#the contextual starting points are simply different

[saintmachina]

One million dollar question: is it true that the Bible condems homosexuality? I had a discussion with two conservatives who sent me some verses that seem to confirm that but i don't know much about the context although i know this is important too

Let’s start here: why is this the million dollar question? Why does it matter what the Bible has to say about sex, or love, or human relationships? At the end of the day, it’s just a book, right?

Oceans of ink (and blood) have been spilled over not only what the Bible says, but what it does, how it functions. The course of empires, nations, and families have been shaped by the contents of this book, and from a historical and cultural perspective, it holds a lot of weight. But you didn’t ask about the sociological, you asked about the theological, so let’s explore. 

Different Christian traditions vary in their approach to scripture. For example: some Protestant denominations believe that the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and infallible. In this paradigm, God is the ultimate author of scripture working through human hands, and the resulting text is both without error and in no way deceptive or mistaken. Similarly, The Second Vatican Council decreed that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” When a member of the clergy is ordained into the Episcopal Church they swear that they “do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.”

Can you see how many of these points of doctrine overlap yet seek to distinguish themselves from one another? Theologians have spent lifetimes arguing over definitions, and even when they manage to settle on solid teachings, the way that the teaching is interpreted by the clergy and incorporated into the lives of the laity varies WIDELY. As much as systematic theology may try, humans aren’t systematic beings. We’re highly contextual: we only exist in relation to others, to history, to circumstance, and to the divine. We simply cannot call up God to confirm church teaching, and I think a lot of people cling excessively to the Bible as a result of the ache (dare I even say trauma) of being separated from God via space and time in the way we currently are.

God is here, but God is not here. God is within us, God is within the beloved, God is within the sea and sky and land, and yet we cannot grasp God to our bodies in the way we long to. In this earthly lifetime, we are forever enmeshed in God, yet forever distinct, and that is our great joy and our great tragedy.

So barring a direct spiritual experience or the actual second coming, we're left to sort through these things ourselves. And because humans are flawed, our interpretations will always be flawed. Even with the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives guiding us.

When engaging with any sort of Biblical debate, it is essential that you have a strong understanding of what the Bible means to you, an an embodied individual living a brief little awful and wonderful life on Earth. Otherwise it's easy to get pushed around by other people’s convincing-sounding arguments and sound bites.

Here’s where I show my hand. As a confirmed Episcopalian I believe that reason, tradition, and scripture form the “three-legged stool” upon which the church stands, interdependent and interrelational to each other, but I’ve also like, lived a life outside of books. I’ve met God in grimy alleyways and frigid ocean waters and in bed with my lovers. So my stool is actually four-legged, because I think it’s essential to incorporate one’s personal experience of God into the mix as well. (I did not invent this: it’s called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, but the official Wesleyan quadrilateral insists that scripture must trump all other legs of the table in the case of a conflict which...*cynical noises*)

Please do not interpret this answer as me doing a hand-wavey "it's all vibes, man, we're all equally right and equally wrong", but I do absolutely think we have a responsibility as creatures to weigh the suffering and/or flourishing of our fellow creatures against teachings handed down through oral tradition, schisms, imperial takeover of faith, and translation and mistranslation. Do I believe the Bible is sacred, supernatural even, and that it contains all things necessary to find one's way to God, if that is the way God chooses to manifest to an individual in a given lifetime? Absolutely. Do I believe it is a priceless work of art and human achievement that captures ancient truths and the hopes of a people (as well as a record of their atrocities) through symbols, stories, and signs? Unto my death, I do.

However, I am wary of making an object of human creation, God-breathed though it may be, into an idol, and trapping God in its pages like God is some sort of exotic bug we can pin down with a sewing needle.

Finally, we have reached the homosexuality debate. One of my favorite sayings of Jesus is Matthew 5: 15-17: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit." In other words: look at what religious teachings have wrought in the world. When I look at homophobic interpretations of the Bible, I see destruction, abuse, suffering, neglect, alienation, spiritual decay, and death. When I look at theology that affirms the holiness of LGBTQ+ relationships, I see joy, laughter, community building, thoughtful care, blooming families, creativity, resilience, and compassion. I see the love of Christ at work in the world. I see the hands of a God who chose under no duress to take up residence in a human body, to drink wine with tax collectors and break bread with sex workers and carry urchin children around on his shoulders. That's my limited little pet interpretation, but hey, that's all any of us really have, at the end of the day.

So, I am absolutely happy to do a play-by-play breakdown of why those passages you were given (we queer Christians often call them "clobber passages" or "texts of terror") don't hold water in a theological, historical, and cultural context. We can talk about Jesus blessing the eunuch and the institution of Greek pederasty and Levitical purity laws and Paul because I've done that reading. I've spent my nights crying in self-hatred and leafing through doctrine books and arguing with my pastors and writing long grad school essays on the subjects. Send me the verses, if you can remember them, and I'll take a look. But it's worth noting that out of the entire Bible, I believe there are only six that explicitly condemn homosexuality AND I'm being generous and including Sodom and Gommorah here, which is a willful and ignorant misreading if I've ever seen one.

In the meantime, I recommend books by people smarter than me! Try Outside The Lines: How Embracing Queerness Will Transform Your Faith by Mihee Kim-Kort, or Does Jesus Really Love Me by Jeff Chu, or Transforming: The Bible and the Lives of Transgender Christians by Austen Hartke!

And take a breath, dear one. Breathe in God, in the droplets of water in the air and in the wind from the south. Breathe in the gift of life, and know that you are loved, now and unto the end of the age and even beyond then.

#I'm sorry this answer is the length of a Victor Hugo novel but I've been mulling on it for days and it unlocked the theology gremlin #who lives in my brain #theology #christianty #queer christianity #progressive christianity #religionposting #catholicism #episcopalian #lgbtq community

[wellntruly]

Blogging, vol. v

I’m having surgery tomorrow. Why this is always happening in November is beyond me, but it sure is an aesthetically kind month to not work and be extra-grade cozy in soft knits, sipping soups, while outside it rains grey on amber.

Unlike my gum surgery last year, this one I had no idea was coming for me, and the weeks getting up to the point of finally knowing what was going to happen were, not to exaggerate, not good. It's odd that it's better now, since it was indeed something you don't want to find. But then you can start to process. Process, process.

I actually tend to do quite well with surgery, both as a concept and a thing to heal from, even before I spent my recovery from the previous one watching a 50 year old TV show about surgeons. I find the kind of pain engendered by things you need stitches about to be quite reasonable mentally; it hurts, it hurts there, for this reason, you have pills to dull it, and it will gradually heal. Simply “feeling sick,” or worst of all nauseous, that’s what can make me wonder what it’s all even for. Miserable, derogatory.

So the fact that it really seems a predominantly surgical approach is going to be most of what we need to take care of this problem has me almost overwhelmed with gratitude. It could have been far, far worse for me. But I have all the most treatable metrics for this, even being rather young for it has the silver lining of meaning I should heal well. And I’m so lucky to have a warm, funny, exceptionally skilled surgeon who actually went through the same thing when she was also my age, and that honestly, I’ve absolutely the Edward Gorey illustration body type to probably even end up looking pretty chic going down to just a bit of an A cup, which is what she's going to be able to do, not to bury the lede. Surprise top surgery, is what I’ve been calling it, and thank you to the boys for the re-contextualizing dream that is the phrase ‘top surgery’, a concept of such positivity; life-affirming, life-saving.

It is a strange, swift-approaching change to reckon with though, impossible to avoid that. I've always tended to dress as if I don’t even have the actually, admittedly, great boobs that I've had up til now, but it is still the body I know. I’ll roll onto my stomach in bed and think, for one that I soon won’t be doing this at all again for a while, and that when I do, it’s going to feel different. Fascinating to consider.

I'm leaning into a sort of Orlando-like curiosity about it, this vague physical transformation just spontaneously befalling me in my adulthood. How will this be. What sort of opportunities might this actually grant. I’ll be endeavoring to hardly ever wear a bra again, I’ll tell you that for certain. Should I use this as the push to finally get a bespoke suit, soft and wide-legged, with a jacket that can fall in just a clean draped line from my shoulders? Will I be able to wear suspenders? I think about watching Margaret Qualley in The Stars At Noon this summer, how I watched her just drop a loose sundress over her bare body, entirely backless, and walk out the door. I think, of course, of "Keira Knightley Atonement," as my inspiration board folder is called.

I’ve also been thinking about this blog, what I think Tumblr user sashayed once called her secret public journal. Sometimes what I or others will post can break into the very real & personal, like this, for the benefit that comes from just releasing, sharing the large challenging things in our lives. I think about a long-time mutual who posted about some of the strangeness she felt during hospitalization for an accident, how recalling some of what she wrote about has brought me a feeling of solidarity in this.

But there’s also how I’ve actually been blogging about this for weeks and weeks, it’s just only been for me. Another kind of secret public journal. This butterfly coming out of a row of cocoons in a window: this was for how I was, fully insanely yes, watching A Zed & Two Noughts while I was wracked with anxiety over what might be going on with my body, but/and the idea of emerging after this surgery new and striking and light. This is self-explanatory. This tiny-chested witch vaulting skulls is “literally me” goals this time next October. This was actually exactly, exactly my vibe getting my biopsy, with the sweetest nurses.

And now at last it all comes together, the public and private journal, on the eve of really what we’re all waiting for, oh god me for sure: the return of painkiller diaries. Painkiller diaries is a lifestyle, actually, it’s an ethos. I let myself so wholly rest after my gum surgery last year that the rest of November was the happiest I’d been in years. Please, again. Return to cashmere convalescence. And would you look at this beautiful soup sippin' mug I’ve gotten since then:

Oh I think we’re ready.

#pers. #blogging

[wordsnstuff]

Guide to Screenwriting

Patreon || Ko-Fi || Masterlist

–

Writing Characters for The Screen

Film is a very different media through which to build a character and depict their arc as a conflict progresses. It's important that you contextualize the writing, though it may feel lengthy as you're working on a script, as a shorter form. Therefore, you're provided far less time to deliver key information, and you do not the luxury of description to the same extent as you would in a novel or even a short story. Create characters with this in mind. Budget the valuable time they'll have on screen focusing on information that is key to the viewer's understanding of both the character themself and the overall plot. They do not need miles of backstory.

Writing Plots for The Screen

Plots for the screen can be very similar to plots for the page. The distinctive difference is that when you're writing a screenplay, you have to make a plot that can be communicated in about a quarter of the time. The best way, I find, to create a screenplay plot, is to create a full story, and then eliminate any information that is not essential to clearly understanding the core of the conflict, characters, world, message, etc. Strip a complete story down to its bare bones, and then in the process of writing the script, include the details that are significant to the nuance of conflict/characters/world. Anything that would be designed by a member of the cast or crew upon their own reflection of the script is not necessary to the draft, unless you have very important details or note that you wish to include (sparingly). I'm a big believer in "let the team do their jobs", and it's primarily their job to design elements that are shown rather than told.

Structuring & Formatting Screenplays

It's important that you're diligent in the structure and formatting of your screenplay, and rather than describe all the rules here, I've linked two articles that include tips and directions and resources which will help you perfect that document:

Resources for Screenwriting

Tips on Screenwriting

(You can find more on my masterlist)

Common Struggles

~ Should I start the planning process with structure or scenes? Structure is key to a film, because the limitation of time is far more significant than the challenge of redesigning the superficial aspects of the plot. Structure is also a more efficient jumping off-point for a story in general, because even if you have the most fascinating collection of scenes ever conceived of, if the structure has no strategy, the viewer will not grasp any of it. Key information is delivered in a certain order at a certain pace because it creates tone and pace which are extremely important to balance in a script. There are recognizable structures for a reason. They're not "unoriginal" or "overdone" because structure is more pragmatic than creative. Once you have the strategy, you can make it your own. But it's very difficult to create a strategy retroactively from improvisation, so it's much more effective to simply start from a structural standpoint.

~ Do I have to follow the rigid format of a screenplay? Screenplays are a very specific format for practical reasons. The format is meant to be universal because the nature of a script is collaborative, and therefore, large groups have to be able to easily comprehend the document without further explanation or decoding. There is a reason why producers are so strict about format, because it's their job to make sure that the material they pass on is efficient and effective to their team. Translating a script that is formatted incorrectly wastes time and energy, and when you're only one of many promising scripts they're presented with, there's no point in considering that extra effort.

~ How do I make a screenplay that is flexible to future changes? Know your characters and world inside and out. Know the difference between the details that make up the core of the story, and the details which embellish it. It's important to write a script with the inevitability of change in mind. Productions require changes to the script for all kinds of reasons, so you need to anticipate how the story could change to accommodate this. Identify the non-negotiable aspects of the story and give some thought to how you would redesign them if necessary. For instance, locations, character traits, relationship dynamics, or even specific scenes that might need to be cut/reworked/replaced based on practical limitations. The more flexible the script, the more likely it is to be successful during production, though you should be able to advocate on behalf of the significant base of the story.

~ What is the ultimate goal of a screenplay? Costume designers, makeup artists, cinematographers, sound designers, actors, and directors will bring their own contribution to the creative direction of the story. The script is the jumping-off point. The most helpful thing you can do as a screenwriter is clearly communicate the tone, nature of the conflict, and nature of the characters to the rest of your team. Write with their tasks in mind. If you include a specific direction for a shot or a costume piece or reaction of a character, make sure that it's significant, because your crew members will assume that if it's on the page, it's important (though not set-in-stone, as evolution is the nature of a script). Remember that the script is not the sole document used to make a film. The script has its place, do not overwhelm the pages with things that will be fleshed out elsewhere.

~ How do I know if I'm including the right amount of detail? The detail that you should be including in a script is the essential information for the cast and crew to understand the core of the story, characters, world, and conflict. The creativity is in the delivery, not the details themselves. A script is like a map. You're trying to communicate where you're going and how to get there, but the locations are not the distinguishing feature of an individual map, it's the way it's illustrated. Focus on including the key information in the dialogue and actions. This will create openings for the story to be developed through aspects that are conceived during production, like costume, acting, or cinematography.

Other Resources

Resources For Plot Development

Guide To Plot Development

Plot Structures

Pacing Appropriately

Guide to Character Development

Resources For Creating Characters

Resources For World Building

Tips On Dialogue

Guide to Drafting

Guide to Writing From Multiple Points of View

Finding And Fixing Plot Holes

Ultimate Guide To Symbolism

–

Masterlist

If you enjoy my blog and wish for it to continue being updated frequently and for me to continue putting my energy toward answering your questions, please consider Buying Me A Coffee, or pledging your support on Patreon, where I offer early access and exclusive benefits for only $5/month.

#screenwriting #writing #writeblr #writing advice #writing tips #writing resources #resources for writers #writing reference #writing help #writespo #writing inspiration #writing motivation #inspiration #motivation

[thegirlwhowrites642]

I can understand the parallels between jily and hinny, but I sometimes find it really unfair. More often than not, we can see a link not only inside the fandom but with other fandoms too. The deduction of the nature of Harry and Ginny's relationship in context of James and Lily's relationship tends to strike as stereotypical albeit somewhat necessary to some people. However, I feel it's specially unjust to Ginny as she, unlike Harry has no direct connection with either James or lily. So simply reducing her entire personality to Harry married is mother or father feels rather delusional and prejudiced. I understood your meta and appreciate the through analysis of the parallel but don't you think it's rather unjust to rely on predecessors just to analyse a separate character as a whole?

[the post being referenced is this]

First of all, the point of what I had written was that I disagree with making parallels one-on-one between characters:

In general, I have to say that while there are parallels between the characters of the two different generations, I find it very limiting to connect a character to only another of the other group.

I'm sorry if that got lost in all the things I said.

When I said that Ginny between James and Lily is James, it was contextual to the ask I received (I'm also quite fond of the parallels between Ginny and James because they are an excellent way of showing how rooted in misogyny is the fandom's perception of Ginny).

Now, about drawing parallels between hinny and jily: the original story does it. The drawing of parallels between generations and the idea that the next does better is a theme of the original material. To be fair, it's not as central as love or family or choice. Still, it is quite significant, to the point that a lot of the epilogue revolves around it, not limiting itself to the two generations we see throughout the saga but also introducing a new one. Teddy and Victoire are an obvious reference to Harry and Ginny, Ginny herself draws a parallel between her son James and Ron, and Lily Luna has basically the same lines of dialogue Ginny introduced herself with in the first book. And then of course there's Albus Severus, whose name not only is a reconciliation with the generation before Harry but he also looks just like Harry. And just like we saw Harry starting his story at the platform now we see Albus starting his own. The last scene of the saga is Harry and Ginny reproducing the scene of when they first met, but now Harry is not on the train, he is on the platform with Ginny and they both follow the train saying goodbye to their son. Harry is worried for Albus (who, again, looks just like him) because he is thinking about what he, Harry, went through and he is afraid for his son. But Ginny tells him that everything is going to be alright and Harry looks at her and only at that moment tells her he knows he will. He knows because despite everything he went through, now he is the one on the platform, now he has Ginny and their family, so he knows Albus is going to be alright too. [And in fact, what's the running theme of Harry and Ginny's relationship? That they never have time, that they can't be together until Harry defeats Voldemort.]

All of this explanation to say what?

It's the books, it's the author that makes these parallels, and all we can do as readers is acknowledge them. You can also dislike them of course, but they are still there.

But acknowledging the parallels does not mean reducing one character to another, as I previously said: it's not a one-on-one connection. And it's not even the meaning behind those parallels being made, the point of the parallels is a sort of learning from the past kind of concept. And also, I might add an if you try to do the good thing, one day, everything is going to be alright: James and Lily's sacrifice saves Harry; Harry, therefore, can grow up, he goes through a lot of shit just like Ginny, they fall in love, Voldemort is defeated after they sacrifice their happiness, and so a generation that grows up without knowing war is born. Adding parallels between these generations helps connect the characters and highlights the chain of events, a chain of events that revolves around the three main themes of the story: love, family, and choice.

And yes, the previous generation the parallels are drawn with is connected to Harry because it's his story. The saga is not about a war or friendship or whatever. It's Harry's coming-of-age story told through the journey of the hero. I don't find that unfair towards Ginny.

Also, at the end of the day, it seems to me a lot more fair to make parallels between Ginny and James (the first) than, let's say... Ron and Sirius. Ginny is a Potter. That's her family too even if she never meets them, a family she chose, a family she decided to carry the name of. If we had the story from Ginny's perspective we probably would have parallels between a bunch of other characters. Who knows... maybe Harry really resembles Grandpa Weasley.

#ginny weasley #harry potter

[sukunasbabygirl]

I think something that should be acknowledged more is the fact Ed and Izzy’s relationship is mutually toxic.

I just want to clarify this isn’t me apologising for Izzy or villainising Ed in case anyone mistakes it for that. It’s just me stating the observations I’ve made, ones I’ve learned from personal experience no less.

Their relationship is not one-sided abuse on Izzy’s end, it’s a deeply unhealthy dynamic between two people who consistently hurt each other in various ways with the only difference being that Izzy is more noticeably toxic whether as Ed is more subtly toxic (until episode ten I’d say)

I am way too tired to go in depth right now but as someone who’s been in a similar mutually damaging relationship before, it is definitely hard to see at first, especially because Ed is a very likeable character whether as Izzy isn’t.

I really don’t want to start any arguments with this and this isn’t an anti post towards any character! I love both! I simply find their dynamic very interesting and I don’t think it should be sanded down to just Izzy is toxic and Ed is not, as both are toxic but to varying degrees of that makes sense? There are also a dozen themes and contextual aspects at play here too (for example Izzy representing toxic masculinity in the show and suffocating Ed with that in the metaphorical sense) , but the point is their relationship is complex and that makes it an especially difficult toxic relationship to escape from.

I’d argue there’s a sort of co-dependency present? But that’s something to discuss for another day if I can organise my thoughts.

I’ve not exactly worded the way I wanted to originally but I hope it doesn’t cause any misunderstandings of the point!

Edit: Extra thought I had upon waking up but I think in season two part of Edward’s arc has to be acknowledging his relationship with Izzy and how it’s damaging both of them. I mean, he’s definitely going to have to confront the fact he’s disabled Izzy. They just keep enabling each other, one intentionally and the other unintentionally, and for Ed to move on from this harmful relationship he has to acknowledge the hurt done and stop the loop in its tracks, because Izzy sure as hell won’t be the one doing that. He has to say no and he has to be honest with Izzy, and the outcome of that depends on where Izzy’s character goes in the season.

Added thoughts as well: Izzy can acknowledge this as well after Ed does so, or he can continue to dig himself deeper and deeper. There are a lot of outcomes here but it essentially boils down to Izzy choosing to acknowledge and heal or Izzy choosing to ignore and continue hurting - both himself and Ed. If he chooses the latter my urge to dropkick him will tenfold (he may be one of my favourite characters but god damn I want to kick him)

This is a very simplified explanation of my thoughts but my brain remains too scrambled to actually write something cohesive, so alas.

#ofmd #our flag means death #ofmd meta #i think??? #edward teach #blackbeard #israel hands #izzy hands #tw abuse mention #<- I think this is the right tag to use? #just in case I guess!

[mdhwrites]

How do you think Boscha should’ve been written if TOH had focused on building its characters better both main and secondary?

What kind of elements could have made her arc great instead of having her be abandoned by Skara and Amity and doubled down in being awful?

It doesn’t have to be a repeat of Sasha’s arc but maybe making her more compelling and complex instead of a snobbish bully who is obsessed with one of her “friends”. Well, I don’t consider Amity her friend because calling their relationship friendship is ignoring that is one-sided but that’s just me remembering what little Amity said about her in Understanding Willow.

She shouldn't have shown up in season 3.

I know that's harsh but the blunt fact is that while I gave her a lot of depth and I think the show accidentally gives her a lot of intriguing elements, narratively her role is as a one dimensional bully. She is just there to be mean and thus be an obstacle for Amity to overcome to get away from her mean side. Even as big a Boscha fan and writer as I was, I literally never expected to see her after S1. She simply has no point to exist in the story afterwards.

Not unless what a shocking amount of outsiders thought during the hiatus after S1 was true: This was Amity's story all along, not Luz's.

And that's where I took inspiration for The Power of Love. Now that story is stupid long but getting Boscha into the main cast wasn't. It actually just raised the simple question that Understanding Willow and then Winging it asked: If Amity is supposed to have stopped seeing herself as superior to others, as having broken away from the Blight belief that made her sever ties with Willow, why is she now acting above Boscha and severing ties for that? Or if supposedly Amity now will actually care about her friends, what does the exiling of Boscha, Skara, Amelia, etc. like that mean about her character?

For the fact that she's a supporting character and to move Amity beyond Hexide, Winging it is fine. It does its narrative job... But it still paints Amity out as a bitch. She's still willing to cut out people from her life just because those around her disapprove of them. She's still willing to act superior and she's still mostly going by the designs of someone else since she wasn't exactly in favor of Luz's plan but goes with it because Luz.

So Boscha's return is a challenge of that. A challenge of if she was thinking when she did that or just acting in the heat of the moment and from pressure again. Mixed with how Boscha NEVER questions or belittles or bullies Amity, while being willing to do so with literally all of their other friends, Boscha is the ONE person to bring back from that friend group for this purpose. She's the one most clearly a bully... But where'd she get it from? Who was the real leader of their group? Has Amity changed or is she just a different kind of bitch?

That moment would be effectively akin to Yesterday's Lie for Luz. A re-contextualization of all Amity has done before and a questioning of if she's actually a good person. It would also require proper examination and growth like Yesterday's Lie should have led to for Luz and for that, Luz and Boscha could pull her in differing directions. One that wants her to remember her pride and ambition, one that wants her to remember to temper it. Two sides of Amity that she needs but balance is a hard thing to strike for anyone, let alone someone as conflicted and in her own head as Amity.

Like I use Lumischa's dynamic in a lot of things, and none of this gets into the narrative potential of Luz being with someone who isn't just a bully in name but also in attitude, but the original version has this element that few others do. It's one I liked so much and felt the show restricted me on so much that that's one of the primary reasons why I started Little Miss Rich Witch. But that's the rub: This is a different story. This isn't a part of a story where Luz is the main character.

Boscha has nothing to do with King or Eda. She is not a part of Luz's main supporting cast. She is specifically an Amity supporting cast member. You can do stuff with Boscha and Luz, and Luz's reaction to being bullied in Winging it is part of why I doubt this girl was actually bullied that much back home *eye twitch* but that's not the primary focus with Boscha from a narrative perspective. The EC isn't. Belos isn't.

It would be doubling down on one of TOH's weakest choices in having Amity be a main character despite the fact that they're unwilling to examine her relationship to the plot WHATSOEVER. And to have that examination would have meant more time being needed in a show that already had so many characters that went nowhere. Like... Amity's siblings lose all their actual antagonism after their first appearance. At best, after their second. And they're even closer to Amity and tied into even more of her issues.

So yeah, just like I said when I was fully devoted to this show and writing Lumischa every day... Boscha's purpose was done and we shouldn't have seen her in a main role again after S1.

Edit: I never answered the question about what to do with Boscha's arc. This blog is already too long but I think a redeemed Boscha is still mean and rude but she does it more for fun rather than out of malice or a need for dominance. She becomes a jock who is willing to chill out and listen to a nerd ramble about their hyperfixation for two hours instead of one that has to mock literally every element of it... Though she will still mocks part of it, you just know it's in a better spirit now.

======+++++======

It might help that I am absolutely not one of those people who needs to see his ship become canon. *shrug*

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

#the owl house criticism #toh critical #amity #boscha #Lumischa

[ihonestlydunnowhattocallmyself]

A recommendation of Undead Unluck

I'll be completely frank with you. By binge reading all of the manga I have come to the conclusion that it is my fourth favorite manga. Yet, for all the good will I hold for it, I can't earnestly recommend the first few chapters to anyone. Not because of its weird premise or that its just my trash taste that has made me love it. No.

The starting chapters are just very problematic with just this weird sexual undertone between the two main characters, the titular Undead Unluck. It makes it just extremely hard to get into if you don't know what it becomes. It may start out as such but in a very short time-span it metamorphosis into something completely different and completely different. This change is comparable to a persons complete personality shifting from something that just feels off at a lot of times to something I can say wholeheartedly is beautiful. Which is what makes the initial chapters so sad in contrast with the rest of the story. It is what keeps this series from getting a 10/10 for me.

With this I conclude my initial disclaimer.

And if you have read so far,

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY RECOMMEND IT THE REST OF IT.

While its beginning is definitely problematic it really drops those undertones quick which lets the story keep chugging along. I would however completely recommending skipping the problematic beginning. While it has a lot of vital info I do feel like you can read ahead since it still changes massively enough to the point where it isn't really needed and you can simply understand whats going on from starting at that point. The chapter I suggest you start at is chapter 9.

I can also give a summary if you wish. It is in the following paragraph

So basically in this world that can negate a specific concept. This ability is based around their interpretation of said negated concept. This gives it a specific condition for activation. The simplest way to explain this is an ability that is based around the characters interpretation of it that is molded by their experiences with it. The current user of the ability Unluck is Fuuko. As implied the ability lets her give people bad luck. This is activated when people come into contact with her. This leads her to accidentally killing her parents. This leads to her becoming a NEET who's scared of touching literally anyone. This leads her to try to commit suicide by jumping onto an oncoming train from above a bridge. That's when Andy, the user of Undead comes in. As implied by the name he literally can't die and can regenerate from anything. Think Wolverine but able to use the fact that he ca practically regenerate as a weapon in of itself. He tries to die with her unluck. He escapes because of his regenerative abilities. Then there are a few shenanigans before he cuts her hair as he was once a barber. However there touching moment is interrupted when a seemingly evil organization called UNION attacks. They are able to of course beat them back. Andy explains that they've been chasing them for a long time and even trapped and experimented on him 50 years ago. Of course he broke out and he has been pursued ever since. Then they are once again found by Union. 2 of its top brass are sent after them. They kill one of the guys while the other guy, Shen says that he can recommend them in. They only need two empty seats to fill. By killing the other guy they've successfully emptied one and just need to kill another member. He gives them the place where they can find said member. So they go and kill her too.

This is an extreme over simplification of what happens and I'd say at a certain point you should probably come back to read these chapters as they are somewhat re-contextualized later on. You likely will know when to read them but if you want a hint there are two major turns in the middle portion. Probably go back when the second turn happens.

Now with the summary and disclaimer out of the way I think I may start of with the main appeal of the story.

For one I love how it develops the main duo as you often don't see much romance in shounen. And usually it is a side-plot. And while I've never been a fan of romance myself I do thing with the exception of the first few chapters, Undead Unluck handles that aspect of it pretty exceptionally. I feel like Fuuko and Andy gain more chemistry as the story goes on. It in my opinion happens very naturally and is shown to be mutually beneficial. While they certainly can operate individually and be effective, by working together their power is bolstered and they are more effective.

Beyond just this main pairing love is a recurring theme within the cast. So even if you don't like the main characters there are always other pairings for you to ship.

Beyond just this its just really fun from start to finish. It has a really nice adventure aspect where it can feel monster of the week at times. And even then the plot is able to progress. This helps make even less consequential arcs feel engaging as its always going somewhere.

I also really like how specific arcs can pay attention and really help develop the specific characters that become the focus in them. It really helps make the cast feel more well rounded and likeable. I think this aspect of the manga really shines in the sixth arc as it in my opinion gracefully shifts focus to a completely new character and fleshes them out to a great extent. I also like how with each re-appearance we learn more and more about the villains and their motivations.

If there was anything I didn't particularly like about Undead Unluck I'd have to say that its fast pace is a double edged sword as I wished some arcs took some more time to develop the characters as they are all just so interesting. But the plot is always progressing so it feels like no time is lost.

In all, I think its a series worth reading.

#Undead Unluck #Undead Unluck manga #manga #manga reccomendation #SERIOUSLY THIS IS GOOD! #READ IT

[transpanda-1]

maybe don't perpetuate the idea that osdd/did = possession from dead people since thats a reason a lot of systems are persecuted all around the world

When this was sent to us, Heidi was fronting, who is a little too energetic to handle these kinds of things, so now that we've calmed down we feel we can appropriately respond to this.

(Spoilers for essentially all of Ace Attorney)

This is about the post we made in reference to wishing to write Maya Fey and Mia Fey, from Ace Attorney, in a DID/OSDD metaphor. Though, technically, we've already done this in our fic, 4/1/3/2.

Essay on why we interpret Maya and Mia in a plural coded light:

Now, we understand anon's concern, but we would like to put forth an argument that writing Maya and Mia as a metaphor for DID/OSDD both has precedence, is a good thing, and not perpetuating anything.

We're choosing to ignore the part where anon didn't check to see our pinned where Maya and Mia interact specifically with Uendo Toneido, who is a canon DID system and seen as a good person.

Before we even get started deconstructing how we think this anon is simply misguided... we're plural. The person in charge of this blog, me, is legally diagnosed with OSDD 1B. Perhaps you, the anon, are plural too, but I could never know that. Our experiences and history of being plural contextualize our choices.

For background: Maya Fey is a character from Ace Attorney, known for her ability to spirit channel the dead. Whenever she channels a spirit, her body shifts and transforms physically to mimic said deceased person as they were alive (sans hair).

Mia Fey is Maya's sister, who tragically lost her life in the first game of Ace Attorney. However, she was a fantastic lawyer before she died. And since Ace Attorney is about being one, Maya Fey often channeled Mia's spirit to assist you, Phoenix Wright, in court cases.

Let's not beat around the bush here: Maya and Mia fey are designed to be two characters in one. It's mostly Maya, but the fact remains Mia exists primarily to speak to the player through Maya's body.

Yes, technically speaking, this is not plurality. This is ghost possession. BUT the experiences Maya and Mia share overlap with DID/OSDD experiences heavily:

In Ace Attorney, spirit channelers have no memory of when the spirit is in control (memory barrier). Spirits have no recollection of the afterlife (Essentially after death, to them it's like waking up in someone else's body).

This is also seen as a positive force. Mia's death is treated appropriately as tragic, but every time she is channeled she is seen as a welcome and comforting sight. There is no demonization here.

And, we would like to draw attention to this post, of an OSDD system recalling their own experiences of "Ghost possession": https://www.tumblr.com/blog/view/transpanda-1/670069306265059328?source=share

This dynamic of mild coexistence between Maya and Mia, in fact, we would argue is so positive that it brings us to our next point:

Uendo Toneido, one of the best DID systems in popular media, would not exist without Maya and Mia's character dynamic.

The Fey sisters injected a dynamic of plurality into Ace Attorney that has been persistent for the ENTIRE series.

Most assistants that were introduced past Maya included some parallel to the Fey sisters, or at least a presentation of multiplicity.

Pearl is a given, considering she also lets separate spirits be channeled.

Trucy Wright has Mr. Hat, who she occasionally presents as a fully different person than herself.

Kay Faraday got amnesia and her hyperactive energy was wiped into a separate solemn and more timid personality.

Estella Cantabella has active dissociative episodes, memory loss, and frequently speaks that she has another person existing within her.

Athena Cykes' Widget is an AI connected to her brain, blurts out Athena's subconscious, and sometimes speaks for itself.

And we haven't played TGAA yet, but we've received confirmation that multiple characters could fit the bill.

This all builds to Spirit of Justice, and it's focus on the Kingdom of Khura'in. This country would not exist without the spirit channeling focus of the original AA trilogy. Two cases are centered around channeling someone as a major plot point.

This leads us to the two outlier cases of the game: The Magical Turnabout and Turnabout Storyteller. Both have a major element of multiple people and presenting as one, but we won't dive too much into Bonny and Betty.

No, the main focus is Uendo, who is actually referred to as having dissociative identity disorder in game. Every alter is respected, their existence is seen as valid, and they're harmless and sweet in the end.

Uendo is in stark contrast to the rest of all media, which has a major problem with DID/OSDD demonization.

And Uendo exists to draw parallel to the spirit channeling the rest of the game has.

Because the game series already had such a positive depiction of sharing ones body with another person's spirit, it directly led to one of the healthiest depictions of DID in modern media.

Ace Attorney has an overwhelming number of characters that invoke plural experiences. And it can all be traced back to Maya and Mia, specifically.

Personally, we think it's healthy and respectful to treat Maya and Mia living similar to a DID/OSDD system, instead of Mia simply leaving for good at the end of the original trilogy.

Speaking as a system already accused of being possessed by demons from loved ones, we think it should be outright encouraged to use them as a metaphor for healthy coexistence.

This week we have been very emotional about the idea of Mia existing in happiness, just seeing her in casual clothing while channeled through Maya brought us great happiness.

From this system's perspective, we think writing this, if done well, can bring great joy to people like us.

#mia fey #maya fey #uendo toneido #DID/OSDD #ace attorney #long post #essay #chirps #4/1/3/2

[sunnnfish]

Incessant kagihira rambling abt the latest updates (16c + 17). A bit Scatterbrained and may not make sense. As always

Hang on. Post forming in my brain. Recent chapter contextualizing itself etc etc. so like. It’s all about being needy. Depending on each other right. Something that isn’t really being considered is like. The differences in the way Kagi has become dependent on Hirano and Hirano trying to think of ways to depend on Kagi.

It’s like. The thought I had was that like Hirano is the one who kinda started this whole dependency thing yknow? He’s the one who started waking Kagi up and eating his food etc etc—it wasn’t a conscious desire that Kagi had and subsequently asked Hirano to do. The only thing Kagi has done that for is the 10 second touch deal.

And then like. In this recent update we see Kagi wanting Hirano to depend on him and to think of something he wants Kagi to do for him in the same vein of the acts of service Hirano does for Kagi. (It all comes back to my love language theory babes.) but it’s like different cause Hirano does not actively desire acts of service. What he does depend on is Kagi’s… kagi-ness? He’s just constantly inspired by the way Kagi works so hard and is so honest. And if something is off with Kagi then he kinda falls into disarray the same way Kagi would if Hirano suddenly stopped his acts of service.

It’s like. They were functioning fine before they met each other yknow. But meeting each other and developing this relationship has made both of them strive to be better simply because of the way the other naturally is. Hirano is a natural caregiver to almost anyone he’s close enough with, and at his core he is very kind and smart and thoughtful. Kagiura is naturally a very hardworking and positive person, who is straightforward and honest and he doesn’t back down. These are still traits they would have without each other, but they are also traits they really like in each other yknow?

Sometimes it’s like i forget that love isn’t necessarily transactional. I always end up thinking about it like “well of course Kagi likes Hirano, Hirano does things for him” but like. People can just love each other without concrete reasons like that. People can just love certain personalities for some nebulous reason. Like. I love my friends not for the things they can do for me but just because of the way they are. Hirano is dependent on the fact that Kagi is Kagi (see above traits) in the same way Kagi is dependent on Hirano being Hirano (see above traits).

Anyways I feel like I’ve gotten a bit derailed. I suppose my point was that Kagi wants Hirano to depend on him, but he doesn’t realize that Hirano already does in his own way (and neither did Hirano for the record). For Kagi depending on Hirano, it’s a much more obvious give and take—Hirano does things for him and he gladly accepts, but it’s really just Hirano being himself. For Hirano depending on Kagi, it’s much more subtle; it’s like Hirano just basks in the Kagi vibes. (<- probably the weirdest sentence I’ve ever written but okay)

Side tangent. One thing I’ve been struggling with is the question of how does Kagi show his love? Like. With Hirano it’s clearly acts of service—he likes doing things for people he cares about, it’s how he shows he cares. So with Kagi I’ve been trying to pinpoint how he shows he cares. Just put like a solid 10 minutes of thought into this and I’m thinking it might actually be words of affirmation. He likes just telling people how he feels. This is where I wish we could see more Kagi outside of Hirano. I need to know how he treats his other friends. Anyways. This would also line up with the things Hirano likes about Kagi. Hirano likes Kagi’s honesty and he does react and blush when Kagi tells him how he feels. “Thank you” “you’re the best” “I can give it my all now” “Hirano-San” “I love you.” Okay I’ve convinced myself now. Anyways. Idk how to end posts. Love and light <3

#read the chapters like 3 times over and then wrote this in the span of an hour #I’m going to be thinking about this for. months #months #god. #Harusono Shou does it again #Hirano to kagiura #sunnfish.kghr #Hirano and kagiura

[tamelee]

re: the section about toxic masculinity in that stupid novel

did esaka learned anything about anything reading Naruto? No, scratch that, from reading popular shounen manga? There are at least two at the top of my head where there are protagonist or male characters who CRY and are STRONG AS HELL. Vulnerability can also be a sigh of strength. To be able to speak or show how you feel without thinking that makes you less of a man, that's being confident comfortable with yourself and who you are.

Or it's maybe bc Sasuke hasn't been anything but cold and emotionless towards Sakura (with the exception of their genin days maybe) and so they have to contextualize that dismissive behavior this way?

I think this vision of how a man should behave is deeply concerning. It's like men can't show emotions/vulnerability toward women because that make them weak? And the only way to show love is in a taciturn or an aggresive way? How awful is that? Is there really people out there thinking like that? Do they realize how harmful those stereotypes are not only for the men themselves but for women as well?

I'm angry at the novel and esaka just from reading your review, no idea how you could do it without (┛ಠДಠ)┛彡┻━┻ every five seconds

Hi @zykamiliah !! 💕

Yessss same here ;__;

"did esaka learned anything about anything reading Naruto? No, scratch that, from reading popular shounen manga? There are at least two at the top of my head where there are protagonist or male characters who CRY and are STRONG AS HELL."

I don’t think Esaka cared much if I’m being honest. It was written very deliberately with every intention to encourage the “Naruto and Sasuke are you-know-what”-scheme and twist Kishimoto’s entire story around to try and make SS happen. Which even she can’t since she couldn’t write how they even got together or how they gotten married. She even said Sasuke found it too “bothersome” to explain the ‘blood-connection’-thing even though she worked the scene towards it, to include it in response to Gaiden… but simply not being able to.. 

What does that tell, ya? 

To be fair, I don’t think she took the Shonen approach. Even I, while reading gave her the benefit of the doubt and completely let that go to accept the tonal switch since she only focusses on them as adults. Naturally that’s going to feel different. ‘Boruto’ has a different audience, this isn’t for them… I assume.  

But that shouldn’t change the message. 

Nor the characters/dynamics as Kishimoto already has written them as adults before. They already exist. 

"Vulnerability can also be a sigh of strength. To be able to speak or show how you feel without thinking that makes you less of a man, that's being confident comfortable with yourself and who you are."

Definitely!!! 👏🏻

Besides.. Sasuke’s “I lost” was the emotional part of the battle and arguably more challenging than their physical one, right?

"Or it's maybe bc Sasuke hasn't been anything but cold and emotionless towards Sakura (with the exception of their genin days maybe) and so they have to contextualize that dismissive behavior this way?"

This is the essence of every SS-essay ever. 

But, like you say too, Sasuke hasn’t always been cold towards Sakura at all.. in fact I applaud him for dealing with a lot of her bullshit-fangirling without getting irritated. He’s very caring and has been protective towards both Naruto and Sakura too at some point. I don’t like this whole ‘Team 7’-thing, but there were moments during the Chunin-exam where they worked well together. 

I even liked when Naruto was just being too adorable, Sakura and him didn’t do much other than bitch at each other and Sasuke was just taking it all in no matter how loud Naruto was being.

It is only when she pushed, pushed and pushed him even further to the point where his boundaries were overstepped by a million miles that he started to show his annoyances towards her and only because she gave him no choice. He asked her not to do something and she does it anyway. (Talk about the seal, hugging him, chasing him etc-) 

Let’s say you walk down a street and someone asks you if you’d like to try.. I dunno a.. cake for example, but you don’t want to so you politely decline and continue to walk thinking that the conversation is over. However the cake-person follows you and asks you if you’re sure since this cake has pink frosting. 

At this point you’re a little flabbergasted.. does this person not understand the meaning of the word ‘no’? You simply decline again and continue to walk once more. The person however, doesn’t stop, now grabbing your sleeve. 

This time you’re getting annoyed. 

Cake-person doesn’t stop bothering you until you take a bite of the cake, but you refuse to do so. However if you show that you are getting annoyed then the people around to witness the scene will think that you’re the asshole. It’s a lose-lose situation. 

Then Jun Esaka comes around and writes a novel about how this is Tsundere behavior and how much you love the cake anyway.. hmm pink frosting yay… oh wait.. shit.. is it even “manly” enough to like pink things?! *eyeroll* 

"I think this vision of how a man should behave is deeply concerning. It's like men can't show emotions/vulnerability toward women because that make them weak? And the only way to show love is in a taciturn or an aggresive way? How awful is that? Is there really people out there thinking like that? Do they realize how harmful those stereotypes are not only for the men themselves but for women as well?"

It is very awful how it is displayed in this novel. 

For some people it is hard to show emotion and they themselves hold back, because trauma or distrust causes them to close up and so they use it as a protection mechanism. Therefore showing love.. openly or accepting it from someone else can feel like a weakness.

It’s an enormous emotional challenge. 

I can relate to that. 

In Sasuke’s case this love is for and from Naruto. 

In Esaka’s novel she casts this emotional challenge aside like it was absolutely fucking nothing. As if Sasuke always had been only about his physical power or Sakura. Also, Sasuke’s genuine distaste and annoyance towards Sakura throughout his entire life instead is… love? 

Maybe her own norms influenced Sasuke’s (not just any character, this is a developed character we’re talking about that has been altered)- behavior and persuaded the choices to fit the scenes which fit her story. Which.. imo didn’t work at all. Especially since Sasuke’s own personal goals don’t align with those roles and his unique characteristics.. let alone his sexual preferences. 

I get that the whole ‘male Tsundere’-thing is simply ‘a trope’.. just like Hinata is the typical ‘Dandere’, HOWEVER- purposefully changing a character for your fantasy is a different thing. 

It’s some sick twisted fantasy in the end since that is not how Sasuke loves.

Sasuke’s body moves on its own for the one he loves, both to save his life and to listen always to what he has to say. Whereas with Sakura his back is always turned. He feels pain when the one he loves suffers, but feels happy simply knowing he exists. Sasuke acknowledges the one he loves naturally, but shows it by secretly making sure he’s okay saying he “goes for a walk” or asking “if he had his meal”, because hearing his tummy growl.. even if it causes him to fail his lifelong goals.. he can’t help, but feed him. He feels relieved and safe knowing that he can share his hopes, pain, but also can laugh and cry with the one he loves, that they’re able to look in each other’s hearts. That person is his one and only. 

That person is Uzumaki Naruto. 

And not Haruno Sakura. 

And to love like that, so selflessly, but still being his own person is very strong of him 💅🏻

#asktamelee #zykamiliah #sns

[sarahsfixations]

Anime and meee

For a while I had a fair bit of insecurity and weirdly anxiety (???) over watching like fictional stuff idek. So I don't really watch movies or shows but anime has proved an effective pathway for me mainly because its more involved but also animated, and also has subtitles I can read along with (my verbal processing unit is... not the greatest) So I've been able to watch more anime now with not as much 'anxious pause' and 'apprehension' to starting up again although I've only seen 46. My myanimelist: https://myanimelist.net/profile/SimmyS My anilist: https://anilist.co/user/SimmyS/animelist This is roughly what my 3x3 probably looks like. The ordering is supposed to be left to right, top to bottom I feel this could change over time in not too long (because I've been having great fun with stuff like Cardcaptor Sakura)

A brief comment on each one and why I like it

Steins;Gate: It's been a while since I've watched, although I plan on a rewatch. For me it has to be the best because it simply stands apart: theres no hidden 'anime rules', it transcends that. It builds a world and everything that follows is both very interesting and yet a natural consequence of it, both surprising and well justified. The atmosphere is very particular and it helps make the world well deeper, like something the characters are in and are affected by. And it has the defining aesthetic, this like mix of science and delusion, this investigative approach to time travel. It just does everything in a different way but extremely solid. For that reason, it must stand out.

Revolutionary Girl Utena: I'm not sure strictly speaking I can say it this high enough. I find some of the animation and phrases repetitive and a bit in 'I'll learn to like more' zone. But the dynamics feel different to other anime and the ideas were very interesting, even if I feel I understood 30%. To me it must have this honor because its the second one I've really thought to analyze.

Madoka Magica: This one is one that I feel I forget particulars on how good it is but I remember really adoring. Like its cover does not convey its highly unique style. This one to me is significant because of one, the more emotionally complex roles magical girls are given. And for me personally, it has had some of the more impactful life messages in context of its plot.

Hunter x Hunter: What makes this one good is the sense of style, world building, and writing. They understand Gon's motive is naiv and the world almost fits to match this reaching to the heaven feel. It's hard to describe but it makes all 'anime fighting tropes' actually work in a very solid and interesting manner.

No Game No Life: This one just has the most definitively cool victorious style and music. It has the best 'reveal' moments of any anime. Sora and Shiro aren't mind gaming for their pride but doing it because they like doing it. And they reflect on it towards their personal values towards humanity that I love.

Code Geass: This is the one I binged through the quickest. There's lots of interesting political dynamics that feels in proper coverage on the whole, that leave things in an interesting grey and characters reactions to it all is for the most part reasonable. A part of me has worried on a few contrived plot armor points, might need a rewatch.

Konosuba: Lots of comedy anime are just bad but this one, despite being on the 'trashier' side of things, I actually feel is very well written and utilizing the cast of characters effectively and in varied ways that always make me laugh out loud. Everyone is exaggerated but the exaggerations make contextual sense given their character, and its enjoyable seeing how those interact.

Re:Zero: It's honestly been a long time since I've thought about this one but I just love how they go through this loop and add different angles to the story, and the despair conveyed is excellent. For some reason though the style doesn't resonate with me as much, it feels too notably like 'an adaptation'.

Serial Experiments Lain: This is a bit of a throw in as I don't think I have particular attachment to it but it stuck out to me at least because of its ideas and some of the mind fuck going on there with whats real and whats not. Some take that to be analogous and predictive of modern internet but I didn't take it so deeply as I like to focus more on the exacts of its theory and world building. But, its still pretty cool.

[strangledeggs]

Not to be the guy who reviews Pitchfork reviews, but...

This Pitchfork review of that Måneskin album is pretty funny - I haven’t listened to it in-depth, but from what I heard of it playing in another room at one point, it sounds pretty bad!

That being said, this following snippet bothers me greatly because of its extreme inattention to history:

The issue is that, about a decade ago, around the dawn of the streaming era, “alternative” as we knew it went extinct. Consuming music on streaming services made music a multiversal event, a mass conversion of listening to everything, everywhere, all at once. Genres became siloed, withering on the outside and thriving on the inside. Måneskin’s “Beggin’” ascending the upper reaches of the Billboard charts was not a cultural reaction to anything, it was just an anomaly. It is content without meaning.

On what authority does the writer claim this? Because almost all of it seems simply false. Let’s break down the claims:

1. “Alternative music” no longer exists as a coherent label.

2. The historical reason behind this former claim is due to the advent of streaming, which meant that people started listening to music outside of the bounds of genres they had previously liked in the past.

3. Måneskin’s success is not a reaction to anything cultural and cannot be compared to the way that the “true, original alternative music” was a reaction to mainstream culture.

All three of these are blatantly untrue and should be obviously so if you 1) lived through the time period the writer notes in the past and 2) are still paying attention to popular tastes. For those who don’t fit those former descriptors, I’ll try and give a brief refutation of the claims here:

1. Alternative music has never really existed as a coherent label! This is because alternative music is a weirdly contextual thing - it is defined by anything that actively pushes against “mainstream” tastes in some way, and that is a dynamic that’s ever-changing. Case in point: at one time, R.E.M. and Nirvana were “alternative” rock because they sounded unlike anything that was played on rock radio at that point and their sounds were different forms of reactions against that mainstream radio-rock; nowadays, Nirvana and R.E.M. are some of the most influential bands of the 90s and there are whole radio stations that play nothing but other bands that sound like those bands. What was once “alternative” is now a part of the mainstream.

This, then, means that there’s no reason why “alternative” music couldn’t continue to exist today - it would just sound entirely different from the alternative music that was around a decade or more ago. And alternative music does continue to exist today; in fact, some of the stuff that existed in the original “alternative” scene never got fully incorporated into the mainstream and is therefore still “alternative” (consider hardcore punk and harsh noise music). Though you might disagree with that if you believe...

2. ...that the advent of streaming caused everyone to start listening to “everything, everywhere, all at once”. As much as I appreciate the movie reference, however, this might be the most dubious claim of the three. I think we can say for a fact that the vast majority of people did not start listening to “every” genre outside the box they would have stayed within before. Have there been more crossover hits? Sure! But Lil Nas X having a country hit with a hybrid hip-hop song does not mean that everyone is now listening to Throbbing Gristle along with their Britney Spears.

Granted, more people are than before streaming. But again, against this claim, I would argue that this has almost nothing to do with streaming itself and more to do with a particular cultural moment in the early 2010s that actually started prior to streaming. This was the moment of “poptimism”, in which vast swarthes of internet critics, fearing their reputations for being “pretentious” and “no fun”, suddenly embraced pop music as a serious art form more intensely than ever before, taking Taylor Swift just as seriously as Nick Cave. There were other factors at work here, no small part of which involved the feminist revival movement, but to go in-depth on this part would require a whole other article (which I will hopefully write someday). Mainly, my point is that the cultural momentum of poptimism did actually mean that certain groups of listeners started broadening their horizons, coincidentally just as streaming was starting to take off. But this is not because of streaming; it was instead due to the cultural zeitgeist, and there was only ever a small minority following that zeitgeist in the face of millions who would still never touch an album by Sonic Youth (even if they own a “Goo” parody T-shirt). Popular tastes, contrary to popular belief, continues to have limits, and you’ll find that you can’t just walk into any party and switch seamlessly from Post Malone to Pere Ubu - though maybe if you’re a post-poptimist music critic who only talks to other music critics, you might get this false impression.

3. I may be putting words in the critic’s mouth here, but their phrasing does imply the existence of a former time where there was “true” alternative music, unlike the “fake” alternative music Måneskin  plays. Ignoring the fact that I already disproved the existence of any coherent, “true” alternative music in my first point, let’s focus on the other part of the claim, that Måneskin’s music “isn’t a reaction to anything”. On one hand, this is kind of true - we should remember that the band got their biggest initial boost through competing in Eurovision, which is probably one of the least counter-cultural things you can do if you’re European. On the other hand, the band’s success speaks to a different kind of cultural reaction - one that stems mainly from their audience, and one that Måneskin is (unfortunately) just smart enough to play into as a marketing tactic.

Why does the Pitchfork reviewer think Måneskin is writing lyrics like those in “Kool Kids”? While it may be true that the band is unlikely to sincerely mean them (and I don’t doubt that for a second), that doesn’t mean that their millions of fans don’t believe in these sentiments. The reviewer seems to be forgetting something important about the relativity of being “alternative” - the fact that there remains a large part of the population that, however “mainstream” their tastes in the genre might be, still identify significantly more with rock as a genre than anything else. My guess is they forgot due to the very assumptions they made about the aforementioned “post-streaming monoculture” we’re supposedly currently living in, but I am fairly confident that it is this very crowd that sees themselves as “alternative” in relation to the non-rock “mainstream” (see: largely any successful music by women or black people of the last couple decades, but that’s another conversation). And from their standpoint, they are correct: in a culture that spent a lot of the last couple decades marginalizing “rock” as an “aging white man’s genre”, if it wasn’t trying to reinvent the genre by ripping apart everything recognizable about it and starting again, this audience’s hunger for more of the same bland stuff does make them “alternative” in a relative way. And Måneskin delivers by catering to that very notion; yes, it’s cold, it’s calculated and it’s far more commercial than any of the fans would probably like to admit, but it’s also exactly the fantasy they want to be sold. And it is a reactionary fantasy, one in which Max Martin and hip-hop never conquered the charts and pop-punk just became the common parlance of the day (actually, there is a sense in which even that is becoming a quasi-reality in itself, but that is once again a topic for another incredibly long essay I hope someday to write).

So you think Måneskin isn’t a “reaction” to anything like punk or grunge were? Aside from their “memeability” (something I haven’t discussed because it’s near-impossible to measure, but is also definitely a factor in their overnight success), I’d say that’s one of the only reasons they’ve reached such a large audience - by providing the safest “alternative” possible to an audience that doesn’t feel like putting in the effort to keep up with the speed of modern pop discourse.

#Music criticism #Pitchfork #Måneskin #Rock #Alternative rock #Streaming

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

Hi BMT! I'm a taekooker. I know it sounds like it's going to be bad, but hear me out.

I started supporting taekook because I couldn't choose a bias in bts. So it was taekook. And then I discovered the actual taekook Fandom and I just? Wow? And like I understand. I get the fantasy where you don't want your idol to end up with a female that's not you. So you ship them together. And I'm a taekooker. But taekookers really have gone too far.

Recently I've been seeing these edits on YouTube. Overanalysing JK's playlist (something about him listening to this gay artist? Means he's gay?) And then the thing with Tae's twitter post just.

So get this, they say that this is definitely proof. Like them supporting the LGBTQ community means they're gay and in love. And I just. I guess I wanted to out it out there? Somehow? The fact that just because they support LGBTQ doesn't mean they're gay.

And at one point, I thought taekook was real cause of all the overanalysing (that was a real low point). But now I just think we're all delusional. Mostly the taekookers.

I mean, what if they're all just normal bros who maybe flirt sometimes. I know, I know. Highly unlikely. BUT maybe. What if. You know? What if we're just seeing things that aren't there?

ALSO ALSO on another note. Yoongi in the recent Run BTS dance video just. Pure freaking art.

Hi there!

It's funny, I know someone who had a similar dilemma when she first discovered BTS. She liked both Tae and Jungkook, but she couldn't pick one and I told her there's no need to choose 😄 No one imposes a limit. But her direction into the fandom was different cause she liked them separately and at some point, the Wooga squad became more interesting. And then she left kpop and moved on to greener pastures. Would I call her a taekooker because those two were her biases? Yes and no. I do think that an affiliation to a ship can be used when someone likes the ship, be it in a friendship/dynamic sense or romantic.

I appreciate you sending me this ask. It was interesting to read about your journey and how you see your two biases. Despite the problematic things taekookers do (including today with the tagging of nsfw art to friends of Tae), they also do engage in the same practices as any other shippers, from the youtube analysis, to the playlist analysis from which they draw conclusions towards the guys' sexual orientation. The methods are all the same, the story and content is different. I see this happening everywhere. I personally like JM and JK, but you can imagine how I rolled my eyes when I saw jikookers saying Jungkook's music must be related to missing Jimin because he was away or in the hospital. It's a reach, specifically when the arguments are based on such little "evidence" that is mostly based on speculation.

The thing that separates shippers are the big narratives they construct, while at the same time they have similarities due to the methods I mentioned above.

Not everything is an evidence for something else, not everything is a sign, not every time they hang out together must be a date, etc., especially when it's not used contextually. I think that's the main problem I see, which you pointed out as well.

Of course the possibility of just seeing things that are not there is quite high, simply because, as fans, we don't have access to their entire life. We only know what they allow us access to know. So, that should be kept in mind.

And on a last note, I think Yoongi biased wrecked everyone this year. I love his glow-up. Not that Yoongi didn't always make victims wanting to either marry him or sue him, but there's something else here. I can't pin point it, but I love it. He's feeling himself, more carefree, more in tune with his fashion style. And that hair 🥵

#bmt asks #taekook #taekook ship #bts ships #bts ships narratives

[signalwatch]

Musical Watch: Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)

the movie that posits: women love being abducted and held against their will

Watched:  02/07/2022

Format:  HBOmax

Viewing:  First (and possibly last)

Director:  Stanley Donen

Holy cats, y'all.

I...  I don't even know where to start.  There's so, so many angles to this thing, so I'll try and capture my thoughts as best I can.  

I want to be very clear - Until this film, I (perhaps wrongly) believed I'm *pretty good* at contextualizing the cultural differences between our social norms and mores and those of yesteryear.  I may even be able to do period-piece stuff made in prior decades, trying to grok what the people of 1954 found charming about frontier life.  

In general, I can see a film and say "yes, I understand that there were ways that we viewed gender/ race/ manners/ religion/ etc..  that no longer reflect how we'd likely feel now" and I can go on with my life.

But.  Y'all.  I am adrift.  

My take-away is that the current interest in this film by classic film buffs is rubber-necking, ironic appreciation, or just outright hate-watching.  Or not!  Classic film buffs are an unruly bunch.  In its release year, this movie was very successful, financially and critically.  So I don't know anything about mankind anymore.

I've now seen the movie, and will only watch it again if it's my opportunity to bring the madness to the people.  

Some thoughts:

This is a movie which endorses kidnapping at best and possibly abduction and rape, depending on your reading of both the film's text and the much referred/ basis of the film to Abduction/ Rape of the Sabine Women - a well known bit of Roman mythology/ history that this movie turns into a jaunty tune to set up all the events of the second half of the film

It's clearly also somewhere between a movie about the powers of Stockholm Syndrome and the successful establishment of a cult

This movie is the future incels want.  It's a movie about men minus women who feel they *deserve* women and take radical action

Every single character in this movie is an absolute moron

This movie needed to end in a body count - there's no other believable finish

The movie is a musical with zero memorable songs except for the one where you're like "Are they.... singing about mass rape?" Johnny Mercer, I believe was responsible, and that seems insane

The main character (Howard Keel) is maybe the greatest asshole to ever grace the screen.  It's breathtaking.  Just a real shitbag from his first line to his last. When he's not insisting himself upon women, he's treating his new wife as domestic help.  And he's the one who thinks "hey, let's just go raid a town and collect its women for our own personal gratification."  He's an absolute psychopath.

The movie has this same lead state "all women are basically the same" and therefore fungible.  The movie never puts the lie to this idea.  So, good news, ladyfolk.  One of you is swappable for the other, really.  It's just a matter of hair color preference. 

There's a dance number that's really pretty rock solid in the middle

Someone tell me what the brothers are farming up there on the sides of mountains.  Somebody.  Anybody.  Rocks?  branches?  

Julie Newmar is in this movie, she's a head taller than all the other women and she clearly complicates every shot she's in.  But she's Julie @#$%ing Newmar, so you keep her in the @#$%ing movie

I cannot imagine the smells in the house of the brothers.  Like - simply can't wrap my head around it

Russ Tamblyn's career is fucking wild, man

Up until watching this movie, I thought it was about the mail-order-bride shenanigans of the 19th century, where, 160 years before 90 Day Fiancee, lonely-hearts on the frontier would correspond to women in the East, and those women would (sometimes) come out and marry them.*  This isn't the plot at all.

Instead, Howard Keel is a mountain man/ rock farmer in 19th Century Oregon (which was semi-settled as an all-White colony at one point, and this movie does not challenge that idea).  He comes down to town once a year to buy goods for his farm, and this time he also wants a wife.  And, after 5 minutes of looking, he finds one in Jane Powell.  Without mentioning he's bringing her to live by herself with his six brothers and basically be the maid.  Who he will pork, I guess.  It's very sophisticated.

Because she has an American can-do spirit, she actually goes along with this instead of getting right back in the wagon and going back.  

Inspired that their brother is now getting laid, the other 6 brothers go to a barn-raising/ hoe-down, dance, and basically harass girls and fight with the locals like the worst hillbillies to ever fall out of a tree.  Convinced they'll not be allowed to court the girls, the brothers then sneak into town, throw the girls in bags and ride off with them (no, really), intentionally blocking themselves into their own farm for winter by causing a deadly avalanche when the parents, siblings and townsfolk try to save the girls.  Who are in bags.

By the way, I have no idea how anyone eats anymore within two months of the girls' arrival, but worrying about "how will people eat if we double the population of our compound?" is not an issue in this movie and because the journey for the girls is to eventually fall in love with their captors is more important, we never learn what the bathroom situation is.  I had a lot of logistical questions.  

After months of assuming their children had been held like a bunch of Kimmy Schmidts for months on end, when the pass clears and the town-folk make their way to the farm, the girls all lie about being pregnant so they can get married to their favorite toothless hillbilly. Because brainwashing or something.  The movie makes no effort to explain that the brothers somehow de-asshole-ify.  We just see them wandering around in colorful shirts.

And, curtain.

People loved this movie.  It has awards.  It did boffo box office.  

I feel like you have to have the mind of a small child who can't conceive of bad things happening to good people to not be mostly horrified by the entire film. 

If anyone can tell me how this isn't a Blumhouse creation, I'd appreciate it.

*it was a profitable scam then and now as women would ask for money and then just stop corresponding when the money quit showing up. 

https://ift.tt/yNJex90

from The Signal Watch https://ift.tt/fSDlPts

[chemicalpink]

You seem knowledgeable about it so 👀

What advice would you give to someone wanting to try BDSM?

You said previously the time you were sugaring was a niche bdsm thing,you don’t have to go in depth, but what was it like ?What are the dangers ?

Ohhhh dear, I don't know if you signed up for a lenghty answer but- I have one.

First off, thank you so much for considering me knowledgeable on the matter, I hope this can help shine some light on the question at hand.

You know how much I love DISCLAIMERS: This answer is by NO MEANS a definite answer to the question, I am simply answering from my very own experience and education in the matter.

OKAY so if someone were to come up to me and say Hey Marinette, I'm thinking about diving into BDSM, any advice?

I would probably tackle a few points.

How well do you consider you know yourself in every matter.

Independently of whether you're diving into the sexy parts of BDSM or not, you must understand yourself wholeheartedly, mentally, physically, emotionally and even spiritually. You must be aware of your limits when it comes to other people and yourself. I would also advise you know your contextual being and environment just to be safer, kinda test out the waters without involving yourself by asking around, how the bdsm community has developed in your area (sometimes you'll come to find that values and goals may differ from what you're looking for)

2. Be of age.

I believe it is a given, but looking back, I would truly advise for you to at least be 21 years old before you decide to venture in the scene. I was 18 when I first started out, and I can tell you it most definitely fucked up the way I relate with other people, as much as we think we are balanced within, being mature or what not, truth is, some things are organic and developmental according to your life experiences, there's no need to rush into things as you'll get to experience things as they're meant to be.

3. Develop a trusty circle of friends.

Unfortunately, bdsm is still regarded as something taboo in most parts, so it might sound a bit difficult to set yourself up with a few friends that know about your practices, just in case anything were to happen, they don't have to be part of the scene, just respect it as such.

Now, I'm probably not the best example out there when it comes to my bdsm experience but it is indeed a learning experience.

I never really dived into the sexy experience of bdsm outside of trusted partners with whom I had an emotional relationship status with, BUT I used to be a findom in the scene across the globe.

As much as I would love to go into much detail, I literally can't BUT hired professional findoms aren't that common so I was on top of my game up until covid hit and I lost most of my income.

I started when I was 18 as a sub with one of my ex-boyfriends, it was- excruciatingly horrible if I'm being honest, when he and I broke up, I started hooking up with men and looking back as to the reasons why they loved being with me, it is absolutely gross and it is one of the reasons as to why I am not that attracted to the smexy side of bdsm. ANYWAYS, when I turned 20 I started being openly queer, I often sub-ed for women and I started dom-ing for men. Things happened, word got around, I started dom-ing for much older men than me, up to the point where at 21 a person I usually sub-ed for suggested I tried out being a findom, so I did, at 22 I "retired" for mental health reasons as I found myself in the middle of a horrible breakup, stuck in a foreign country, potentially being a findom to 5 regular men (and the tax authorities on my ass for the dumbest reason–a story for another occasion)

As for the dangers... well, at the end of the day the scene is all about trust. There is always going to be some sort of power dynamic in between, and although we are aware of it, bdsm is meant to serve as a relief of sorts, we are only responsible for our own actions, so there is always going to be the doubt of will x person be as knowledgeable on the matter as I am? Are they understanding the same bdsm principles as I am? Are we both on the same page? Are our levels of involvement similar to each other? Some people dive into bdsm with their partners as something fun, spicy and whatnot, without really thinking about making the most of it, just as an addition to their already existing relationship and interaction, to some of us, it is more about the psychological aspects that bdsm comes with, to others it's a relief method, so as long as you make sure you're practising it responsibly in equal feet, it should be good.

Unfortunately, being queer is also a danger for the most part, I am not so sure about the differences when it comes to different practices but at least on my part, I was a queer female-presenting person, so there was a lot of forcing femininity from people that I didn't get involved with but knew of and had to interact with, some belittling and things of the sort.

All in all, it might be a bit easier to answer precise questions, but so far, this is all I can recall from my experience.

#get to know marinette #lovely anon