#this is not specifically about george orwell | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hayatheauthor · 6 months

Text

The Writer’s Guide To Creating Animal Companions

Animal companions have played an essential role in countless stories. From loyal dogs to mystical creatures, these furry or feathered friends have added depth to characters and narratives, leaving a lasting impact on readers. As a writer, understanding how to create and utilize animal companions can be a powerful tool in your storytelling arsenal.

So, if you’re looking to create an animal companion for your character, here is my comprehensive guide for everything you need to know when writing animal companions.

Do You Need to Have an Animal Companion?

When deciding whether to include an animal companion in your story, it's essential to consider the narrative and thematic elements at play. The presence of an animal companion can significantly impact the storytelling experience, and it's essential to ensure it aligns with your narrative objectives. Here are some scenarios where having an animal companion can be particularly appropriate:

Enhancing Character Relationships: Animal companions can deepen the connections between characters. For example, in J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" series, Harry's snowy owl, Hedwig, serves not only as a beloved companion but also as a means for Harry to communicate with the wizarding world. Hedwig's presence strengthens Harry's character and relationships.

Symbolism and Metaphor: In literature, animal companions are often used symbolically to represent themes, traits, or personal growth. For instance, in George Orwell's "Animal Farm," the animals on the farm symbolize different aspects of society and politics.

Emotional Support: Animal companions can provide emotional support and serve as a source of comfort for characters, particularly in challenging or lonely situations. Think of Samwise Gamgee's unwavering devotion to Frodo in J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings."

Plot Advancement: Animal companions can become instrumental in advancing the plot, offering unique abilities, perspectives, or assistance that the human characters lack. Consider the role of Toto in L. Frank Baum's "The Wizard of Oz," who often aids Dorothy on her journey.

Thematic Consistency: In some stories, the inclusion of animal companions is necessary for thematic consistency. If your narrative explores themes related to the environment, animal rights, or the bond between humans and nature, animal companions can be integral to reinforcing those themes.

By integrating an animal companion that aligns with your narrative and thematic objectives, you can create a more engaging and immersive reading experience for your audience. Keep these considerations in mind when making your decision.

Choosing the Right Animal

Once you've established the narrative and thematic reasoning for including an animal companion, the next step is to select the right creature to fulfill that role. Here are some factors to consider when choosing your animal companion:

Relevance to the Story: The chosen animal should have a direct or symbolic relevance to the story. Consider how the animal's traits, behaviors, or symbolism align with the narrative purpose. For example, a story centered on the theme of freedom might feature a soaring eagle as an animal companion.

Character Compatibility: The animal companion should complement or contrast with the character it accompanies. Think about how the animal's personality or abilities can enhance or challenge the character's journey. A timid character might be paired with a bold and protective animal, creating an interesting dynamic.

Unique Qualities: Select an animal with distinctive qualities that set it apart from generic pets. It could be an uncommon species, a creature with magical abilities, or a hybrid of animals. These unique qualities can add depth and intrigue to your story.

Practicality: Think about the practical role the animal companion will play in the story. If your narrative requires the animal to perform specific tasks, ensure that the chosen creature is suited for those roles. For instance, a hunting dog might be essential in a survival adventure.

Symbolic Significance: The animal companion's symbolism can be a driving force in the story. Consider how the animal represents themes, emotions, or concepts important to the narrative. A black cat might symbolize mystery and superstition in a story set in a quaint village.

Emotional Connection: As an author, aim to create an emotional connection between readers and the animal companion. Whether through endearing quirks, heartwarming moments, or shared challenges, the bond between the character and their animal should evoke feelings in the audience.

Research: Invest time in researching the chosen animal, understanding its behaviors, needs, and characteristics. Accurate portrayal of the animal can enhance your story's realism and resonance. Whether it's a fierce predator or a gentle pet, knowing your animal inside out is essential.

Cultural and Mythological Significance: Some animals carry cultural or mythological significance that can add depth to your narrative. Explore how certain animals are perceived in different cultures and mythologies and consider weaving these interpretations into your story.

Choosing the right animal companion is a critical decision that can greatly impact your narrative. By considering these factors, you can ensure that the animal complements your characters and story, enriching the overall experience for both your characters and readers.

Portraying and Developing Your Animal Companion

Once you've selected the ideal animal companion for your story, it's essential to portray and develop them effectively. Your readers should connect with the animal on a personal level and feel invested in their journey. Here are some key aspects to consider:

Character Development: Treat your animal companion as a fully developed character. Just like any human character, the animal should have a backstory, quirks, motivations, and a character arc. Whether it's a loyal friend, a protector, or a guide, their growth and transformation should be evident throughout the narrative.

Show Their Personality: Give your animal companion a distinct personality. Think about their likes, dislikes, fears, and preferences. Are they mischievous, stoic, or curious? The animal's personality traits should shine through their actions and interactions with other characters.

Dialogue and Communication: While animal companions may not speak human languages, they can still communicate. Use non-verbal cues, body language, and noises to convey their thoughts and emotions. An attentive reader will pick up on these cues to understand what the animal is trying to express.

Bond with the Protagonist: Highlight the unique bond between the animal companion and your main character. This connection should be palpable, with mutual trust, loyalty, and emotional support. Readers should feel the strength of this relationship, making them emotionally invested in the animal's welfare.

Purpose and Impact: Ensure that the animal companion has a clear purpose within the story. Their presence should contribute to the plot's development, whether by assisting the protagonist, creating conflict, or acting as a symbolic element. Avoid including the animal just for the sake of it; they should serve a meaningful role.

Growth and Challenges: Like any character, the animal companion should face challenges and obstacles. These experiences can lead to character growth and development. Whether it's overcoming fears, learning new skills, or deepening their connection with the protagonist, their journey should be dynamic.

Readers' Emotional Connection: Use your animal companion to evoke emotions in your readers. Their well-being or safety can become a source of tension and concern for the audience. Whether it's a heartwarming moment, a daring rescue, or a bittersweet farewell, these emotional elements can leave a lasting impact.

Realism and Consistency: Ensure that the portrayal of your animal companion is consistent with their species and behavior. Be mindful of realistic attributes and instincts. It's crucial to balance anthropomorphism (attributing human characteristics to animals) with authenticity.

Symbolism and Themes: Leverage the animal companion to reinforce themes or symbolism in your narrative. Consider how their actions and characteristics align with the broader messages of your story. This adds depth and layers to the storytelling.

By developing your animal companion as a fully fleshed-out character and maintaining consistency in their portrayal, you can create a powerful and engaging narrative. Readers should find themselves emotionally invested in the fate and experiences of your animal companion.

Challenges and Common Pitfalls in Writing Animal Companions

While animal companions can enhance your storytelling, they also come with potential challenges and common mistakes. It's important to be aware of these pitfalls to ensure your animal companion is a valuable addition to your narrative. Here are some common issues to watch out for:

Stereotypes and Clichés: One common pitfall is relying on stereotypes or clichés when developing animal companions. Avoid making them overly predictable, such as portraying all dogs as loyal and all cats as aloof. Instead, give your animal companion unique traits and behaviors that break free from these molds.

Lack of Individuality: Failing to give your animal companion a distinct personality can lead to them feeling one-dimensional. Each animal, even within the same species, should have its own quirks and characteristics. Make them memorable and unique.

Inconsistent Behavior: Maintaining consistency in your animal companion's behavior is crucial. Avoid having them act unpredictably or against their natural instincts. Any sudden changes in behavior should be justified within the story.

Overemphasizing Anthropomorphism: While anthropomorphism can be used to convey the animal's emotions and intentions, overdoing it can make the character seem unrealistic. Strive for a balance between human-like qualities and authentic animal behavior.

Underdeveloped Bond: Failing to establish a strong bond between your protagonist and their animal companion can undermine the emotional impact of their relationship. The connection should be evident through interactions, trust, and mutual understanding.

Neglecting Character Growth: Just like human characters, animal companions should experience growth and development throughout the story. Neglecting their character arc can lead to missed opportunities for emotional depth.

Unexplained Abilities: If your animal companion possesses unique abilities or characteristics beyond their species norm, provide a plausible explanation within the narrative. Readers appreciate when these traits are justified and integrated into the story's world-building.

Neglecting Consequences: Consider the consequences of your animal companion's presence in the story. Their actions should impact the plot and other characters. Failure to address these consequences can lead to plot holes.

Ineffective Use: Don't introduce an animal companion if they serve no significant purpose in the story. Every character, including animals, should contribute to the narrative's development.

Sacrificial Companions: While dramatic and emotional, the trope of the sacrificial animal companion should be used sparingly and meaningfully. Overusing it can become predictable and lose its impact.

Avoiding these common pitfalls and challenges ensures that your animal companion remains a compelling and integral part of your narrative. By giving them depth, individuality, and a meaningful role, you can create a character that resonates with your readers.

I hope this blog on The Writer’s Guide To Creating Animal Companions will help you in your writing journey. Be sure to comment any tips of your own to help your fellow authors prosper, and follow my blog for new blog updates every Monday and Thursday.

Looking For More Writing Tips And Tricks?

Are you an author looking for writing tips and tricks to better your manuscript? Or do you want to learn about how to get a literary agent, get published and properly market your book? Consider checking out the rest of Haya’s book blog where I post writing and publishing tips for authors every Monday and Thursday! And don’t forget to head over to my TikTok and Instagram profiles @hayatheauthor to learn more about my WIP and writing journey!

121 notes · View notes

mangatxt · 10 months

Note

any advice on how to improve writing style/get ideas for fics and dialogue? i’m forever in love with the way you write. it flows well, and the dialogue is super authentic and funny. i’m trying to get back into writing after a couple years of being crushed by the american secondary education system, so any tips would be much appreciated.

keep it up with the good work! i look forward to continue reading :))

Holy moly, this is a super kind ask. I'm so happy to know that you enjoy my work. Thank you for sending this!

As for the meat of this ask -- I'll do my best! I'll offer some reflections and then link some resources I've personally found helpful! I apologize for the length of this answer. This ask gave me a lot to think about, and brevity is my weakness as a writer.

I answer this with a few caveats:

I'm not an expert. I'm just loud.

I teach writing for a living, but I don't teach creative writing specifically. I do, by nature of my job, have more time for reading and writing than I did as a full-time student or corporate employee. That alone makes a huge difference. Everyone goes at their own pace, and it's hard to be creative without time, especially when you're starting out or getting back into writing after a break.

I write humor, so I'll discuss that primarily. While writing has rules that generally yield better results, comedy works often because it violates those established rules. Like many writing teachers, I have fully internalized the touted "canon" of Strunk & White's Elements of Style and George Orwell's Remedy of Six Rules. But sometimes, adverbs are funny. So I'll write an adverb, say "fuck you George Orwell," and, scandalously, call it a day.

If you want to deconstruct and consequently ruin comedy forever, start with Theories of Humor and then, to extend your suffering, hit the footnotes.

Humor writing is culturally dependent. You won't make everyone laugh. You'll flop. You'll embarrass yourself. You have to be willing to risk being unfunny. So it goes.

You can always publish anonymously on AO3 if it helps you start. Or for any reason. You can change your mind and claim it back to your account. Or you can abandon it entirely. I've done it plenty. Sometimes, it's what you need to do to draw up the nerve to put yourself out there, and that's completely fine.

Reflections

My first personal rule is that I write stories for myself, fic or original. If someone else likes it, that's a bonus. I write what I want to read. That factors into my overall writing style too. I write how I'd want someone else to write it for me. Even if someone's written it before, which is often the case with fic writing and popular tropes, I might want to hear it in another way. See: The Two Cakes Principle.

My second personal rule is that I write something every day. Even if it's a little bit. Even if it's all trash. Anything's better than nothing. Write without editing. Write without your spell checker on, even. (As they say "write drunk, edit sober" -- I don't drink much, so for me that means "write at 3AM, edit at not 3AM"). The more you play around with words and practice your voice, the easier it will get. Part of this is honing the muscle or whatever, but part of this is also gaining familiarity with structure that will make writing forever easier. How do journalists crank out stories everyday? There's a structure to newspaper and magazine articles that makes it easier to plug in the words and go. You'll find your own in creative writing too. Plus, the more you write, the easier it is to let go of things (aka kill your darlings). (Killed darlings go in your bits folder.)

My third personal rule is that I write every idea down, no matter how vague or ridiculous, because I might be able to use it later. I never want to lose things. I use my phone notes for this. They're full of silly ideas -- funny things I overhead at the library, out-of-context conversations I imagine Reigen and Dimple having, Wikipedia articles that I liked, funny plot concepts, etc. The other day, I wrote down, "The gang carbon-dates Dimple." I dunno where I'm going with that, but I like the idea. I write a lot of my plot ideas in IASIP title card style. It's more fun that way. Always prioritize having fun.

One last personal rule is that the mechanical act of writing has a purpose. You're rarely writing for the purpose of writing well, right? Most of the time, in class or at work, I'm writing for the purpose of being understood by my audience, and therefore, I do whatever I must to make my message better understood, even at the expense of "good writing." Here's a silly example: I've learned the hard way that some of my co-workers can't fucking read. So instead of paragraphs, I write emails in bullet points with bold and underlined text. At the expense of prose, the message is more likely received, and that's the goal.

This example might be on the nose, but it applies in some way to everything I write. When I write fic, I have to have a purpose. Maybe I'm trying to make myself laugh. Maybe I'm trying to explore some theme or feeling. Maybe I'm trying to correct canon. Maybe I'm trying to speculate how the conman will handle a Situation. Whatever that end is, I find the writing comes easier when I focus on the end more than the process of writing. It helps me stay focused, when I remember that writing's just the tool. I hope that makes sense.

Developing a writing style or a narrative voice depends on the writer. I'm an amalgamation of what I've read and watched and enjoyed, combined with formal writing education and my own personal narration. I hate to be the person who says "read a lot to write more!" I hate it so so so much, but...it's true. (That said, it doesn't have to be the classics. I get inspiration from there, sure, but I also get inspiration from sitcoms and crossword clues and the inane HOA emails my landlord forwards to me. "Honored neighbors, we are ecstatic to announce fire alarm testing next week..." Like, I'm sorry? That's a work of art I've filed away for later.)

For fics, some of the way I write is homage to the original creator. I consider this a plus, not a requirement. ONE writes satire. He's foremost a humorist. Most of his works are genre deconstructions. Like most shonen mangaka, he writes shorter narrative arcs that sum to (or in his case, reflect across) the overall narrative arc of the work. He's also pretty cringe/over-the-top with wordplay and cultural references (pop and traditional). When I try to reflect elements of his style in my own work, I find his characters easier to work with. For me, it's hard to write something fully comedic or fully serious with MP100 characters. The alternation between comedy and tragedy in MP100 works because it plays on emotional investment in the characters and subversion of expectations.

That said, I'm going to have to add something controversial: as a fic writer, how much you adhere to the original work doesn't fucking matter. (See my first rule -- write what you want to read.) Fic writing is meant to be transformative. The amount that you should care about canon depends on what you're trying to accomplish. My advice is to play fast and loose as much as you want. Unfollow and block the "he wouldn't fucking say that" people if it helps you write. I do, because they're annoying. Characterization is a product of audience internalization. Further, every work is for someone. Most importantly, you're doing this for fun, not pay or obligation. Sure, maybe ONE wouldn't write Reigen saying a particular line, but ONE also writes homophobic stereotypes into his works. No matter what you do, by definition of writing a fan work, you're gonna stray from canon. It's not holy word. Don't waste your finite man hours stressed about it.

Moving on to discussion of "get ideas" -- I mentioned I write every idea down. I try to stick with ideas I know fairly well off the bat, because it's easiest to write what you know. In absence of that, I find more inspiration in the research into an idea. Much of the action in TPC was heavily inspired by George Santos's many misdeeds, which I read in the news or on Wikipedia.

If I can distill the idea into a premise, it informs my narrative voice in a given work. Write what you know applies to premise as much as character perspective. You're always going to have an easier time writing a character you relate to or you encounter in real life and know quite well. You might consider this to get started. Personally, I find Reigen and Mezato easiest to write, because I relate to them the most. I find Serizawa and Shigeo more difficult to write, because I have more trouble relating to their life experiences. On the other hand, I find Roshuuto easy to write, because his brand of villainy is more familiar to me.

There's this notion of plotting vs pantsing. A plotter outlines every facet of their work before doing any writing. A pantser makes it up as they go (read: "by the seat of their pants"). Figuring out which one you are will enable you to write more comfortably.

Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. For MP100, I always know where a work will end when I start. In TPC, the second scene I ever wrote was the epilogue. For me, the middle is what's more up in the air. In my experience, it's very difficult to be a total pantser and write comedic multi-chapter works, unless you write the whole thing before you post. It's not impossible, but in my opinion, humor relies on callbacks and repetition so much that you risk writing yourself into a wall if you're not careful. In general, I don't start formally "fic writing" without an overarching premise, but the premise might be as simple as: "Against everyone's better judgment, Reigen runs for union president. It blows up in his face."

This was my original outline for TPC before I even wrote chapter one:

I had the overarching narrative and the rough timeline for the mini-arcs in mind when I started. A lot of it ended up changing or shifting. I had a few themes I wanted to cover and comedic elements I wanted to set up. But when it came down to more specific mini-arc narrative details, I either plotted later or got away with pantsing it entirely.

Sometimes as I write chapters, I get stuck on individual scenes. Maybe I'm struggling to write scenery, or I haven't figured out a character interaction, or the dialogue isn't flowing the way I'd like. To deal with that, I have trained myself to write out of narrative order as needed. I write the scenes I'm most excited about first, and then I come back and fill in the rest of the connective tissue. This is easier in Scrivener, which is what I use to write, but you can set up any word processor to do this. Even within scenes, I sometimes skip parts that I need to think about for longer. Sometimes, I don't even finish sentences.

I'll write something like:

"Apparently you're quite popular on a particular Mobbit sub," he tells Reigen. Reigen's not sure he wants to know which one. "It was r/<SOMETHING FUNNY>. Did you know they hit a million subscribers this week? I think you helped."

And then in the middle of the night or in the shower or at the grocery store or whenever I think of "<SOMETHING FUNNY>", I fill it in later. When I edit, I make sure I clear out any remaining "<>." I do what I can, and then Future Ani does the rest. *handshake emoji*

For comedy writing, there are rules I follow that I'll link later on. While I've been inspired by a lot of other humor novelists or essayists, I also take a lot of inspiration from TV and standup.

I took a screenwriting class in college -- and while I didn't get the knack of screenwriting (B-, unlucky), I did learn a lot about plot progression, dramatic irony, show-not-tell, rule of threes, and scene setting. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but I found it helpful. You can see some of that inspiration manifest, for example, in that many of my fics have cold opens. I've always liked that comedic structure for drawing in the reader while establishing an overarching theme for the chapter. I do a lot of scene-switching and flashbacks as well. Scene-setting in comedy often involves juxtaposition -- e.g. "what if we put the weirdest loner from 7th division in a highly-collaborative corporate setting?". You're subverting expectations, and this is where you break the rules. Sometimes, comedy is about using the funniest word or word combination possible to describe something.

On that note, take some tips from poetry too. Alliteration, repetition, synecdoche, a lot of poetic devices work well here, because, like poetry, comedy writing depends on build-up and timing. Rules are best broken when it's rare and unexpected. It's way funnier and impactful when a character who never swears drops an f-bomb when they've finally had enough. Here's another example: in general, you should avoid epithets in fic writing, but it's all about being judicious with your timing. I can call Reigen "the union's esteemed president" instead of his name in a scene in Executive Privilege, because I juxtapose it with him doing something less-than-esteemed.

Perhaps less obviously, the TV influence manifests in the way I write dialogue too -- shorter and generally interleaved between the characters. While I read everything I write out loud during editing to check flow, I especially focus on tightening up dialogue. I don't always get it right, but I try to make sure that every word in a piece of dialogue has to have a purpose: either characterization or timing, in that order. Serizawa uses a lot of "I think" or "In my opinion." Reigen...does not do that. And Dimple is a master of the last word in the form of a pithy quip. If I plan my scenes to use that characterization to support the comedic timing I'm shooting for, it works all the better. (e.g. -- let Reigen babble on like an expert about something he doesn't actually know anything about, let Serizawa think on it for a while and come to a conclusion that puts Reigen on the spot, let Reigen backtrack, and then let Dimple add his jab at the end. And scene.)

Aaand that's a lot of reflection. Probably too much reflection. These are some considerations that have helped me over time, so I hope others might find it helpful too. Getting started is tough, and it's often terrifying to put your work out there (and somehow, even more terrifying to put a GDoc in front of a beta reader, I haven't a clue why but it's true for me!). But once you start, I promise it gets easier! You'll build yourself a foundation and continue to pick up things you like, discard things you don't like, and grow from there.

Thanks again for sending this ask. It means a lot to me. Happy to continue the conversation and field other people's thoughts on any of this! Like I said, this is a reflection on my process, but everyone develops their own unique approach to writing over time. Mine changes over time too. Above all, I hope you can heal from the crush of the education system, find enjoyment in writing again, and discover the style and process that works for you <3

Resources (AKA things I personally have bookmarked):

general writing (in addition to Strunk&White, Orwell, and others mentioned earlier):

how to get out of a writing slump (this fixed me once)

masterlist of general writing resources

another big ass masterlist

resources for describing places

masterlist of facial expressions

how to write an inciting incident

i found this recently: cultural differences writing work set in japan

i also follow writing prompt blogs, nanowrimo, character and relationship week blogs, etc. prompts can be a great way to start and build community with other writers!

comedic writing:

basic tips on writing humor

comedic devices

comedic genre

i can't find the link for this BUT: humor and comedy is not inherently less complex or wise or valuable than non-comedic work. writing is writing and fics are fics, whether they make the reader laugh, cry, or both.

#ask #mp100 #writing #writing resources #m0bloo #comedy writing #fic writing #sorry i went nuts but this really made me think and i appreciate that #and if you ever want a reader or a cheerleader feel free to reach out #testimonials #fic updates

94 notes · View notes

obrother1976 · 6 months

Note

hii would you have any book recs similar to the carnivorous lamb? just finished it recently and i literally cannot stop thinking about it......

wish i could rec u something that will hit as hard as carnivorous lamb does. but i cant. nothing can compare (in my opinion) but i can rec u some books depending on what u liked best/what u enjoyed in carnivorous lamb:

incest:

gemini by michel tournier - hard to get into but very worth it

house of incest by anais nin - short but so good u'll tear your hair out afterwards

ada or ardor: a family chronicle by vladimir nabokov - cant believe nabokov invented real love w this one

catholicism:

the sparrow by mary doria russell - book of all time & although i obv wouldn't call it a catholic book, i still think someone that liked carnivorous lamb would love this.

concerning the eccentricities of cardinal pirelli by ronald firbank - currently reading this & dont yet fully know what to make of it but its definitely interesting enough to check out.

fascism:

(bit of a disclaimer: none of these are specifically about spanish fascism. sorry. if you're really interested in the franco regime u could read george orwell's "homage to catalonia" but other than that i got nothing for u there)

fear and misery in the third reich by bertholt brecht & the resistable rise of arturo ui (also by brecht) - this is me pushing my brecht agenda (even tho these r plays and not technically books). love brecht's depictions of fascism though, esp in fear and misery

on the frontier: a melodrama in three acts by isherwood & auden - another play

death in venice by thomas mann - alright so this one's a bit tricky. its not technically about fascism (it was written in 1912) but i've seen a number of academic essays that make a case for reading it that way -> the degeneration of europe into fascism. in any case, great book, great prose and although its not actually incestuous, it v obviously plays with the theme of incest

fathers:

incest: from a "journal of love": the unexpurgated diary of anais nin - a classic.

winter of artifice by anais nin - no one got it quite like she did

mathilda by mary shelley - anon, listen to this: "I copied his last letter and read it again and again. Sometimes it made me weep; and at other [times] I repeated with transport those words,—"One day I may claim her at your hands." I was to be his consoler, his companion in after years."

dreams of clytemnestra by dacia maraini - a play again. but trust me on this one, it'll drive u insane.

mothers:

milk fed by melissa broder - actually havent read this one but my (redacted) loves it and it does sound rlly interesting (also i dont know any other books specifically about mothers... sad.)

#(redacted) -> bc im not saying the word situationship in a serious tumblr post lmao #also anon look into the comments. some v good recs there #anon we're suffering from the same carnivorous lamb induced disease. theres a reason y i've read it three times.#i'll come back to this if i find more books #also anon. listen to chapel. married in mount airy. and heart shaped bed by nicole dollanganger. trust me #ask

43 notes · View notes

pinkeoni · 11 months

Note

do u realize that st is anti-communist lol

I bet you also think Animal Farm is an anti-communist novel.

Okay, maybe I am giving the show too much credit. This is the same show that just announced their new board game and has already been merchandised to hell and back already. The Duffers are no George Orwell.

But still, there is a difference between what is in the text of the show and how their network chooses to market it.

I can understand where an audience member may see ST as anti-communist, considering that the characters themselves, the heroes of the story that we are meant to root for, are anti-communist. Which makes sense! These are characters living in America during the Cold War with the Soviets. The entirety of the Scoops Troop and Jopper plotlines in season 3 are about bringing down the “evil commies” and Hopper spends most of his time in season 4 being tortured in a Russian prison.

But here’s the thing that most anons seem to be doing, which is conflating the Soviet Union with communism. Saying that Will Byers would be a communist =/= saying that Will Byers would support the Soviet Union. And okay, I may have made that edit of Will in an ushanka, which I did only because editing fictional characters in ushankas is funny. Here it is again:

Let's bring it back to what I mentioned in the very beginning, which is George Orwell's Animal Farm, but specifically the last scene of that novel. The farm animals have successfully led the revolt against the humans, and yet the state of the farm is as bad as it was before, and the pigs are sitting at the table indistinguishable from the humans that they rebelled against in the first place.

Because Orwell's novel isn't saying "communism bad," but rather, the political leaders of the Soviet Union had gone against the original principles they were fighting for.

So the show is definitely anti-soviet, which doesn't equate to anti-communist. To be fair, there isn't much in the show that is expressly pro-communist, but the show isn't really pro-capitalist either. In fact, the show isn't even really that pro-American.

I feel like the ideology of the Cold War was very us versus them, or you're either with us or your against. You are either a red blooded American who is a proud capitalist and uphold the beliefs of your country, or you are a soviet communist pig. But as Papa would say—

The best season to express this is season 3. Season 3 introduces Starcourt Mall— the pinnacle of American consumerism. We learn that the mall has actually been actively hurting the town, causing many local businesses to go belly-up because they just can't compete.

But we also learn that Larry Kline, the mayor of Hawkins, was actually colluding with the Russians the whole time and the mall was a big front for the Russians to conduct their experiments. The point that the show was trying to make is that the same patriotic "All American" man who held a Fourth of July celebration for the town is on the same side as the "Evil Communist Russians."

Let us not forget that this is the same show that said that American government agents were "bad men," and actively used the Reagan/Bush campaign as a symbol of danger. Maybe ST is not the flagship communist show, but it isn't the flagship pro-American capitalist show either.

tagging @aemiron-main since you expressed interest on my poll

Side bar! Did you know that during the Second Red Scare, queer people were labeled as communists and prosecuted, because their lifestyles were considered inherently anti-American, and a security risk to the country? True story!

#anon #asks #communist!will #stranger things #i was debating deleting this draft because my friend told me that its not worth the energy to respond to these asks #and hes right #but ppl wanted to see the communism analysis so #also the ideology of the characters =/= the ideology of the show #I don't know if any character would be expressly interested in communism except for our russian pals (and maybe jonathan unironically)#but that doesn't necessarily that that is what the show is going for #of course these characters are patriotic because they live in the midwest america during the cold war #anyways communist byers ftw

64 notes · View notes

mask131 · 4 months

Text

I have been seeing a lot of people recently on Tumblr go 0_o upon the wave of antisemitism that is flooding Europe, the USA and the Internet recently. The reason they are shocked by this, however, is not because of the antisemitism itself... But because they see it comes from "the left". And this turns out to be a shock for them, because they have a hard time understanding how people on the "left-wing" of the political spectrum could end up being VERY antisemitic, as antisemitism was - even before the Nazi party was created - typically associated to the extreme-right and to the right-wing part of the political spectrum.

Except that... when you have been paying attentions to little details and some history lessons, it comes to no surprise at all. The extreme-left (because we have to say things as they are, the current wave of antisemitism is partially born from the extreme-left) is basically the twin of the extreme-right. And I am not just speaking of the fact antisemitism exists as a principle beyond any political party and any religion (antisemitism has been carried on throughout History by the left, the right, by apolitics, by Christians, by Muslims, by basically everyone that is not Jewish).

There was a French comedy movie that is talked about a lot - because it is a movie that never got to be made. It is a movie called "Le Crocodile", "The Crocodile". One of the reasons this unmade movie is so famous is because it was planned to be the "final" movie of Louis de Funès, considered to this day one of the greatest French actors and a monument of French humor. Louis de Funès' archetypal character, his "type-casting", was as a greedy, tyrannical, wrathful and petty, but ultimately ridiculous and sympathetic, middle-management type of guy, an ambitious, vain and cowardly person in a position of power that abused of it, but ultimately ended up either humbled by the story/events/other characters, or had his good side come out in the end. He was an antisemitic factory owner who ended up learning how to love and appreciate the Jewish community ; he was a tyrannical maestro who ended up forced to work for the Resistance during World War II ; he was a scheming, pollution-endorsing mayor who ended up forced to abandon everything because he was bested by his wife ; he was an abusive and criminal minister that kept knowing disgrace after disgrace, and ended up doing heroic deeds but just because the villains of the story were preventing him from doing his own political conspiracy... And "Le Crocodile" was supposed to be the culmination of these specific roles, as de Funès was to play a dictator losing his power during a revolution.

Inspired by Charlie Chaplin's own take on dictatorship, this movie was supposed to depict Louis de Funès as a Pinochet-caricature, "Crochet", an extreme-right dictator in an imaginary country. After a series of adventures, the dictator ended up overthrown by a rival and sent to prison. But his cunning and scheming knowing no bounds, he ended up going back to power... by shifting to the left-wing of the political spectrum, joining with left-oriented political activist, overthrowing his replacement, destroying his own old extreme-right government, to replace it by a new, left-revolutionnary government... That quickly became an extreme-left dictatorship led, once again by Crochet. And this was supposed to be the final, bitter joke of the movie: the beginning and ending of the story were supposed to be identical, because despite the political goals and vocabulary having changed, the dictatorship Crochet had rebuilt in the extreme-left was in all identical to his extreme-right dictatorship.

The movie was never made, unfortunately, due to Louis de Funès passing before shooting could begin. But the same message can be found in the classics of a fiction genre that is much more well-known by English audience: dystopia. What defined the "classical" dystopias, born during the height of the Cold War? From George Orwell's "1984" to Harlan Ellison "I have no mouth and I must scream", there is always this recurring motif of "You had various super-powers with opposing ideologies that waged war against each other... and yet now, we can't actually distinguish these opposite powers from one another, because they are doing the exact same thing and their ideologies end up reaching the same goals and the same points." This was a reaction to the dead-end of the Cold War, where the extremes of the Americanized, capitalist, "Western" block and of the Sovietized, communist "Eastern" block matched each other, resulting in the two looking identical in the eyes of many countries and people stuck in the middle of the two... But the lesson can be applied to any other situation, because it contains one core, fundamental truth people seem to have forgotten about today. Any extreme is bad ; and any good thing, taken to an extreme, will be horrible.

Take Christianity! A religion built on love and peace, and giving your food to the poor and offering the other cheek when you are slapped and forgiving those that betray you... And we ended up with the fucking Inquisition, and the witch hunts, and the religious wars, and many more atrocities, all in the name of "love and peace".

I digress here but honestly I want to get all of this out while I can, so that I have no more to say.

So yes, the "left" as people learned to know it today is based on good principles. (I personally hate reducing things to the "left" or the "right" when it comes to social matter, because for example defending people's right to have their own sexual orientation respected and recognized is not a political question, it is a human question... But since Tumblr users are still in shock unable to understand why the "left could be bad", and since we are facing extreme-left movements, I'll stick to this binary system for now). Yes, the left is the "side of the people" that works on helping the masses against the elite ; yes the left is the side of the "minorities" against "oppresors", yes the left has fought for excellent and needed things like feminism and acceptance and anti-racism... All good principles. And all principles that are turned into tools of hatred and oppression by the extreme-left.

I don't think I need to explain why the extreme-right is bad - in general people on Tumblr are very aware of it, and history has proven us what happens when the extreme-right rises up. Racism, discrimination, xenophobia, homophobia, religious fanaticism... All things typical of the extreme-right, no need to go further. But a lot of people seem to have a hard time wrapping their head around the system and the processes that lead to the "left" becoming the "extreme-left", and why the extreme-left can end up mirroring the extreme-right.

But the answer is very simple. It is this logic as old as time of "reverse bullying". When the bullied decided to take their revenge on the bully by bullying it in return, the bullied becomes the bully, and it does not solve anything since it just reverses the situation. Or more generally speaking: when the defense, love and acceptance of a minority/victim/side becomes hatred and rejection of the majority/bully/other side, there is an open gateway for BAD things. And the wave of antisemitism currently going on is a perfect representation of that.

I personally strongly disliked the extreme-left long before the whole Hamas-Israel situation. I hated the extreme-left because, especially in France, the extreme-left had the worst possible thing when it came to anti-intellectualism. Extreme-left politicians and activists have explicitely spoken against or attacked things such as higher education or any kind of school beyond high school, as well as things such as classical literature or old books. There is this "populist" idea behind the extreme-left, that, as "men/women of the people", as the "voice of the masses", they need to opposite, shit on and destroy anything seen or deemed as an "elite". But the "elite" isn't just your old rich white guy, oh no! The elite also means stuff seen as the intellectual elite. For example, classics of literature. Authors of older generations. And if you wonder how bad it can be: when during the last presidential elections the candidate for the extreme-left was not elected, its young supporters went to the university of the Sorbonne and trashed it. They destroyed computers, destroyed rare books within the university's library, they destroyed the papers and works of the students and teachers in there... Because they were angry at their candidate not being elected. And an university as old and as famous as the Sorbonne, THE French university, was thus seen as the "enemy" and as a symbol of what opposed the access of their candidate to the presidential position. And the result was... destroying books. Yes, bookburners can be as much from the right as from the left. Quite literaly some times.

There was this very hilarious but very very sad thing that happened in French Canada some years ago... There was this group of Canadians (white and Christians if I recall well) that wanted to show an open support and public excuses for how the Catholic Church, how the Canadian government and how white settlers treated the people of the First Nations and the discrimination they had to face. Nice, isn't it? The intention is good, public manifestations recognizing this dark side of the history is good, doing events to move forward is good, right? Except... we are talking about French-Canadians here. French-Canadian-Christians, who are... really something. So what did they do, to show their support to the First Nations? Give back some of their land? Remove some of the horrible laws against them? Recognize them more rights? NO! THEY BURNED BOOKS! Sounds like a joke? It is not. To show their support, what they did was take various comic-books and children books from the early-to-mid 20th century with representations of Native-Americans considered "offensive", and they burned them in a great bonfire. They literaly did... book-burning. To fight colonization and racism. A perfect example of how fucked up and warped it can all be.

This incident above is just one of the many incidents that I have collected across the years and that illustrated what I called the "bad woke". Now... when designating those ridiculous and dangerous excesses, I hate to just say "woke". Because the root of the "woke" ideas are good! Good and positive things: defend trans-people, defend gay people, encourage diversity and body-positivity and fight against racism and religious discrimination. These things are good! And too many people who are just homophobic, transphobic, racist or any other of fucked up jerk use "woke" as an insult and as a derogatory term for just being a normal uman being. So I do not like using "woke" alone to designate the fucked-up extremes the polar opposite side can ledn itself to. But... I have to recognize that there is a bad, extreme and toxic form of "wokeness", and until I can find a better term to designate this phenomenon, I will use the term "bad woke". And the process, the thought-system, the workings of the "bad woke" are the exact sames behind the extreme-left, and the sames that led to this wave of antisemitism drowning the Internet.

I evoked an incident that took place in France again years ago, which was more of an unthought, stupid mistake than an actual malicious intent, but showed how a slight twist can turn "good" from "bad". A "safe place" had been created somewhere, for women and trans people to be able to gather without any presence of men or non-trans people. So far so good, but the twist of the story is that when creating this space the rules for it were too summarized and too-shortened up, and so the creators of the space said this and plastered this on the walls: "Only women and trans people allowed. No men allowed." Do you see the logical problem? What about trans men? Trans men literaly didn't know what to do, since "trans" people were accepted and this space was built for them... and yet "men" as a whole were forbidden. Meaning if a trans man entered the space, they had to somehow not be recognized as a man, but as rather something closer to a woman?

This truly was just a stupid mistake by people who had not thought about it - but it actually shows the process by which defending one minority or an oppressed group can end up harming or hunting another minority/oppressed group. We are all aware of what happened when feminists and the feminism fight to defend women or provide them equal rights, ended up drifting into transphobia and hate on trans women for not being "real women". It is all a messy bag of snakes.

And so, what is the link to the antisemitism today? What does all this proves when it comes to the extreme-left and the Jews? Well, easy.

Why is the extreme-left antisemitic? Because one of the core of the extreme-left is, as I said, to fight against the "elite". Be it a social, cultural, ethnic or political elite, the "left" defined itself mostly as "the mass against the elite, the many against the few". This is mixed with the left fighting against racism, and also fighting against things such as colonization. Again, all very good things. But let's place ourselves in the mind of an antisemitic extreme-leftist. What happens? Why would I come after the Jews, who themselves are known to be an oppressed and discriminated against minority, in both ethnic and religious terms? Why would the extreme-left decide to make a prey out of the people the extreme-right was known to hunt?

Because they are seen as the "elite". We know that extreme-left groups feed into the same antisemitic delusions and conspiracy theories that the Jews are the secret elite controlling the world. Even if they are not hardcore conspiracists, the extreme-left movements have several Jewish stereotypes widespread among them - to take France, just a recent study showed that a lot of people who identified on the left-wing also recognized that Jews were wealthier than regular French people, that they had too much presence in finances, and too much presence in media. The extreme-left searches for a form of elite to fight against and shit upon and hate with all of its might - and when the antisemitic cliches present the Jews as this elite, as some sort of secret powerful cabal controlling the finances and the media and being wealthy and friends with politicians, the extreme-left will latch onto these ideas as if truth, because they hate any form of elite, no matter if the elite actually exists or not. It is no surprise that the same conspiracy cliches about "satanic cults murdering babies and drinking human blood" are used for both the Jews (supposedly the shadow elite) and the actual rich and wealthy, white WASPs family of the USA. Same conspiracy theory, different people.

Of course, the Hamas-Israel war has been what sparked the fire. Because Israel is seen as a colonizer, the Jews as a whole are identifying with other colonizing countries and historical colonizing empires. Because Israel currently has a right-wing/extreme-right government, the Jews are a whole are seen as being from the extreme-right. Because of the retaliation against the Hamas attacks upon Gaza are just a massive unleashing of destruction causing massive deaths and a humanitarian crisis, Jews are a whole are seen as being genocide-endorcers. With people even going as far as to say they became as bad as Nazis or worse, or that they are causing a new Holocaust - the Jewish history being literaly returned against them. Everything that surrounds the Hamas-Israel war needs a post of its own because we have EVERYTHING all at once. We have people who refuse to understand a conflict is not black and white, and that in this war there is no good guy or bad guy, just people suffering on both sides and a lot of deaths and horrors on both sides. We have people who generalize Israel as being somehow the embodiment of all the Jews in the world, and consider Jews from Africa or Europe or America to be responsible for Israel's actions - and who disguise antisemitism as "anti-zionism". We have people who, in their effort to paint Israel as the sole villain, will literaly treat the Hamas as heroes, and ignore for example the fact that they are a terrorist organization, that they actually attacked Israel in terrorist attacks (people even deny the Hamas attacks even happened, the same way you have negationists of the Holocaust), or that they are using the people of Gaza as meat-shield for Israel attacks, or that they have extremely fanatical and racist ideologies based on a genocide of Jews as a whole and the destruction of the USA. And the list goes on and on and this is such a mess...

But here is the thing... The Hamas attacks on Israel and Israel's retaliation were just the spark. Meaning there was fuel before that. And I already started explaining why. The extreme-left had strong latent antisemitic feelings which were widespread, but since not openly hostile or aggressive were not much spotted. (Unlike for example fanatical extreme-right Christians which are very loud and open about their hatred of Jews and parade Jewish caricatures around on signs). And while I evoked before the warped belief that the Jews are somehow an "elite", hence the discrimination, there is another factor that must be taken nto account... What I call the "pick-and-choose your minority" game.

To take for example extreme-left groups in France - but I think it works in other countries too. They are very open about defending minorities and people of color, and they have been strongly standing by the side of black people and Arab people and Muslim people and people from African descent. So far, so good... But the thing is that when you are careful, you see that they do nothing about or never speak about other minorities. For example the Jews, but also Asian people. Not a word, not a peep. And we know there is discrimination in France against them - we already have studies that proved that in universities (which, surprise, are mostly left-leaning) a "common" antisemitism was very widespread, not physical, but taking the form of discriminatory joke, the common use of slurs and other verbal abuse. But we also had a wave of discrimination against people of Asian ethnicites (mostly people of Chinese culture or descent, but given the perpetrators were racist I doubt they'd make a difference between China, Japan or Korea). There was a wave some years ago of brutal street-agressions and mugging and theft targeting Chinese women and Chinese elders (or Chinese-looking people). And the thieves and muggers, once caught, gave the same excuse antisemitic thieves gave: "Everybody knows they have money."

But the thing is that while extreme-left groups are very vocal and very violent when it comes to islamophobia or racism against black people... they are very quiet and discreet when it comes to antisemitic or discrimination against Asian people. (Or at least they were, because since their antisemitism was revealed, they have been very vocal about Jewish people on media, to defend themselves). And this little phenomenon, that mostly went unnoticed and unanalyzed by media, reflects a larger concept that was found everywhere - and in fact very present on the Internet - and that imbues the extreme-left. And this perverse concept is "Some minorities are real minorities. Others are not. Some people are real POCs. Others are not."

To be clear: many people consider that Jews or Asians are not supposed to be minorities, couldn't be oppressed and shouldn't be defended as much as "actual" people of colors or "true" minorities". Because, in their words, these ethnicities are "too white", or "too close to white people". They are "model minorities", they were "integrated", they are seen as coming from either "powerful" nations ranked the same as former colonialist powers (Japan, China), either from "sheltered" and "untouchable" areas (the massive Jewish acceptance and defense after WWII). And the result of these considerations is that the extreme-left treat these groups as just "shades of White people", and they get conflated with things such as "those racist WASPs folks" or "the dominant all-white Christian xenophobes". And then all the stereotypes are thrown at them - the Jews, just like Asians, have supposedly too much influence on politics, too much presence in media, they are naturally wealthier than regular people, they are naturally less discriminated and less hated than others... And in turn, the extreme-left decides "We will not speak of them. We will not fight for them or stand up for them because they do not need it, because they are too close to the elite, because they are too close to our enemies. We'll focus on more "important" people."

And thus, from the noble cause of defending oppressed and discriminated minorities that knew a long history of racism and persecution... we go perpetuating the discrimination and erasure of OTHER minorities and ethnicities that had a long history of racism and persecution. It is... like some sort of perverse "discrimination contest" where people somehow "deserve" to be defend against discriminations and others do not? Some sort of fucked-up ethnic hierarchy that in the end is literaly no different from the same ethnic hierarchies racists of the extreme-right put in place to justify their hatred.

And if the slightest event produces a spark strong enough to set the fuel ablaze... the extreme-left goes from ignoring and passive discrimination to active discrimination. As we can see today by the left of extreme-left antisemitism.

I don't think I have anything else to say? This post is very long, but I got to say everything I had to say, and I am quite glad I did. I wrote it all in one go, so there might be typos, but I do not think I can sum up my words anymore than that.

#antisemitism #extreme-left #antisemitic #extreme-right #the extreme-left and the extreme-right are the same #political extremes #racism #sinophobia #extreme left #extreme right #extremism

16 notes · View notes

cyberpunkonline · 6 months

Text

Navigating the Neon Labyrinths: Political Constructs in Cyberpunk Media

In the dim-lit, neon-illuminated landscapes of cyberpunk media, political themes are as ubiquitous as the towering skyscrapers and omnipresent surveillance cameras. Whether it's in literature, TV shows, films, or video games, cyberpunk doesn't shy away from probing the intricate dynamics of governance, power, and societal structures. If you're keen to decrypt the political DNA of this genre, buckle up; you're in for a ride.

Corporatocracy: When Boardrooms Rule

Characteristics:

Concentration of Power: Mega-corporations have monopoly-like control over resources, technology, and often even the law.

Exploitative: Workers' rights are close to nonexistent; society becomes a breeding ground for inequality.

Profit-Driven: Ethical concerns take a backseat to the omnipotent bottom line.

Examples:

Books: William Gibson's "Neuromancer"

Films: "Blade Runner"

Video Games: "Cyberpunk 2077"

Anarchy: Chaos as a Canvas

Characteristics:

Decentralized Power: No one entity has control; power vacuums are common.

Resource Scarcity: The focus is often on survival rather than the accumulation of wealth.

DIY Culture: Citizens take matters into their own hands, often through hacking or grassroots movements.

Examples:

Books: Neal Stephenson's "Snow Crash"

Films: "A Scanner Darkly"

TV Shows: "Altered Carbon"

Totalitarian States: Under the Iron Thumb

Characteristics:

State Control: Government regulates every aspect of life, often through technological means.

Surveillance: Citizens are constantly monitored; privacy is a myth.

Oppression: Dissidents are silenced, and propaganda is pervasive.

Examples:

Books: George Orwell's "1984" (Proto-cyberpunk)

Films: "V for Vendetta"

Video Games: "Deus Ex"

Techno-Socialism: Equity in the Electronic Age

Characteristics:

Public Ownership: Citizens have control over resources and means of production.

Egalitarian: A focus on reducing inequality through technology.

Community Focus: Society prioritizes collective well-being over individual gain.

Examples:

Books: Cory Doctorow's "Walkaway"

TV Shows: "Black Mirror" (specific episodes)

Hybrid Systems: A Melting Pot of Mayhem

Some cyberpunk worlds are too complex to fit into a single category. They combine elements of various political systems, often reflecting the messy, unpredictable nature of human society.

Examples:

Books: "The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson

TV Shows: "Ghost in the Shell"

Films: "The Matrix"

Conclusion

From shadowy corporations and anarchist rebels to despotic governments and techno-socialist utopias, the political landscapes in cyberpunk media are as diverse as they are thought-provoking. By engaging with these systems, creators and audiences alike can explore pressing questions about governance, freedom, and the human condition, all under the guise of entertainment. Now, who said politics was boring?

- Raz

#cyberpunk #politics #media

19 notes · View notes

hereforthelizardsex · 4 months

Note

You mentioned about different analyses of 1984 in a post that you reblogged from me, and now I’m interested. I haven’t read 1984 for a while (I’m thinking of rereading it soon), but I’d be interested in any of your opinions / other people’s analyses if you want to share! :)

Omg yay 1984 is my favorite book and I always want to talk about it.

Of course the well known thing about the book is the issue of censorship, but the censorship in the novel does not exist in isolation, rather it is influenced by other political and economic forces.

1984 is a story of a society where, as a result of an end to scarcity (which would otherwise require a transition away from capitalism), those in power have created an economic system where war is used to manufacture scarcity, thereby ensuring the continued existence of hierarchy and power. It is important to note that hierarchy is also the problematized issue in Animal Farm, another book my George Orwell that is often misinterpreted as anti-communist while in actuality being anti-capitalist. The censorship in 1984 is done not only in the service of preserving the state but specifically for the purpose of preserving hierarchy as a concept. This is stated outright in the theory section in the middle of the book, when Winston is reading The Book. When I logged on to tumblr after finishing 1984 to look for meta posts and analyses, I was shocked to find people saying that they had skipped that entire section of the novel. I exclaimed out loud about this and my mother who was in the room at the time said she’d done the same thing. While people are entitled to consume media in whatever fashion they like and 1984 itself promotes this idea, I find it deeply concerning that many people skip what was to me the most interesting and important section of the book due to finding it to be a difficult read. The book states outright that the preservation of the power of the capitalist class and the subjugation of the working class is the entire reason that the government does everything it does, and people just don’t read that part of the book.

The censorship in the book is also not only censorship by elimination but censorship by the rewriting of history. This is important because it happens all the time in real life. For example, Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis wishes for it to be taught in schools that slavery helped Black people. This is the same kind of censorship that happens in 1984. In the field of political science this is called the “usable past” - versions of rewritten history used to uphold a nation’s identity.

Another political science concept that 1984 takes to an extreme is that if war abroad being used to put an end to social movements at home. This has happened throughout history as wars are used to make patriotism the norm, thereby marginalizing “unpatriotic” political movements such as labor or racial or gender equality that are seen as not in line with the aforementioned national identity that has been constructed. In 1984 the wars do this quite literally by manufacturing scarcity and thereby preventing the rise of communism.

I could go on forever, but instead I’ll conclude with an anecdote from when I was in high school. In my English class senior year of high school we were split into groups and assigned various novels to read instead of reading one as a class. The group that was assigned 1984 (not my group, I read The Color Purple which is another favorite that I could go on about forever) decided they wouldn’t read it because “the main character wants to rape someone.” I found this disturbing immediately because the novel is about censorship being a bad thing and here my classmates were not wanting to read it because it depicts sensitive subject matter. Their behavior was disturbingly indicative of the self censoring mindset of so many young people on the internet today. When I myself read the novel a few years later I discovered that it deals with rape in a few different ways. The first is that the main character was himself raped by his wife before the story takes place, not for sexual gratification but for reproductive purposes. The second is that he does indeed fantasize about raping someone who he is under the impression wants to get him killed. He later has sex with this person after finding out that she does not in fact want to get him killed, and it is the sex scene in a novel with the best negotiation of consent I have ever read. After the characters have sex Winston muses on the political power of sex in ways that I recognize more from queer activists who post on tumblr than from any other novel. All of the novel’s dealings with sensitive topics around sex are well done. The ones that are disturbing are intended to be disturbing - the book ends darkly; nothing in it is intended to make the reader feel good.

I could go on and I have - I wrote one of my papers in undergrad on 1984 and would be willing to share that too, if I could find a way to link it without my full name attached - but I’ll leave this as is for now.

#1984 #1984 george orwell #rape mention

17 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 7 months

Text

By: Matt Johnson

Published: Jan 27, 2023

“Christopher Hitchens: From socialist to neocon.” It was an irresistible headline because it’s a story that has been told over and over again. The novelist Julian Barnes called this phenomenon the “ritual shuffle to the right.” Richard Seymour, who wrote a book-length attack on Hitchens, says his subject belongs to a “recognisable type: a left-wing defector with a soft spot for empire.” By presenting Hitchens as a tedious archetype, hobbling away from radicalism and toward some inevitable reactionary terminus, his opponents didn’t have to contend with his arguments or confront the potentially destabilizing fact that some of his principles called their own into question.

Hitchens, who died in 2011, didn’t make it easy on the apostate hunters. To many, he was a “coarser version of [conservative commentator] Norman Podhoretz” when he talked about Iraq, and a radical humanist truth-teller when he went on Fox News to lambaste the Christian right: “If you gave Falwell an enema,” he told Sean Hannity the day after Jerry Falwell’s death, “he could be buried in a matchbox.” Then he gave Islam the same treatment, and he was suddenly a drooling neocon again. He defied easy categorization: a socialist who spurned ideology, an internationalist who became a patriot, a man of the left who was reviled by the left.

The left isn’t a single amorphous entity—it’s a vast constellation of (often conflicting) ideas and principles. Hitchens’s style of left-wing radicalism is now out of fashion, but it has a long and venerable history: George Orwell’s unwavering opposition to totalitarianism and censorship, Bayard Rustin’s advocacy for universal civil rights without appealing to tribalism and identity politics, the post-communist anti-totalitarianism that emerged on the European left in the second half of the twentieth century.

Hitchens described himself as a “First Amendment absolutist,” an echo of historic left-wing struggles for free expression—from Eugene V. Debs’s assertion of his right to dissent during World War I to the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. Hitchens argued that unfettered free speech and inquiry would always make civil society stronger. When he wrote the introduction to his collection of essays For the Sake of Argument in 1993, he had a specific left-wing tradition in mind: the left of Orwell and Victor Serge and C.L.R. James, which simultaneously opposed Stalinism, fascism, and imperialism in the twentieth century, and which stood for “individual and collective emancipation, self-determination and internationalism.”

Hitchens’ most fundamental political and moral conviction was universalism. He loathed nationalism and argued that the international system should be built around a “common standard for justice and ethics”—a standard that should apply to Henry Kissinger just as it should apply to Slobodan Milošević and Saddam Hussein. He believed in the concept of global citizenship, which is why he firmly supported international institutions like the European Union. He didn’t just despise religion because he regarded it as a form of totalitarianism—he also recognized that it’s an infinitely replenishable wellspring of tribal hatred.

He also opposed identity politics, because he didn’t think our social and civic lives should be reduced to rigid categories based on melanin, X chromosomes, and sexuality. He recognized that the Enlightenment values of individual rights, freedom of expression and conscience, humanism, pluralism, and democracy are universal—they provide the most stable, just, and rational foundation for any civil society, whether they’re observed in America or Europe or Iraq.

And yes, he argued that these values are for export. Hitchens believed in universal human rights. This is why, at a time when his comrades were still manning the barricades against the “imperial” West after the Cold War, he argued that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should intervene to stop a genocidal assault on Bosnia. It’s why he argued that American power could be used to defend human rights and promote democracy. As many on the Western left built their politics around incessant condemnations of their own societies as racist, exploitative, oligarchic, and imperialistic, Hitchens recognized the difference between self-criticism and self-flagellation.

One of the reasons Orwell accumulated many left-wing enemies in his time was the fact that his criticisms of his own “side” were grounded in authentic left-wing principles. When he argued that many socialists had no connection to or understanding of the actual working class in Britain, the observation stung because it was true. Orwell’s arguments continue to sting today. In his 1945 essay “Notes on Nationalism,” he criticized the left-wing intellectuals who enjoy “seeing their own country humiliated” and “follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong.” Among some of these intellectuals, Orwell wrote: “One finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of the Western countries.”

Hitchens observed that many on today’s left are motivated by the same principle: “Nothing will make us fight against an evil if that fight forces us to go to the same corner as our own government.” This is a predictable manifestation of what the American political theorist Michael Walzer calls the “default position” of the left: a purportedly “anti-imperialist and anti-militarist” position inclined toward the view that “everything that goes wrong in the world is America’s fault.”

Indeed, the tendency to ignore and rationalize even the most egregious violence and authoritarianism abroad in favor of an obsessive emphasis on the crimes and blunders of Western governments has become a reflex. Much of the left has been captured by a strange mix of sectarian and authoritarian impulses: a myopic emphasis on identitarianism and group rights over the individual; an orientation toward subjectivity and tribalism over objectivity and universalism; and demands for political orthodoxy enforced by repressive tactics like the suppression of speech.

These left-wing pathologies are particularly corrosive today because they give right-wing nationalists and populists on both sides of the Atlantic—whose rise over the past several years has been characterized by hostility to democratic norms and institutions, rampant xenophobia, and other forms of illiberalism—an opportunity to claim that those who oppose them are the true authoritarians. Hitchens was prescient about the ascendance of right-wing populism in the West, from the emergence of demagogues who exploit cultural grievances and racial resentments to the bitter parochialism of “America First” nationalism. He understood that the left could only defeat these noxious political forces by rediscovering its best traditions: support for free expression, pluralism, and universalism—the values of the Enlightenment.

Hitchens closes his book Why Orwell Matters with the following observation: “What he [Orwell] illustrates, by his commitment to language as the partner of truth, is that ‘views’ do not really count; that it matters not what you think, but how you think; and that politics are relatively unimportant, while principles have a way of enduring, as do the few irreducible individuals who maintain allegiance to them.” Despite the pervasive idea that Hitchens exchanged one set of convictions for another by the end of his life, his commitment to his core principles never wavered. They are principles that today’s left must rediscover.

Matt Johnson is a journalist and the author of the forthcoming book, How Hitchens Can Save the Left: Rediscovering Fearless Liberalism in an Age of Counter-Enlightenment, from which this piece is excerpted.

#Matt Johnson #How Hitchens Can Save the Left #liberalism #liberal ethics #universalism #pluralism #freedom of speech #freedom of expression #free speech #first amendment #identity politics #identarianism #woke authoritarianism #authoritarianism #tribalism #religion is a mental illness

22 notes · View notes

grandhotelabyss · 11 months

Note

Advice/hard truths for writers?

The best piece of practical advice I know is a classic from Hemingway (qtd. here):

The most important thing I’ve learned about writing is never write too much at a time… Never pump yourself dry. Leave a little for the next day. The main thing is to know when to stop. Don’t wait till you’ve written yourself out. When you’re still going good and you come to an interesting place and you know what’s going to happen next, that’s the time to stop. Then leave it alone and don’t think about it; let your subconscious mind do the work.

Also, especially if you're young, you should read more than you write. If you're serious about writing, you'll want to write more than you read when you get old; you need, then, to lay the important books as your foundation early. I like this passage from Samuel R. Delany's "Some Advice for the Intermediate and Advanced Creative Writing Student" (collected in both Shorter Views and About Writing):

You need to read Balzac, Stendhal, Flaubert, and Zola; you need to read Austen, Thackeray, the Brontes, Dickens, George Eliot, and Hardy; you need to read Hawthorne, Melville, James, Woolf, Joyce, and Faulkner; you need to read Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Turgenev, Goncherov, Gogol, Bely, Khlebnikov, and Flaubert; you need to read Stephen Crane, Mark Twain, Edward Dahlberg, John Steinbeck, Jean Rhys, Glenway Wescott, John O'Hara, James Gould Cozzens, Angus Wilson, Patrick White, Alexander Trocchi, Iris Murdoch, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, Anthony Powell, Vladimir Nabokov; you need to read Nella Larsen, Knut Hamsun, Edwin Demby, Saul Bellow, Lawrence Durrell, John Updike, John Barth, Philip Roth, Coleman Dowell, William Gaddis, William Gass, Marguerite Young, Thomas Pynchon, Paul West, Bertha Harris, Melvin Dixon, Daryll Pinckney, Darryl Ponicsan, and John Keene, Jr.; you need to read Thomas M. Disch, Joanna Russ, Richard Powers, Carroll Maso, Edmund White, Jayne Ann Phillips, Robert Gluck, and Julian Barnes—you need to read them and a whole lot more; you need to read them not so that you will know what they have written about, but so that you can begin to absorb some of the more ambitious models for what the novel can be.

Note: I haven't read every single writer on that list; there are even three I've literally never heard of; I can think of others I'd recommend in place of some he's cited; but still, his general point—that you need to read the major and minor classics—is correct.

The best piece of general advice I know, and not only about writing, comes from Dr. Johnson, The Rambler #63:

The traveller that resolutely follows a rough and winding path, will sooner reach the end of his journey, than he that is always changing his direction, and wastes the hours of day-light in looking for smoother ground and shorter passages.

I've known too many young writers over the years who sabotaged themselves by overthinking and therefore never finishing or sharing their projects; this stems, I assume, from a lack of self-trust or, more grandly, trust in the universe (the Muses, God, etc.). But what professors always tell Ph.D. students about dissertations is also true of novels, stories, poems, plays, comic books, screenplays, etc: There are only two kinds of dissertations—finished and unfinished. Relatedly, this is the age of online—an age when 20th-century institutions are collapsing, and 21st-century ones have not yet been invented. Unless you have serious connections in New York or Iowa, publish your work yourself and don't bother with the gatekeepers.

Other than the above, I find most writing advice useless because over-generalized or else stemming from arbitrary culture-specific or field-specific biases, e.g., Orwell's extremely English and extremely journalistic strictures, not necessarily germane to the non-English or non-journalistic writer. "Don't use adverbs," they always say. Why the hell shouldn't I? It's absurd. "Show, don't tell," they insist. Fine for the aforementioned Orwell and Hemingway, but irrelevant to Edith Wharton and Thomas Mann. Freytag's Pyramid? Spare me. Every new book is a leap in the dark. Your project may be singular; you may need to make your own map as your traverse the unexplored territory.

Hard truths? There's one. I know it's a hard truth because I hesitate even to type it. It will insult our faith in egalitarianism and the rewards of earnest labor. And yet, I suspect the hard truth is this: ineffables like inspiration and genius count for a lot. If they didn't, if application were all it took, then everybody would write works of genius all day long. But even the greatest geniuses usually only got the gift of one or two all-time great work. This doesn't have to be a counsel of despair, though: you can always try to place yourself wherever you think lightning is likeliest to strike. That's what I do, anyway. Good luck!

#creative writing #literature

43 notes · View notes

exosentient · 2 years

Text

Hahahaha imagine✨ being so unimaginative and mired in your cultural blinkers that you actually think this is an Objective slam dunk against trans women. Not even grasping that lesbian is a culturally & historically specific term and lmaoooooo its meaning has been argued over and gatekept for its whole (short) history. And old Sappho would think you were very strange!

Imagine✨ getting asked decades ago what one thought the term meant and saying “sexually and romantically loving women” and being told WRRRRONG sexual attraction is just shallow, you’re not a Real Lesbian, because it is about the Political Commitment To Womyn regardless of desire, plus that’s Really Racist (somehow), said by a bunch of white women lmaooo.

Imagine✨ the pointless shitfights over The Appropriate Term, (again amongst almost exclusively middle class white women). Lesbian was controversial or distasteful or just irrelevant and clinical to many in our many disjointed loosely intersecting communities in the West! Many found it waaaay too white or genteel and didn’t feel the urge to tearing down others to insist there was Only One True Way!

Imagine✨ thinking there IS only one way of doing things, and the sheer cultural privilege and insulation being raised in the increasingly pluralistic West that this must entail to see this as natural and “reality”.

Imagine✨ thinking that the master’s tools will dismantle the master’s house, that failing to heed the warnings of George Orwell and merely switcherooing “good” and “bad” words and identities and not the actual authoritarian impulse to rigidly define and police and purge these, will actually create the “good” you believe yourself to be embodying. Imagine✨ thinking it’s cool and normal to align yourself politically with conservative Christians who lobby politicans, with literal Nazis who deny the Holocaust but have a history of pro-homosexuality as long as it’s gender correct, with the now taken offline “worst place on the internet”, and thinking you’re somehow dismantling your master’s house.

Imagine✨ travelling the world, to other countries and finding they have their own terms and own understandings of what we would probably translate as “lesbian” here. Imagine✨ realising that our Western ideas about gender are quite specific, and imagine taking history and philosophy at University and learning about how European medieval ideas of gender were totally different to now, seeing it as a continuum, eg the so called manly men “authentic” Norse/Vikings saw it as a spiritual/magic thing that could be transversed and that homo sex was situationally about social position and sexual position and gender position. Imagine✨ working with AIDS activists from across the world and learning of all the far-flung sex and gender traditions that completely disrupt your own limited colonialist linear understanding of “enlightenment” and “truth”. Imagine✨ proudly declaring yourself an atheist and getting met with confusion because only with whites is “authentic belief” a concept, an internal individualist identity marker rather than a cultural category.

Imagine✨ realising that “homosexuality” was invented in the 19thC and “heterosexuality” was invented after that, because our culture post-“Enlightenment” is obsessed with its dualistic essentialist binaries and imperialist & epistemic needs to slot people into rigid identity boxes – just as “races” of people were invented whole cloth and those who didn’t fit neatly into those boxes / characteristics became the Problem, leading to eugenic policies and genocide in my country and many others, affecting a diversity of categories (!) of people who are deemed not valid for existing, for being an existential threat to those invented rigid categories.

Imagine✨ learning that most societies have an understanding of what we have decided to call “transgender” and many (pre/non European imperialism) have specific social / spiritual roles.

Imagine✨ that most societies have an understanding of what we call “homosexual” and many have specific life stages or spiritual spaces for this and define it more as behavioural.

Imagine✨ the idea that there is something fixed and unchanging and simple rooted in the “authentic self”, which is SO Western and individualistic it’s hilarious. Other cultures see the self as relational, and even emotions and desires and personality as relational and situational, to the point where many do not even have a word for “I”. Imagine learning that specific language shapes our reality and without specific words those concepts are nebulous or absent, with different words they are completely different! Imagine✨ having the intellectual humility to realise this!

Imagine✨ coming of age in the West in a time when gender and sexuality were not sharply separated like now, only a few decades ago, and thinking of oneself as an “invert”. Imagine✨ seeing this separation increasingly performed by affluent whites who we would term “cis homosexuals” now, in order to gain social acceptance by distancing themselves from the other forms of gender deviancy and positioning themselves as model gender citizens, so very very “cis”, the default norm against the deviant Other. Imagine✨ being valleyg0th participating in this norm farming while blissfully totally unaware of any of the context in which she is playing. Imagine✨ being so insecure as to have the energetic need to convince oneself by courting conflict with other lesbians to scold them that they Aren’t Real or Actually Homophobic(tm).

But she won’t ✨imagine💫, because she is too invested in a particular form of dominance, as expressed in cowardly DMs to these other less than satisfactory lesbians. Thank you for the laugh and a flashback to some sad sacks from my separatist days. I hope you grow up soon.

#😅#epistemology is my vERy FavRiT iNteReST #lesbian #gender #identity #norms #terf #gatekeeping #imagine all the lesbians #writing essays in half an hour #check the word count

115 notes · View notes