badly, but also maybe badly in a way that might be hard to put into words and suggest corrections for.

#long post #fandom #discourse

[kingofthewilderwest]

One of the major flaws of HTTYD 3 in comparison to its predecessors is how childish the movie felt. The first two movies had the occasional joke but were still extremely mature in their storytelling. Have you read the article "Dreamworks execs have an incredible reason for why their films are unpopular" ? It came out a year after the second movie, and explains why they dumbed down the third.

It’s an interesting article and I’ve always thought there was some truth in the opinion: to their detriment, DreamWorks’ latest films haven’t focused on the creatively wild, often more mature spark that made things like How to Train Your Dragon, The Croods, Rise of the Guardians, Megamind, or The Prince of Egypt quality films. As the article writer notes:

Animated films, if anything, attract a much broader audience of older children, teens, and adults than they ever did in the Eighties and Nineties. Ironically, DreamWorks’s own films in the 2000s played a significant role in expanding the public’s perception about animated features. Now, DreamWorks is betting against its own history as they try to get back on track.

That said. Many of the earliest DreamWorks productions have a somewhat mature appeal to them, but I feel like DreamWorks has long played the game of wide audience appeal commercialism. For a period of time, they balanced their “artistic” or “venturesome” films against their “safer cash” films. The fluffier Turbo was released just one year before HTTYD2; Kung Fu Panda 3 and The Boss Baby were released a year apart, too. There was a sense of balance, letting the fluffier, probably more kid-appealing films earn money, while allowing them to take risks on more unique ventures. I’m not sure if that was their actual strategy, but regardless: balance of maturity. (And for the record, calling some DreamWorks movies “fluffier” is not intended to be an insult; I myself love their Mr. Peabody & Sherman).

And I think the reason I was so hardcore on board the DreamWorks train is that, whether it was an ill-conceived mistake (Shark Tale) or a big “what the fuck” (Bee Movie) or feeling somewhat adult (Antz), DreamWorks was willing to take those risks. DreamWorks was willing to be quirky. And DreamWorks was willing to put heart into everything; Mr. Peabody & Sherman definitely has heart to it, as does Home, as does Turbo from what I remember (only saw that one once).

I feel like advertisements for Trolls and The Boss Baby is where my friendship circles started to feel less enthused about DreamWorks. At that point, I saw some trust failing for DreamWorks’ creative direction - that DreamWorks was dumbing down their movies for children rather than making fluff family films with heart. The key phrase is “dumbing down.” There’s a huge difference between writing children’s stories and dumbing down for children. And that’s what this article writer was calling out, too.

Ghibli movies are written for children. Disney 2D animated films bring awe to children. How to Train Your Dragon understood that lots of its audience members would be children. But you breathe life into a quality story that children and adults can enjoy! Making a bunch of crappy jokes dumbed down to children is stuff like... at its worst... Norm of the North. When you’re making something shoddier, with half-assed fart jokes, because of an implicit idea children’s media doesn’t have to be as quality... because children allegedly aren’t going to notice quality... that’s where we run into problems.

Now, I’m not going to say whether or not I think DreamWorks has actually begun dumbing down its films. I know that’s the impression in my peer group. I know that’s an impression I’ve felt inside my heart, too. But I haven’t seen Trolls or Trolls World Tour or The Boss Baby so I can’t judge. But I think it’s safe to say there has been a gradual shift over time. And that escalated post-2014, where we got this from DreamWorks execs:

…the company's slate changes are more realistic/in-tune with the evolution in changes in the box office market as the 2012-2014 film challenges were tied to films which skewed older right as the box office began to see changes whereby animation demand was increasingly skewing younger as kids began to age out of the genre earlier. While we view the ability to reduce P&A as more difficult given the need to advertise to two distinct groups (kids and moms), the combination of both cost reductions in production and a younger skewing slate, do position the slate better in our view.

And my impression is it’s escalated lately (but I only have a small sample size of films, so I take what I say with a grain of salt). I remember during the NBCUniversal acquisition in 2016, fans feared DreamWorks would lose its sometimes mature, sometimes quirky heart. That the company would be in a downfall state for quality.

I had hoped that HTTYD3 might be a bastion against efforts to commercialize with cash-easy, not-as-heart-ful “kid” appeals. THW grossing a lot of money could help leadership remember that diverse audiences, not tiny children, can and do watch animated films - 3D animation’s just not a guaranteed success because it’s a more saturated market. It could at least let the tradition of some DreamWorks gutsier creative films perpetuate.

And I do think that THW doesn’t have as many problems as, say, The Boss Baby probably does, when it comes to “kid-specific appeal”. I feel like the tone in THW has a middle ground. THW was never going to be as dark as HTTYD2; DeBlois made that clear since the release of HTTYD2; but I do think there might have been an effort to lighten tone in places (ergo the large number of gag jokes that cluttered the film). There’s absolutely mature ideas inside THW: the concept of parting ways with someone you love because it’s better for both of you... that’s meaty... that’s something that even adults grapple with. Hiccup’s flashbacks with Stoick have the simple but in-depth storytelling mood I know of the How to Train Your Dragon brand. So I would phrase it as it’s not a case of complete dumbing down so much as it is some imperfect tonal choices and plot focuses (too much spotlighting on the Light Fury romance, for instance, and not weeding out an excessive amount of jokes... that again... cluttered the film). The first two HTTYD movies feel like carefully honed storytelling, capturing the essence of what their story needed. The third needed tonal and content reorganization. The presentation of stakes and plot progression weren’t on par with the first two films. The Hiccup-Toothless separation didn’t pack a hard punch to me because the steps we took to get to the end weren’t the tonal footsteps we needed.

There’s a reason I charged to theatres the weekend Abominable released (mind, this was before the map controversy over the film came out). I was hoping Abominable could be a DreamWorks film with art and heart. And you know? I think that Abominable was one draft short of being *INCREDIBLE*. The problem is it was one draft short. It stayed superficial instead of diving into the meat. The plot pacing was slow because we didn’t get into the meat, the characterization felt awkwardly paced and whiplashy because it didn’t get into the meat, and the humor felt childish rather than taking full advantage of things like character relations. But the inside heart - the inside potential - of Abominable is monumental. It’s still not a bad film! If they’d gotten that next draft, Pearl and DreamWorks could have had a piece on par with Megamind and The Croods. I absolutely believe that. If I had time, I would rewrite Abominable in fanfiction and show how much potential this thing had.

DreamWorks is no longer a young studio exploring whatever the crap it wants because it’s the new guy finding his voice or rebelling against the other voice. DreamWorks is an established powerhouse. And with establishment comes a certain degree of safety-playing and standardization of content. I don’t expect we’ll get as many wild tone shifts as Bee Movie (11/2007) to Kung Fu Panda (6/2008) or How to Train Your Dragon 2 (6/2014) to freaking Penguins of Madagascar (11/2014).

That’s not to say DreamWorks does or doesn’t make quality films. I admit I don’t have high hopes on some things like The Boss Baby 2. I do have my fingers crossed for The Wizards of Once; I hoooope that DreamWorks can treat TWOO as they did HTTYD... something with simple, powerful, overflowing, artistic heart.

Who knows. Guess we’ll see.

#httyd 3 criticism #httyd3 #httyd 3 #How to Train Your Dragon 3 #THW #The Hidden World #DreamWorks #analysis #my analysis #awesome anonymous friend #ask #ask me #Abominable #Anonymous

[aspoonofsugar]

Hello! I was reading your hxh metas and they're amazing!! Thank you for such amazing content 💜 I wanna ask if you have any thoughts/opinions about Kikyo Zoldyck as indivual character and her role in the current/future narrative of hxh...?

Hello anon!

Thank you for the very nice words! And sorry for the long wait!

When it comes to Kikyo, I have talked about her briefly in these two metas:

When it comes to Kikyo I don’t think the text offers us any hint that her and Oito are related and I actually think Oito is Kikyo’s opposite.

Both are women of humble origins who improved their status through marriage.

However, Kikyo has completely accepted her husband’s ideology and traditions even if they bring harm to her children.

While Oito has stated she came to regret her marriage after having given birth to Wobble.

At the same time Kikyo is firstly introduced hitting a servant who (incidentally) was born in Meteor City like her, whereas Oito has shown interest and kindness towards her servant and has tried to build a personal relationship with her.

Moreover, the fact that it is implied that some servants come from Meteor City further highlights the difference between these two opposite realities. On one hand there are people who found their own identities on their profession i.e. on the role they have in society. On the other hand there are people who lack a sense of identity because they are not part of society. The educative mechanism of Kukkuro Mountain uses the lack of self of the latters to strengthen the formers’ sense of identity.

About this, Kykyo is an interesting example since she is both a person who comes from Meteor City, but also a member of the Zoldyck family.

However, if we consider several occurrences we can see how her authority is often put into discussion.

Who knows? Maybe she hasn’t been completely accepted as a person on equal footing with the other adults of the family and the servants deep down dislike her because of this. What’s more, her showing the most typical Zoldyck-like reactions to her children’s behaviors (like praising Killua for showing attributes of a perfect assassin) might be her way to try to fit in and at the same time an attempt to compensate her original lack of identity. Basically she used to be a person outside of society and now that she has been able to gain a status she completely identifies herself with the beliefs of the family she has been accepted in.

In short, as for now, Kikyo has been a very minor character and it is difficult to foresee if she will gain more importance in the future. However, I have highlighted above some traits which could be explored more either to better characterize her or to give her some development.

First of all, the most interesting piece of trivia about Kikyo is that she is from Meteor City, like the Spiders and even some butlers (see Canary). This is something, which has never been explicitly stated in the manga and which is mentioned in the databook. That said, it is a very interesting detail because we know that the people of Meteor City are extremely poor and are not even considered people by the rest of the world. At the same time, they are defined by a strong sense of kinship and comraderie to the point that they are ready to sacrifice for unknown countrymen. However, these traits are not present in Kikyo. As a matter of fact Kikyo makes her identity completely overlap with her role in the Zoldyck family. She is Silva’s wife and the mother of his children. What is more, she has shown zero sympathy for Canary who is supposedly from Meteor City as well. In a sense, Kikyo goes even further than other members of the family in celebrating the Zoldycks and their profession, to the point that her behaviour is almost parodic:

One reason of this, may be that she is partially staging her persona to try to compensate for having joined the family later on and for the clear lack of power that she has within her own family:

Among the adults, so far, Kikyo seems to be the one who has less authority to the point that Killua completely disreguards her:

These thoughts lead me to some considerations. I can see three possible outcomes for Kikyo’s character, structurally speaking.

a) She remains a minor character.

b) She receives some major characterization, but no development.

c) She receives some development either positive or negative.

In cases a) and b), her story-line will probably overlap with and be a satellite of Silva’s. In other words, she will probably share her husband’s outcome.

In case c), things might be different. As stated above, the development could be either negative or positive. I don’t see much appeal in a negative development. This is simply because Kikyo is a) already a negative character and b) not built up to be a very efficient antagonist. After all Killua has already wounded her before the beginning of the series and even later on she has never been very effective in stopping him. Killua ignored her attempt to stop him in the Zoldyck arc and it is clear the characters whose authority he respects are Illumi, Zeno and Silva. In short, I think a conflict between Killua and Illumi/Silva has been built up more than one between him and his mother. That said, it is still possible for a conflict to happen. Kikyo might prove to be a good antagonist on her own right and she might spiral as a result of the conflict with her son.

Finally, if she were to develop positively, I think that the focus should be on a choice between a superficial idea of family rooted in status, which is what both Kikyo and Silva are implementing, and a true family, which is what is born by the positive relationships among people. In a sense, this is a choice all members of the Zoldyck family will be forced to make in the end. As a matter of fact it is central to the themes explored by them.

As far as Kikyo is concerned, she has mostly shown negative traits when it comes to her motherhood. She is possessive towards Killua and neglectful towards her other kids. That said, I wonder if scenes like these:

Might be small hints to the fact there is more to her. That said, it could be very well nothing.

In short, Kikyo is a character we know too little about to make precise speculations, so take my above ramblings as pure hypothesis and read them with a grain of salt.

Other than this, I am curious about Kikyo’s relationships with her children. In particular, I am interested in her bonds with Killua and Kalluto. As a matter of fact Killua and Kalluto show to have different POVs when it comes to Kikyo’s relationship with her youngest kid:

On one hand Killua’s map (which is clearly wrong under certain aspects) describes Kalluto and Kikyo’s relationship as mutual love. On the other hand Kalluto’s thoughts and the family photo imply that they feel less loved than Killua. As you can see, we are in front of a contradiction. A possible way to solve this contradiction is to read it as Killua being oblivious of Kalluto’s real situation. Killua might have confused Kalluto’s attempts to be loved with authentic closeness.

At the same time, another element in Killua’s map might complicate things further. As a matter of fact Killua believes Kalluto to be jealous of Alluka. We don’t know the details of what Killua called “jealousy”. However, according to what we know of Kalluto so far, it is probable that Kalluto’s feelings for their sister stem from feeling unloved in comparison with her. What is more, since Killua is the one closest to Alluka, it seems coherent that Kalluto is jealous of Alluka because of her relationship with their brother.

In short, different elements might suggest that Kalluto has felt neglected both by their mother and by Killua. This is also coherent with the two different theories I saw around concerning Kalluto’s choice of clothes. On one hand Kalluto’s kimono resembles the way Kikyo is dressed in flashbacks:

What is more Kalluto uses a fan to fight and in the 2011 anime Kikyo does the same.

On the other hand Kalluto wearing a kimono might also be an attempt to look more like Alluka. Of course Kalluto’s clothes might also have nothing to do with neither Alluka nor their mother.

In short, it is clear that there is a conflict going on among the three youngest Zoldycks and I am expecting this conflict to be addressed in the future. What is more, it is possible that this conflict will highlight Kalluto and Killua’s relationship with their mother more.

As a matter of fact, the theory above might suggest Killua has more in common with Kikyo than what he would like to admit. Moreover, even if the situation with Kalluto were to be different than the one I theorized, this would not change some similarities will remain between mother and son:

Here Tsubone claims that Illumi and Milluka have taken after their mother the most. However, we know Killua himself shares some traits with Illumi. Finally @subdee has mentioned in this post that Palm resembles Kikyo to an extent. This is something I have never thought about. However, as I have highlighted here, Killua and Palm share multiple traits:

First of all let’s consider that Palm and Killua are very similar. Actually the tendencies Killua criticizes Palm for are present in him as well.

It’s not by chance that Killua who considers Palm a crazy stalker ends up stalkering her and Gon during their date. The truth is that Killua tends to be possessive just like Palm is and, just like her, he is both a person who has been objectified for all his life and a person who has the tendency to objectify others to an extent. As a matter of fact he has been objectified by his family to the point that his brother planted a needle in him to try and make Killua become what the family wants. However, he also comments this when he reveals that he called the being in his sister Nanika aka “something”.

Killua is Silva’s son because Silva’s education taught him to objectify others despite the fact this is probably one of the things Killua hates the most in the world.

Palm, as the section above explains, is a person others tend to objectify, but she too has the tendency to treat males figures who come into her life as romantic partners ignoring their circumstances and the kind of people they are (for example she doesn’t care that Gon is a child). In short others treat her superficially, but she does the same as well.

Even Palm’s other flaw i.e. the fact that she has mood swings is a flaw Killua has as well. He has shown several times througout the series that he can go in killer mode very quickly and especially in the beginning he has trouble controlling himself. This is very similar to Palm being scared she might hurt Biscuit and the boys.

And Killua changing his mind often and being whimsical is something his family has called him out for several times and is at the root of Killua’s major flaw i.e. the fact that he tends to run away and to back down from things he has decided to do.

So you can see how Palm and Killua are two people with similar flaws and this is probably why in the beginning they strongly disliked each other. This is also why them connecting is important for the both of them.

We can see how these attributes are possessed by Kikyo as well (she is overly possessive of Killua and has mood swings, as we were shown in her introduction). In short, it is possible Killua might resemble his mother even if he dislikes her and that he will have to face it through a conflict with her and with Kalluto.

Finally, this might be unrelated, but I find interesting that Killua has problems with female authority figures:

And I wonder if these problems are related to the kind of mother Kikyo was since he shows her no respect whatsoever.

These are my main thoughts on Kikyo so far. I am sorry for the long wait and I hope you enjoyed them! Thank you for the ask!

#hxh #kikyo zoldyck #killua zoldyck #kalluto zoldyck #hxh theory #asksfullofsugar #anonymous

[carat82]

To my readers I ask a question- “What is the most important aspect you look for in a historical era heroine?”

Her wit? “Why should I be embarrassed I was fully clothed?”

Tenacious spirit? “My courage always rises with every attempt to intimidate me.”

Intelligence? “It is not what we think or feel that makes us who we are. It is what we do...or fail to do.”

Her ability to stand up for herself? “I have as much soul as you-and full as much heart!”

Hair?

Clothes?

“Wait what?!”

“I though we were discussing aspects of the heroines endearing qualities? Her hair? Isn’t that kinda superficial?” Yes,yes it is. Yet even in our day and age despite the need for us to see strong independent women portrayed on screen, some tend to nit pick the appearance of our heroine more then anything else. People have become experts about an era they never lived in or rely solely on what they have seen in portraits of that time period or perhaps read. Let’s face it we all have done this to a certain extent. But when such things as hair styles or perhaps even some costume choices in film or TV adaptations are different from what have been taught are indictative of that era, is this a valid enough reason to insist the story is no longer worthy to watch or to discourage or disparage others from entertaining themselves with that series or movie? To some the answer to that question is an unequivocal yes. To others the answer is a resounding no. The purpose of this latest blog is to broaden our horizons as to why certain choices are made in regards to the outward appearance of our heroines - at perhaps the expense of “historical accuracy”. For those who stand by their views of 💯 accurate, this is in no way meant to offend or upset you. Just a different perspective.

So without further adui let’s begin shall we?

(*note- when I use the term “many” this does not imply that there there are not those who completely diagree with my assessment. I know the examples I’m using have some or perhaps many who do not regard such as good adaptions and even have issues with the acting. Again just using these examples as a whole)

Many adaptations of the Regency era have been done on film and TV over the past 80 years. One of the first was Pride and Prejudice with Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier

This is regarded by many as a fine and worthy adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. But let’s face it anything with Sir Olivier is perfect in my book🥰. Both these actors do a fine job portraying these classic characters. But look closer....what is she wearing?? Wait is that dress from the 1830-1840’s. Yes it is. Isn’t this is supposed to be 1813? Yes, yes it is. So what happened? Well movie studios, back in the golden age, were known to reuse costumes in an attempt to save on the bottom line. Since MGM had produced several movies set in the middle to late 1800’s up to that point and had plenty of costumes to therefore reuse, we have Elizabeth Bennet wearing a full style dress that would come into fashion years from when the book was set. However, this in no way takes away from the performance of the actors and the movie as a whole. Even the most strict historical accurate fans still watch and enjoy this film for what it is. Yet, when other adaptations of novels come along and choices in costuming and hair are made that are more “modern” and deviate somewhat from that time period, those films and shows are chided for not following the rules. Why? How is what the studios did back in the in 40’s to Pride and Prejudice different from what is done now? Why the double standard? Let’s skip forward to the 80’s and 90’s. We saw costume dramas stick very closely to the correct rules of dress and grooming. Several adaptations were delivered to our TV and movie screens that are now considered the gold standard- Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensability, Emma,etc. Majority of us still enjoy and praise these adaptations 20-30 years later. But I must admit that when I rewatch these now, there is a dated feel about them. Now don’t get me wrong, they are still wonderful but it is quite obvious that they were produced 20-30 years ago. The musical score, if it had one, was fairly basic. Nothing that really stayed with you. The costumes were fine and the hair was... OK. Again most of these things stayed the same from one adaptation to the next . What stood out in these movies and series was the acting! Regardless of what they wore or how their hair was styled, we loved these adaptations because of how the actor embraced these roles and delivered to us the audience a memorable version of a beloved character.

So as we entered the 2000’s, filmmakers, who love these stories as much as we do, decided that it was time to “update” the look and feel of a period piece. They wanted to reach a younger more modern audience that perhaps had never watched a classic period piece before. And there was nothing wrong with that! These directors wanted others to enjoy the classics as much as they did. But they were wise and realized that a fresh take was needed to entice and draw a new audience in. This could not be a costume drama that their mothers and grandmothers watched. No, they needed to appeal to a younger audience. Which is what ALL filmmakers do, regardless of the genre. It’s how the big and small screen survive. So out went the hair and wigs with the historically accurate styles. The costumes had a few more modern cuts to them but all in all stayed relatively the same. Some of the dialog had a few updates so that an audience with not much experience in 1800’s literature ( which let’s face it is majority of us) could understand. Musical scores were updated so as to play on our emotions and draw us deeper in the story. And the result- some very fine and worthy adaptations- Joe Wright’s 2005 Pride and Prejudice. Andrew Davies 2008 Sense and Sensabilty. Jim Hanlon’s 2009 Emma. Let’s just focus on one of these adaptations- 2005’s Pride and Prejudice.

Kiera Knighly delivers to us the audience a fine portrayal of Elizabeth Bennett. But notice her hair. It’s down in some scenes.

We had not seen this before in other adaptations yet here we have Lizzy approaching Netherfield with long flowing hair. Why? We as the audience need to connect with Elizabeth. Again remember- new audience, younger demographic. This tells us that she really doesn’t care what the opinions are of a certain Mr. Darcy and the Bingleys. She is being herself-walking to the house alone and not caring about the state of her tresses. Does this detract from the story and Kiera’s acting? No. It gave me the audience a new fresh way to appreciate her character. Joe Wright wasn’t trying to mimic adaptations of years past. Why should he? His Pride and Prejudice was a much needed change from that we had seen before. And guess what? It paid off. A younger audience who had never seen Pride and Prejudice came to love this movie and 15 years later this is still their go to PP. After all isn’t that what we all want? For more people to experience Jane Austen’s stories? Who says that they have to be portrayed the same way each and every time. Isn’t that kinda... boring? Predictable?

Now let’s skip ahead to 2019. If you have read my other two blogs you know where this is going. So if you don’t want to hear about my defense of Sanditon I suggest you turn back now.

Andrew Davies introduces to us a character of Jane Austen that has never been portrayed on the screen before-Charlotte Heywood.

And as such we do not know who or what her character is like. We find out that at 22 she had never left home, having grown up on a farm with 12 siblings. That alone tells us that her appearance is going to be what some call “modern” and out of place but what I call practical and normal. Her father,while respectable and gentleman, is a farmer. She more and likely had chores like anyone else. Do you really think she had the time to care if her hair is pinned up. Uhh...nope. The first scene we see her in she is shooting rabbits! This tells us she is not Elizabeth Bennet or Marianne Dashwood or Anne Elliot. And Miss Austen wasn’t trying to write her as such. She is her own person. And as such will have things that set her apart from other Austen characters. As the series progresses we come to to learn she is practical, intelligent, sweet, but naive and inexperienced. Davies also decided to make a choice that would serve as her hallmark- her shoulder length hair that she wears down most of the time. Again, filmmakers have to appeal to their current audience. And again, like Joe Wright, he was hoping to get a younger more modern audience to tune in and enjoy a period piece or perhaps a Jane Austen adaptation for the first time. Frankly, this was a clever move on his part. He needed to show throughout the series that this adventure to Sanditon is truly unlike anything she has ever experienced. Charlotte is full of youthful exuberance with those doe-like eyes that are longing to experience life outside sleepy Willingdon. But remember, that while we love her, she has a lot to learn and is truly out of her depth at first around some of the situations and people she encounters. However, despite that she is true to herself- which is also a hallmark of all Jane Austen heroines. So as such there is no reason Charlotte needs to change her hairstyle when she comes to Sanditon. She is accepted as who she is by those around her. She is our Charlotte Heywood- using her ingenuity to help with the growth of Sanditon, trying to be a good friend, and exploring her new surroundings. Her hair is the least of anyone’s worries. And as an audience we find that Charlotte’s unpinned tresses make her approachable.Unpretentious. Human. More like us. Is there anything wrong with that? No. Being historically accurate is all and well, but when that is placed above all else in a series or movie it runs the risk of being just another adaptation. And that does not draw in a new, younger, more modern audience. Regardless of whether you agree with that statement or not, that is how the entertainment business is run today. So please if any readers are on the fence to watch this series because of some more modern uses in hair and grooming I ask that you to accept why the production crew made these choices and give it a try. As us fans wait on baited breath to see if another network will pick up our beloved Sanditon and continue with a second season-just remember you may get your heroine wearing her hair up. After all, Jane Austen characters usually go through a metamorphosis of some kind due to the need to adapt, grow, and perhaps even survive. Our Charlotte may find herself more grown up and guarded after a summer spent in Sanditon and this could well show in her appearance next time we see her... or not. I guess we will have to wait and see.

[citrina-posts]

Avatar: Cultural Appreciation or Appropriation?

I love Avatar: the Last Airbender. Obviously I do, because I run a fan blog on it. But make no mistake: it is a show built upon cultural appropriation. And you know what? For the longest time, as an Asian-American kid, I never saw it that way.

There are plenty of reasons why I never realized this as a kid, but I’ve narrowed it down to a few reasons. One is that I was desperate to watch a show with characters that looked like me in it that wasn’t anime (nothing wrong with anime, it’s just not my thing). Another is that I am East Asian (I have Taiwanese and Korean ancestry) and in general, despite being the outward “bad guys”, the East Asian cultural aspects of Avatar are respected far more than South Asian, Middle Eastern, and other influences. A third is that it’s easy to dismiss the negative parts of a show you really like, so I kind of ignored the issue for a while. I’m going to explain my own perspective on these reasons, and why I think we need to have a nuanced discussion about it. 

Obviously, the leadership behind ATLA was mostly white. We all know the co-creators Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino (colloquially known as Bryke) are white. So were most of the other episodic directors and writers, like Aaron Ehasz, Lauren Montgomery, and Joaquim Dos Santos. This does not mean they were unable to treat Asian cultures with respect, and I honestly do believe that they tried their best! But it does mean they have certain blinders, certain perceptions of what is interesting and enjoyable to watch. Avatar was applauded in its time for being based mostly on Asian and Native American cultures, but one has to wonder: how much of that choice was based on actual respect for these people, and how much was based on what they considered to be “interesting”, “quirky”, or “exotic”?

The aesthetic of the show, with its bending styles based on various martial arts forms, written language all in Chinese text, and characters all decked out in the latest Han dynasty fashions, is obviously directly derivative of Asian cultures. Fine. That’s great! They hired real martial artists to copy the bending styles accurately, had an actual Chinese calligrapher do all the lettering, and clearly did their research on what clothing, hair, and makeup looked like. The animation studios were in South Korea, so Korean animators were the ones who did the work. Overall, this is looking more like appreciation for a beautiful culture, and that’s exactly what we want in a rapidly diversifying world of media.

But there’s always going to be some cherry-picking, because it’s inevitable. What’s easy to animate, what appeals to modern American audiences, and what is practical for the world all come to mind as reasons. It’s just that… they kinda lump cultures together weirdly. Song from Book 2 (that girl whose ostrich-horse Zuko steals) wears a hanbok, a traditionally Korean outfit. It’s immediately recognizable as a hanbok, and these dresses are exclusive to Korea. Are we meant to assume that this little corner of the mostly Chinese Earth Kingdom is Korea? Because otherwise, it’s just treated as another little corner of the Earth Kingdom. Korea isn’t part of China. It’s its own country with its own culture, history, and language. Other aspects of Korean culture are ignored, possibly because there wasn’t time for it, but also probably because the creators thought the hanbok was cute and therefore they could just stick it in somewhere. But this is a pretty minor issue in the grand scheme of things (super minor, compared to some other things which I will discuss later on).

It’s not the lack of research that’s the issue. It’s not even the lack of consideration. But any Asian-American can tell you: it’s all too easy for the Asian kids to get lumped together, to become pan-Asian. To become the equivalent of the Earth Kingdom, a mass of Asians without specific borders or national identities. It’s just sort of uncomfortable for someone with that experience to watch a show that does that and then gets praised for being so sensitive about it. I don’t want you to think I’m from China or Vietnam or Japan; not because there’s anything wrong with them, but because I’m not! How would a French person like to be called British? It would really piss them off. Yet this happens all the time to Asian-Americans and we are expected to go along with it. And… we kind of do, because we’ve been taught to.

1. Growing Up Asian-American

I grew up in the early to mid-2000s, the era of High School Musical and Hannah Montana and iCarly, the era of Spongebob and The Amazing World of Gumball and Fairly Odd Parents. So I didn’t really see a ton of Asian characters onscreen in popular shows (not anime) that I could talk about with my white friends at school. One exception I recall was London from Suite Life, who was hardly a role model and was mostly played up for laughs more than actual nuance. Shows for adults weren’t exactly up to par back then either, with characters like the painfully stereotypical Raj from Big Bang Theory being one of the era that comes to mind.

So I was so grateful, so happy, to see characters that looked like me in Avatar when I first watched it. Look! I could dress up as Azula for Halloween and not Mulan for the third time! Nice! I didn’t question it. These were Asian characters who actually looked Asian and did cool stuff like shoot fireballs and throw knives and were allowed to have depth and character development. This was the first reason why I never questioned this cultural appropriation. I was simply happy to get any representation at all. This is not the same for others, though.

2. My Own Biases

Obviously, one can only truly speak for what they experience in their own life. I am East Asian and that is arguably the only culture that is treated with great depth in Avatar.

I don’t speak for South Asians, but I’ve certainly seen many people criticize Guru Pathik, the only character who is explicitly South Asian (and rightly so. He’s a stereotype played up for laughs and the whole thing with chakras is in my opinion one of the biggest plotholes in the show). They’ve also discussed how Avatar: The Last Airbender lifts heavily from Hinduism (with chakras, the word Avatar itself, and the Eye of Shiva used by Combustion Man to blow things up). Others have expressed how they feel the sandbenders, who are portrayed as immoral thieves who deviously kidnap Appa for money, are a direct insult to Middle Eastern and North African cultures. People have noted that it makes no sense that a culture based on Inuit and other Native groups like the Water Tribe would become industrialized as they did in the North & South comics, since these are people that historically (and in modern day!) opposed extreme industrialization. The Air Nomads, based on the Tibetan people, are weirdly homogeneous in their Buddhist-inspired orange robes and hyperspiritual lifestyle. So too have Southeast Asians commented on the Foggy Swamp characters, whose lifestyles are made fun of as being dirty and somehow inferior. The list goes on.

These things, unlike the elaborate and highly researched elements of East Asian culture, were not treated with respect and are therefore cultural appropriation. As a kid, I had the privilege of not noticing these things. Now I do.

White privilege is real, but every person has privileges of some kind, and in this case, I was in the wrong for not realizing that. Yes, I was a kid; but it took a long time for me to see that not everyone’s culture was respected the way mine was. They weren’t considered *aesthetic* enough, and therefore weren’t worth researching and accurately portraying to the creators. It’s easy for a lot of East Asians to argue, “No! I’ve experienced racism! I’m not privileged!” News flash: I’ve experienced racism too. But I’ve also experienced privilege. If white people can take their privilege for granted, so too can other races. Shocking, I know. And I know now how my privilege blinded me to the fact that not everybody felt the same euphoria I did seeing characters that looked like them onscreen. Not if they were a narrow and offensive portrayal of their race. There are enough good-guy Asian characters that Fire Lord Ozai is allowed to be evil; but can you imagine if he was the only one?

3. What It Does Right

This is sounding really down on Avatar, which I don’t want to do. It’s a great show with a lot of fantastic themes that don’t show up a lot in kids’ media. It isn’t superficial or sugarcoating in its portrayal of the impacts of war, imperialism, colonialism, disability, and sexism, just to name a few. There are characters like Katara, a brown girl allowed to get angry but is not defined by it. There are characters like Aang, who is the complete opposite of toxic masculinity. There are characters like Toph, who is widely known as a great example of how to write a disabled character.

But all of these good things sort of masked the issues with the show. It’s easy to sweep an issue under the rug when there’s so many great things to stack on top and keep it down. Alternatively, one little problem in a show seems to make-or-break media for some people. Cancel culture is the most obvious example of this gone too far. Celebrity says one ignorant thing? Boom, cancelled. But… kind of not really, and also, they’re now terrified of saying anything at all because their apologies are mocked and their future decisions are scrutinized. It encourages a closed system of creators writing only what they know for fear of straying too far out of their lane. Avatar does do a lot of great things, and I think it would be silly and immature to say that its cultural appropriation invalidates all of these things. At the same time, this issue is an issue that should be addressed. Criticizing one part of the show doesn’t mean that the other parts of it aren’t good, or that you shouldn’t be a fan.

If Avatar’s cultural appropriation does make you uncomfortable enough to stop watching, go for it. Stop watching. No single show appeals to every single person. At the same time, if you’re a massive fan, take a sec (honestly, if you’ve made it this far, you’ve taken many secs) to check your own privilege, and think about how the blurred line between cultural appreciation (of East Asia) and appropriation (basically everybody else) formed. Is it because we as viewers were also captivated by the aesthetic and overall story, and so forgive the more problematic aspects? Is it because we’ve been conditioned so fully into never expecting rep that when we get it, we cling to it?

I’m no media critic or expert on race, cultural appropriation, or anything of the sort. I’m just an Asian-American teenager who hopes that her own opinion can be put out there into the world, and maybe resonate with someone else. I hope that it’s given you new insight into why Avatar: The Last Airbender is a show with both cultural appropriation and appreciation, and why these things coexist. Thank you for reading!

#reposting this without the cut so that it survives with my new url! #avatar #avatar the last airbender #atla #cultural appropriation #culture #atla crit #meta #criticism #racism tw #self rb #citrina writes