#poly’s poetic over analysis

[polymathart]

Poly’s Poetic Over Analysis

Cassandra vs. Rapunzel

What exactly was Cass trying to achieve by fighting Rapunzel? I think one of the reasons Cassandra was so bent on fighting Rapunzel was because she wanted Rapunzel to take up arms.

One of the things that pains Cassandra so much during her fall is that Rapunzel is so committed to reaching out to her never giving up on her no matter how far Cass goes. Cassandra 1) wanted to be justified even more than she thought she already was and 2) wanted to make Rapunzel betray her own belief in the good of others.

Cassandra’s expressed goal is to outshine Rapunzel. However, her other more subtle goal is to make Rapunzel the villain in her story. Cassandra was constantly attacking Rapunzel and her friends so that she could make Rapunzel fight back. She wanted Rapunzel to be on the offense so, in her mind, Cass was on the defense. She wanted to make Rapunzel the villain. And she needed Rapunzel to fight back in order to give it substance.

Another thing is that Cassandra wanted was to make Rapunzel do something that she was so opposed to: revenge. Cassandra wanted to beat the sunshine and goodness out of Rapunzel to show that Rapunzel was not as unshakable as everyone held her to be. Zhan Tiri says it best when she compels Cassandra to “break her spirit.” Breaking her spirit meant making Rapunzel attack Cass—it meant making Rapunzel betray herself.

If Cassandra could have made Rapunzel retaliate, then she would have basically killed the saintly Rapunzel. She would have demonstrated that even Rapunzel was not above fighting and making enemies. Cassandra targeted Rapunzel’s core belief and brought her to the point of throwing it all away. Rapunzel giving up on Cassandra would have been the victory Cassandra was aiming for.

But Rapunzel could not be swayed. She remains true to her belief in the good of others. She does not give up on Cassandra. Rapunzel stays true to herself. And Rapunzel stays Rapunzel. It is that endurance and commitment to welcome Cassandra back that finally brings Cassandra back home. For all Cassandra’s bitterness and anger, she cannot defeat Rapunzel’s love. No one can.

Cassandra was trying to make Rapunzel stop loving her. It was pride and a need to be justified. Cassandra was too proud to accept that she was wrong and she needed to prove that Rapunzel was the villain in the story. But the truth is that Rapunzel loved her despite all her actions and she wanted Cassandra to be happy, just not this way.

#tangled the series #tts #cassandra #rapunzel #rapunzel's tangled adventure #rta #cassandra’s revenge #once a handmaiden #plus est en vous #zhan tiri #cassunzel #poly’s poetic over analysis #polyspeaks #Tangled Ever On #The Lanterns Still Float #I Still Live My Dream #The Wind Is Still In My Hair #I Still See The Light

[tsc-living]

I'm not trying to come off as mean because I think your opinions are super valid and I actually really appreciate a different view on Cordelia, but why is it that when a male character in TSC is lovesick for a girl/guy it's romantic and adorable and said guy is seen as near perfect, but when a girl is it's seen as just being lovesick and weak/pathetic? I just don't really understand 😓

Lol no, I don't like it either, not when it's written the way Cordelia was written. I think I speak out more now, on Cordelia, because I have more confidence. I don't care if I lose followers, and I don't care if people come into my DMs and attack me for my thoughts. When I created this blog, I cared more about those things so I kept my mouth shut.

I'll also address the fact that obsession (even predatory behavior) from a man aimed at a woman has a long standing history of being romanticised and the predominantly female based readership of TSC may still be subscribed to that way of thinking. Paired with women's internalized misogyny (think: women's behaviour to Taylor Swift, Kristen Stewart and Jameela Jamil), Cordelia will automatically be less favourable to some. This is something I've considered in my own analysis of Cordelia and I still feel confident that my dislike of her character isn't based in that inherent idea. We must also address the often times creepy, near enough fetishization of mlm characters by females with the uwu cute baby gay boy attitude (think: Nico Di Angelo from the Riordanverse). If Alec, Magnus, Kit, Ty, Kieran, Mark, etc were obsessive over their respective Male counterparts to Cordelia's extent with James, it would just fuel that creepy attitude. We do kind of see it with Kit and Ty anyway. The only excuse I can respect for that is mlm or queer people in general appreciate the reality of the gay experience when you're young and still learning, and CC cut it off at the knees and we are desperately trying to keep it alive. I digress.

So please, without further adieu, have my opinions on Shadowhunter men in TSC.

James: Get your head in the game dude. Liked him in TFtSHA but he's gone downhill from there. 2/10

Matthew: Gives me anxiety, not sure if I like him being the cornerstone for bisexual representation, but we'll see. Has started yet another fucking love triangle. Again, I like him in TFtSHA but has gone downhill. 2/10

Alastair: I like him but that's just because I relate to him. Can't wait to find out more about myself him as the story goes on. 7/10 (docked points bc he's kind of a douche canoe).

Jace: Obsessive. As an adult (the age I am now when I read Chog), his love for Clary makes me supremely uncomfortable for 90% of the series. 3/10

Simon: Again, his teen angsty crush on Clary I can do without, but when he starts crushing on Izzy, it's not as obsessive and lovesick as it is with Jordelia. He has the vampire thing to think about, and the getting stuck in hell part of it, and there's more depth to his character (although not enough, let's be honest). 8/10

Alec: Manages to focus on things other than Magnus for thirty seconds. We even have the entirety of CoHF where Alec is suffering with his fear for Magnus' life, but we don't know that deep until we have the conversation between Jace and Alec. Good man, loved the fact he got some character development, cares more than just about his boyfriend. 10/10.

Will: Bro. His character all around is... a lot. He gets praised as this broody, beautiful, perfect type, but during my reread every time he waxed poetic about Tessa I rolled my eyes. He is just as bad as Cordelia, but I do think CC rounded out his character a little better eventually (I hope she does the same with Cordelia). I like Will in the glimpses we get of him as an adult and a father more than I like the Will in TID. 5/10 for TID, but overall 6/10

Jem: This man deserved so much more in depth character work, but at the very least he wasn't boiled down to 'I love Tessa and that's all I'm capable of'. He is driven by love, but he loves more than just Tessa. 9/10

Gideon & Gabriel: We don't get a lot of their side of the story and Gabriel is like 19 and dating a 15 year old so we're moving right along. 4/10 for Gideon (wish it could be more but we dont know hime) and 2/10 for Gabriel (because he did make me laugh).

Julian: I just... no. I don't like Blackstairs story very much. Julian kinda freaks me out and his obsession with Emma is A Lot™️. 4/10 (because he loves his family and has been through too much).

Mark: Hey look, a character that has a relationship and isn't entirely consumed by it. There's some poly confusion (like gay panic, but for polyam). I support him, and I wish him well. 7/10

Ty: Not sure he knows what's up. Good egg. Have yet to see his (in depth) POV of Kit so this could change, but so far he's pretty chill. 10/10

Kit: Get a grip, then get a clue. Is perhaps a little obsessive as the books wear on, but his character is balanced more in favour of trying to do what he needs to do and trying his best and that's less motivated by his (unacknowledged) crush. If he dissolves into a lovesick and obsessive character with little to no other personality traits, then his score will go down. 9/10.

#long post #cordelia discourse #asks #anon ask #unpopular opinion

[protecc-draal]

liveblog from halfway point of the movie

cw strong language

rott liveblog

again I start putting things down halfway done but anyway

ive decided that blinky was charlie’s ex

aja is easily the alpha of the entire group her back is hurting from carrying everyone

FUCK HIM UP AJA

why does skrael look so stylish what

OHHH SHIT NOMURA

F U C K SHE DEAD

atleast she and draal can be reunited

OH COME ON STRICKLER YOU DRAMATIC ASS, WHAT HAPPENED TO BEST MAN MY ASS

this isnt as emotional as I thought it would be

strickler: explodes

skrael: oh no! anyway

that was so unecessary there was no point in that death, it was just an excuse to kill him off

strickler was so damn useless in this movie?? they really did him wrong holy shit this movie sucks so far

at least nomura’s death made poetic sense, but what for reason to kill off both of jim’s father figures?? what kind of fucked up theme does that give off

if they kill off blinky, then I dont know what the point of the movie is LMAO this is some kind of fucked up joke or smn

and sk the government keeps interfering into shit they cannot handle

BELLROC

HI THEY

HIII THEEYYYYYY

HOLY FUCK THEY LOOK SO DECADENTTTT

SKRAEL CAN FUCK OFF I DONT CARE IF BELLROC KILLS OFF BLINKY

varvatos: I am gun robot

bellroc: tf

im calling it now varvatos is gonna be another useless death, what did I expect from tales of arcadia

but this music FUCKS its amazing

oh yeah, its all coming together, one death per demigod

ok, hes alright

OH SHIT BLOOD, that burn looks awful

I have a strong feeling charlie will die because of how hes helping them, rott really said that dads dont have rights

ok douxie good job now just do that with bell and skrael

FUCK HIM UP NARI

why does skrael sound like a damn rat

oh shit naris about to go apeshit

damn they rlly kilt each other

yall werent joking when you said there was going to be a lot of death

I was expecting jim to pull excalibur as predictable it was, but I hope claire or toby. ANYONE but steve oh my god

I STILL cannot get over this fucking steve childbirth sideplot, what the FUCK were they thinking. anyway im convinced that aja and eli came to some sort of agreement pertaining their relationship with steve im not taking criticism

man rott is such a well put together fan animation am I right?? 😍😍😍 not canon at all

honestly the “her perch” comment sounds like a one off thing but not my spot to tell

“my virgin eyes” is absolutely NOT something I thought id hear in this movie

oh damn hi bellroc h-hi there 😳👉👈

jim bellroc will split your ass clean in half your little blade aint shit

oh shit toby redeem?? pog????????

man I wish that bellroc would monologue over MY dying body

jim you aint shit fight white boy fight

holy fucking shit its so late at night bellroc is looking like a whole ass meal in this movie you dont understand how im feeling rn

oh for fucks sake of course the amulet ends up being the god killing fix it all

try your best bb bellroc im with you till the end

alright I gotta admit, jim grabbing bell was some hotboy shit

you scored one on that

welp goodbye bellroc you had the most badass death of all your peers. let’s see, elsa frozen statue? mr stark I dont feel so good? no, explode into a blast of lava. bravo. chef kiss.

im so surprised that blinky didnt die????? all of us were like blinkys gonna die

ELI JR ive decided they’re poly there is NOTHING thats going to stop me

can I just say that steve’s fucked up hair is giving me life he should have that hair more often

oh fuck toby

OH FUCK TOBY

OHHHHHH FUCK TOBY

RIGHT AFTER YOU REDEEMED YOURSELF BOYYYYYYY

HOLY SHIT

BE A GAG FOR ONC

BE A JOKE FOR ONCE COME ON

FAKE YOUR DEATH PLEASE

FOR GOODNESS SAKE

hesus christ none of us were fucking prepared for these deaths oh my GOD

I shoudve expected this when trollhunters literally ended with troll jim

holy fucking sjit

are you kidding me

are you kidding me

come on you funky green sphere

go ahead revive strickler :) ill wait

theres 13 minutes left in the movie come on you got this jim

alright fic writers get started in thise time loop aus where jim watches his friends die over and over again

I find it funny that we all said that blinky would die but everyone BUT blinky died lmao

hang on, is he going back fr? damn fr??

are you kidding me

*boxman voice* here we go again

TOBY of course this was going to work

STRICKLERRRRRRR IM CRYIN CAT EYES

this is exactly like thise time travel fix it aus but canon

WAIT ANGOR ROT AND DRAAL ARE ALIVE IN THIS NOW AHHH WE WIN WE WINNNNNNNN MOVIES OVER EVERYONE

BEST MOVIE EVER

toby trollhunter pog???? TOBY TROLLHUNTER POG??????????? HOLY FUCKKKKKKKK THIS IS HAPPENING MVP YOU ENDED UP BEING USEFUL AFTER ALL

FANTASTIC WONDERFUL EVERYTHING WE EVER WANTED HAPPENED FUCK YOU

wait please tell me that the timeline jim left didnt get magically erase like the deaths suck but I lowkey want to keep the steliaja ot3 ngl it’s very big brain

anyway im just a shallow casual toa fan who doesnt have the energy to go into deep analysis or criticism, my mind is literally so tired it’s like 4 am and the only thing I can process atm is time travel fix it fic but its canon and my fried brain thinks the movie’s pretty good for now

#rise of the titans spoilers #tales of arcadia spoilers #toa spoilers #in which I heavily simp for bellroc #ill definitely wake up later and realise how shit the movie is but just #let me have my hopes and dreams back for now

[sorakingdomhearts]

I just finished watching all of the Kingdom Hearts game cutscenes in 16 days! Under the cut, my super-long analysis post.

This was such a bad idea and also the best I’ve ever had. I can no longer tell the events of separate games apart, other than the stuff I added to this post’s draft while watching, but it’s given me so much to do in the quaran-times.

I would say my favorite games at this point are KH3, BBS, and 358/2 Days. I actually played through KH3 to like 90 something percent so I’m most attached to it, but storywise Aqua, Ventus, Roxas, and Axel/Lea have the best plots. If I had to pick a top favorite, other than Sora(because. Well. Sora’s my chosen middle name for a reason) I would say it’s Axel/Lea, and Aqua is the world’s closest second.

My favorite Disney worlds are probably Traverse Town for the music, Nightmare Before Christmas for the costumes(both the wintery ones and the spooky ones), Disney Town for the character appearances and aesthetic/colors, and BH6 for the plot/dialogue. Honorable mention to Hunchback of Notre Dame for being the only one I hadn’t heard about before starting this journey AND being a friend’s current hyperfixation so I got to share hyperfix joy with them for a bit.

I think Aqua has the best voice in the series. Especially with BBS 0.2/KH2.8 there’s quite a few scenes where the only dialogue is her talking to herself and she’s got such an emotional, pretty voice to pair with her heartbreaking journey home.

Axel/Lea’s relationship with his name is the same as a trans person with their deadname and I love that for him. For example, in the end of Dream Drop Distance, he gets frustrated with Riku not knowing it’s changed to Lea again but gives up on correcting him because the rest of what’s going on is more important. I’ve definitely done that with people deadnaming me.

On the other side of that coin, in ReMIND Demyx struggles to remember it’s Ienzo, not Zexion, but he corrects himself over and over. He doesn’t seem to want to deadname Ienzo, he just hasn’t gotten used to it yet. I think that more than anything else is what proved to me personally that Demyx really was trying to do something good.

Also, with Axel/Lea, can he not make bad jokes IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS OWN DEATH? Hello?! I said this on Twitter but hey, buddy, I love you dearly but now isn’t the time.

Xion’s name is pronounced she-on, not zee-on like I thought when I read it. Idk why I thought it was that way when I read it printed but it’s not.

Donald is always cute, all the time, and he’s cutest when he and Sora are squabbling like little kids. I love him. Or maybe that’s the Ducktales fan bias creeping in...

Speaking of HEY, WAS ANYONE GONNA TELL ME HDL AND SCROOGE ARE IN MORE THAN JUST THE KH TRILOGY?!?! What a pleasant surprise to see Scrooge in BBS and to visit Disney Town.

Nobodies make the wobble sound of laminated paper being shaken. I keep thinking about that for no reason.

Does anyone else think Riku saying he can “smell the darkness” on people in ReCOM is weird? Am I just really late to the party, or are we just going to ignore that? Yeah? Okay.

Aqua’s end of Birth by Sleep has some of the sweetest, most poetic dialogue in the series imo. When Aqua and Mickey are talking about Ven, and Sora and Riku talking about hurt within the heart? Yeah. I’ll cry.

Also, another sad scene: Isa and Lea as kids when Lea explains his whole “get it memorized” thing is so he can be remembered and live on, if need be. I cried real tears at that one.

Conversely, some of my favorite sweet scenes are: in the beginning of BBS when Aqua tells Ven and Terra they’d “make the weirdest brothers,” Sora meeting Santa in KH2(I think?) which reminds you hey, these are children, the scene right after they find out Goofy’s not dead and Donald flips out, Lea summoning his Keyblade for the first time(powermove,) and of course the series of reunions in KH3. There’s at least a solid scene or two in each game that really warms my cold sad heart.

Speaking of the KH3 reunions, the best one I think was Xion, Roxas, and Lea’s. At least with Aqua/Terra/Ven they started out with hope, and Aqua and Ven at least had the ability to hold onto that hope to get them through. The ex-Nobody crowd really didn’t have anything. Just the promise that they’d meet again, and maybe not even in this life. I will cry.

Some of the voice casting is surprisingly great. Like, Nala’s voiced by Vanessa Marshall, who did Gamora in the GOTG tv series. Love her. And Hynden Walch who does Starfire is the Alice voice at one point which was such a pleasant surprise.

Also hey, Zachary Levi went so fucking HARD on his voice work. Even Rapunzel has some lines that fall a little flat compared to the tone of the original, like the KH version of the “first time outdoors” sequence. But Flynn Rider has this consistent energy to him that I really love.

In ReCoded I really liked the second-person Mickey narration. Idk why. It just made me super happy.

Hercules is a movie that frequently becomes a level in these games and like every time they continue that trend of Phil’s “I got two words for you” joke like guys, wasn’t the thing in the original that it translated to two words in Greek? Not that he couldn’t count? Anyway that’s the best reoccurring joke. I hate it and love it in equal measure.

One of the frequent things in KH that I love is there’s this sense of ridiculousness to it. Like, it’s a lovely story with excellent worldbuilding and character designs, with a brilliantly complex plot, but like. You get into scenarios like the end of ReMIND, and Sora’s time-travelled to save his dying and sorta already dead friend(Kairi). He’s cradling his other dying friend in his arms and talking about how he found his way to them by tracing the connections between their hearts. Beautiful, poetic, showstopping, right? Except it’s Mickey motherfucking Mouse. You can’t find this anywhere else.

Speaking of ReMIND, the part where Sora connects all the keyhole things? It looks like a starry sky full of constellations? Yeah. Holy fucking SHIT is that pretty. I literally had to pause it twice to absorb the visuals in that scene.

To end off, here’s some of my pride headcanons: Terra and Xion are trans, Ventus and Riku are nonbinary, Saïx/Isa is agender, and Sora is genderfluid. Axel/Lea is pan, Kairi, Riku, and Sora are poly, and Aqua is bi. ((I definitely have more of these but these ones I think are most important.))

#kingdom hearts #kh #mine!

[mybarricades]

A Poetics of the Ungovernable / The Grapevine Telegraph 

A Poetics of the Ungovernable 

In the seven years since the Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street movement took the world by storm, contemporary poetry in the English speaking world has become notably more engaged in exploring the links between poetry and revolution. A string of conferences, online correspondences, new presses and journals have emerged and developed into what can be indexed as a new poetry movement [i]. Branded by signifiers such as ‘politically committed poetry’, ‘militant poetics’ and/ or ‘post-crisis poetics’, this current of thought foregrounds the importance of questions concerning gender, anti-racist and anti-capitalist struggle in the work of art. Of note are publications that deal with the social role of the poet in political struggle [ii], the aesthetic of neoliberal or deindustrialized capitalism [iii], and relations within poetry communities themselves. In this vein, the present study is a critical evaluation of both the obstacles to radical artistic practice as well as an illustration of an artistic practice beyond those obstacles. 

While much of the writing pertaining to this new school of poetics has been insightful, it has tended to favor capitalism as the exclusive site of politics. Capitalism is treated as a monolithic absolute: a totalizing system to which no outside can possibly exist until society has been purged of all waged labor and the value form has been defeated once and for all. A case in point is the debate between British poet/ theorist Keston Sutherland and Oakland based poet/ theorist Joshua Clover [iv]. In discussing the merits of revolutionary artistic production, this particular discussion focuses almost exclusively on readings of Marx’s Das Kapital. What merits re-evaluation in this schema is the confinement of the political to the sphere of the market. Unfortunately, the present study does not have the space to expound on these two authors’ complex understandings of global capitalism. It suffices to make a succinct point: in creating such a grand schema of the capitalist system and its implications, much of the writing pertaining to this new poetry movement has tended to neglect the themes of governmentality in diagnosing the contemporary global political horizon. The present study hopes to make a contribution to this emergent current of poetic thought through a study of artistic practice and governmentality. 

Governmentality is a term coined by Michel Foucault to describe the diffuse and manifold ways in which power permeates the social fabric. Governmentality, or the various ‘arts of government’ have not been fully thought out in their relationship to art and aesthetics. As a result, conversations about the relationship between politics and aesthetics have tended to become limited to discussions of aesthetics and economics (conceived of as strictly capitalism). In other words, these discussions have neglected the distinction between economics and economy conceived as Oikonomia; that is, the art and skill of managing and administering life and death in the polis with the aim of governing the population as efficiently as possible. Like artistic practice, an art of government is the implementation of a certain technique used for composition (of a work of art or of a society). While Marxist thinkers tend to limit their thinking of politics to the market, Foucault’s work shows how the laws of the market are in many ways derived from the laws of the household (the Oikos). The household is an important site where the behavior of individuals takes on a political dimension. Indoctrinating individuals with rigorous moral codes, regulating the minutae of their behaviors and molding their habits is a primary step to getting them to accept the discipline of the market. Foucault remarks “Government begins to want to take responsibility for people’s conduct, to conduct people, then from then on we see revolts of conduct.”[v] Foucault’s work on governmentality provides a promising analysis on forms of control and power which, I argue, may have eclipsed that of capitalism in our contemporary political landscape. The present study contends that the question of aesthesis – of sensory perception – is one such form of control. To be clear: governmentality is an art, and aesthetics is one of the many disciplines it utilizes for control. The fields of design, art and aesthetics are essential components of governance in contemporary Western societies like the USA. 

Regardless of said limitations to their thinking, these Marxist poets and critics make decisive critiques of radical artistic production. For example, in a collective statement issued by poets and theorists from Oakland, the authors “point to culture’s political malleability as a concept and its usefulness in preserving existing hierarchies of power.”[vi] Joshua Clover likewise writes “Poetry has no autonomous existence prior to the material life structured by the capitalist relation.”[vii] According to Clover, poetry is unable to extricate itself from its origins in capitalist society and is thus incapable of challenging capitalism. Regardless of whether the sentiment contained therein is radical or not, artistic production is very easily co-opted by the global capitalist system. I believe these remarks and their skepticism of culture to be correct. One need only look at the way the once-revolutionary sentiments that emerged in the 60’s and 70’s as a part of the counter-culture movement in America have been transformed into some of the most heinous faces of the global capitalist empire. Whole Foods, once conceived of as a healthy vegetarian alternative to grocery store chains has been bought out by Amazon. To govern a society is to re-appropriate revolt or resistance back into society, thereby making society immune to all that is outside or opposed to it. 

That these counter-culture movements were co-opted is not the only critique that has been leveled against the prospects of radical cultural practice. Some of the most compelling academic research in the humanities in recent years has come from theorists like Frank B. Wilderson, who theorizes similar themes pertaining to culture and society in their relationship to race. In an important essay titled Gramsci’s Black Marx, Wilderson contends that when cultural institutions emerging from within civil society make a bid to restructure society for the better by being more inclusive, they only end up elaborating the positionality of exclusion from society faced by black bodies. According to Wilderson, the strategy of the Gramscian schema is to strive to take over institutions within civil society (such as education), use them to gain hegemonic power and create a movement against capitalism from within society itself. Civil society and its organs “represent a terrain to be occupied, assumed, and appropriated in a pedagogic project of transforming ‘common sense’ into ‘good sense.’”[viii] Wilderson’s point is that using cultural or educational institutions to ‘enlighten’ society is a gesture that is insufficiently universal insofar as black bodies are not conceived of as being part of American society. A maneuver of enlightenment is therefore inadequately antagonistic towards the foundations of civil society and represents only a slight modification that would leave apparatuses of racial domination intact. 

“Civil society is the terrain where hegemony is produced, contested, mapped. And the invitation to participate in hegemony’s gestures of influence, leadership, and consent is not extended to the black subject. We live in the world, but exist outside of civil society.”[ix] 

Wilderson’s claim that the black body exists outside of civil society is based on the constituent role slavery played in the foundation of American society. Black bodies are the exception that prove the rule: all men can only be created equal insofar as some men are enslaved, auctioned off in markets, and killed with impunity. It is from the “incoherence of black death [that] America generates the coherence of white life.”[x] 

The import of Wilderson’s analysis for this study is that it points to a realm of power relations that are pre-political. Just as it was necessary to recalibrate the site of politics in Marxist thinking to elucidate how power operates on the conduct of individuals, Wilderson displaces the site of politics from civil society to a zone of absolute dereliction. The political rights extended to members of civil society are not available to black bodies. As a result, Wilderson claims that black bodies are faced with a gratuitous violence that is qualitatively different from the violence faced by non-black subjects that do have access to civil society and its institutions. Wilderson’s point is that if a radical cultural practice were to emerge that was capable of changing society, it would leave the relations of racial violence that undergird society largely unaffected. 

These two critiques – one Marxist and one relating to race – point to a common obstacle for radical cultural production: a radical cultural practice must ruthlessly criticize and maintain a degree of separation from institutions like capitalism and civil society that provide access to normative subjectivity. The present study is an attempt to sketch out how what I will term an otherwise could emerge; that is, a radical cultural practice that would not contribute to the consolidation of existing power relations. To this end, a study of art and its relationship to governmentality will provide not only a more nuanced critique of power relations, it will also elucidate the ways in which art is a privileged sphere for thinking about the possibilities of an otherwise. If there is an art of government there is just as surely an art of becoming ungovernable. After diagnosing first the issues of governmentality and then how art and aesthetics are tools for governmentality, I will turn to the work of poets Anne Boyer and Fred Moten. The work of these two poets will be used to elaborate what I will call an ungovernable poetics. I do not wish for their work to be read as textual evidence of the correctness of a specific philosophical theory. Instead I hope to let poetry speak in a place where philosophy must remain silent. If philosophy and theory can help us diagnose the challenges of governmentality, perhaps poetry can provide us with some valuable coordinates for thinking an artistic practice beyond civil society and governmentality, for thinking an otherwise. 

GOVERNMENTALITY, OIKONOMIA, DISPOTIF 

In his lecture series Security, Territory, Population, Foucault locates governmentality’s emergence in Western Europe as early as the 16th century. This new conception of government emerged at the historical juncture of two moments: the dismantling of the feudal system and the Protestant Reformation. On the one hand, the rise and centralization of the capitalist state and on the other hand, religious dissidence. In both cases, disputes arose over “who would actually have the right to govern men” [xi] or which forms of power were fit to lead the population towards a desirable end (be it ‘the good life’ for politics, or salvation for the church). As capitalism and the Reformation gained influence, they formed incipient polities whose influence quickly rivaled that of Feudalism and the Catholic Church. Foucault claims that what sets these new forms of power apart from their predecessors was their development of an ‘art’ of government, what Foucault will term governmentality. Foucault provides a succinct definition of the term: 

 “By ‘governmentality’ I understand the ensemble formed by institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, calculations, and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific, albeit very complex, power that has the population as its target, political economy as its major form of knowledge, and apparatuses of security as its major technical instrument.”[xii] Governmentality is the composition of a consistent and well-ordered society as an ensemble of the aforementioned heterogeneous elements. This ‘art of government’ is nothing like the direct application of a rigid dogma found in religious texts or political treatises, nor is it simply “a matter of imposing law on men” [xiii] as is characteristic of the exercise of sovereignty or discipline. Governmentality is a knowledge or skill, a savior-faire that is flexible and can be applied in diverse scenarios. It is as much concerned with each scenario in its singularity as with the relation that joins the individual scenarios together. Foucault uses the analogy of a weaver, joining the various individual threads to form a fabric. 

Foucault’s second point about governmentality is that it “has political economy as its mode of knowledge.” Foucault uses the term ‘economy’ in the sense of Oikonomia, that is, the laws of managing the household. As Foucault tells it, governing a polis required that one be able to govern himself (according to principles of morality) as well as govern his home (his oikos, according to the principles of Oikonomia, economy). Only one who demonstrated an aptitude for managing first his personal conduct and then his oikos could be trusted to govern the population. In the Western tradition dating back to Aristotle, managing the household was done primarily by property owning men managing the lives of women and slaves. The lives of the latter two were not considered to have any political dimension, but only a biological function. Women and slaves were not subjects of the polis, they were objects of management, which is why neither women nor slaves were allowed to partake in Athenian democracy.[xiv] ‘Economic’ relations are thus relations concerned solely with procuring the essentials needed to reproduce the biological life of those excluded from the sphere of democracy and political life. They concern relations of power that are pre-political, indeed these relations ensure the possibility of politics at all. 

Foucault points to governmentality as a way of applying the principles of household management – of oikonomia – to every sphere of society. He remarks: 

“To govern a state will thus mean the application of economy, the establishment of an economy, at the level of the state as a whole, that is to say, exercising supervision and control over its inhabitants, wealth, and the conduct of all and each, as attentive as that of a father’s over his household and goods.”[xv] 

What is relevant for this study is that power relations take the form of an Oikonomia: that is, a multifarious set of tactics for conducting the tiniest minutae of both each individual agent as well as the social fabric as a whole. The question of how these tactics are enforced on the population corresponds with Foucault’s third claim about governmentality. These tactics of government are carried out primarily by a series of security apparatuses. Foucault defines the apparatus (dispostif) in an interview from 1977 as “a heterogeneous set of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements.”[xvi] Apparatuses are the normative infrastructures that organize society in a certain way, to “structure the field of possible action.”[xvii] The task of the dispotif is primarily to create a subject from the human. Once a human life has been created as a subject, the apparatus seeks to dispose those subjects towards certain things, to create within them a certain disposition. The objects and services we interact with daily, such as smart phones, Amazon Go or the freeways we drive on are all designed to conduct us towards particular websites, products or even parts of the city. Our interaction with these objects is intended to instill obedience while leaving us a small menu of choices usually referred to as ‘freedom’. It is precisely this obedience, the subject’s willful correspondence with the apparatus of government that provides security for the state. As one commentator on Foucault, Arne de Boever puts it, “A government is secure when the population, through the ways in which life is organized, guarantees the continuation of power.”[xviii] 

CRISIS OF THE SENSES 

Within the larger context of governmentality’s relationship not just to art but also to the field of aesthetics, our present political horizon requires more elucidation. My wager is that 9/11 was a watershed moment marking the ascendancy of paradigms of governance characterized by crisis (whether economic, humanitarian, environmental) and the state of exception. With instability becoming a threat to society, security is of utmost concern. This claim corresponds with Foucault’s claim about the proliferation of security apparatuses throughout the social fabric. With these specific innovations in governance occurring in the wake of 9/11, so too have innovations been made in human sensory perception. A founding assumption of crisis governance is that human beings behave predictably and are easier to control when in a state of crisis, fear, or shock. This assumption has a pedigree in Norbert Wiener’s enemy pilots, in the cybernetic image of thought.[xix] After World War II, this current of thought and research occasioned the introduction of new information and communication technologies into the fabric of Western society at a scale deserving the title of a second industrial revolution. Funded by the military as well as by the CIA, hereafter “government [became] a study of perception, of communication and decisions.”[xx] The way we see, the forms of reasoning we use, how we listen and decipher information: these are not just the natural impulses of the eye, the brain or the ear. For example, an entire pedagogy of seeing was needed to teach human beings to cope with, sort through and make sense of the inundations of data that came with the introduction of information and communication technologies. Bernard Stiegler has called this conditioning of our senses an aesthetic conditioning. Of interest for this study is that crisis governance has made an explicit project of crafting the human senses anew. Indeed, governmentality is a mode of perception itself. 

The French philosopher Bernard Stiegler offers one of the most compelling accounts of how aesthetics has been utilized as a form of control in the 20th century. Stiegler’s work, specifically in ‘On Symbolic Misery’ investigates how “after the Second World War, advertising began to target consciousness as an available resource.”[xxi] Stielger refers to the emergence of advertising, mass marketing, and propaganda as new fields of study for government in 20th century America. He points to Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays as the figure who primarily took interest in the way people’s subconscious drives could be trained or conditioned to make them desire new products. Stiegler writes “the aesthetic became an object of systematic and industrial exploitation, with the exclusive and hegemonic aim, in Gramsci’s sense, of developing the markets of consumption.”[xxii] Governments and corporations began to “develop an aesthetic particularly well adapted to audiovisual media, which refunctionalized the aesthetic dimension of the individual according to the interests of industrial development, causing him to adopt the behaviors of consumerism.”[xxiii] Aesthetics in this schema is a way of fostering the libidinal energy of a population and channeling that energy back into the hegemonic culture itself. All human activity, sensory perception, and bodies become the targets of exploitation. A radical artistic practice must recognize and resist the ways art and aesthetics are bound up with the colonization of the senses. 

GARMENTS AGAINST WOMEN 

Anne Boyer’s 2015 Garments Against Women is a hybrid work of prose poetry that investigates what is at stake in the production of poetry and by extension, what is at stake in living. Garments Against Women addresses both the material obstacles to writing literature as well as the philosophical questions of how to write as she says “a literature [that] is not coyly against literature, but sincerely against it.”[xxiv] The book details many different kinds of poems and poetics, including the poetics of information society (online social media), the poetics of capitalism (accounting), and the literature of the culture industry (advertising). In doing so, she aims to discern which kinds of literature and which poetics are suitable for her and which are weapons used against her. Boyer’s work asks how a truly free and creative act can emerge when all activity, including creative labor is subsumed by the culture industry. But Boyer is no fatalist. She lists the modes of being, the actions, moments and rhythms that escape capture, that refuse the neat amalgamation of the subject with the apparatus of government. Boyer always searches for the remainder that cannot be captured, such as the daydream one has while at work. The kinds of labor, writing, even information in Boyer’s book contain within them a suspension of the world as it is as well as traces of another plane of existence, an otherwise. 

In the book’s opening poem “The Animal Model of Inescapable Shock”, Boyer uses the analogy of a mouse being “dragged across the electric grid”[xxv] in a science experiment to initiate us into some of the book’s most pressing themes. The science experiment is carried out in a laboratory, to which she adds “how is Capital not the infinite laboratory called ‘conditions?”[xxvi] The conditions, in other words that “her misery requires.”[xxvii] Boyer says an animal that is shocked will “manifest deep attachment to whoever has shocked her.”[xxviii] Even though being dragged across an electrified grid produces pain and suffering, the animal that has been shocked is likely to return to the electric grid. She writes: “The animal model of shock explains why lovers stay with those who don’t love them, the poor serve the rich, soldiers continue to fight and other confused, arousing things.”[xxix] How is it that things that are so terrible, monstrous, evil, disgusting are also in some ways attractive to us? From the outset, Boyer raises the questions of libidinal investment in the conditions that create misery. In this particular poem, a mouse is shocked by a science experiment. There is a relation of violence or domination being played out, but it is one that the mouse learns to prefer. The animal is aroused by the cycle of shock and returns to it freely, of its own accord. In this model, freedom is nothing more than an effect calculated by the scientists in advance to optimize the laboratory’s experiment, its smooth functioning. It’s all a part of the plan. A subject that believes itself to be free is more likely to be complicit in domination than one who feels they are being coerced into it. 

Having begun with the shock and misery induced by “informative forms of torture”[xxx] like science, the next poem in the book “The Innocent Question” veers to themes of information and happiness. This section of the book reads like a daydream, with the narrative voice recalling emails with friends, musings on a book from a thrift store, and eventually the narrator’s sickness. Boyer claims literature is to blame for her sickness. She vows to abandon it. What kind of literature might this be that makes a poet sick? Boyer claims it is a literature “when literature is like the world of monsters is the production of culture is I hate culture is the world of wealthy women and men.”[xxxi] Boyer points to the ways that hegemonic cultural institutions are complicit with or at least bound up with the poverty and discrimination faced by marginalized peoples. In another poem called “A Woman Shopping” Boyer gives an example of literature being used in such a way. She writes: 

“I will soon write a long, sad book called A Woman Shopping. It will be a book about what we are required to do and also what we are hated for doing. . . This book will be a book also about the history of literature and literature’s uses against women.[xxxii] 

What kind of literature is being used against women? One example Boyer provides is advertising and the “decadently feminized marketplace.”[xxxiii] In an economy that uses culture, art, aesthetics and creative activity as a way to extend its power, literature itself risks becoming a further condition of misery. Creation, like freedom, is not an emancipatory act by default. 

The poem “The Open Book” gives an example of another one of capitalism’s favorite kind of literature: accounting, and its attendant poetics: transparency. Accounting is something all businesses must do if they are to compete in the market. It allows for the regulation of commerce and the management of business in such a way to ensure that profit can be depended on. But according to Anne Boyer, it also describes how humans’ desires and wills are colonized. 

“It’s only necessary to make a transparent account if it’s necessary to have accounting, and it’s only necessary to have accounting in the service of a profitable outcome. To account in the service of profit is to assume the desirability of profit. The individual doing the accounting is, like who or what she serves, also assumed to be in the service of profit, as profit is assumed to be desirable, and if she is in the service of profit, it’s assumed she would like to profit also, and that what she would do if there were no transparency is cause herself to profit.”[xxxiv] 

This poem uses the effect of long, circuitous sentences, one of Gertrude Stein’s classic literary signatures, to make the matter being talked about seem absurd, to parody it. She locates a paradox at the heart of the ideal of profit: “It’s a requirement of the idea of the ‘transparent account’ that someone should steal as an affirmation of the desirability of profit.”[xxxv] A worker devoted to their company’s profit must, by extension be devoted to profit herself. The perfect worker is one who “behav[es] as a small replication of the order of business itself.”[xxxvi] Yet if the business trains the worker to value profit, then the worker might value profit so much that they begin to steal it from their boss. Like the woman shopping, the worker is required to desire profit and at the same time is liable to punishment if they desire it too much. Accounting and transparency are the ways of regulating this problem. But there is more to transparency than just bookkeeping or numbers. Boyer says transparency is not about having “‘nothing to hide’: it is ‘something to show’ – a performance, for the order of business, that her desires are in accord with its.”[xxxvii] A worker (the example used in this poem) is required to perform – that is to behave – in order to prove that they are dedicated to their job. The more openly they display their loyalty to the company, the better. A subject that is open and transparent, whose habits can be tracked on social media, whose desires and preferences are clearly expressed is also a subject whose laws of operation are fully knowable and ultimately entirely programmable. The economy becomes a despotic form of control over human activity. What the workplace and the market cannot tolerate is that emotions and desires of subjects are opaque or indiscernible to its mode of rationality. Creation, freedom, yes even resistance can be used to enhance the functioning of systems of control. Opacity is a form of radical exteriority to this double bind. 

If transparency is the mode of veracity that makes sure a particular situation accords with externally imposed criteria like profitability, Boyer says “there is another veracity that includes conspiracy, corners, shadows, slantwise, evasion, unsayingness, negation, and under-the-beds.”[xxxviii] Conspiring to do otherwise, the obscurity of shadows, the poetry of Emily Dickinson’s truth told slantwise, even silence and hiding all suggest a zone of indistinction between blind submission and active resistance. I would argue that these modes of resistance are remarkably similar to what Foucault has termed “forms of resistance to power as conducting.”[xxxix] This list of ‘counter-conduct’ are forms of resistance that may not be clearly visible; they might at times require naming to be felt, seen or understood. It is the wager of this study that these modes of acting (acts of creation, poesis) contribute to the composition of what poets understand to be a parallel reality. Anne Boyer writes “When something was imagined, it was experienced – with sensations and sentiments vivid as any other.”[xl] Boyer’s poetic practice subverts the existing world while simultaneously composing another plane of consistency with its own mode of perception, its own structure of experience. This other plane of consistency makes up the parallel reality. This plane must constantly outmaneuver and ward off the operations of governmentality which incessantly try to re-appropriate subversion to serve its own ends. As a consequence, whatever contributes to this plane of consistency – be it actions, songs, attitudes, beliefs, habits, gestures, architecture, language – must always operate in ways to prioritize its imperceptibility to and its separation from dominant modes of perception like governmentality. As a result of this need for imperceptibility, this parallel world cannot be pointed to as a concrete thing in the world. To gesture towards this other dimension is to exercise what Diane di Prima called “the courage of the tenuous: the willingness to speak of what can’t be proved.”[xli] In contrast to transparency, for which truth is inextricably bound with what can be proven, the poetic truth di Prima speaks of is not reducible to scientific fact or information. This plane is not willfully vague or opaque, esoteric or idealist, nor is it simply ‘the unknown’. On the contrary it requires keen familiarity and precise sensitivity, extraordinary vision and a certain care with which one makes or unmakes the world around them. Di Prima assigns the elucidation of this mystical dimension as a poetic task. 

Based on what we have surveyed thus far, I contend that the kind of writing the author of Garments Against Women does prefer is the kind of writing that is an act of resistance. The premises for writing as an act of resistance require an initial investigation of the ways one’s own desires are bound up with conditions of oppression. After this investigation, ways must be found to subvert the various institutions, traditions, and normative patterns that regulate or modulate human activity into statistically calculable behaviors. A radical artistic practice is one that is primarily destructive rather than creative. It subverts dominant modes of thought, canons and literary conventions that only serve the cultural elite. In their stead, writing as resistance incessantly tries to articulate an otherwise. 

A brief analysis of another of Anne Boyer’s poems, “Not Writing” will serve as a conducive example of what writing as resistance looks like. This poem enumerates all of the things Boyer has to do that aren’t writing literature. Errands, work, shopping, responding to emails, social obligations, the general maintenance and care of the self, sex, enjoyment and entertainment are among the myriad of things that are not-writing. By way of the negative, the poem lists all the obstacles to writing in order to arrive at a definition of what writing – poeisis – might be. 

“There are years, days, hours, minutes, weeks, moments and other measures of time spent in the production of ‘not writing’. Not writing is working, and when not working at paid work working at unpaid work like caring for others and when not at unpaid work like caring, caring also for a human body.”[xlii] 

In Boyer’s characterization, not-writing is categorized primarily as a temporal matter. Not-writing is the hours of lives, the unquantifiable sum of human energy squandered on work. But not-writing is just as much the acts of care that maintain the bodies made ill by work and also, made ill by literature. Writing for Boyer must always be stolen away from this temporal flow. Just as the worker’s strike in the 20th century halted production, Boyer conceives of writing as a suspension of the flow of capitalist time. One of the only positive examples of writing given in the poem is that of dreaming. Dreams “are more like writing than not writing in that they are not intruded upon in their moments by the necessities of all the paid work, care work, social expectations, romantic love or talking to people.”[xliii] In this schema, writing is not reducible to petty self-expression; it is a form of resistance to the hyper accelerated flow of time that dominates the cadence of society. 

Writing for Boyer is perhaps a privileged example of the fate of human activity when it is modulated by governmentality. Through the act of writing, Boyer explores the multiplicity of modes of acting that knit together the space and time for the otherwise; she sews a garment that would compliment a body that refused to be governed. The space of this otherwise is hidden from plain visibility, its time stolen. The existence of this plane suggests that the world is contingent, that things could be otherwise since other worlds already exist. Garments Against Women describes a world open human intervention despite the omnipresence of confinement and calculability. Boyer demonstrates that the mindless execution of tasks that constitute human behavior can be resisted. Stealing, destroying, playing, hacking, parodying, and most importantly, imagining are ways of acting that carry within them a suspension of the world as it is, that don’t lapse into pure execution. “To do, or almost do, to begin but refuse, to rehearse some doing but never act, to appear to do but do another thing entirely.”[xliv] These thresholds between acting and executing are no use to the forces of governance, but their effects are real for one who wishes to imagine another world. 

Poetics of the Undercommons 

The poet and theorist Fred Moten’s essay A Poetics of the Undercommons is in part a response to the work of Frank B. Wilderson. While Wilderson’s work is often associated with the Afro-Pessimist school of thought, Moten considers himself to be optimistic. As mentioned at the beginning of this study, Wilderson’s representational schema places black bodies outside of the sphere of civil society. While the two claims have radically different meanings, Wilderson, like Di Prima and Boyer, also partitions off different planes of experience that correspond with different bodies. Moten remarks “Wilderson will insist that ‘The black man is not.’”[xlv] The black body represents an object with none of the claims to normative subjectivity granted to members of civil society. Moten agrees with Wilderson that in the context of white American civil society, black bodies are reduced to objects, to things. Taking off from there, Moten’s work asks what it means to carry on with black study in the face of Wilderson’s tough and rigorous claim without lapsing into despair or indignation at having one’s being reduced to the status of an object. Moten claims that to extend subjectivity to blackness by offering black bodies incorporation into civil society is not desirable. As Foucault’s work on governmentality tells us, the creation of a subject, of a population and of society is the result of a process of subjecting individuals to governmental apparatuses of control. To become a subject means to be rendered docile, calculable and obedient by governmental apparatuses. 

Moten’s work thinks the possibility of abandoning any desire or attempt to claim the types of normative subjectivity that correspond with said schema. Aside from rendering subjects obedient, the process of being integrated into and even becoming a subject of that society (a citizen) does not necessarily nullify one’s condition of exclusion from that very society. One can think of the way Saidiya Hartman’s harrowing study of American history in her book Scenes of Subjection describes how the long process of freeing slaves and granting them rights, allowing them to access institutions of civil society like democracy has done little to redress the horrors of the legacy of chattel slavery, or change the status of black bodies as killable objects. Moten comments, in a similar manner that “This is the form that integration takes, where integration must be understood as segregation’s trick, its ruse.”[xlvi] As the countless police shootings that occur in America with nearly universal impunity never cease to demonstrate, black life is still exterior to white civil society. 

Rather than disavowing the correlation of blackness with the status of an object (what Moten calls thingliness) or argue for the transformation of thingliness into subjectivity, Moten decides to investigate this thingliness itself, which he also calls nothingness. Moten investigates the status of being nothing in relation to civil society, of being a thing. He aims to “claim thingliness [while] at the same time [being] involved in fighting the imposition of thingliness.”[xlvii] A claim to thingliness necessitates the rejection of the humanist schema. He writes 

“The emergence of a specific kind of humanism, of a particular notion of man as opposed to things, which moreover presupposes man’s dominion over the things of the earth – that very tendency to want to distinguish man and thing … [out] of a desire for reaching after human dignity … turns out to replicate the very distancing of man and thing that helps to justify racial enslavement in the first place.[xlviii]” 

Humanity is always a scored category. Insofar as one can define the human, one can also define who is less-than-human (who is 3/5ths a human being), who is more-than-human (the sovereign figure), and what is not human (the animal, the object). To abandon humanism requires one to dwell in nothingness and elaborate a form of life that escapes the confines of subjectivity, a mode of sociality that escapes the confines society. Moten says that rejecting normative subjectivity “has to do with what it means to have a time and place in this world and maybe potentially in another world.”[xlix] I want to take Moten up on the possibility of existing “potentially in another world.” 

Just as Anne Boyer’s work conjures up another plane of existence where the structuring time and space of society are subverted, Moten’s concept of the undercommons is an attempt to think a modality of being that takes the shape of flight, of constant escape from capture by governance. To this end, it gestures towards the creation of a different way of building a collective reality. I quote Moten at length: 

“The undercommons is primarily characterized by the everyday practice of working and making in a (per)version of that old Greek sense of poeisis. It is a social poetics: a constant process where people make things and make one another or, to be more precise, where inseparable differences are continually made. They make the sociality in which they live and often that sociality in which they live is conceived of, in relative terms, as nothing, as something nobody would want or care about. But those of us who try to keep faith and maintain some relation to this poetics of the undercommons know that this nothingness is not emptiness.”[l] 

What is crucial in this passage, and what takes us adrift from theory and back towards poetry is the emphasis on invention and creation. The creation of new modes of being that are incalculable, ungovernable, that constantly out-maneuver power relations is given as an antidote to the creation of a divine plan for the government of human beings. “Knowledge of freedom is in the invention of escape,”[li] Moten writes in another essay called Blackness and Governance. The understanding of poetry as poeisis, as the creative act par excellence is what gives art a privileged place in mapping out the contours of a world to come. 

 Conclusion 

In this essay, I have laid out the major obstacles confronting revolutionary cultural production as it relates to contemporary poetry in the context of a post-Occupy society. I began by tracing out the way Marxist poets and theorists as well as Frank B. Wilderson problematize culture and its relationship to society. On the one hand, even cultural works with radical content are co-opted by institutions to consolidate power relations. On the other hand, society is not an adequately universal framework for understanding how power relations play out. Not everybody who is included in the schema of society is actually a part of said society. In both instances, cultural production must find a way to be subversive towards institutions that provide access to normative subjectivity. To see the ways power operates outside of the boundaries of society, as well as to amend an understanding of the relationship between aesthetics and politics, I have laid out some of Foucault’s main claims about governmentality. Governmentality is a nominative for the diffuse and heterogeneous ‘arts’ of crafting and composing a society. In addition to drawing attention to the ways creating a society is analogous to the creating a work of art, Foucault’s work allows us to think of the concept economy in an important way. Economy designates those power relations pertaining to the management of bodies that are denied a political function in the context of civil society. To reiterate Wilderson’s point, within the context of civil society, there are some bodies that are considered subjects with rights and a voice, and there are other bodies that are conceived of as objects of management and disposal. Economic relations are concerned with regulating and administering the biological life of some in order to provide access to political life for others. 

In a society whose modus operandi is crisis – security becomes a main concern. Whenever a disorder arises in society, there needs to be ample communication within society to make sure that governance can ameliorate the problem. To this end, our society is flooded with technological apparatuses that both provide information about the population and render the population calculable, docile and obedient. With this bulk of digital and technological infrastructure corresponds a very specific mode of perception. As it turns out, the most obedient subjects are those that consider themselves to be free. Governmental apparatuses create a scenario in which subjects, through their own choosing, reproduce themselves as miniature replicas of the economic system. 

Art and aesthetics are important apparatuses of government used to generate human interest and investment in society. The field of aesthesis, of sense perception becomes an important site of control and management. Anne Boyer’s work showed us how that perception can be subverted, rejected and how in its stead a mode of perception could emerge that would be geared towards imagining radical coordinates for an otherwise. After elucidating the ways power forms the individual and what resistance thereto might look like, Fred Moten’s work was used as a register to spell out a form of sociality. How can individuals inhabiting ‘another world’ compose something that wouldn’t be ‘society’ and would escape capture by institutions? What form would that take and how would it articulate itself if it wanted to constantly ward off incorporation into the Sisyphean operation of the governmental machine? An ungovernable poetics describes the ways in which we continually fashion a perception, a vision that enables us to ward off management and control, to think beyond governmentality. Rimbaud, the poet of the Paris Commune famously wrote “The poet makes himself a seer by a radical derangement of all the senses.” The ability to see, to visualize an otherwise is an essential step towards creating investment in a future worth living in. Not to change society, but to abandon it, to build something else entirely. 

The Grapevine Telegraph

THX  Börinsel @waywarddrift (twitter)

[slowlyandrogynousmiracle]

Harsh Black Sails Rant

One minute Eleanor is the most hated in the fandom now its "friding??" As if her story only suddenly decided to involve a man. Where was this unhapiness when she was having an epic romance with Vane? Or her drama with Flint daddy. Or her drama with her own daddy...then there was Woodes. Her ending was poetic because she never loved herself enough to let it go and she she loved by people so... If you loved Eleanor I feel for you but we all know each other's comments well enough to see a majority of folks are coming with the bullshit And are these same people poly shippers I wonder? Because Madi stands in Her own most scenes and all her scenes are credited to Flint who in turn must only do things that involve being in love with Silver.... Fandoms are genuinely hypocritical trash. It is what it is. When your favorite get hurts or something happens in the show you simply DON'T LIKE it makes me laugh regarding the ass backwards things people will come up to justify that that ultimately YOU aren't getting what you want. I don't care what platform you are on. This shot it fiction and fiction should not and does not have to reflect reality or even a desired role in someone's reality. It's a story in which people want to tell who fought and begged to tell. We just sick back and reap the benefits. I don't mind analysis but this can entitlement is beyond my comprehension. Things don't go your way and you hate the show? Bye. It's what I do. Not enough time to waste every single day hoping and praying for an ending manufactured only in your mind. Like canmome actually be surprised that Madi would be the thing that causes a rift between Silver and Flint. Ooooohhh now she's being "fridged"; wtf. If you are using Mask to prop up Silver/Flint check yourself seriously. I mean it's a soooo transparent. Yes we all want happy endings. Hell I know I do! Buuuuutttt reality is this is a prequel to a very famous book that while slight modifications have been made, will end in which in 20 years another story I told. Flint dies dead and alone. And honestly as flawed and dirty he has been up until...very recently ( when he's happily getting what he always wanted). He doesn't deserve to sail off to retrieve his lost love. If so everything horrid things is even more horrifying. He strangled out Gates and he didn't do shit. He got Billy tortured and almost killed. He's shown loyalty to his crew when its apparent he ain't got shit left but then. When you remove the goggles the man didn't "need" Silver until Miranda died and Silver didn't even entertain the idea of getting anywhere near Flint until his friend Billy begged him to for the crew sake. And STILL wasn't chill about it UNTIL Madi offered herself as a tether. Soooo no lingering desire for one another at all until circumstances and Silvers budding romance with a Maroon Queen altered it. Which is why even NOW there is a choice to because the only time he ChOSE Flints was a few episodes ago and now Madi is dead. These are the events as they happened. What happened to Madi wasn't Flint s fault at all BUT its Fucking poetic because everything else was his doing and it's here where they part meaning ultimately Madi was ALL that had Silver supporting this war. And I've calmly said shit watching people use Madi and like her when she is somehow supporting your Flint worship. So I cannot even hear Madi "dying" for Silver manpain that I personally am here for it as if its a bad thing when Lord KNOWS it it were Silver in manpain over Flint the majority of folks would have no complaints. But when its oohhh the woman he is in love with its fridging. And really though this is the most progressive show on TV So go on with that nonsense. If that's their one problem then you just being bitter. Back to Flint, maybe he sails off looking for Thomas maybe not. I hope not. I adore Flint. He is one of the most complex characters but like Silver sais, I know what he is. Its more fitting he should die in betrayal than anything else or alone because one good deed doesn't negate the others. He's done some fucked up shit guys to people who loved him or looked to him for leadership. He's never been all too loyal and overall not a great guy. Intriguing to the core Bad to the bone. I've ranted over long but anyone wanting to continue this and is NOT going to try and feed me lemonade let's chat.

#black sails #silver x madi #captain flint #my thoughts

[barbosaasouza]

Hearthstone: The Boomsday Project Card Analysis Lab (Part 5)

Card reveals have begun for Hearthstone's next big expansion. The Boomsday Project will dive deep into science and technology, as part of the next set for the Year of the Raven.

This expansion features the new keyword Magnetic, new Omega Projects, and Legendary Spells. And as is the case with each new Hearthstone expansion, Shacknews is stepping into the lab to analyze each of the Boomsday Project's new cards. Before we get started, here's everything you might have missed:

Hearthstone: The Boomsday Project - The Dr. Boom, Mad Genius Design Interview Hearthstone: The Boomsday Project - Analyzing Dr. Boom, Mad Genius

Hearthstone: The Boomsday Project Analysis Lab (Part 1) Hearthstone: The Boomsday Project Analysis Lab (Part 2) Hearthstone: The Boomsday Project Analysis Lab (Part 3) Hearthstone: The Boomsday Project Analysis Lab (Part 4)

And now, let's continue with the next batch of cards.

(4) Juicy Psychmelon Type: Spell Class: Druid Rarity: Epic Draw a 7, 8, 9, and 10-Cost minion from your deck. Source: QiGe on Douyu

Analysis: Over the last few days, it's become apparent that the Druid is going to be the big winner of this expansion. This is another tool that's going to help Druids get their game-winning combos ready, as they pluck out their high-value minions off a 4-Cost spell.

The Juicy Psychmelon is going to be especially killer in Wild, where Druids can use it to pulled out the necessary Exodia pieces for their OTK combo. Those include the 9-Cost Aviana or 9-Cost Malygos, the 10-Cost Kun the Forgotten King, and the 8-Cost Gloop Sprayer. The Druids are coming to take over and this is just another tool that's going to help them do it.

(5) Power Word: Replicate Type: Spell Class: Priest Rarity: Epic Choose a friendly minion. Summon a 5/5 copy of it. Source: G2 Esports' RDU on YouTube

Analysis: Priests love their 5/5 copies. This is a slightly cheaper iteration of Shadow Essence, but with much less RNG involved. It'll be a big help to Quest Priests that want to create sturdy versions of their Deathrattle minions or create 5/5 copies of Legendaries with nasty effects.

Power Word: Replicate will particularly find a good home in Wild, where it'll fit in nicely with the Big Priest archetype. Played alongside cards like Eternal Servitude, this spell could get downright nasty.

(3) Augmented Elekk (3/4) Type: Minion - Beast Class: Neutral Rarity: Epic Whenever you shuffle a card into a deck, shuffle in an extra copy. Source: RegisKillbin on YouTube

Analysis: This is a fascinating effect that could go a long way towards preventing fatigue in certain decks. Warriors running Dead Man's Hand may be particularly intrigued by this card, as it keeps them in the game for the long haul.

But let's face it, the real winner here is going to be the Rogue player, especially adopters of the new Pogo-Hopper minion. Playing Augmented Elekk alongside Lab Recruiter ensures that these rabbits will multiply like... er... rabbits! Look for Augmented Elekk to make the Miracle Rogue deck more dangerous than it already is.

(3) Necrium Blade (3/2) Type: Weapon Class: Rogue Rarity: Rare Deathrattle: Trigger the Deathrattle of a random friendly minion. Source: GeekCulture on YouTube

Analysis: The Rogue just got its own Fiery War Axe and it's pretty strong, with the ability to set off Deathrattles after it's been used up. That could come in very handy in Arena, where players might be running minions like Violet Wurm.

As for the constructed player... well... let's table this for the moment. Trust me, we'll revist the Necrium Blade shortly.

(4) Thunderhead (3/5) Type: Minion - Elemental Class: Shaman Rarity: Epic After you play a card with Overload, summon two 1/1 Sparks with Rush. Source: XiYou on Douyu

Analysis: Here's the Shaman picking up its own personal Violet Teacher, but one with a more intriguing effect. This will craft two 1/1s off of any spell with Overload and give them the ability to Rush an enemy minion right away. This could help in the control game by maybe picking off any stragglers off a Lightning Storm. Or it could help set the table for a game-ending Bloodlust.

Even Shaman players may want to give this guy a look, especially since they'll be running cards like Zap! and generating new spells with Hagatha the Witch. Flametongue Totem should also give those 1/1s an extra kick.

(4) Storm Chaser (3/4) Type: Minion - Elemental Class: Shaman Rarity: Rare Battlecry: Draw a spell from your deck that costs (5) or more. Source: Poly on YouTube

Analysis: The Storm Chaser has some wild value, even if Hearthstone is reaching a place where 4-Mana for a 3/4 body is getting expensive. The Shaman player doesn't pack many good spells that cost over 5 mana, but it sure does pack a nice Volcano.

So yes, this card should pretty much just read "Draw a Volcano from your deck." It's a toss-up as to whether it'll see play in constructed, but in Arena, where Volcanos are both plentiful and a hot commodity, Storm Chaser will become a must-have.

(4) Replicating Menace (3/1) Type: Minion - Mech Class: Neutral Rarity: Rare Magnetic. Deathrattle: Summon three 1/1 Microbots. Source: Tesdey on Twitch

Analysis: In a world with few Magnetic Mechs, this is on the lower end of the totem pole. The world wasn't asking for a more-expensive Eggnapper.

I wouldn't expect to see much of this guy anywhere. In Arena, it gets outpaced by aforementioned Eggnapper, while its Magnetic properties don't give it that much more of a boost in constructed. A Dr. Boom deck might get some use out of it as a Discover effect, since both the 3/1 body and the 1/1 leftovers get Rush, but that should be the only instance where Replicating Menace pops up.

(6) Security Rover (2/5) Type: Minion - Mech Class: Warrior Rarity: Rare Whenever this minion takes damage, summon a 2/3 Mech with Taunt. Source: Thijs on YouTube

Analysis: Security Rover looks nice on paper, but it's hard to take it seriously when you consider it as a poor man's Hogger, Doom of Elwynn. I'm just saying, going from 6/6 stats to a 2/5 body is a big step down for just a single Mana Crystal.

But it's the Mech synergy that's going to make this, right? Thijs does point out in this video that this will play nicely with Magnetic mechs, potentially upgrading those paltry 2/5 stats. Combining this with Beryllium Nullifier on the next turn sounds particularly sweet. Just make sure Security Rover makes it through the next turn. It's highly vulnerable to removal. Or against a Priest player, it could be open to effects from minions like Cabal Shadow Priest.

(10) Mecha'thun (10/10) Type: Minion - Mech Class: Neutral Rarity: Legendary Deathrattle: If you have no cards in your deck, hand, and battlefield, destroy the enemy hero. Source: IGN

Analysis: You can't keep an Old God down forever. And leave it to mad science to bring one of them back in a crazy new way.

Mecha'thun is the latest in cutting-edge Exodia technology. It's a literal last-ditch effort, one that only triggers when the player has absolutely nothing left in hand or in play. But as one would imagine, there are ways to make this happen.

Mage players have ways to run through their decks quickly, thanks to Aluneth, but they really don't have a solid way to trigger this Deathrattle. Warrior players can use a combination of any Whirlwind effect and Execute, but no reliable way to run through the deck quickly. Priest players have handy removal spells, like Shadow Word: Death, but because Mecha'thun is a full 10 mana, the Priest has to be careful that Mecha'thun isn't removed too early or that it isn't Silenced between the time it's played and the time they can play Shadow Word: Death.

There's the Druid, which could have some legs. The Druid can run through the deck fast, thanks to ramp spells, Nourish, and Ultimate Infestation. They could quickly finish with Mecha'thun, Innervate, and Naturalize. The trouble with this strategy is that Skulking Geist brings it to a screeching halt.

Then there's the Rogue player. Hey, remember I said we'd bring up Necrium Blade again? Well, here it is! It is entirely possible to play Necrium Blade on Turn 3 and leave it equipped until Myra's Unstable Element is ready on Turn 5. With the Rogue's deck exhausted, Mecha'thun can get deployed after all other cards have been played and Necrium Blade can activate the Deathrattle right away. The problem with this strategy is that Mecha'thun is a Turn 10 drop at the earliest, so the Rogue player needs to stall until it's ready. But if they have enough control tools at the ready, the Mecha'thun Rogue deck could be one that gains a lot of steam in the new meta.

(5) Necrium Vial Type: Spell Class: Rogue Rarity: Epic Trigger a friendly minion's Deathrattle twice. Source: Kimmy on Huya

Anaylsis: After waxing poetic about the potential of the Mecha'thun Rogue, it's really hard to go from that to this. Sure, activating Deathrattles twice can be cool. The trouble is that the Standard Rogue doesn't have many strong Deathrattle cards to make the most of this effect. That could change between now and the expansion's release, but for now, it doesn't quite work.

The Wild Rogue, on the other hand, should have plenty of cards this can work with. Jade Rogues, in particular, should waste no time using the Necrium Vial to get as many Jades rolling as possible, triggering the Jade Swarmer or Aya Blackpaw. The Jade Rogue's numbers could quickly get out of control with this weapon at the ready.

(7) Dreampetal Florist (4/4) Type: Minion Class: Druid Rarity: Epic At the end of your turn, reduce the Cost of a random minion in your hand by (7). Source: Hearthstone Express

Analysis: This just isn't fair.

So because the Malygos Druid clearly doesn't have enough tools to obliterate the opponent in a single turn, how about a minion that can discount into a 2-COST MALYGOS? Getting double Malygoses onto the board by pairing it with Faceless Manipulator, Ixlid, Fungal Lord, or whatever else has never been easier. And with Malygos coming down on the super cheap, it means those Swipe and Moonfire spells become a lot more affordable and painful.

I don't even want to talk about what this does in Wild, because holy smokes!

(1) The Soularium Type: Spell Class: Warlock Rarity: Legendary Draw 3 cards. At the end of your turn, discard them. Source: Yahoo Esports Taiwan

Analysis: This is a fascinating spell for the Warlock player, because it fits in quite a few decks. The obvious one is the Quest Warlock, which needs to get online as quickly as possible, in order to work. Between this and Cataclysm, it should be fairly simple to fill the Quest requirements. Wild Warlocks should get even better use out of this, since then can use Malchezaar's Imp to either play what they draw or discard those cards and use the Imp's effect to draw new ones.

Zoolock should also benefit greatly from this spell, especially in the later turns. Since zoo players usually pack in cheaper minions and spells, they'd theoretically be able to use this spell and then play whatever they draw on the same turn before they're discarded. Overall, The Soularium is a strong spell and one that'll find a home in multiple Warlock decks.

That's all for now! Keep an eye on Shacknews over the next few weeks for more card breakdowns for The Boomsday Project, leading all the way up to the expansion's release on August 7.

Hearthstone: The Boomsday Project Card Analysis Lab (Part 5) published first on https://superworldrom.tumblr.com/

[polymathart]

Poly’s Poetic Over Analysis

“Great Expotations,” Tangled: The Series by Chris Sonnenburg

Varian ventures out with the professed intention of impressing his crush (and also presumably to impress his father, too). Cassandra casually remembers his name and rejects his innocent nickname for her, “Cassie.” She doesn't care that he is there. But Varian helps her out and relieves some of what clearly is an immense amount of weight on her shoulders that she had been carrying by herself all day. She “promises” to help him with some “dorky” project in exchange for him helping her do the work.

The two clearly begin to have fun in the process. And Cass even admits she admires his work (again, something he probably isn’t used to). Varian relishes in it and dares to make a cheeky little joke at her which she doesn’t even scorn or take as disrespectful. This leads her to say that the day was important to her but omits the reason why, most likely because she does not expect him to understand it and she herself is cautious to vent, especially to some kid she met a few weeks ago. But to her surprise, Varian actually picks up on what she is saying because he recognized who her father was. This prompts her to go more in depth and state her frustration that Captain pressured her so much. Varian sees this as an opportunity to let out his own grievances about his father’s standards. Not wanting to bring himself or her down, he makes another joke based on these recent revelations. Cass smiles. Why? Because she actually finds someone who knows what she is going through and has some trust in her and courage that he vents his own thoughts to her. Someone, other than Rapunzel, talked things out with her. And she sees that he wants to keep things positive rather than sad, so he made that joke to bring them both back up.

The clock is ticking and Cass is on the verge of giving up, but Varian, now fueled by both a desire to charm and a genuine sympathy for Cass, offers to take the rest of the day’s work so she can enjoy her opportunity. He only suggests, not begs or demands, that she join him later on if she had time. He makes it her decision to say yes or no. Cass returns to her more reserved disposition and says yes.

Cassandra finally gets her chance albeit a very frustrating chance. Varian awaits her but she does not show up. He decides to carry on his presentation nonetheless even with Shorty for a partner. Just because Cassandra did not come to him as his assistant, doesn’t mean he couldn’t go and make a name for himself. He shrugs it off. But he still has that affection for her. That’s why he still dedicates the stone to her when he could have easily named it something else to bite back at her. And Cassandra is astonished. She gasps that he actually named something after her. That someone actually admired and respected her and wanted to make her happy enough to dedicate something of careful and dedicated craftsmanship to her. She realized, “Wait, he seriously did that? He really dedicated his work to me of all people?” When she saw him disqualified, she even breaks her duty as a guard by speaking up for him. And then she witnesses him saunter away, defeated and robbed—something that she winces at because she is more than familiar with that exact feeling. But what she isn’t familiar with is the reality that she, the one who was often overlooked, actually caused someone to feel the same—she winced at the fact that this time she actually put someone else in her place.

So she abandons her post—I repeat, ABANDONS HER POST, aka negligence and disobedience to a direct order—to comfort him. At the fountain, she expresses that he should’ve won. This isn’t just an “Oh, darn! I was rooting for you!” She’s saying, “You really put a lot of effort into that and pulled off an incredible thing. You put up your best fight. You were so close to something you rightly deserved.” Varian is still saddened. With not much left to lose, he reveals to her face that he just wanted to impress her. He doubts himself, confesses he was chasing after fantasy, that he did not show anything special in him, and cuts to the conclusion that he was just being dumb for trying. Cassandra does not believe any of that. She assures him that she truly is impressed by his work and character. She does not say it reluctantly, as two competitors in a boxing match would do. She says it with enthusiasm and sincerity to him. She goes on to praise him for his virtues of intelligence, compassion, and uniqueness. She lifts him back up.

When disaster strikes, she is faced with a choice. The camera actually zooms in on her and shows her at first prioritize her charge and therefore her duty and opportunity. But she shakes off that voice in her head to protect her interests and instead chooses to save Varian—the boy who promised her no sort of reward, benefit, or opportunity; only friendship and understanding.

Varian’s life is saved again by her. Someone chose him over their job and quite possibly career. Cassandra briefly tells him not to flatter himself, still subconsciously concluding that he was just being lovestruck again.

She even brings him to the front at her side rather than go in herself and tell him to take cover. Or, did she go to the front at his side in? Did she accompany him to his fight? She looks to him for possibilities on how to stop it rather than straight to Rapunzel and Eugene or charging in with her sword drawn. She listens to him. Varian finally is the one to lead rather than be led. She works with him to solve the problem. She refuses to let him go in alone. She becomes his assistant at last. They save the day together with help from Rapunzel and company.

Cassandra picks up the ribbon sadly. She knows she has failed her duty to her father and jeopardized her prospects. But then she sees Varian and realizes that her duty as a friend was more important than her duty to her own dream.

Cassandra gives him his rightfully earned ribbon. Varian shows actual shock when she does. She really did believe in him. In return, Varian gives her the necklace. He says he made it for her—that to him, she was still worth the effort. Cass accepts it, grateful and touched. She apologizes. She sucks in her pride and admits her error. She names her wrong. She calls out her own ambition. She does not blame her duty or her father’s orders or claims that her hands were tied. She flat out accepts that this was her putting herself before others. She finally considers him a friend. She admits that there is a friendship between them that she values over her ambition. Varian softly forgives her, remembering that she had every right to care about her work, and is happy to finally have one more friend. Cassandra accepts “Cassie,” and Varian does not tease her or jokes about the nickname. He is just happy that she accepts it—another one of his “inventions.”

Varian concludes that he has to clean his mess up. He walks away without asking Cassandra for help. This is because he feels, from experience, that it was his fault. This could also partly be because he is not used to asking for help. Perhaps a hint of fear and shame in him does not want to seek help. But it could also be because he does not want to burden her and he wants to let her go enjoy the rest of her day. He does not want to take up any more of her time out. Most likely it is all four. As he Varian walks away, Cassandra faces her father and commanding officer. She gains his approbation and respect and trust for another assignment. Cassandra removes her helmet, a symbol of her ambition and her obedience to her father, Guard, and country, and hands it back to Captain. She turns down an order to his face. A subordinate refuses orders from a higher authority. A soldier refuses a direct order. Cassandra disobeys her father. She sets her friend before herself. She has a desire to help Varian even though he did not ask for help. She wants to maintain and enjoy her new friendship. Captain allows it. He is proud of her decision. He is proud of her performance as a guard and performance as a friend. Varian is surprised and honored that she chooses him over her father. This time, Cassandra does not tell Varian, “Don’t flatter yourself.” She lets him feel honored. After all, he’s honored her enough for one episode. Two characters receive their praise: Varian and Cassandra. And both play a part in each other’s achievement. Two characters who wish to please their fathers and prove themselves, succeed. But most of all, two people with similar struggles find one more new friend.

#tangled the series #tts #varian #cassandra #rapunzel #rapunzel's tangled adventure #rta #cassarian #great expotations #ship dump #polyspeaks #poly’s poetic over analysis #chris sonnenburg

[polymathart]

Poly’s Poetic Over Analysis

What Cass Found in Rapunzel and Rediscovers in Varian

I personally think that Cass did have some feelings for Raps. When she left Corona, she was a tiny bit lost that in the end she would never have been with her. She thinks for a while that no one would ever tug at her heart strings the way Rapunzel did. Eventually she comes to terms with it and moves on, but her desire to find someone with that character—sweet, compassionate, and bright—remains.

So when she and Varian meet, she rediscovers things that she saw in Rapunzel in Varian.

And when Varian says, “You’re my best friend, Cassandra, and I will never ever give up on you,” it reignites Cass’ emotions. It in a way triggers memories. Cass feels things that she thought she would only ever feel once for someone else.

ADDENDUM

Also think that Varian and Hugo do like each other but Hugo is too exhausted after all the drama and also confused over Varian forgiving him after everything he’s done. They stay friends but they don’t become a couple. Varian is okay with that because he understands how jarring it is to be forgiven by someone you betrayed. Eventually Varian ends up with Cass with Hugo 1) being the annoying wingman 2) pretending that it’s Varian’s “loss” but overall is happy for the two.

And just for fun, Cass and Raps keep their “romantic” friendship. So yeah they still hold hands and maybe Rapunzel plants an unexpected kiss on Cass’ cheek to mess with her. Cass still has that flirty approach to Raps but it’s all in good clean fun. But Cass and Varian are the ones truly in love.

#tangled the series #tts #varian #cassandra #rapunzel #rapunzel's tangled adventure #rta #cassarian #cassunzel #poly’s poetic over analysis #Tangled Ever On #The Wind Is Still In My Hair #I Still Live My Dream #The Lanterns Still Float #tangled #plus est en vous #hugo the human #varian and the seven kingdoms #v7k #varigo

[polymathart]

“Cass has no canonical interest in men.”

Does she? This post is not to bash anyone who disagrees. Nor is it to promote any sort of homophobia. I believe all healthy ships are valid and disapprove of ship hate and shipping wars. This is merely to posit a different opinion. If you do not wish to read, you are welcome to ignore this post.

People say Cass has “no canonical interest in men,” but if you think about it, the few men that she actually knows mostly are on tease / play fight level with her. Eugene and Lance aren’t “sweet and fluffy” to Cass. They’re snarky and goofy around her which annoys her. She’s never known anyone other than Rapunzel who is so wholesome and warm towards her.

Most of the men we have seen Cassandra interact with on screen (save for elders and authorities such as King Frederic, her father Cap, and Uncle Monty) have been either obnoxious and loud in her eyes (Eugene and Lance and Hookfoot), or have been hostile and demeaning to her (various ruffians and Hector).

To Cassandra, most of the men she has ever truly interacted with have been annoying or immature. (This may or may not also be off the fact that she had grown up with her father’s prejudice towards criminals.)

This is not to paint Cassandra as prejudiced against all men. She has grown to tolerate Lance, Eugene, and Hookfoot. That is clear. But she is just easily irritated by immature, juvenile people. Going off of what little the Series has provided us about Cassandra’s past, we can assume that she never had many friends to grow up with—male or female. She is still on the road to learning about opening up to people. Everyone she knew in Corona were just the beginning of that journey.

Cassandra has a liking towards the sweeter, softer, more wholesome and gentle ones. Rapunzel fits that category quite easily. However, there is another individual Cass knows who also fits that category—one who has been compared to and shares many characteristics with Rapunzel: Varian.

Since the start, Varian has been portrayed and almost universally received as an endearing, friendly, and soft individual. Four moments when his openness and concern for others shine most are in “Great Expotations” when he listens to and understands Cassandra’s desire to please her father, in “Rapunzel’s Return” when he admits his error and desire to make amends with Rapunzel, and in “Be Very Afraid” when he opens up to Rapunzel about his remorse and fears of his past, as well as listening to and comforting Rapunzel when she talks about her own fears of losing Cassandra. The final, most poignant instance of Varian’s kindness is in “Cassandra’s Revenge” when he begs Cassandra to reconsider her choices. It is one of his best moments: when he throws down his own shame and turmoil in an effort to show his friend that she is not alone and that she was in danger of losing herself as well as the everything she loved.

Cassarian shippers do not ship them out of contempt or denial of the possibility of Cassandra’s interest in Rapunzel or other women. We ship her with Varian when he is older because he is remarkably kind and gentle and overall sweet to everyone. He has that kind and loving smile just like Rapunzel has. Yes he is dorky and clumsy and impulsive sometimes, but he does not carry that suaveness or flirting personality as Eugene, Lance, or Andrew have. He tries to charm her once before but he never tries to puff himself up or “flex” himself to her.

Cassarian shippers see Varian as being the adorable, playful, unassuming, and helpful yet bold, righteous, mature, courageous, and curious young man he will be by the time Cassandra does return to Corona. Cassandra’s sharp, sassy nature will not be competitively butting heads with another sharp, sassy nature. Rather, she will meet a nature that is forgiving and patient while still not being malleable or breakable.

Cassandra is like Eugene—quick on the draw, cunning, and competitive but not abusive. Varian is like Rapunzel—patient, understanding, and eager to help others but never easy to take advantage of.

Once again, this is not to shame or start a fight with anyone. This is merely to put forth my very own opinion. I am open to criticism and debate whether publicly, privately, or anonymously.

Dominus vobiscum,

Polymath.

ADDENDUM

I think overall Cass just is attracted to softer and more sincere people.

Though she and Eugene bite at each other, she does show a certain bit of care to him when he is being truly humble. Like when she saw that he was genuinely hurt that Cap kept dismissing Eugene’s skills to be a guard. She actually reached out to him. When Eugene set off to look for Frederick and Arianna, she didn’t roll her eyes or anything. She admitted that even she was hoping he would pull through.

And never once when Rapunzel is having doubts about Eugene does she take it as an opportunity to chat it up with Rapunzel. I think Cass genuinely loves Eugene and Rapunzel being together not just Rapunzel being happy. That’d just be selfish. She cares that yes Rapunzel is happy but also Rapunzel is happy with the right person.

Cassandra showed interest when she realized how “graceful” Lance could dance. And I speculate that if she saw Lance taking care of Angry and Catalina, she would’ve smiled, too.

Cass didn’t like Andrew for his smooth talk but for his faux sentimentality and penchant for books. And she kept the rose because she actually kinda liked going on a date and treating her nicely, even if it was just a ploy.

And she shows no interest in Varian at all during the series. However, she did feel for him when Quirin first appeared. She smiled when Varian actually understood her issues with her father. And when Varian first called her a friend. And finally when she realized just how sincere and honest he was about the expo and impressing her rather than throwing a fit, she saw that Varian wasn’t some annoying teenager trying to charm her. He actually had substance and depth.

Rapunzel overall is the sweetest person Cass has ever known. Her happiness and compassion is what Cass grew to love. She isn’t used to seeing such character in people, especially in most guys. There’s a light that goes off in Cass’ heart when she’s with Rapunzel, yes. But when she finds other people with real feelings and wholesomeness, too, that same light turns on.

#tangled the series #tts #varian #cassandra #rapunzel #rapunzel's tangled adventure #rta #cassarian #cassunzel #eugene fitzherbert #lance strongbow #hookfoot #andrew #poly’s poetic over analysis #polyspeaks #cassandra’s revenge #great expotations #be very afraid #rapunzel’s return