#like he's very contradictory but it works when you look at him in the framework of his no 1 top priority and desire being revenge | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dercolaris · 3 years

Text

Moonlight

A new translation of one of my Scriddler stories, because @finzphoenix posted her picture to it (again, thank you!) and I thought it would be nice for everyone to have it in English. The flow is okay I think and overall working. I can live with that^^ Also a huge thank to @shin-arei for helping me with checking for some errors.

I hope you all enjoy it! Have fun!

Edward growled in frustration. Batman had been able to solve every single one of his puzzles so far, even with little difficulty. Sometimes the black-haired man wondered whether the dark knight didn't secretly have some helpers behind him. Maybe that was why he got the answers so fast every time. There was really no other logical way to explain it. His ideas were far too brilliant and sophisticated to be resolved so quickly. A loud beep signaled that the minutes were finally over. He opened the door of the microwave and touched the plate fearlessly without thinking, then drew his fingers back immediately. The man cursed louder than planned: "Damn, it's freaking hot! Well, at least the baby is working again. You're the best, Edward. As always of course.” The Riddler grinned and put his aching fingertips in his mouth, cooling the skin with his saliva. There was probably no device that he couldn't fix somehow. After a while he let his fingers slip out of his mouth and began to tidy up the table, putting the used tools back in the right places. That action probably made no sense to an outsider, but even in this apparent chaos, there was some kind of order. As a proof, the tinkerer usually never had to search long when he needed something from his work area. Jonathan of all people had to make fun of this at regular intervals and was very amused by this situation. In principle, this was more than contradictory from his partner, as he himself had no functioning system for meaningful organization and the countless laboratory utensils in his room simply came to rest where he had just used them. Edward snorted calmly. The constant accuse of Jonathan, that he's the mess in the relationship was on the verge of ridicule. Edward quickly let go of the ludicrous thought and strolled towards the hallway, turning off the light when leaving his workshop. Fortunately, they shared a common habit of leaving the lamps on in the corridor. The tinkerer strode across the gray wood on the floor, looked carefully into the adjoining room on the left, and raised an eyebrow. To his amazement, the laboratory was empty. His lips formed a thin line. Was Jonathan going to the toilet or, to the great surprise of whole Gotham, indulging in something to eat? The Master of Riddles walked into the stuffy room and dared to take a look at all the papers on the desk. A total mess.

“One after the other, Ed. Where the fuck did I put that stupid screw now? Damn. Bugger me. It can't just have vanished into thin air! For god sake!” The tinkerer sighed in exasperation and threw several tools over his shoulder, quietly talking to himself with clenched teeth. His entire workplace was a complete mess and any attempts to control it ended with the fact that the chaos after cleaning was often worse than before. At this point, the black-haired man had to admit a bitter defeat in his life. The shambles couldn't be tamed, no matter what he tried. Edward systematically rummaged through a large pile of bolts and nuts in a metal can, occasionally cursing when touching the sharp edges of some implements. His fingers finally fished out the correct object. He grinned wider, let the iron rotate skillfully between his fingers and muttered with conviction: “Well, there we have the culprit. No one escapes Edward Nygma.” With that, he turned back to the broken microwave and inserted the missing screw into the fitting opening in the metal case. The device had surprisingly stopped working yesterday evening. It was no problem to replace it with a new purchase of course, but where was the fun in just rebuying it? The tinkerer absolutely loved taking care of defective equipment and getting things working again, that any other mechanic would probably have thrown in the trash right away. The Riddler leaned down a bit and fumbled with his fingers on the timer. The lamp inside started to glow promisingly. To confirm his suspicion, he put a porcelain plate in the microwave and turned it on. Hopefully, a few minutes would be enough to heat up the dish. The Master of Riddles crossed his arms over his chest and watched the action with observant eyes. Edward groaned slightly, tapping his upper arms impatiently with his fingers. It was absolutely incomprehensible to many other villains, why the infamous Riddler often dealt with obvious trivialities. In their eyes it was just a complete waste of time. The tinkerer grimaced a bit and stared at the slowly descending digits on the black display. Most of the criminals simply had no idea how his brilliant mind worked. He wasn’t really capable of multitasking, but doing just one thing for half an eternity plunged the black-haired man into a deep depression sooner or later. A lack of success was a poison for his soul. Foresighted, the inventor had got used to the habit of including such short works, even if there were actually more important things on the to-do list. His partner was very different in this point. Jonathan almost never made it seem like he didn't mind getting results right away. Just the permanent further development of his fear toxin and the search for confirmation of his daring theory of fear reduction in human beings would drive the Master of Riddles insane in no time. Perhaps, that was one of the main reasons, why he almost always failed in his plan to humiliate the bat brain, which was clearly underexposed and shouldn't be a huge challenge under normal circumstances.

He picked up an almost fully written sheet of paper, which somehow seemed out of place for him, and stared at the lines in pure disbelief. The former psychiatrist had a typical doctor's handwriting and it had cost the tinkerer some nerves to be able to decipher it to some extent. Even now there were still words on the piece of paper that he could only interpret with a great amount of creativity. The unknown characters and numbers between the text made it still clear, that the older man was working on some new parts of his formula. Chemistry had never been Edward's specialty. With a small sigh he put the paper back on the table and went to the window, slowly moving the dark green curtain aside. Even if the sun was staying a little longer on the sky in autumn, twilight fell surprisingly quickly over Gotham in the early evening hours. The soft red gradually gave way to an almost dripping darkness. The Riddler put his hands in his trouser pockets and looked at the surrounding area with an uneasy feeling. That they had to live near a forgotten piece of forest and that the first signs of a possible civilization were a good ten kilometers away emphasized the eerie atmosphere. Jonathan clearly enjoyed the solitude, or rather the intimate togetherness, in the Victorian house. In return, he was willing to take several miles to get to the next suburb. The brown-haired man had withdrawn more and more in recent years and finally decided to eke out his existence outside of society. Edward smiled softly. That was phrased a bit pessimistically, but hit the point quite well. He knew that his partner absolutely loathed unnecessary small talk between neighbors. He had probably worked as a psychiatrist long enough to be fed up with humanity for a lifetime and beyond. The Riddler, on the other hand, found the situation in pure isolation still extremely strange and it made him more than nervous when noises from the forest slipped through the open windows randomly. He would never admit it openly to his partner, but it was quite scary to live here in the woods. The inventor averted his gaze from the window and went back into the hallway, searching the rest of the first floor for the gaunt man. When he found no trace of Scarecrow in the living room either, the black-haired man paused for a second. Had he forgotten an appointment? Not really. Edward took out his pocket calendar and slowly flipped through the weeks, finally stopping at the current day. Nothing. He frowned. Had there been a valid reason for Jonathan to go outside and leave him?

The tinkerer went to the glass door to the veranda and dared a look out at the white, slightly shabby wooden framework. The misshapen ceiling lamps were all rusted from the constant rain. The Riddler stretched his head a bit more to be able to see better into the blurry distance and finally spotted the very narrow back at the other end of the creaking floorboards. He slowly pushed the door aside and stepped out into the cool night air. Without any hurry he walked to his partner, leaned next to him on the wooden parapet and followed the staring eyes of the former psychiatrist up in the sky. The full moon stood ominously in the center of the blackness, clearly stole the show from the great number of twinkling stars beside it. The brown-haired man was breathing heavily, almost in awe: “Isn't it a breathtaking sight, Edward? When I look at the glowing constellations in the night sky, I feel how insignificant my short existence on earth actually is. Fascinating.” The Master of Riddles was startled, but initially said nothing about this cruel statement. The corners of his mouth twitched slightly. A gentle breeze caught the couple on the porch and made them both barely noticeably trembling. The black-haired man finally mumbled: “Not really, John. I find it rather scary to occupy myself too much with my own impermanence.” The other gave a muffled laugh and turned slowly to the tinkerer. Edward let his eyes slide leisurely down from the dark sky, stared into the pitch-black forest. A few crows flew out of the tree tops with a loud crack and briefly covered the moon. Distracted, the inventor didn't notice that the former psychiatrist had hold out his hand to him. A quiet throat clearing made him suddenly aware of the unexpected gesture. The Riddler looked inquiringly at his partner, then hesitantly touched the long fingers in front of him. Jonathan took a step closer to him and placed his other hand on the hip of the black-haired man, smiled meaningfully. The Master of Riddles still wasn't quite sure what the other was up to. The lean man spoke softly: "Don't be afraid, Edward. Even if your existence will not matter to many, your presence in my life will make a huge difference.” With these words he began to move, gently leading his significant other through the night in a slow dance. The Riddler blushed slightly and finally put his free hand on the older man's narrow shoulder, surrendering to the unusual moment without really questioning it. He studied the angular face of the brown-haired man, looking for the many bumps on his pale skin. The blue, icy eyes drilled deep into his soul as usual and searched successfully for all the small and bigger secrets that Edward wanted to keep to himself.

Jonathan was extremely talented at drawing out every painful detail in his life without revealing too much about himself. The tinkerer didn't even know if the older one was a Gotham native. There were clear indications that the former psychiatrist did not come from a big city, or at least had not lived in one for a long time. He was overwhelmed by the hustle and bustle of the main streets far too quickly and preferred the quieter suburbs to the lively center, although this only had disadvantages in his actual situation. In addition to these signs, there was also a strange accent, which the thin man tried to desperately suppress. It was only audible when he was immensely excited or visibly upset. Otherwise Scarecrow was a walking mystery. A mystery he still couldn't solved. Edward blinked two times and carefully laid his face into the crook of the other's neck, instantly enjoying the faint warmth emanating from him. The pleasant smell of roasted coffee rose to his nose. Jonathan usually drank at least one pot of the black liquid and since he often played with a few beans while working, his fingers also smelled of freshly brewed coffee. The former psychiatrist's chest rose and fell evenly. The Master of Riddles closed his eyes, simply relaxing, listening to the rhythmic beating of the heart of his counterpart. They moved in unison across the floorboards, only accompanied by the gentle glow of the moonlight, which tried to cast its shadows on the wooden facade. Edward clawed his fingers a bit deeper into the soft fabric of his partner's oversized shirt and practically held onto it. After a while he heard the hoarse voice of Jonathan's whisper: "We are immortal in moments like this, Edward." The tinkerer shuddered slightly and looked up in amazement, staring breathlessly into the blue eyes of the gaunt man. Jonathan leaned forward without a word, tenderly sealing their lips in a sensual kiss.

#DC #Batman #edward nygma #Jonathan Crane #riddler #scarecrow #scriddler #arkhamverse #finzphoenix #shin-arei #dercolaris

23 notes · View notes

bloodhonnie · 3 years

Note

maybe tmi but do you think that only ever falling for people who i know for a fact won't reciprocate is a symptom? the last time i fell in love it was so intense i felt like i was put on this earth just to exist in his vicinity and the whole time he had a gf of 5 years and said he saw me like "one of the boys" LMAO. part of me's like if you show interest in me there must obviously be something very wrong with you otherwise you wouldn't be able to even stand me... i swear 2 years ago my friend told me he was gay and for a week later all i could think was have i actually been in love with him this whole time?😂 also like you said! if they won't be in a relationship with me i don't have to think about my complex and very contradictory intimacy issues lol

Hello! I’ll try my best to explain what I think it is for me and you can do with that information what you will. Also a huge disclaimer that I do not self diagnose more like self speculate but I don’t shit on anyone that does self diagnose. Getting a diagnosis is hard and sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I haven’t been diagnosed with ADHD so take this with a grain of salt I just think this describes what I go through the best.

*disclaimer!! I’m not saying that rsd and bpd are the same thing or that ppl that only have bpd can have rsd. Rsd is specific to people that have adhd. I’m extremely aware but due to the similarities I thought it would be prudent to use it as a framework to explain what rejection and abandonment in relationships looks like for people with bpd.*

So into my answer! It’s extremely common for people who have ADHD (both children and adults) to have something called rejection sensitive dysphoria (which I will be referring to as RSD from here on out). RSD as described by webMD: “RSD can affect relationships with family, friends, or a romantic partner. The belief that you're being rejected can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you act differently toward the person you think has rejected you, they may begin to do so for real.” The webMD article notes that there are similarities between symptoms of RSD and BPD. This excerpt from this psychology today article section titled: Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria in Relationships, explains how RSD can interfere severely in your life affecting your quality of life.

“As you may expect, RSD can have a significant impact on having relationships—or even the seeking of them. Dating can be especially hard for someone with RSD, as they are hyperfocused on any perceived slight whatsoever (Why did it take so long for them to text back?), and they may assume they are being rejected when that is far from the case. They may ruminate on what they said or did "wrong," or isolate themselves to the point of self-sabotaging and actually driving the other person away due to seemingly not being interested themselves.”

The next paragraph explains this cluster of symptoms further. Being insecure in your relationships can be a deterrent to those seeking you out or those that are interested in you.

“Within relationships, people with RSD can have different ways of manifesting their underlying discomfort and fear, and sometimes, gender roles can make a difference. A person may continually second-guess their actions, wanting frequent reassurance from their partner that everything is "OK" within the relationship. They may grow timid and afraid of sharing their real feelings because of the fear that those feelings won't be deemed acceptable. They may escalate conflicts with anger that feels out of proportion to the situation.”

You can check out the full article for a full list of symptoms that comprise RSD. Onto my point now. As someone diagnosed with BPD you might be familiar with the fact that we tend to have unstable relationships in our lives. Wether these relationships are romantic or not usually isn’t much of a factor when it comes to our insecurities surrounding how others perceive us. So, not only do we have an unstable sense of self, but we also have an unstable sense of how others view us. This usually stems from childhood neglect and trauma. When a child forms an insecure attachment to their parents believing or actually witnessing their parents, guardians, or caretakers leave or move on can cause long lasting trauma. It’s a form of emotional stability teasing. By that I mean that usually the caretaker intentionally or unintentionally essentially teases the child with emotional and physical stability. Some examples might be a semi absentee parent or a parent that verbally abused their child by claiming that they will leave because of how the child is or simply because they want to. Both of these scenarios can cause a child to no longer trust those around them. Children learn how to behave in society by observing their peers but most importantly from observing their caretakers. What’s my point? My point is that there’s some evidence to suggest that people with BPD experience something similar to RSD due to trauma or other factors. The first step anyone with BPD can take that will change their life is becoming self aware of the way they are and what BPD looks like for them. It’s important to note that I by no means am an expert in this and this is what I remember from my psych classes.

Anyways moving on to my own personal experiences. The biggest and most harmful situation to me that I perpetuated was liking someone who told me not once but twice that they didn’t wanna be in a relationship with me. I’m not saying that I’m fully at fault but it’s literally so annoying that I definitely subconsciously knew they would never take me seriously and I decided to bet all my money on the same pot. The situation is a bit complicated but it boils down to the fact that I knew they weren’t truly attainable so I cut it off only to go back TWICE to see if it would work out. I knew they weren’t attainable, they had told me so and yet I still continued to pursue them. Not everything is black and white tho and sometimes you need to learn to trust yourself and your intuition. I wasn’t particularly wrong for believing that they might come around but I was wrong for entertaining it simply because I wouldn’t have to actually commit despite what I thought and felt at the time. My experience with BPD is very similar to RSD except that for me as someone with BPD and not RSD I experience this all the time with everyone in my life. I don’t feel secure about any attachment I have to anyone and believe that eventually all of them will leave me because I am actually as bad as I think. This isn’t true and it’s a hard thinking pattern to break.

I don’t know if this helped? It might just be me rambling into the night. Anyways thanks for the ask and thanks for sharing with me! Stuff like this can be hard to sift through!

#personal #bpd #borderline personality disorder #actuallyborderline #actually borderline #actually bpd #actuallybpd #vent #borderline #text

2 notes · View notes

h-sleepingirl · 4 years

Text

On Double Binds (A Hypnokinky Article by sleepingirl)

Many are familiar with the concept of “double binds” either inside or outside of the hypnosis world – even if not by name. There is the well-known example of something like, “Would you like to do this now, or later?” which highlights one aspect of double binds – creating the illusion of choice between two options while underplaying any others. However, as we’ll explore, double binds and binds in general are both more complex and more broad than is described by a “this or that” sentence.

In this essay, we’ll aim to explore double binds in depth – including their origins, the various perspectives on their applications, and examples of how to be versatile with them – to further our use of them as hypnokinksters. Let’s explore.

Who?

Within the framework of hypnosis, language, NLP, and other fields, there is a fascinating amount of overlap, not only in content, but in the key players involved therein. It is ideal to discuss these topics with the context of who was involved and what the cultural climate was surrounding them instead of in a vacuum.

Gregory Bateson was the first person to introduce the idea of a double bind while investigating language and communication in patients with schizophrenia. (He did this along with colleagues such as Jay Haley, author of “Uncommon Therapy”, an oft-cited book analyzing the techniques of Milton Erickson.) What they theorized in their paper, “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia” (1956) was that schizophrenic individuals have a difficult time discerning choice both inside and outside of situations involving double binds, and that double binds occur frequently in the family environment of a schizophrenic patient, potentially contributing to the development of the disorder. Also in the paper was extensive discussion of the “ingredients” of double binds, according to the authors – including conversation of Erickson’s therapeutic use of them, how people tend to respond in various scenarios, and the framework of communication that they fit into.

Bateson is one of these “key players” in the “canon” of the body of hypnosis knowledge. He wrote the introduction to “The Structure of Magic, Vol. I: A Book About Language and Therapy” (1975) – the very first book that Richard Bandler and John Grinder put out in their soon-to-be extensive series on Neuro-Linguistic Programming. In fact, looking back to the origins of NLP and where it first began formulating at University of California, Santa Cruz, Bateson was a professor who had close contact with Bandler – an eager student interested in Gestalt therapy – and Grinder – the professor specializing in linguistics. Both of them drew upon Bateson’s body of work when formulating the beginnings of NLP, and Bateson ended up being the person who introduced the two of them to Erickson.

While NLP is a goldmine of history and good referential leads, it has an unfortunate (and ironic) habit of distorting the information and terms that it borrows. “NLP double binds,” for example, differ from “Bateson double binds,” and in the hypnokink world we take blindly from both sources. It’s prudent for us to strive to understand some about NLP to glean information on where many of our hypnotic habits come from, and it does provide a valuable context of how to analyze them, including in this case with binds.

NLP

NLP – especially early NLP – has an interesting method of breaking down chunks of “flawed” communication and acknowledging both how they can negatively impact someone and how they can be used to the operator’s advantage in inducing trance or change. The former is called the “Meta model” and lists various therapeutic challenges to problematic thought patterns. For example, someone might say, “My partner doesn’t care about me,” and NLP says to ask, “How do you know that? What have they done to show that?” to recover the “missing information,” which is referred to as “Deletion” in the Meta model. On the flipside, the “Milton model” (referring to THAT Milton) says that you can use Deletions to your advantage – for example, saying, “You can feel it much stronger now, can’t you?” where both the object of the sentence, “it,” and the comparison word, “stronger,” are left purposefully vague and without index to allow the subject to fill in the blanks themselves.

This is a very simplified and incomplete discussion of both the Meta and Milton models, but the key here is to understand double binds in a similar fashion – from one perspective, they are a hindrance and can be challenged, and from another, they can be utilized purposefully to obtain results. Some descriptions of NLP include binds as part of these models, while others break binds down into the simple communication chunks given by the Meta and Milton models.

Ingredients of Double Binds

To fully be able to utilize double binds, we must move past the model of them as simple “this or that” phrases. Let’s discuss them broadly to understand how they apply in both everyday situations as well as hypnotically. We will compare and contrast “Bateson double binds” with “NLP double binds”.

According to Bateson, double binds:

Require two or more people, one of whom is being acted upon by the other(s) who somehow have influence, authority, or superiority over the subject

A classic example is parent to child, but even child to parent is possible if the parent feels like they do not have control or authority over the situation

Often give a not-unfamiliar experience of being stuck in a dilemma, especially in the case of them being problematic

Bateson places high value on the idea that in the context of someone’s life, the double bind is not a single experience and thus can’t be resolved as such; the person experiences the feeling of being stuck as patterns or habits

Have a “primary injunction”: they create a sense that there is a “right” thing to do, and if the subject doesn’t perform, they will be “punished” (whether verbally, by withdrawal of attention, cultural stigma, etc)

This is often cited as having two possibilities: “Don’t do this, or I’ll punish you” and “If you don’t do this, I’ll punish you” – perhaps an example might be a boss telling an employee that they need to finish a project by the end of the day; the punishment if they don’t is implied

Have a “secondary” and sometimes “tertiary injunction”: conflicting with the initial message, they create a sense that even if they fulfil the original requirements of the situation, there is no way to do it that doesn’t also fail some other aspect of it

Continuing the above example, the boss gives the employee extra work and expresses something like, “This isn’t punishment, it’s acknowledgment of your skill” – the employee may be overworked, but the only way to avoid more work is to go against the initial premise of, “Do the work or you will be punished”

May exist outside the scope of these clear guidelines if the subject often feels like their world is full of double binds and “no-win” scenarios

Bateson describes part of this in terms of the relationship between people – there is an “important” relationship that the subject doesn’t want to jeopardize and simultaneously feels unable to communicate on the paradoxical or uncomfortable nature of the situation or messages

May differ from the exact feeling of being “stuck between a rock and a hard place” in that the subject may have difficulty discerning the nature of the bind or what is preventing them from acting

For example, in a situation where there is an unspoken rule not to question a parent, and the child witnesses a parent doing something wrong, the child may feel paralyzed but not understand why

Certainly, Bateson’s focus is on double binds that impede the individual in some way, and this description of binds might be new to those of us that only are familiar with binds from a hypnotic level. In Bateson’s binds, as well, the entire scenario and environment that exists is a large focus to how the bind works – circumstantial double binds, or double binds where the “injunctions” (conflicts) are entirely nonverbal.

But Bateson does, in the original paper, talk about double binds in a therapeutic context, in fact referencing Milton Erickson and hypnosis. Here is an excerpt:

Another Erickson experiment (12) seems to isolate a double bind communicational sequence without the specific use of hypnosis. Erickson arranged a seminar so as to have a young chain smoker sit next to him and to be without cigarettes; other participants were briefed on what to do. All was ordered so that Erickson repeatedly turned to offer the young man a cigarette but was always interrupted by a question from someone so that he turned away “inadvertently” withdrawing the cigarettes from the young man’s reach. Later another participant asked this young man if he had received the cigarette from Dr. Erickson. He replied, “What cigarette?”, showed clearly that he had forgotten the whole sequence, and even refused a cigarette offered by another member, saying that he was too interested in the seminar discussion to smoke. This young man seems to us to be in an experimental situation paralleling the schizophrenic’s double bind situation with mother: An important relationship, contradictory messages (here of giving and taking away), and comment blocked–because there was a seminar going on, and anyway it was all “inadvertent.” And note the similar outcome: Amnesia for the double bind sequence and reversal from “He doesn’t give” to “I don’t want.”

The situation in this case is considered by Bateson and colleagues to be a double bind, as the necessary ingredients are present and the scenario itself creates the bind. There is another interesting comment as well, that the “amnesia” is a somewhat expected response. What Bateson is referring to here is the way that people may deal with feeling bound – not necessarily literal loss of memory, but change in perception of the event. The subject of a double bind is often mentally struggling to parse the situation, which may manifest in a variety of different ways, depending on their perspective and how aware they are of all of the aspects of the bind. The specific feeling of being trapped seems to be the hallmark of binds, in Bateson’s theory – that is what he and his colleagues were studying.

Bateson says this is a non-hypnotic example, but it is interesting to think about whether Erickson would agree with that assessment, or if we as hypnokinksters would, considering our broad perspective on mind play in general. We only have Bateson’s account here, but perhaps it is worth investigating about what it means to feel “stuck” in a situation that is hard to discern, rolling something over in one’s mind, changing focus between internal and external – all very hypnotic patterns. But while this is something we’ll explore more in depth, this is not really the kind of double bind we’re familiar with from the hypnosis world – so let’s dive into where that version of them really comes from: NLP.

According to NLP, double binds:

Are often a question, using the word “or”

“Are you ready to go deeper, or are you ready for something more intense?”

Offer a real or perceived choice between two options while explicitly downplaying or not mentioning any others

“Would you like to talk about this now, or after dinner?” – no choice offered to not have the conversation, or have it on a later day

Have potential to be rejected if they are not true binds

The subject may see other options and choose to circumvent the original offer – in the previous example, “Can it wait until tomorrow?”

Often are meant to facilitate one outcome chosen by the operator, even though the subject is apparently given a choice

“Do you want a quick trance or a long trance?” – the outcome is that trance is going to happen in both cases

Can be “unconscious” or ambiguous – framed in such a way that the answer to the question is not truly consciously answerable

“I wonder if your feet will go into trance before your head, or vice versa…” – this can be emphasized by changing the perspective of the sentence, “I” vs “you”, “I wonder…” vs “Do you think…”, or other verbal markers such as “Who knows if…”

Often are composed with other aspects of the Milton model

“You’ll be a great subject if you listen really carefully, or if you let my suggestions float in unnoticed…” – the use of “if/then” is indicative of causal thinking, which is a standard part of the Milton model, also presuppositions

Here we see the common habit of NLP in its natural environment: the “borrowing” of a term and concept well-established in psychology, and distorting it. Sometimes this sort-of-infamous NLP distortion renders the result useless, but there are certainly cases (such as this one) where the theory and practice that comes of it is worth thinking about, understanding, and finding ways to use. This is the “double bind” that most of us are familiar with – a single expression ranging from simple to complex which attempts to garner one outcome through the false offering of choice. We know now that this is very distinct from Bateson’s binds, in many ways, with a notable exception in that both Bateson and NLP reference Milton Erickson as being masterful with them. We will compare, contrast, and attempt to reconcile the two, but first let’s talk a little more about NLP binds in hypnosis.

The term “double bind” seems to beg the question, “Are there other forms of binds?” The answer is yes. The classic example, “Would you like to go into trance now, or later?” is a double bind. If we remove one of the options, we’re left with, “Would you like to go into trance now?” This is a theoretical “single” bind, because upon the subject responding positively, they’ve “bound” themselves to a course of action or thought. Oftentimes, binds overlap with other NLP artifacts, such as being part of a “yes set” or being part of Milton model language patterns. For example, “Do you think that going deeper into trance like you are right now means that I’m weakening your will?” binds a “yes” response to the cause/effect of them subjectively feeling more submissive or controlled by you. Of course, we can add options as well, and come up with a “triple” or “quadruple” bind – “Would you like to go into trance now, or later, or would you like me to choose?”

NLP binds are about having a general goal in mind and being able to break it down into multiple scenarios to offer which lead to that goal. If the goal is to get someone to go into trance, you can think about the various aspects of that situation – what position they can be in (“Would you prefer going deep sitting up or laying down?”), when it’s going to happen (“…immediately or in a moment?”), parts of their body (“…eyes open or closed?”, “…hands in your lap or hanging down?”), what else is involved (“…staring at a watch or a spiral?”), how they are feeling (“…excited or pleasantly nervous?”, “…aroused or too deep to be turned on?”), what they are thinking about (“…focused on my voice or my eyes?”, “…listening harder with your left ear or your right ear?”), and many, many other options that have to do with all of the different variables. This could be about the environment, who is involved, what you’re doing, and much more.

Compare, Contrast, Reconcile (Applications)

In this section, we’ll take what we’ve learned about these two distinct types of binds and see where they are similar, where they differ, and where they can be spliced.

Choice and/or No Choice

One of the major differences between these two forms of double binds is that in Bateson’s, the sense of being trapped is important to the bind itself, while NLP seems to emphasize an aspect of sneakiness – you don’t necessarily want the subject to know there are other options, if there are any, and the goal is for the subject to feel like they are making a choice themselves. But an NLP bind can also be a Bateson bind, for example, in a situation where a hypnotist asks a subject, “Are you ready for me to fuck up your mind, now, or do you need a break?” and the subject blushingly responds that now is good, but the hypnotist does not immediately signal to them that they are doing hypnosis. The subject is left unsure – is hypnosis happening, or not? Likely they don’t want to ask to clarify or push. This leads to a variety of possible responses – perhaps the feeling of hypnosis becomes ambiguous, and the act of the subject continuously checking internally and wondering if trance has happened becomes hypnotic. The sneaky hypnotist can take advantage of this.

This feeling of being trapped in paradox is evident in the reverse of this as well – the common trope of the hypnotist saying, “Don’t go into trance…” while swinging a pocketwatch or otherwise signalling trance. The subject is unsure how to respond. In hypnokink, there should never be risk of real punishment or disappointment from a dilemma like this, so it is more of a playful version of Bateson’s bind than a true version of one, but it is one that we can explore. Any situation where you create incongruent messages and expectations fits – trying to get a bimbo to act smart, a scenario where the subject is told not to orgasm but it’s unclear what the “punishment” would be for disobeying, telling someone that it’s dangerous to brainwash themselves but rewarding each step in that direction.

You can conceptualize it like this: A Bateson bind is a scenario where there is no perceived correct response, and an NLP bind is a scenario where all perceived responses are correct. Once we understand the usefulness of both, we can freely intermingle and make decisions about which to choose.

Implications

Another place that we can marry the two effectively is taking into account Bateson’s focus on the personal history, environment, and mindset of the subject as essential to a double bind. In many of his examples, the bind comes partially as a product of these things – in a scenario of a potentially unhealthy relationship, one partner may express to the other, “If you loved me, I wouldn’t have to ask you to do this.” This is a classic Bateson double bind – the partner clearly must do the thing they are being asked to do, but by doing so, they fulfil the conditions that the first partner laid out as meaning that they don’t love them. Perhaps, in this case, there is a history of the first partner asking for certain things to be done – they themselves are in a pattern where they expect the second partner to never follow through, thus never giving them a chance to “prove them wrong.” This unspoken part of the bind that exists – as well as any others, such as the theoretical second partner’s childhood being filled with nagging parents – is just as important as the verbal construction of the bind.

We can apply this knowledge to the NLP double bind by reducing the verbal aspects of binds, and leave them implied. For example, in the case of two partners on a video call together with limited time, the hypnotist may allude to the fact that they are going to do trance (“Well, gotta fuck your shit up at some point…”) which leaves the subject to wonder when it’s going to happen. (As discussed previously, not immediately acting upon the statement or changing the subject away from trance can create the Bateson bind.) The hypnotist may ask, “How badly do you want it?” which presupposes that there is a desire as well as urgency. The “hidden” option is the response of “I don’t want it,” which is not explicitly downplayed, but considering the context (unless the subject is going for bratty) the answer will usually be somewhere on the scale from “kinda badly” to “really badly.” In general, we should strive to be aware of our partners’ thought patterns and personal history in order to better utilize it, as well as striving to be able to create patter that doesn’t sound like it came out of an NLP manual.

The Hypnokink Bind

There is a sort of third perspective on double binds here – the perspective of us as erotic hypnotists, where we almost expect our partners to understand when we are binding them, because that’s part of the fun. Not every hypnokinky subject at every time will key into when a bind is happening, but many will recognize the classic NLP pattern, and this is something we need to keep in mind as hypnotists. Often, we’re able to tell by their response, whether it’s a knowing smile or a furrowing brow. The bind in this case becomes fully voluntary – it is no less of a “bind,” but we should examine our motivations for using them and how we can adapt to a situation where a bind is fully informed and consented to, even appreciated.

In the case of a subject who knows the bind is happening, perhaps one option is to bind even more fully – in “The Brainwashing Book,” we talked about the idea of “traps” and how we can make our suggestions and language encompassing in a way that there is no available “failure” response. Continuing the example, instead of simply saying, “Would you like to go into trance now, or later?” we could say something like, “Do you think your desire to go into trance affects whether you notice it happening immediately, or in a little while, or even if it slips past your awareness?” A few things are at play here. There is a meta-question about the real question – a “yes” or “no” response to whether they think their desire matters doesn’t affect the presupposition that trance is going to happen. In fact, this presupposition isn’t challenged even by the subject wondering about noticing or not noticing anymore. Whichever response they have – feeling trance now, feeling trance later, or not feeling trance at all – is covered by the original question. There may even be some confusion and struggling to parse, which fits inside the Bateson bind: Stuck between various options, especially for someone who is trying to analyze, not sure if there is a “right” answer, and the feeling that they’re unable to properly challenge it as it happens.

Depending on the situation – if this is a verbal back-and-forth, or if the subject is not verbally responsive in trance – there are options to continue the bind as suggestive patter (“…And I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I enjoy wondering about it, and maybe you’d like to enjoy wondering with me, going back and forth with just easy curiosity about how you will respond to trance this time and how your internal thoughts affect it…”) or even to bind further, adding in more restrictions and “steering” the subject how you’d like them to go (“…You should decide: Is it important to you to consider this, or is it something that you can just let go of?”).

Collapsing the Bind

There is a final aspect to binds that we must consider as something useful – what happens if or when the bind is released? In the case of the subject being unsure if they are supposed to be in trance or not, the clarity of the hypnotist explicitly releasing the bind is something that we universally know is freeing. Think about similar examples in hypnosis – “confusion” or “overload” inductions such as the 7+/-2 are popular and effective because of the contrast between the subject’s mind racing and the sudden, clear instruction.

Similarly, this applies to both NLP binds and Bateson binds. In a Bateson bind, it’s especially clear; the paralysis and paradox is the nature of the bind. In NLP, we have to analyze the situation a little more. When giving options, such as, “Do you think you’ll be completely mindless, or keep enough of yourself to watch your own brain fade away?” we can think about how to create a sense of punctuation or closure with it. It is perfectly fine as-is, but it allows us a choice to move from ambiguous to clear. This could certainly be as simple as saying, “I think you’ll go back and forth, feeling your own consciousness slip through your fingers…”, which shifts focus from the subject wondering internally to the clear thoughts of the hypnotist. It breaks the bind, not necessarily by choosing one option or the other (although that is certainly an option) but by building upon it while moving to a space where the hypnotist calls the shots.

The other aspect to this is about timing. In “The Brainwashing Book”, we talk about the format of a scene as a series of peaks and valleys, and the motivation of us as intimate partners to seek climactic moments and be aware of the flow of play. Collapsing a bind can certainly be a climactic moment such as this – it can be the induction of trance, the change between focal points, the gaining of permission for something, or more. We should always be attentive of how to build tension and enjoyment, looking for these peaks and valleys in the body language and verbal language of our partners. If we see our partner struggling with paradox, for example, unsure of whether or not they are in trance, we can purposefully add to it (perhaps by goading, “Are you, or aren’t you? Hmm?”) and watch carefully – does their breathing change, is there a moment where they look like they may crack? Perhaps one option to build and peak is by snapping your fingers to bring them out, so they have an intense moment of, “Oh, I must have been – and oh, I wish I still was –” and then almost immediately dropping them back down.

–

In Conclusion

I hope you enjoyed this writing – it is good as a standalone but there is so much more to say as all of these topics are so entwined. This particular article will likely be adapted into a couple chapters for my next book, which will be on NLP for hypnokinksters, so please consider this a sneak peek into that project – speaking of which, if you liked this and haven’t checked out “The Brainwashing Book,” I encourage you to see for yourself!

The other reason for me writing this is to show what I can put out in terms of shortish-form educational content. I am looking into making more writings like this in a scheduled, monetized format like Patreon – they take a lot of time and effort (probably about 12 hours here of writing, organizing, research, etc!) and I believe that I have a LOT to offer in terms of knowledge to share, especially intermediate or advanced material like this.

It is possible-to-likely that I will have to shift my focus for a little while off of my current job because of COVID-19, so I want to get this started early! If this was interesting or enjoyable to you, please share it, and let me know if these articles are something you’d find worth paying a few bucks for per month (while having input to the topics I write about), or purchasing them at a small cost one-by-one, or something else.

If you REALLY REALLY like this RIGHT NOW and you want to tip, here you go: https://ko-fi.com/sleepingirl

Thanks so much!

–

Bibliography:

Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). The Structure of Magic I: A Book About Language and Therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.

Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia. Personality and Social Systems., 172–187. doi: 10.1037/11302-016

Jones, A. (2008, October 7). Binds, Double Binds and Unconscious Double Binds – Part One. Retrieved from http://communicatingexcellence.com/binds-double-binds-and-unconscious-double-binds-part-one/

Lankton, S. R., & Lankton, C. H. (2014). The Answer Within: A Clinical Framework of Ericksonian Hypnotherapy. Routledge.

Roffman, A. E. (2008). Men are Grass: Bateson, Erickson, Utilization and Metaphor. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 50(3). doi: 10.1080/00029157.2008.10401627

sleepingirl. (2019). The Brainwashing Book: Hypnotic, Erotic Behaviorism and Beyond. Kindle Direct Publishing.

Yudkowsky, B. (2016, May 17). Beware the Bind. Retrieved from http://agentyduck.blogspot.com/2016/05/beware-bind.html

#hypnosis #hypnokink #my writing #i worked really hard on this and am very proud for how it came out in such a short time!#please read it!#please boost!#please let me know if this is something you want to see more of!#and also if you'd be willing to throw a few bucks at it :)

115 notes · View notes

trinuviel · 5 years

Text

The Spiral, the Storm and the Wheel

THE SPIRAL

The White Walkers are in many respects a mysterious and somewhat frustrating enemy in Game of Thrones. They never speak but they do have some form of intellect since they create grisly patterns out of severed body parts: 1) a bisected circle and 2) a spiral. Both symbols originated with the creators of the WW, the Children of the Forest - and the spiral in particular is associated with the creation of the Night King since the tree where he was created was surrounded by a spiral created out of standing stones.

It is still unclear what the spiral signified for the Children of the Forest - but in an interview in The New York Post, Dave Hill, one of the writers on the show, explains that the Night King has adopted the symbol as a way to mock his creators:

The question is: has the meaning changed through this appropriation? That is at present not possible to answer since we have no idea what the symbol originally meant to the Children of the Forest. However, I do think that we can attempt to figure out what the Night King means when his people re-create the spiral through dismembered human and animal bodies. Because these spirals are a message, in a sense, and he’s saying “I am coming for you” while at the same time making a mockery of something that was sacred to his creators.

This spiral looks a lot like a wheel without a rim, endlessly spinning around and around. This is rather interesting since Daenerys Targaryen repeatedly talks about “breaking the wheel” in relation to her political ambition of conquering Westeros (I’ll return to this subject later). If the spiral is a spinning wheel, then what does it mean? The image of poor little Ned Umber at the center of a spiral made of severed human limbs in the first episode of season 8 inspired Professor Tyler Dean to write a very interesting opinion piece on the website of the publishing house Tor, which specializes in science fiction and fantasy:

The Mexica believed that time was a spiral. Not a circle, where everything that happened previously was destined to happen again, identical, ad inifinitum. Not linear, where the way forward was uncharted and momentum, progress, and change ruled the day. But, as author/illustrator James Gurney once pointed out to my eight-year-old brain, a combination of the two: a spiral. The forces of history push us ever forwards, but events rhyme with one another—parallel but not identical. That was what I couldn’t get out of my head after watching “Winterfell,” the final season premiere of Game of Thrones.

...

Spiral time is uncanny. We are reminded of familiar events and sequences but they are spiked with the creeping dread that they are not quite what we think or expect them to be.

...

We might be tempted to think of spirals as orderly and predictable, but “Winterfell” reinforces the idea that time in Westeros is not organized in a tightly-bound pattern but a widening gyre: each revolution around the center may echo previous events, but it brings its own entropy and decay. (Tor.com)

This idea of time as a spiral is a very interesting one but what I find especially compelling is this notion of the spiral being connected to an idea of entropy and decay. Tyler goes on to quote The Second Coming, a famous poem by W.B. Yeats:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned

THE STORM

The notion of decay in relation to the spiral set off various chains of association for me - about how the Night King and the White Walkers are an inhuman and unrelenting force of destruction, in that sense that they come close to be the magical equivalent to a destructive force of nature. The NK is even described as such by Jon Snow who says that he is the Storm. That made me connect the spiral with images of storm systems as they look from space.

On the right we have a picture of a spiral that the WW made from dismembered horses after they defeated the Night’s Watch at The Fist of the First Men in season 2. The picture to the left is a satellite image of a hurricane. The visual resemblance is very close indeed.

In the first episode of season 8, the spiral was reintroduced when Tormund, Beric and the remainder of the Night’s Watch come upon what remains of the Umber seat, The Last Hearth, after it has been run over by the WW.

When it turns out that poor little Ned Umber has become a zombie, Tormund and friends set fire to him and the body parts that make up the spiral. This is the first time that we’ve seen the spiral associated with the element of fire. This has led people to note a certain resemblance between the spiral and the style in which the Targaryen sigil is rendered.

There is indeed a bit of a likeness - and it is worth noting that the Targaryen sigil and the spirals that the WW each have seven arms.

(source)

Is this resemblance merely a coincidence or is there a deeper meaning at work? It is hard to tell but I want to explore this connection a bit further because the sole known Targaryen of this story is, in fact, also visually connected to the spiral symbol. In season 4, Daenerys Targaryen wears a dress made from laser-cut fabric that sports a repeated spiral pattern.

She is also known as the Stormborn because she came into the world during the worst storm that Westeros had seen in living memory. She is also a very war-like character and it is worth remembering that in the books “storm” is often used as a synonym for for “war”. With a bit of squinting one can even perceive s spiral shape hidden in one of the final images of the season 3 finale where Daenerys is lifted up by the freed slaves of Meereen.

It is faint but you could make an argument that it is there. This connection between Daenerys and the Night King is enhanced by the larger thematic framework of GRRM’s story. They are both associated with the extremes of Ice and Fire - indeed, just like the dragons are Fire Made Flesh, so are the White Walkers Ice made Flesh, which I have examined elsewhere.

THE WHEEL

The spiral also somewhat resembles a wheel, as I’ve previously mentioned. I’m not the only person who has noted this resemblance, @lady-griffin mentions this resemblance in this post. In the later seasons, Daenerys Targaryen has become known for wanting to “break the wheel” - but what does that mean?

In season 5 she tells Tyrion Lannister that she’ll have the support of the common people in Westeros and she describes the feudal system as a wheel with spokes made up of the noble Houses. In this context, it seems as though she wants to destroy the feudal system of the country she wants to conquer. However, as she herself mentions, her own House is part of this system and she’s not intending to create a radically new system since she still wants to be Queen. She still wants to occupy the hub of the wheel, i.e. the Iron Throne. She simply wants to remove anyone who can be a threat to her power. What she wants is not a more democratic system but an absolute monarchy with her at the top.

Nebulous and contradictory plans is very typical of Dany’s political rhetoric but I’m rather interested in how she describes this system:

“Lannister, Targaryen, Baratheon, Stark, Tyrell. They’re all just spokes on a wheel. This one’s on top, then that one’s on top. And on and on it spins, crushing those on the ground.”

This conjures a specific concept of Classical (and later Medieval) thought: the Rota Fortuna, or Fortune’s Wheel:

In medieval and ancient philosophy the Wheel of Fortune, or Rota Fortunae, is a symbol of the capricious nature of Fate. The wheel belongs to the goddess Fortuna (Greek equivalent Tyche) who spins it at random, changing the positions of those on the wheel: some suffer great misfortune, others gain windfalls. Fortune appears on all paintings as a woman, sometimes blindfolded, "puppeteering" a wheel. (Wikipedia)

Interestingly, the show invokes Fortune’s Wheel visually in the opening credits. Thus, the Rota Fortuna embodies the political game that dominates the show. Fortune’s Wheel is the very embodiment of the Game of Thrones!

The thing about Fortune’s Wheel is that it never stops spinning. The same goes for the political game - there will always be someone who seeks power, regardless of whether there is a throne or not. The games of power and influence exist wherever human society exist regardless of what kind of government they have - there will always be politics and power plays. The only way to truly stop the spinning of the wheel is to eradicate humankind. There can be no game if there are no players.

This leads me back to the what the spiral may have meant for the Children of the Forest. The NK has adopted this symbol as an act of mockery - it signifies blasphemy on his part according to show writer Dave Hill. In this context, it is important to note that the WW always create this spiral symbol out of dismembered bodies - it is made of dead things and, in a way, the spiral as it is made by the WW symbolizes Death. If the WW’s spiral is an image of Death and it represents an act of blasphemy on the part of the NK, then it is very possible that the spiral signified Life for the CotF - symbolizing that Life spins ever onward through nature.

They created the NK by killing and magically re-animating a human man. The original blasphemy was theirs - and there’s a certain symmetry to the fact that the weapon they created by polluting their own magic turned against them. On a final note I also wish to point out that the Weirwood tree where the CotF created the NK is now dead!

This is actually a very important detail because in ASoIaF lore, weirwood trees are practically immortal. They don’t wither and die - unless they are interfered with.

#game of thrones #spiral #symbols #the night king #the children of the forest #the white walkers #daenerys targaryen

179 notes · View notes

imnotcameraready · 5 years

Text

chivalry is dead (21)

A/N: wowowowowowowowowow — i feel like i’ve been planning for this chapter For Forever. never done that kinda long-term pay off before and i hope i did it well!!! super almost told everyone about this twist like, at least four times a day, but ITS PUBLIC NOW !!!!!

WARNINGS: alcohol mention (wine), threats of violence, torture mention, broken bones, bruises, scars, pain descriptions, crying — i think that's it !!! but as always, let me know if i missed anything <3

Words: 3756

AO3 link!

MASTERPOST! <– look here!! for the longterm warnings!! including sympathetic Deceit and cursing/swearing!

enjoy !!!! i love you all so much !! <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

“Salacadoo lamenchicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo~”

“How in Smaug’s name do you have that memorized? Whatever. That one, over there, octopus costume. Who do you think that is?”

“Hm. Logan, maybe? Octopuses are intelligent creatures. ”

“Hm. I don’t know. He is very tied to, well, his necktie seriousness. That’s got a fancy knot.”

“An Eldritch knot?”

“Yeah, whatever. It can’t be him. Maybe that’s Playwright.”

“That doesn’t seem like a good metric for—”

“Ooh, THAT’S probably Deceit.”

“Snake? Okay, that’s definitely a disguised version of us. Maybe Thief? He’s wearing gloves.”

“No, that’s definitely Deceit. He likes his snake themes.”

“But wouldn’t that be too obvious? Deceit wouldn’t just wear more snake themed clothing. That might be Logan, if any of the real Sides, I can imagine that—”

“Oh, can you?”

“.....”

“That’s what I thought. Besides, they’d never think of using a decoy. I didn’t even think of that! And the others aren’t nearly as smart as I am.”

“....Okay.”

“I’m going to keep watching. Go walk around.”

“My legs…”

“Oh what? Your legs hurt? Got some bruises? Broken bones? Glass bones, paper skin? Stop whining, Kingdom Hearts-break.”

“Okay, Dra—”

“Ah ah. Say it.”

“....Okay, your Highness.”

“Is it a Merlot?” the Playwright asked.

“It’s a blend, I think. Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon,” Logan swirled the glass of wine in his hands and took another whiff of the nose before handing it back to the Playwright, “Mostly Merlot, though.”

They had found a column near the drinks table to claim as their space, both leaning on the column and watching the dance floor. The others were walking around, dancing, talking, as spread out as they could be. It was a large ballroom, after all, and intricately designed. The ceiling sparkled with candles that danced around a large chandelier, some attached and some not, floating around the faux sky that adorned the top.

The grandiloquent nature of Roman’s long-term creations meant they had to work hard to find an exit. Meanwhile, the Playwright and Logan held down a space that could serve as a base of operations for their heist, even if it was simply a corner close enough to the door and throne that they could see both.

The Playwright hummed in approval at the wine and took a sip. Then, he scrunched up his nose and handed the glass back to Logan. “I don’t like it.”

“Really? Do you not like wine, or this one in particular?”

“This one. Well, any of this Imagined food,” the Playwright picked up his glass of water and sipped it, a little less tense, “I prefer the Mindscape over the Imagination.”

“May I ask why?” Logan shifted, turning his back to the crowd and watching the Playwright, “You’ve mentioned before, and in your notes, that it’s unpleasant for you. That seems contradictory considering your role as a Side.”

A valid question, even if it was direct. “I don’t quite understand it, either. I should probably like the Imagination, but I just. Don’t. I prefer the tangible creation of stories and the more grounded existence we have elsewhere.”

“That makes sense.”

“It’s more logical,” the Playwright shrugged, shoulders tensing as he fixed his posture, becoming acutely aware of himself.

Therein lies the issue. Walking through the Imagination and hearing the different facets of Roman really emphasized the immaculate detail-work that they demanded of Roman, that was demanded when one was Creativity. Logan was coming to appreciate it.

Logan raised his glass, clinking it against the Playwright’s carefully. “Cheers. But it’s my job to be logical. You should not overwhelm yourself with trying to emulate me when we are two wholly different facets. That means neglecting, even resenting your current job.”

“Trust me,” the Playwright spotted the Bard in the crowd, watching him be dipped by another citizen of the Imagination — not a character, just a remembered face — and sipped his water, “We aren’t at resentment yet, but that is...comforting to hear. Especially from you.”

Logan smiled, and the Playwright held his arm. He took another swig of the wine before continuing. “Thank you, Logan. I have...always thought you are...cool.”

To that, Logan chuckled, sipping his own drink. “Really?”

He sounded as though he were inviting more discussion about how cool he was, and the Playwright laughed as well, nudging his arm. “I guess the liquor’s loosening my lips.”

“Hm, a well known trope. Alcohol-induced idiocy,” the Playwright snorted at him again, shaking his head in mock despair. Logan grinned, then leaned closer, almost whispering in his ear. “I’ve noticed it’s a trope you touch on quite often when I am present.”

The Playwright turned to face him, shock written across his face. Between his mask’s framework, Logan could make out his cheeks flushing deeper and deeper.

Because, how could he not be? Logan? Logic? Was flirting? Was FLIRTING?

Oh, Jonathan Larson, give him strength.

The Playwright cleared his throat and leaned against the column, doing his best to smile casually. “‘As an unperfect actor on the stage, who with his fear is put beside his part,’” he quoted.

Logan smirked, crossing his arms slightly. Of course. He was a playwright, afterall. “‘Or some fierce thing replete with too much rage, whose strength's abundance weakens his own heart’, Shakespeare’s sonnet twenty three?”

“I promise, I don’t need alcohol to accidentally be an idiot in front of you,” the Playwright set his glass down on one of the column’s protrusions.

Whatever the moment was, whether soft or flirty or an expansion of whatever was already established, was interrupted. The Playwright felt someone nudge his back, then pull him forward into a twirl and dip, and he laughed as he did so.

An old foe, or friend, or a piece of himself the same. The Artist helped him up and patted his back. “Wonderful reflexes, Nerdaholic,” he said, “Sorry if I interrupted anything, but I didn’t peg you and Aris-total Nerd for the flirty types.”

“Oh, no, no, flirting? Noooo. We were just….talking,” the Playwright glanced at Logan, who nodded in a wide-eyed and vaguely panicked agreement, just talking, before turning back to the Artist, “Very well, Vincent van Goth, is it time to switch?”

“Yeppers piping peppers,” the Artist winked at Logan, “Have fun.”

Logan opened his mouth, confused, as the Artist carefully took his wine glass. His questions were answered, however, when the Playwright grabbed his arm and tugged him onto the ballroom floor. Flirtatious once again. Good for him, it was unhealthy for him to be stowed away backstage like he always was.

The Artist tipped Logan’s glass against his lips and finished the rest, setting it aside with the Playwright’s. It was hard to believe that the hour was almost up, but time flew when one was having fun, didn’t it? He leaned on the column and scanned the crowd for his pair.

Patton was saying goodbye to the gentleman he’d been dancing with. He bunched up his skirt and slowly made his way up from the dance floor, making eye contact with the Artist and smiling. A few strides and he was there.

“Whew,” he said, fanning himself with his hand.

“Thirsty?” the Artist asked, standing up straight, “I’ll grab some water.”

“Yeah, wow!" Patton leaned on the column, watching the bodies spin and twirl each other, a mesmerizing group of figures and colors. When the Artist came back, he was resting his head on his hand and cast him a warm smile. "Thank you — who knew dancing could get so tiring?”

“It is a sport, and takes a lot of movement and energy,” the Artist said, handing Patton a glass of water, “It’s fluid.”

“Fluid like….water?” Patton raised an eyebrow, giggling into his cup.

“Pun not intended,” the Artist said, hand covering his mouth but not succeeding at hiding his grin.

His smiles were so shy, so uncertain. Patton loved it. Gosh, he felt like the floodgates had been opened, because he could LOVE!

He looped an arm around the Artist’s and leaned his head against his shoulder, snuggling up to his side, while the Artist stiffened just a bit. But he didn’t move away. Progress!

The Artist carefully bent up his own elbow, and rested his hand over Patton’s. A lot of progress!

Why was it progress? Wait, wait, first, follow up.

“But it flowed so well!” Patton said, voice airy but excited by the thrill of the pun, “It just streamed out, didn’t it?”

The Artist snorted, squeezing his hand gently. He wasn’t shaking, but he was stiff. Why was he so stiff? It’d happened a few times, and the way the Bard shot away from him when kissing, and how the Playwright nearly threw them off when they first met. But that in contrast with how the Child just didn’t let him go at all.

There was definitely something there. There had to be! And Patton was gonna figure out what was wrong with Roman.

“Yeah, well….whatever,” the Artist rolled his eyes and shot Patton a small smile before looking out at the crowd again.

….Gosh.

Patton’s voice dropped to a whisper, a breath perhaps. “I love you so much.” He leaned his head against the Artist’s side, letting their shoulders press.

He heard the Artist sigh, a tinge of disgust, maybe a little unease too.

“I dunno if I’m the best one to be talking about love with,” the Artist nudged with his elbow into the crowd, “Bard’s over there.”

“But you love me, right?” Patton asked, more stern.

“Of course I do, sunshine, but—”

“You love Deceit and Logan, right?”

“Yes, but that doesn’t—”

“And you love Virgil?”

The Artist finally relented. He exhaled, shoulders loosening a little, though not all the way. “....With all my heart,” he said, voice tender and quiet.

Patton loosened as well, not noticing the tension and apprehension that’d been building. Of course Roman loved them. It wasn’t that.

“....We love you too. We’ve just gotta get Virgil and get….Roman,” the Artist nodded for Patton to continue, though his fist clenched just a little, the vague thought entering his mind asking if that meant he wasn’t Roman, but of course he wasn’t, not fully, you KNOW this, Roman. Patton noticed his fist, though, and immediately held his hand before continuing, “I wanna get both you kiddos to safety before we have a big discussion about this. ‘Cause I love you both, and I love Deceit and Logan, and if we’re talking about all of us loving each other, then all of us should be there.”

The Artist exhaled. He couldn’t argue with that.

“You’re right as always, Papa bear.”

“What’s he right about?” the Artist turned to see the Thief approaching, a glass of wine in his hand.

The Artist waved his hand in greeting. “When isn’t he right?”

Patton chuckled, poking the Artist’s arm with a finger deliberately. “When I’m writing, I’m left” he joked.

Both the Thief and the Artist snickered, the Thief’s hand shooting up to hide his mouth while the Artist just turned and hid his face in Patton’s shoulder. As he did, Patton leaned in, giving him a bit of space. If he didn’t want to be touched, Patton wasn’t going to push too hard. He looked up at the Thief, grinning still. “Time to go?”

The Thief nodded. “Uh huh. Artist, time to fuck off,” the Artist snorted and stood up straight, flipping off the Thief, who rolled his eyes and continued. “We’re using that door. I know it takes us to the stairs, and from there I think we’ve just gotta go down.”

“Alright,” the Artist frowned, then turned to Patton.

He smoothed his hands down Patton’s arms, and Patton grabbed his arms back, a determined smile on his face. “It’s gonna be okay,” he said, “I know it’ll be okay.”

The Artist wished he could be as optimistic as Patton. Something….was worrying him. But he wasn’t sure if it was worrying him, or worrying Roman as a whole. Maybe another one of them knew.

“Sure, Pat,” he looked at the Thief, who nodded in permission, then leaned forward and kissed Patton’s head quickly. “Good luck.”

The Artist nodded to the Thief, who gave him one tiny head tilt, then he hurried into the crowd. Almost immediately he was swept up by a character, one of the princesses from a Vine, and they began to dance. Patton watched him, watched how the Artist even flinched away from the imagined characters, leaning away and dancing almost at a distance.

There was definitely something there.

Somewhere, right when the Thief took a sip, a bell chimed. It rung out nine times, then silenced. That was their cue.

He finished his drink and set the glass down. “Are you ready, Patton?”

“Yep," Patton looped his arm around the Thief's and gave him a determined grin, Let’s go!”

On their way out, the Thief nudged Deceit. “We’re going,” he said, “Good luck.”

Deceit was standing by another wall, sipping a white wine and watching the dancers. He glanced at the Thief with a small smile. “To you as well. Don’t do anything I would.”

The Thief watched Deceit’s yellow eye morph away into a softer brown, knowing that beneath his mask his scales were softening down as well. A little bit of help, to convince the Dragon that he was one of the Romans.

No idea if it’d work, but, hey. Better than nothing.

Deceit finished his glass of wine and set the empty cup on the tray of a nearby waiter. His gaze followed the Thief’s tailcoat and Patton’s dress train out the side door, then he looked up at the throne. The Dragon’s eyes were trailing around the rest of the crowd, seemingly not noticing the Thief and Patton’s disappearance.

He must have taken the bait, then, and was looking for Patton and Logan. Of course, the possibility was there that he��d made the connection between the grey Cat and their resident cat loving Side, but part of the ruse was to confirm that “Deceit” was there in order to make him start looking for the others with obvious theme-ing. Granted, Deceit thought they were both pretty obvious, but that was a digression.

While the Dragon was sitting at his vantage point, the Damsel had entered the crowd. That was probably a safe and easy way to inch closer to the Dragon. Plus, Deceit wanted to talk to him. Confirm a few suspicions.

Face still veiled, he was dancing with a — goodness gracious, wait, was that Mena Massoud?

Deceit squinted. Huh. Well, that tracked with Zac Efron playing the butler.

He inched closer and, once the Damsel was delivering his final curtsy, tapped his shoulder.

Deceit could barely see his face through the veil, but he saw the Damsel meet his face with a slight look of shock.

“Greetings, sweet Peacock,” the Damsel said, voice tender and airy, holding out a hand covered in scars.

“Hello, your Highness,” Deceit noted how the Damsel flinched, and again stiffened when his hand rested in his, “May I have this dance?”

The Damsel gave a shaky grin.

Deceit squinted.

There had to be more. What wasn’t he telling him? What didn’t he know?

“That would be lovely.”

And they danced.

Deceit spun him and pulled him close again, in time with the music. The Damsel’s dress sparkled with an iridescent sheen, mimicking flames as Deceit’s cape mimicked feathers shimmering. Through the veil, the Damsel was watching his face with a solid, unreadable expression.

This wasn’t what Deceit had expected. He hadn’t expected unreadability — that simply wasn’t Roman’s style.

“You look—”

“Deceit.”

What. Deceit did his best to hide his surprise, eyes still brown, scales still hidden and then again beneath the mask. But what the fuck?

“I’m sorry, are you talking about the Side?” Deceit asked.

The Damsel’s smile widened, but his eyebrows pinched apologetically. “Oh, Deceit, you slippery snake,” he let himself be twirled, Deceit was dancing absentmindedly now, it was an afterthought, a precursor to trying to mentally disassemble the Damsel, “The Imagination’s inhabitants don’t usually know about the Sides. Some of them do. Dad, Teach, Prince — who I think is doing okay?”

“The Prince?” Deceit asked, hollow, grasping for anything.

“No, no, Prince Guy. But that’s off topic,” the Damsel held his waist carefully, “I know a full Side when I see one.”

He leaned in closer, smiling at Deceit with a slight squint, as though daring him to deny it again. “Lie to me some more, Master of Deception.”

Deceit opened his mouth, but couldn’t find the words to say. He hadn’t expected the Damsel to be so….astute. And difficult. This wasn’t supposed to be difficult, this was Roman, and Roman was the easiest Side to wrap his head around. Right?

His silence was apparently welcomed. The Damsel continued to lead them in the dance, humming quietly, motivations unknown still. Deceit wasn’t fond of unknown variables, either, and having the Damsel be such a stark difference from what he’d expected made him worried about their plan.

Pull yourself together, you should be using this opportunity. You understanding things you don’t understand. Okay, no, that was Logan, but you still had to try. Deceit shook his head and squeezed the Damsel’s shoulder. “Very well,” he said quietly, “How are you, Damsel?”

“I’m….Okay, if I’m being honest, my leg is fractured and I’m in quite a bit of pain,” the Damsel bowed his head away from looking Deceit in the eyes, “Though I’m happy to be dancing with you.”

His leg was broken. Deceit’s protective instinct kicked in, and he immediately pulled the Damsel closer, hoping to help him take some weight off of the leg. “Your leg is broken?!”

It was, admittedly, not a thought out motion. The Damsel stiffened, then elbowed him in the chest. “Space,” he grunted, “I-I’m handling it, I’m-It’s—”

He was growing flustered; he’d overstepped. Deceit let go, felt the Damsel relax, and they turned in the dance.

Go slow. He had to go slow.

But, goodness, he couldn’t bear to see the Damsel dancing on a fucking broken leg. Deceit bit his lip and looked around at the Dragon, still sitting on the throne, legs thrown over one side while he leant against the armrest.

“If we help you leave, will you come with us?” Deceit found himself asking.

“Leave what?” the Damsel asked, frowning beyond the veil.

“The Dragon,” Deceit was trying to make this as clear as possible, hands tight on the Damsel’s waist and shoulder, “When we come to get you, will you come?”

The Damsel tilted his head. “What’s there to get?” he sounded confused.

Deceit’s voice grew hardened. “You.”

“No,” the Damsel laughed, a soft, breathy and terrified sound, so different from Roman’s full-throat guttural guffaw, and shook his head, “No, and what of virtue is there. I’m the weak link. And I’m….pa-pathetic.”

“On the contrary, you are the linchpin,” it hurt, it hurt, it fucking hurt. But Deceit had to explain against his nature, he had to, he was so close, but close to what he didn’t know. “Would Thief be as opposed to Dragon without your demonstration? Would Artist have known to hide, Bard felt the need to make music for a desolate world, Playwright have known to protect the Mindscape’s entrance backstage?”

The Damsel scoffed. “Stop trying to make me sound heroic,” he breathed, “Dragon cau-caught me. He made himself the villain, and I’m just-I’m collateral. Expendable.”

“How’d he catch you?” Deceit was interrogating now.

“I….He just did,” Roman was on the witness stand again, the one and lonely, so alone.

“When? And with whom?”

“‘With whom,’” the Damsel repeated, frown deepening with anger, or something else, Deceit didn’t know, he couldn’t know, “You can’t manipulate me.”

“I’m not manipulating anything,” Deceit snapped.

The Damsel flinched backward, and Deceit exhaled. Calm down. It felt like a jolt, like a rush, the truth. “Figuratively,” he continued, trying to explain without gritting his teeth to bear it, “My gloves are off. I just want to know why you’re doing this. The Romans, their memories, the timeline of events that we’ve learnt. They don’t make sense.”

“You’re being so honest, Two Doors, doesn’t it hurt?” the Damsel’s voice was now more frantic; that wasn’t him.

“It does,” Deceit conceded, voice soft, “You can say it yourself, save me the energy. You know quite a bit more than the others, about what being a Side is like.”

They stilled, sliding off toward the back. The Damsel glanced up at the Dragon, who (the idiot, the fool, but if he was a fool then what was the Damsel?) was still sitting bored. Then he returned his focus to Deceit once more. That wasn’t him. “I won’t. Because it’s not true.”

“I just want to know what changed, Roman,” Deceit ignored how the Damsel flinched, continuing and pressing for information despite the burning in his throat and lungs and everything against his nature, “What happened to make the Prince so unchivalrous?”

There was silence at Deceit’s question. There was music, yes, there was still the gala around them. But if you asked Roman later, all he could remember was staring at Deceit’s eyes, one brown, one gold, jaw set tight in betrayal of his pain.

….This really had been quite the quest, hadn’t it? He let a small chuckle and, slowly, he lifted his veil. Beneath it was an eyepatch covering his left eye, decorated with red roses, but that was beside the point. As he leaned forward against Deceit’s chest, he could see how dewy his expression was, eyes red and cheek flushed from recent crying. Perhaps he’d been crying this whole time.

What struck Deceit the most was how much he saw. His eyes were telling — windows to the soul, a metaphor they’d heard once — and showed that the “Damsel” had known so much more. Had known what it was like to be a whole, known the pain of splitting once already and was experiencing it again for the second time. Had watched the bloodbath knowing what every movement, reaction, decision meant. Had been Roman, once upon a time.

This was the Prince. Or, rather, what was left of him.

“Haven’t you heard, my dear snake,” the Damsel’s — no, the Prince’s hand played with the hairs at the back of Deceit’s neck, arm now slung slightly around his shoulder, “Chivalry is dead.”

taglist!!

chivalry taglist: @starlightvirgil @forrestwyrm @daflangstlairde @marshmallow-the-panda @askthesnake @k9cat @patromlogil @theobsessor1 @ninja-wizard101 @fandomsofrandom @sos-fandoms @gattonero17

general taglist: @jemthebookworm @okay-finne

42 notes · View notes

stolligaseptember · 5 years

Note

Sorry if I'm bothering you, but I just want to ask: how accurate do you think Matpat's theory on Article 13 is? A lot of people have been panicking about it (including me), but now that I've seen your posts on the subject, I'm really starting to doubt if there is anything to be afraid of. It's just hard to focus on looking for facts when the entire website is panicking, so I hope you can kind of clear this up for me (and a lot of others). Again, I hope I'm not bothering you! Have a nice day!

It’s no bother at all! I said I was here to answer all of your questions, so that’s what I’m going to do!!

But. Oh god. This whole mess started with a YouTube video, so I guess it was only inevitable that it would finally circle back to another one.

Okay so. I’ll be honest, it took me about 3 hours to get through this video. 18, if you count the fact that I started it before I went to bed last night. And like. He’s not wrong about a lot of things. But he’s not a lawyer, or a law-maker. And he’s definitely not a European one. Which you kind of need to be to understand what the hell is going on here.

He’s just misinterpreting a lot of things. And he’s misunderstanding how the entire EU-law system, and Europe's law tradition in general, works. Which, like, he’s an American, and not even an American lawyer, so no one can really blame him for that. But what frustrates me, and what actually makes me really fucking angry, is that he’s somehow claiming that he does understand this and that he somehow holds the authority to explain it to others. Which he clearly doesn’t.

So okay. What is going on in MatPat’s video. A lot of shit.

What first struck me is that he misses the bots. Like, his entire fear mongering tactic is based in this idea that all media platform would have to develop content ID bots. And that would indeed be a bad thing. But what he forgets to mention is that the bots have been removed from the new draft text. The draft that he, by the way, quotes himself. So I don’t know if he forgot to read the entire article, of if he just forgot to mention it. That’s very unclear.

But what really struck my nerves, and what made me so upset that I actually couldn’t fall asleep last night, was that he claims that the term “good faith” is somehow too vague and is because of that bad legal writing. And I’m not going to lie, that got my goat.

“Good faith” is like the least undefined term within all of European law doctrine. It’s about the most important principle we have. Bona fide, anyone? YEAH. That’s good faith. Trust me when I say that all lawyers, and everyone that has even gotten close to working with rights, know what “good faith” means. God, we have over 400 000 books and articles on “good faith” just in my uni library. “Good faith” is so far from an undefined term.

And no, “good faith” doesn’t somehow mean that copyright holders will have the final say in what will and won’t constitute as a copyright infringement. What “good faith” means, very simply put, is that you have to have trust in each others good faith while dealing with each other. You must be able to trust that the copyright holder is indeed the copyright holder, and that the media platform is indeed able to fulfill the obligations that’s put on them. When the directive says that they should cooperate in good faith, it means that they must cooperate in a way that the legal barrier for good faith is reached. I get that this is all sounding very weird, but that is kind of what you have lawyers for. We’re supposed to have read those 400 000 and more books to be able to conclude if something has been conducted in good faith or not. But no, this writing does not in any way open up for an arbitrary interpretation of copyright law. It does make things a lot more legal-technical, but that’s the way copyright law is looking right now.

And then. I don’t know what happens next honestly. He somehow manages to connect the “good faith” requirement and the conclusion that content ID bots will somehow stop content from being uploaded??? That’s a mental jump that I really can’t follow, but okay.

First of all, because the bots are no longer on the table. Second of all, because dealing in good faith has nothing to do with the bots. But if we forget all about the bots altogether, good faith will still never give copyright holders the right to file unfounded copyright infringement claims. Either something is copyright infringement, or it isn’t, and the copyright holders and media platforms should cooperate in good faith to make sure that copyright infringement doesn’t happen, and you always have the legal framework in the back to make sure that unfounded claims of copyright infringement doesn’t happen, and that the requirement of good faith is met.

And this is complicated, I get that, but that’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. Copyright law is weird and complicated as fuck.

He also can’t make up his mind if content ID recognition is a good or bad thing. Like first he says that if they had kept the bots in the text (and that’s where he says that the bots have been removed from the text, but he doesn’t clarify that further) then everything would have been a-okay, but then like 5 minutes later he says that the content ID (which!! Isn’t even in question anymore!!!!!!!) is the work of the devil. And I’m sorry, but I’m on a bit of a personal vendetta against YouTube right now, and this is exactly the stance that YouTube themselves have taken. They’re going “oh, article 13 is literally hell brought to life!!!!” but then in the next breath they go “BUT BOTS ARE A GOOD IDEA”, and I’m getting whiplash just trying to keep up with them. It’s contradictory as hell, and I can’t even figure out what people are really worried about or not these days.

I think a lot of people are just screaming because they want to scream, but that’s another story.

He also says that the directive will be “implemented by the end of this year” which is just an outright lie. Even if you’re generous and stretch that to the end of 2019, it’s still an outright lie. The next round of votes happens in early 2019, and EU bureaucracy is a literal hellscape, so that’s just not happening.

He also compares this to GDPR, but I’ve already explained why can’t do that. Regulations and directives are completely different legal documents, and unlike regulations, directives have to be actually implemented into each member state’s national law system. And you always have an implementing period of at least 2 years for this. But like, that’s the lower bar. You can push the high bar pretty goddamn far. It’s not unusual to see member states take up to 5-6 years to implement directives, and the commission can’t really do anything about it, as long as the member state can prove that they’re working on it.

Like, I don’t remember just what it was we were supposed to regulate, but I remember we studied this one directive that Sweden took like 7, if not 8 years to implement. And we where honest to god just stalling, because we didn’t really want to regulate what the directive said that we should regulate, and we needed the time to find a way to work our way around it. So when the commission came knocking to check if we had implemented the goddamn directive yet, our government was all like “oh no, you see, this is very foreign to our law system, and we have a very hard time seeing where it could fit in, but look at all these reports we’re writing and at all these experts we’ve hired to try and work it out”, and as soon as the commission had left again, seeing how we were at least giving the impression of trying to solve it, they were all like “OKAY BACK TO STALLING”. So depending on your member state’s outlook on this directive, there’s really no telling on how long it will take before it’s implemented.

The claim that the European copyright has a narrower definition of “fair use” is also just an outright lie. This is the exceptions and limitations to copyright that the InfoSec directive allows;

(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;

(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability;

© reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible;

(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to be impossible, the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;

(e) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;

(f) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, except where this turns out to be impossible;

(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;

(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

(i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material;

(j) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event, excluding any other commercial use;

(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;

(l) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment;

(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;

(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2© of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;

(o) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.

That’s way more than the few exceptions that MatPat lists. And he’s also completely incorrect in European copyright law not somehow being flexible? Like, we’re not idiots, c’mon.

EU law isn’t stagnant; they’re living instruments, and we always interpret them in the light of the contemporary time. This is a skill all European lawyers are mercilessly trained in. EU law documents are worded “vaguely” and openly because we need the space to be able to make different interpretations depending on the situation. Like, the claim that point k, that lists caricatures, parodies and pastiches is somehow narrow? No?? This is where memes, and all other forms of parodies and caricatures and pastiches falls in. But just because you call something a meme doesn’t mean that it can’t be copyright infringement. You still have to make an evaluation of the actual situation. And that’s where lawyers and judges in every single member state come in; lawyers and judges who have been trained in both copyright law and EU law, and who knows how to interpret both the national law and the directive.

Because, once again, this isn’t aiming at making Europe into one coherent law system. It’s aiming at harmonizing the European law systems, but at the end of the day, it’s still always up to each and every member state of how they want to implement the directive.

Then there was the safe harbor issue. In this he actually is correct. The very aim of article 13 is to remove the safe harbor and to put a share of the responsibility of the copyright infringement on the media platform. Like, that’s the entire idea behind the article. So, once again, if you think that this is a bad idea, then yeah, go ahead and keep fighting article 13. And I’m not here to get political, but just why is the idea of removing the safe harbor such an egregiously bad idea? You as an individual is not going to be affected by it. It’s these big, multi-billion companies that will have to pay content creators their fair share of illegal copyright infringement. And why is that bad for you? Just food for thought.

And as usual, I have no idea how understandable this whole mess is, so don’t be afraid to ask me follow up questions, or anything else that you’re wondering over, and I’ll try to answer as best as I can!

#article 13 #swearing tw #alllevelsrobin #storytelling september

157 notes · View notes

dulma · 6 years

Text

On the circle jerk of the art world

Tom Wolfe, author & journalist, is good at being scathing. Case in point: The Painted Word a brief diatribe against what he perceives to be the falseness and pretension of an elitist art world in a capitalist society.

I don’t know enough about art or the art world to agree or disagree with what Mr. Wolfe claims, but I do care deeply about art and its role in civilization. How it can help us, fix us, express us, or how it can’t.

His ideas, though, strike me as useful departures for my own future research, especially w/r/t Abstract Expressionism, my new obsession. Also—God knows I love a good contrarian, so here are some key points I’ve synthesized from his spirited lambast. For my own reference, mostly. Thanks, Tom.

Art must have its theory, i.e. the dictum du jour. “modern art has become completely literary”

Realistic 19th century painting dubbed “literary” thereby spawning its rebellious successor movements, i.e. l’art pour l’art

Braque: aim of art is not to reconstitute but constitute “a pictorial fact”

Artists left the royal courts & salons and by 1900 aimed to shock and subvert the bourgeois

Now the artists had to be boho & avant garde (sincerely) but also in le monde

“Public? The public plays no part in the process whatsoever. The public is not invited”

(This question is of importance to me. Art as public artifact vs. art as private commodity/investment—note to self: explore the ethics and utility of these roles, and whether they are conflicting or mutually generative)

The art world is a mere 10,000 souls

“a mere hamlet!” restricted to les beaux mondes of eight cities

Modern art enjoyed a huge boom in the States in the 1920s because that’s when the cultured bourgeoisie began to love it

Imported from Europe to the US not in a bohemian rebellious spirit but institutionalized by the Rockefellers via the establishment of the MoMA in late 1920s

Art theory used to be something that enriched conversation 100 years prior but now it was “ an essential hormone in the mating ritual”

(Touché, Tom Wolfe.)

The bourgeois art world needed theory to understand the direction of modern art

Why did theory blow up?

1. the art world is tiny

2. le monde always looks to the bohemian artists for the next thing

3. the artists are made up of “cénacles” where if one dominates art and has one core theory, that theory comes to dominate all of the art world during that period

This is what happened post WWII during Abstract Expressionism & when NY replaced Paris as center of the art world

Greenberg’s theory of flatness and Rosenberg’s Action Painting became big theories picked up by le monde. Peggy Guggenheim then discovered Pollock, beloved of Greenberg, and gave him a place and money and set him off

“First you do everything possible to make sure your world is antibourgeois, that it defies bourgeois tastes, that it mystifies the mob, the public, that it outdistances the insensible middle-class multitudes by light-years of subtlety and intellect — and then, having succeeded admirably, you ask with a sense of see-what-I-mean outrage: “Look, they don’t even buy our products!””

Pop Art was then a reaction against Abstract Exp.

It was even flatter. Jasper Johns chose flat real life objects and made them look super flat. Like the flag.

“Wasn’t there something just the least bit incestuous about this tendency of contemporary art to use previous styles of art as its points of reference?”

(What else would you use? All major art forms are institutionalized in some way—literature, film, etc.—and draw upon its predecessors, are in conversation with lineage and history. I don’t see this as inherently “incestuous” but in practice in the art world perhaps it’s extreme or problematic... explore further)

Pop Art succeeded not because it rejected Abst. Exp’s premises of moving away from realism, but because it did AE one better: even higher level of not realism. Somewhere that was not abstract nor realistic but based on signs

Abstract Expressionists were too grim and antibourgeois, too bohemian. The Pop artists were right at home in the cultured world of the bourgeois

Steinberg: Modern art always “'projects itself into a twilight zone where no values are fixed'” and “'it is always born in anxiety'” and its function is to “'transmit this anxiety to the spectator'” to provoke “'genuine existential predicament'”

“If you hated it — it was probably great."

Pop Art was full of cultural and literary ironic commentary and allusions. Op Art, which came after, was also very literary in that it was heavily grounded in theory. Theory was taking idea of painting as real object and turning it into object of pure perception

Greenberg made a comeback with a new theory/style: against the brushstroke.

All of these movements were a movement towards reduction, stripping away - first of 19th century realism, then representational objects, then the third dimension towards flatness, then brushstrokes.

Is that enough? Hardly.

Minimalists came and stripped away the “sentimental” colors and used gritty or ugly ones

Got rid of the frame, the hanging up of pictures, the square canvas

Rosenberg & Greenberg (though sort of rivals) and others were against this - new style was “‘too much a feat of ideation.. something deduced instead of felt and discovered.’”

Then we got rid of the very idea of wall.

Moved into installations. Then museums (Earth Art).

What about idea of a permanent or even visible work of art? so next came Conceptual Art where they said it wasn’t about permanence and materials but the process

And then they took away idea of visual imagination altogether - piece called Vacant by David R Smith

My thoughts on this (provisional):

Art movements destroy to create. This is also true in literature, in everything. I find this a natural human impulse. We are meaning-making animals, and art is our way of exploring/expressing this process, and meaning is made inevitably by a destructive-creative process. Learning—and thus growth—is by necessity an act that displaces the dictums of yesterday to make room for the new. So I question Wolfe’s implicit resistance to the deconstruction of every assumption inherent to “art,” but I’m willing to challenge the “destroy for destruction’s sake” imperative, insofar as it is what drives the movements of art today. It sure seems that way, but I assume there’s more there, and the “more” is perhaps as varied as the people who further it.

To ask a naive question that probably Real Art has long since abandoned or mocked until it breathed its last, what about beauty???? As a layperson who wants to believe that art has a public role and some inherent value where beholding it can do something good, even by disturbing us, I often find myself lamenting the un-beauty of contemporary art. That this is probably because I don’t “get it” only further entrenches my sense of alienation from this world of art. Is there respite to be sought in, for example, outsider art?

Perhaps the answer is as simple as a simple comparison: take music. There is no possibility of defining “beautiful” music; we like what we like, and different people like different things. There are ways to get into a piece and understand what it’s trying to be and to judge it on that basis (also like a book) but no absolute criteria are possible because of the infinite variety of creative possibility. But even so, music and literature seem to me more accessible, somehow, than art. Less conceptual in the way art can be, more inclusive in terms of the gap between what the gatekeepers would deem worth canonizing and what we would claim to enjoy as outsiders.

To what extent do artists themselves (as if it’s a homogeny) want the “public” to “get” or “like” their art? A lot rides on this question I guess.

The beauty of the disturbing and the disturbing of beauty. Would this summarize where we find ourselves today?

(I suppose you could say beauty is taken out of the equation, but you could also reframe that as the expansion of the territory of the beautiful to encompass all, exclude nothing. Ironically. The murder of beauty and the expansion of it to include everything is the same thing, conceptually speaking.)

What I wish existed and whose absence consumes me to no end every time I enter a museum: a summary (impossible) of the timeline of the canon and what/who gets included and what/who gets excluded and why. Note that I’m not issuing the ignorant layperson’s tired old challenge of “My 5-year-old could do that.” I don’t mistake technical skill involved or duration of labor for the Good, but I do want the implicit curatorial values to be made legible, because I’m in a capitalist system that more often than not exacts a price from us to view or own art but I am then paying to engage with something whose value I don’t understand and am expected to receive fully by merely looking at something without the language or conceptual framework to understand its value, all while contributing to that value, reinforcing it. That seems like a scam to me (forgivable) but also like intellectual hypocrisy (unforgivable).

All of this is a rambling record of first impressions re: the art world and my access to an understanding of its values & criteria. Obviously a way to answer my own questions is to examine the world itself, anthropologically, and dissect its political/cultural/social/financial underpinnings. To learn the common answers, debates addressing these small questions of mine. Which I intend to.

But that these are the questions begged when one confronts the whole system as an ignorant layperson is worth noting in itself, I think, because it draws out some assumptions that are contradictory. Assumptions that imply that art is good and we should look at it and pay to look at it. Assumptions that also imply that beauty is not art and skill is not art and accessibility is not art.

So then what is art? And who gets to decide? We spend our lives taking for granted the fact of a museum, of an art history curriculum, of a canon of famous men and (sometimes) women who have made what we consider “Great Art” without ever being satisfied with a good explanation of why, how come, who says? Especially today?

#art #art history #art theory #tom wolfe

2 notes · View notes

sunshineweb · 4 years

Text

Why We Make Bad Decisions

Here is some stuff I am reading and thinking about this weekend…

Book I’m Reading – What I Learned Losing A Million Dollars The backdrop of this book is the true story of a trader called Jim Paul. His career in stock market started with a string of unusual successes that vaulted him from a dirt-poor country boy to jet-setting-millionaire. However, after 15 years of uninterrupted success, all of Jim’s wealth was wiped out in a matter of few weeks when he lost $1.6 million in a speculative trade. This devastating failure led him to intense self-reflection and discovery of some unusual insights about success and failure.

Jim’s Aha! moment arrived when it finally occurred to him that studying losses, losing and how not to lose was more important than studying how to make money. He writes in the book –

Why was I trying to learn the secret to making money when it could be done in so many different ways? I knew something about how to make money; I had made a million dollars in the market. But I didn’t know anything about how not to lose. The pros could all make money in contradictory ways because they all knew how to control their losses. While one person’s method was making money, another person with an opposite approach would be losing — if the second person was in the market. And that’s just it; the second person wouldn’t be in the market. He’d be on the sidelines with a nominal loss. The pros consider it their primary responsibility not to lose money.

The moral, of course, is that just as there is more than one way to deal blackjack, there is more than one way to make money in the markets. Obviously, there is no secret way to make money because the pros have done it using very different, and often contradictory, approaches. Learning how not to lose money is more important than learning how to make money. Unfortunately, the pros didn’t explain how to go about acquiring this skill. So I decided to study loss in general, and my losses in particular, to see if I could determine the root causes of losing money in the markets.

This book begins with the unbroken string of successes that helped Paul achieve a jet-setting lifestyle. It then describes the circumstances leading up to his $1.6 million loss and the essential lessons he learned from it ― primarily that, although there are as many ways to make money in the markets as there are people participating in them, all losses come from the same few sources. Overall, his cautionary tale includes strategies for avoiding losses tied to a simple framework for understanding, accepting, and dodging the dangers of investing.

Idea I’m Thinking – Why We Make Bad Decisions Short answer – We have design flaws. We are fairly sure we are way above average, and we are also sure we see everything perfectly.

Long answer – Ray Dalio wrote in his book Principles –

The two biggest barriers to good decision making are your ego and your blind spots. Together, they make it difficult for you to objectively see what is true about you and your circumstances and to make the best possible decisions by getting the most out of others. If you can understand how the machine that is the human brain works, you can understand why these barriers exist and how to adjust your behavior to make yourself happier, more effective, and better at interacting with others.

The first bad habit is believing you are always correct. That’s ego. We don’t like to look at our mistakes and weaknesses. To avoid this pitfall, Dalio suggests viewing criticism as helpful feedback instead of as an attack.

“The blind-spot barrier is when a person believes he or she can see everything,” he explains. And that mentality is a mistake: “It is a simple fact no one alone can see a complete picture of reality,” he adds.

Now, we all, even the best decisions makers, have blind spots. We can’t see ideas and perspectives because we would never have considered them. And these are a product of our unique strengths. Like, some people are big-picture thinkers, some are more detail-oriented. Some are creative, while others are more organised. Some are strong at observing reality, while some can imagine possibilities way better. Some always follow rules and routines, while some are naturally spontaneous. Blind spots occur when we see the world and ideas the unique way we are, without trying to consider a wide range of perspectives.

So, what’s the solution to overcome these two barriers to good decision making?

Being open-minded is the answer. As Dalio suggests –

…open-mindedness is motivated by the genuine worry that you might not be seeing your choices optimally. It is the ability to effectively explore different points of view and different possibilities without letting your ego or your blind spots get in your way. It requires you to replace your attachment to always being right with the joy of learning what’s true.

…open-mindedness doesn’t mean going along with what you don’t believe in; it means considering the reasoning of others instead of illogically holding onto your own point of view.

Thoughts I’m Meditating On

One of the greatest gifts you can give yourself, right here, right now, in this single, solitary, monumental moment in your life, is to decide, without apology, to commit to the journey, and not to the outcome.

~ Joyce DiDonato

We are travelers on a cosmic journey, stardust, swirling and dancing in the eddies and whirlpools of infinity. Life is eternal. We have stopped for a moment to encounter each other, to meet, to love, to share. This is a precious moment. It is a little parenthesis in eternity.”

~ Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist

Video I’m Watching – Jim Carrey’s 2014 Commencement Address

youtube

Jim Carrey: Your job is not to figure out how it’s going to happen for you, but to open the door in your head and when the door opens in real life, just walk through it. Don’t worry if you miss your cue because there’s always doors opening. They keep opening.

And when I say, “life doesn’t happen to you, it happens for you,” I really don’t know if that’s true. I’m just making a conscious choice to perceive challenges as something beneficial so that I can deal with them in the most productive way. You’ll come up with your own style, that’s part of the fun.

Oh, and why not take a chance on faith as well? Take a chance on faith — not religion, but faith. Not hope, but faith. I don’t believe in hope. Hope is a beggar. Hope walks through the fire. Faith leaps over it.

You are ready and able to do beautiful things in this world and after you walk through those doors today, you will only ever have two choices: love or fear. Choose love, and don’t ever let fear turn you against your playful heart.

Articles I’m Reading

The Pandemic Isn’t a Black Swan but a Portent of a More Fragile Global System (New Yorker)

It’s Time to Build (Marc Andreessen)

68 Bits of Unsolicited Advice (Kevin Kelly)

Are We Too Busy to Enjoy Life? (Ness Labs)

All the Things We Have to Mourn Now (The Atlantic)

The First Modern Pandemic (Bill Gates)

When You Have No Idea What Happens Next (Morgan Housel)

Finding Meaning In Our Suffering (Daily Stoic)

There Was No One Like Irrfan Khan (The Atlantic)

A Question for You Look at each stock in your portfolio and ask, “If I did not own this stock already, would I be buying it now?”

If the answer is ‘No,’ ask, “Why am I even owning it?”

Stay safe. Stay happy. Be at peace.

With respect, — Vishal

The post Why We Make Bad Decisions appeared first on Safal Niveshak.

Why We Make Bad Decisions published first on https://mbploans.tumblr.com/

0 notes

nedsecondline · 7 years

Text

The Gerasimov Doctrine

Lately, Russia appears to be coming at the United States from all kinds of contradictory angles. Russian bots amplified Donald Trump during the campaign, but in office, Kremlin-backed media portray him as weak. Vladimir Putin is expelling U.S. diplomats from Russia, limiting options for warmer relations with the administration he wanted in place. As Congress pushes a harder line against Russia, plenty of headlines declare that Putin’s gamble on Trump has failed.

Confused? Only if you don’t understand the Gerasimov Doctrine.

In February 2013, General Valery Gerasimov — Russia’s chief of the General Staff, comparable to the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—published a 2,000-word article, “The Value of Science is in the Foresight,” in the weekly Russian trade paper Military-Industrial Kurier. Gerasimov took tactics developed by the Soviets, blended them with strategic military thinking about total war, and laid out a new theory of modern warfare — one that looks more like hacking an enemy’s society than attacking it head-on. He wrote: “The very ‘rules of war’ have changed. The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness … All this is supplemented by military means of a concealed character.”

They are not aiming to become stronger than us, but to weaken us until we are equivalent.

The article is considered by many to be the most useful articulation of Russia’s modern strategy, a vision of total warfare that places politics and war within the same spectrum of activities—philosophically, but also logistically. The approach is guerrilla, and waged on all fronts with a range of actors and tools — for example, hackers, media, businessmen, leaks and, yes, fake news, as well as conventional and asymmetric military means. Thanks to the internet and social media, the kinds of operations Soviet psy-ops teams once could only fantasize about — upending the domestic affairs of nations with information alone — are now plausible. The Gerasimov Doctrine builds a framework for these new tools, and declares that non-military tactics are not auxiliary to the use of force but the preferred way to win. That they are, in fact, the actual war. Chaos is the strategy the Kremlin pursues: Gerasimov specifies that the objective is to achieve an environment of permanent unrest and conflict within an enemy state.

Does it work? Former captive nations Georgia, Estonia and Lithuania all sounded the alarm in recent years about Russian attempts to influence their domestic politics and security, as the Obama administration downplayed concerns over a new Cold War. But all three countries now have parties with Russian financial connections leading their governments, which softly advocate for a more open approach to Moscow.

In Ukraine, Russia has been deploying the Gerasimov Doctrine for the past several years. During the 2014 protests there, the Kremlin supported extremists on both sides of the fight — pro-Russian forces and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists — fueling conflict that the Kremlin used as a pretext to seize Crimea and launch the war in eastern Ukraine. Add a heavy dose of information warfare, and this confusing environment — in which no one is sure of anybody’s motives, and pretty much no one is a hero — is one in which the Kremlin can readily exert control. This is the Gerasimov Doctrine in the field.

The United States is the latest target. The Russian security state defines America as the primary adversary. The Russians know they can’t compete head-to-head with us — economically, militarily, technologically — so they create new battlefields. They are not aiming to become stronger than us, but to weaken us until we are equivalent.

Russia might not have hacked American voting machines, but by selectively amplifying targeted disinformation and misinformation on social media — sometimes using materials acquired by hacking — and forging de facto information alliances with certain groups in the United States, it arguably won a significant battle without most Americans realizing it ever took place. The U.S. electoral system is the heart of the world’s most powerful democracy, and now — thanks to Russian actions — we’re locked in a national argument over its legitimacy. We’re at war with ourselves, and the enemy never fired a physical shot. “The information space opens wide asymmetrical possibilities for reducing the fighting potential of the enemy,” Gerasimov writes. (He also writes of using “internal opposition to create a permanently operating front through the entire territory of the enemy state.”)

Not all Russia-watchers agree on the Gerasimov Doctrine’s importance. Some say this is simply a new and well-articulated version of what Russians have always done, or that Putin is inflated as an all-powerful boogeyman, or that competition among the various oligarchic factions within the Kremlin means there is no central strategic purpose to their activities. But there’s no question that Russian intervention is systematic and multi-layered. This structure challenges us, because we don’t necessarily understand how it has been put into practice; like all guerrilla doctrine, it prioritizes conservation of resources and decentralization, which makes it harder to detect and follow. And strategically, its goals aren’t the ones we’re used to talking about. The Kremlin isn’t picking a winner; it’s weakening the enemy and building an environment in which anyone but the Kremlin loses.

Herein lies the real power of the Gerasimov-style shadow war: It’s hard to muster resistance to an enemy you can’t see, or aren’t even sure is there. But it’s not an all-powerful approach; the shadowy puppeteering at the heart of the Gerasimov Doctrine also makes it inherently fragile. Its tactics begin to fail when light is thrown onto how they work and what they aim to achieve. This requires leadership and clarity about the threat — which we saw briefly in France, when the government rallied to warn voters about Russian info ops in advance of the presidential election. For now, though, America is still in the dark — not even on defense, let alone offense.

Molly K. McKew, an expert on information warfare, advises governments and political parties on foreign policy and strategic communications. She advised Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s government from 2009-2013, and former Moldovan Prime Minister Vlad Filat in 2014-2015.

0 notes

viralhottopics · 7 years

Text

Wilmer Cabrera, loyal lieutenant in Colombia’s dream team, thriving in MLS

Houstons new head coach was a stable presence in the maverick Colombian team of the 1990s and hes brought calm and clarity to the MLS pacesetters

Glory and brutality were companions in Colombian football during the 1990s as the national team reached three World Cups amid a bloody drug war that did not spare sport. If Carlos Valderrama, Rene Higuita and Tino Asprilla were the maverick stars, Wilmer Cabrera was a more stable and less erratic presence.

Cabrera has brought calmness and a clarity of vision to his post-playing careers, first in a role where those qualities are indispensable as a helicopter pilot then in a febrile sphere where they are less common. In a measured rise over 14 years he has progressed from coaching youth teams in New York to his current role in charge of an MLS pacesetter in the embryonic 2017 season.

The Houston Dynamo have two wins from two games, like their opponents this Saturday, the Portland Timbers. Its the style as much as the results that have drawn attention: Cabrera deployed a rambunctious 4-3-3 in a 2-1 opening-weekend win over last years MLS Cup champions, the Seattle Sounders, and a 3-1 victory over the Columbus Crew.

There were handsome goals from the Honduran winger, Romell Quioto, and the Mexican striker Erick Torres, who arrived as a costly Designated Player in 2015 and finally found the net against Seattle after 22 fruitless MLS appearances. He also scored against Columbus.

Talking this week at the Dynamos training ground, Cabrera painted himself as above all a pragmatist, ready to adapt his tactics to his resources. Under a predecessor, the former Bolton and Burnley manager, Owen Coyle, the reverse seemed true.

I dont want to force our players to play the possession, team-oriented [approach] that I used to play because they dont feel that way, the personalities are different, Cabrera said. They like to run, they have speed and they want to attack. Our transition is quick from defending to attacking so whyre we going to change? The players are the ones that are dictating what is the best for them and right now, so far, this is the way were going to play because this is the type of player that we have.

Born in Cartagena, on the Caribbean coast, Cabrera spent most of his 20s with Amrica de Cali and won 48 caps for Colombia. The defender was an unused squad member in Italia 90, missed USA 94 through injury but played in every minute of all three of his countrys matches in France four years later.

Before 1990, Colombia had only once reached a World Cup in 1962. But their 1990s sides had personalities as big as their hair, little turnover of key players, technical excellence, an inspired creator in Valderrama and an effervescent style that lifted the nation. The team had a carefree quality despite the bloody unrest being wreaked by drug lords such as Pablo Escobar, which seeped into soccer.

We were very naive in a lot of aspects. It was just playing soccer the way we felt how to play soccer, Cabrera said. Rene Higuitas scorpion kick famously illuminated a dull goalless draw with England in a friendly at Wembley in 1995.

youtube

Less well remembered, at least in England: the goalkeeper was released the year before after seven months in prison when he was accused of acting as a go-between to help arrange the release of a girl kidnapped in a drug cartel feud. Asprilla, the gun-toting former Newcastle forward, reportedly moved to Europe after death threats.

Cabrera said that it was not until he moved to the US and saw outside media narratives about his countrys troubles that he fully understood the turbulence. Definitely it was an unbelievable time. When I talk with my kids about it, when I talk with people about it, they are amazed, Cabrera said. We didnt realise until now, when you start looking back, and you realise that it was a very rough, very tough moment and a very dangerous environment to be playing soccer.

The defender Andres Escobar was murdered outside a Medellin nightclub 10 days after scoring an own goal in a 2-1 defeat by the US in the 1994 tournament, perhaps because of the result and his blunder.

It just changed your perspective in all aspects because you never imagine that playing soccer brings you into a threatening environment, Cabrera said. For us it was fun, for us it was the way we used to live it was our lifestyle. It became a little bit difficult, it became complicated.

Wilmer Cabrera takes on Michael Owen during the Colombia-England game in 1998. Photograph: Olivier Morin/EPA

Cabrera hoped to follow Valderrama into MLS but a move never materialised. He finally arrived in New York in 2003 with a view to working as a helicopter pilot, a skill he had learned in Colombia and one that aligns with the seemingly-contradictory parts of his character and coaching strategy: cool rationality with a spirit of adventure.

He was sucked back into football, joined the Long Island Rough Riders, took coaching qualifications and rose through the ranks of the American game, including a stint as a fan development manager for MLS. I started to work on soccer from the moment I arrived, tried to learn the language, start from the bottom, and its been quite a long journey but its been very positive for me because Ive been able to work at all the levels here in the United States, he said.

In 2012-13 he was an assistant at the Colorado Rapids under his friend and former international teammate, Oscar Pareja, who is now at FC Dallas. In 2014 the 49-year-old won plaudits for the exercise in damage limitation that was life as head coach of Chivas USA in their final MLS season, which included coaxing a 15-goal campaign from Torres.

Last year, he worked for a Dynamo affiliate, the Rio Grande Valley FC Toros. They reached the United Soccer League playoffs, going a league-record 758 minutes without conceding a goal.

He was picked by Houston ahead of their interim head coach, Wade Barrett, who lifted the team to levels of obduracy and organisation reminiscent of Dominic Kinnear, Coyles long-tenured predecessor, without notably improving results. In 2016 the Dynamo finished bottom of the Western Conference.

Amid the cooing over Houstons exciting debut it has been overlooked that in their first two MLS fixtures last year they drew 3-3 with the New England Revolution then battered Dallas, 5-0. But Coyle left in May (soon surfacing in Blackburn, albeit fleetingly) during a second season of muddled performances and mixed results.

A real strength of Wilmers is that hes very clear with what he expects from the guys positionally and within the framework of the team and he knows that those points need to be reinforced on a very regular basis. I think what stands out with Wilmer is hes just as much a teacher as a coach and thats something that is really important in our league, said Matt Jordan, the Dynamo vice-president/general manager.

Cabreras bilingualism and background was a plus for US Soccer when it appointed him in 2007 to be the first Hispanic head coach of a male American national side the under-17s. The obvious influence of South American is something that weighed into our decision, Sunil Gulati, the US Soccer Federation president, told Soccer America.

It also helps in Houston, where the Dynamo play in a city that is roughly 40% Hispanic and have a roster that features eleven players born in South or Central America.

Guys from England are always, I guess, going to bring in the most money and earn the most money, but if you want to win youve got to look elsewhere. You can only have three DPs on a team so its about finding the other role players, said AJ DeLaGarza, an off-season signing from the Los Angeles Galaxy.

First of all, you want to look for good players whose characteristics translate to Major League Soccer and historically, players from countries like Honduras and Colombia and Argentina and Costa Rica and Panama, those are markets that the players transition well to our league, Jordan said.

Its an added bonus that those profiles fit the demographics of our city. On top of that, when you look at the climate here, the conditions that we have to play in here, we want players to embrace that and feel very comfortable here.

Like Parejas Dallas, Houston aim to be devastating on the counter-attack. Still, when fatigue and summer heat bite, theres the question of how an aging back line will cope against fast, incisive opponents, especially since a three-man midfield offers limited protection down the flanks. The back four against Seattle was DeLaGarza (29), Adolfo Machado (32), Leonardo (29) and DaMarcus Beasley (34). The only starters under 28 were the three forwards: Alberth Elis (21), Torres (24) and Quioto (25). But the Sounders XI was no younger.

The Dynamo had only 36% of possession against Seattle and 40% against Columbus, according to league statistics. Broken down into five-minute intervals, Houston had more of the ball than their opponents for just 25 minutes of those 180.

The bright side is were winning and were still not playing, I would say, very well. Were very dynamic going forward but defending and keeping the ball we know we have to get better, and playing a full 90-plus minutes, said DeLaGarza.

Coyle made energetic and sincere attempts to embrace MLS but ended up as another statistic confirming the truism that the leagues idiosyncratic some might say arcane nature makes it all but impregnable to outsiders.

If Cabrera thrives in Texas it will be as much a tribute to the American development system as to the legacy of the experiences he absorbed in his native land. Im a local coach like any other coach, he said. Ive lived here in the United States for 14 years, so now my lifestyle is American style. Im an American coach.