#well. as fun as it can be to speculate on authorial intent | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

daenerys-daario · 3 years

Note

And what do you think about Arya as standing for one alternative name for Ma Durga? I saw speculations on youtube linking Khaleesi to Kali and Mirri Maz Duur to Ma Durga, but would George really deliberately use a signifier so rare in Arya's case? I love the idea of Arya compared to Durga, and think it fits her well, but less as sth taken from GRRM's authorial intent, more as a a way WE as readers can fill these names with meaning.

Hi anon, thanks for the question! Honestly, I doubt whether GRRM intended to take Arya from Sanskrit, I think he took it from the word "aria". As explained in that post, GRRM doesn't pronounce it as "Arya" but rather as "aria" would be pronounced, and while Arya is an epithet for goddess Durga, it is not a name solely for Durga. Just as you said, I don’t think it’s the authorial intent. It’s more likely that GRRM tok the name from “aria”, changed the spelling a bit (just like John became Jon), did a quick search for the meaning of the name and found that it meant “noble”, and so he thought that the name was apt for the character. Because, make no mistake, if anyone in asoiaf is noble in both deeds and thoughts, it is Arya. So, just as you said, it’s not authorial intent, but we fans can definitely derive this meaning from her name.

As for Arya being similar to goddess Durga, it is true for some aspects. Both goddess Durga and Arya are very maternal. Both goddess Durga and Arya are swift with justice and kills evildoers. Goddess Durga has a ferocious lion as a mount and Arya has a ferocious direwolf as a mount. Both Arya and goddess Durga are warriors.

However, in other ways I am not so sure. Because the thing is goddess Durga is not a child (as Arya in asoiaf is), she is a ruler, a queen, a commander of armies, and she is a married goddess. She is at times the benevolent mother and at times the ferocious protective mother. Thematically, I believe she has more in common with Dany than Arya.

As for the khaleesi and mirri maaz durr thing:

No, sorry but no.

Firstly, the consonants and vowels are completely different! The spelling is different! Even the pronunciation is different!!! I cannot say that the words - “beer” “bear” “bare” “pair” “pear” “peer” “pier” - all have similar meaning or are derived from the same root-word simply because it sounds the same to me. If any youtubers are saying this BS, please ask them to go bang their head on a wall till they gain some clarity.

Khaleesi would probably have the letter “ख” (‘kha’ sound) or the letter “घ” (‘gha’ sound). This is completely different from Kali which has the letter क (‘ka’ sound). As I said, “beer” and “peer” are two different words with different meaning, and “b” and “p” are not the same letters! Similarly, ख and क are completely different letters. And it’s not just that letter, the lengths (matras) of the vowels are also completely different.

Khaleesi = खलीसि = Khaleesi (if I type it phonetically in English)

Kali = काली = Kaalee (if I type it phonetically in English)

They have absolutely no similarity!!! This is more like someone saying the word “beating” and “pear“ have same meaning/root because the first syllable sounds the same when I (mis)pronounce it.

Again Mirri Maaz Durr doesn’t have a passing resemble to Durga!! If it is about “Dur”, well that’s a prefix in sanskrit/hindi (and not suffix) and even then, it depends on the rest of the word to get it’s meaning. I mean... I don’t think anyone is going around saying Durga (a goddess) and Duryodhana (a famous villain) has the same meaning or derived names from each other because their names have the letters “Dur” on it.

While I am completely for fan interpretations and fun new ideas, I draw the line at “reintepreting” entire structure, syntax, grammar, pronunciation, and spelling of entire languages!!!!!!!

Also, if creating new “meanings” for one’s favourites is the new form of metas, let me try my hand at it:

Daenerys is called “Dan Ares” by Khal Drogo in AGOT. This gives us an idea as to how her name is pronounced.

Also, in the show, when Daenerys speaks Valyrian, she pronounces her name with not a hard “D” (ड) sound, but rather soft “Th” (द) sound.

It is pronounced with three syllables: dan - a - res.

In sanskrit, Dan = दान = which means generosity/benevolence

In sanskrit, Res = रस = which means essence/juice/nectar

Joining the two words we get, Daenerys = दानेरस = Essence of Generosity

See, my favourite character’s name means Essence of Generosity! 😜😜

And this interpretation, at the very least, makes more sense than Khaleesi=Kali or Mirri Maaz Durr = Durga or Sa/nsa = Praise.

#answered #text #hinduism #sanskrit

20 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 3 years

Note

Hello again! Im the tinfoil hat anon with the long ass asks and I finally had the time to read your response. Thank you, it makes my day reading your answers. I honestly just enjoyed them over a cup of coffee like a good book.

Now, the gun pointing scene I mentioned was in fact the one from the droid fight facility like the other anon suggested. But I really liked that you covered the boat scene too, I haven’t thought of it much myself and now I definitely have!

I also would like to mention I love your “candy bar” choice analogy and I 100% agree Hunter’s “invitation” to join back wasn’t welcoming in the slightest. It is very likely just an obligation as you said. Sort of “you gave us a chance, we owe you a chance too”.

And the problem with it is now I am struggling to figure out how the batch members might change their attitude toward Crosshair going forward, especially Hunter. As of right now Crosshair’s best relationship is not with his brothers but with Omega(as surprising as this is). And I think he does realize now she cared about him the most out of all of them during the short time they interacted(both 1st and last episodes). Even between themselves(not counting Omega) I find most of the bad batch members to be cold and distant to each other. They feel less like a family than Rebels for example. And they aren’t even a “found family”(a trope everyone loves) but an actual one! And I get that they’re soldiers and supposed to be tough, I don’t expect them to share all “the feels”. I just can’t put my finger on it but something feels off. I agree with your previous post, the show doesn’t do a very good job showing or even telling they love each other.

Will Hunter and co only start caring about their brother again only after he leaves the empire?(assuming he does at some point). What about Disney’s prevailing theme and message that “family always love and care for each other no matter what”? I guess it’s “family always love and care for each other but only if you’re good guys making right choices”. There is no room for mistakes or wrong decisions. In the last episode everyone form the batch seemed to have given up on Crosshair(besides Omega). For now their attitude seems to be just “you’re not our enemy” and that’s that.

I realize Crosshair is a “bad guy” and consciously made his choice(and we know it’s the wrong one) but to me it felt like he thought he didn’t even had a choice or rather became so lost and confused he actually thought he chose the empire as “the lesser evil”(as in the less shitty choice out of all the other bad ones). We as audience have the benefit to know exactly how atrocious the empire really is but maybe Crosshair still doesn’t realize that.

So what exactly must Crosshair do to get back “in their good graces” as you say? Start saving “the good guys”? Save the bad batch multiple times? There is a popular opinion on how Crosshair can redeem himself. That he eventually heroically sacrifices himself to save them. I personally REALLY hope it’s NOT what’s going to happen but I heard so many people speculating his story is set up to be redemption=death. I know you mentioned you don’t want “Vader style redemption” either. Personally I think it would be a waste of a character who has a lot of potential. And I just think that the batch kind of don’t really deserve his sacrifice(maybe save for Omega) after how they never tried to save him themselves and how they treated him overall. Maybe he will risk his life to save Omega at some point and that will “prove” to Hunter he cares? Although he has already shown he cares by saving her(even if in Crosshair’s own words it’s just so they’re “even”). And the thing is, he doesn’t need to prove that he loves them, he already did that in episode 15 and made it clear he does care. He actually went to extreme by shooting his squad to prove his loyalty. What were the moments the batch demonstrated they care about him? Hunter saying “you never were our enemy” and taking his unconscious body to safety? To me Hunter “not leaving him behind” during bombardment felt more like guilt about the last time it happened and an obligation to Crosshair for helping them with droids, rather than them showing care. And I kinda of think if that was any random civilian(or anyone other than an enemy or a threat) they would carry them out too just because that’s what good guys do and not because it’s their brother. You also mentioned that minutes later Hunter snaps at him with “if you want to stay here and die, that’s your choice” which I agree can be interpreted in different ways. And I think it’s one more point to it being an obligation that in Hunter’s eyes is fulfilled now. He corrected his mistake of leaving a brother behind and saved him this time, now his guilt won’t burden him any longer.

Anyway, I can’t wait for season 2 and I appreciate you and all the anons sharing the tinfoil hat, interacting and speculating together. Those discussions have been a lot of fun!

TLDR: How do your think the relationship between the brothers will mend or evolve in the next season? Do you think S2 will improve in portraying the batch more as a family rather than a group of mercs doing missions together? What are your thoughts on the popular idea of Crosshair’s redemption by ultimate sacrifice? As in, how likely do you think this scenario is?

Anon, that is just wonderfully hilarious to me. Ah yes, the sunrise, a good cup o' joe, and the overly long character analysis of a snarky, fictional sniper. Exactly what everyone needs in the morning! 😆

You know, TBB is far from the first show I've watched where there's an obvious, emotional conclusion the creator wants the audience to come to—the squad all love each other Very Much—yet that conclusion isn't always well supported by the text. It creates this horribly awkward situation where you're going, "Yes, I'm fully aware of what the show wanted to do, but this reading, arguably, did not end up in the story itself. So what are we talking about here? The intention, or the execution?" It's like Schrödinger's Bad Batch where the group is simultaneously Very Loving and Very Distant depending on how much meta-aspects are influencing your reading: those authorial intentions, understanding of how found family tropes should work, fluff focused fics/fan art that color our understanding of the characters, etc. And, of course, whether someone saw TCW before they watched TBB. I personally wouldn't go quite so far as to say they're "cold" towards one another—with Crosshair as an exception now—but there wasn't the level of bonding among the squad that I expected of a show called The Bad Batch. Especially compared to their arc in TCW. The other night I re-watched the season seven premiere and was struck not just by how much more the squad interacted with each other back then, but how those interactions added depth to their characters too. For example, Crosshair is the mean one, right? He's the one picking fights with the Regs? Well yeah... but it's also Wrecker. While they're trying to decide what to do with Cody injured, Jesse calls out Crosshair on his attitude—"You can't talk to Captain Rex like that!"—and Wrecker's immediate response is, "Says who?" and he hefts Jesse into the air. And then he just holds him there, clearly using his superior strength to do as he pleases, until Hunter (sounding pretty angry) tells him to put Jesse down. If Wrecker had put him into a more classically understood bullying position, like pinning him to the ground, it would probably read as less funny—less "Haha strong clone lifts Jesse up in the air!" and more "Oh shit, strong clone can do whatever the hell he wants to the Regs and few are able to stop him." It's such a quick moment, but it tells us a ton about Wrecker. That he's going to stick up for his brothers, no matter the context (Crosshair deserves to be called out). That he will gleefully assist Crosshair in bothering the Regs (something that is reinforced when he later throws the trays in the mess hall, after Hunter has already deescalated the situation). That he's likely been hurt by awful treatment from the Regs too. That he'll only listen to Hunter when it comes to backing off. Little of this work—that interplay among the squad that shows us new sides to them other than basic things like "Wrecker is the nice, happy brother"—exists in TBB.

Or, at least, little exists after Omega becomes an official member of the squad.

Because, as said previously, she becomes the focus. I don't mean that as a total criticism. As established, I love Omega. But if we're talking about why the squad can feel so distant from each other, I think she's the root cause, simply because the story became all about her relationships with the Batch, rather than the Batch's relationships with each other. Having dived headfirst into reading and writing fic, it occurred to me just how many of the bonding moments we love, the sort of stuff we'll see repeated in fics because we understand that this is where the story's emotional center is, are given to Omega in canon:

Someone is hurt and in need of comfort. Omega's emotional state is the focus + moments like her being worried over Hunter getting shot.

Someone needs to learn a new skill. Echo teaches Omega how to use her bow.

Someone reveals a skill they never knew they had before. Omega is a strategic genius and plays her last game with Hunter.

Someone is in serious danger and in need of rescue. Omega rescues the group from the slavers + is the most vocal about rescuing Hunter. (Which, again, is a pretty sharp contrast to the whole Crosshair situation.) Omega, in turn, needs rescuing from things like the decommission conveyor belt.

Similarly, someone is kidnapped and in need of rescue. Omega is kidnapped twice by bounty hunters and the Batch goes after her.

Someone saves another's life. Omega saves Crosshair from drowning.

Someone does something super sweet for another. Wrecker gives Omega her room. Omega gives Wrecker Lula.

A cute tradition is established between characters. Wrecker has his popcorn-esque candy sharing with Omega.

Someone hurts someone else and has to ask forgiveness. Wrecker is upset about nearly shooting Omega and they have that sweet moment together.

Note that most of these examples could have occurred between other Batch members, but didn't. Someone could have created a space for Echo on the ship too. Wrecker also could have apologized to Tech for choking him, etc. It's not that those moments shouldn't happen with Omega, just that there should be more of a balance across the whole season, especially for a show supposedly focused on the original squad. Additionally, it's not that cute bonding moments between the rest of the Batch don't exist. I love Hunter selling Echo off as a droid. I love Wrecker and Tech bickering while fixing the ship. I love the tug-of-war to save Wrecker from the sea monster. Yes, we do have moments... it's just that comparatively it feels pretty skewed in Omega's direction.

So, as a VERY long-winded way of answering your question, I think we need to fix the above in order to tackle Crosshair's redemption in season two. Now that we've had a full season focused on Omega, we need to strike a better balance among the rest of the squad moving forward. We need to re-established the "obvious" conclusion that the rest of the Batch loves Crosshair and that's done (in part) by establishing their love for one another too. To my mind, both goals go hand-in-hand, especially since you can develop their relationship with Crosshair and their relationships with each other simultaneously. Imagine if instead of just having Wrecker somewhat comically admit that he misses Crosshair (like he's dead and they can't go get him??), he and Tech had a serious conversation about why they can't get him back yet, despite very much wanting to. Imagine if Echo, the one who was rescued against all odds, got to scream at Hunter to go get Crosshair like Omega screamed at them to go back for Hunter. Imagine if we'd gotten more than a tiny arc in TCW to establish the Batch's dynamic with each other, providing a foundation for how they would each react to Crosshair's absence. Instead, what little we've got in TBB about Crosshair's relationship with his brothers is filtered through Omega: Omega's embarrassment that she knocked over Crosshair's case, Omega treating Crosshair's comm link like a toy, Omega's quest to save Hunter that just happened to involve Crosshair along the way.

Obviously, at this point we can't fix how the first season did things, but I think we can start patching over these issues in season two. It would be jarring—we'd still be 100% correct to ask where this "Brothers love you, support you, and will endlessly fight for you" theme was for Crosshair's entire time under the Empire's thumb... but I'd take an about-face into something better than not getting any improvement at all. It is frustrating though, especially for a show that I otherwise really, really enjoyed. For me, the issue isn't so much that the show made a mistake (since no show is perfect), but that the mistake is attached to such a foundational part of the franchise. Not just in terms of "SW is about hope and forgiveness" but the specific relationship most clones have with each other: a willingness to go above and beyond for their brothers. The focus on Omega aside, it's hard to believe in the family dynamic when one member of the family was so quickly and easily dismissed. I couldn't get invested in Hunter's rescue as much as I should have because rather than going, "Yes!! Save your brother!!!" my brain just kept going, "Lol where was this energy for Crosshair?" It messes with your reading of the whole story, so in order to fix that mistake going forward, we need to start seeing the bonds that only sometimes exist in season one. Show the guys expressing love for one another more consistently (in whatever way that might be—as you say, soldiers don't have to be all touchy-feely. Give us more moments like Wrecker supporting his brothers' bad habits) and then extend that to Crosshair. Which brother is going to demand that they fight for him? Which brother is going to acknowledge that they never tried to save him? Which brother is going to question this iffy statement about the chip? In order to buy into the family theme, Omega can't be the only one doing that emotional work.

Ideally, I wouldn't want Crosshair to go out of his way to prove that he's a good guy now. I mean, I obviously want him to stop helping the Empire and such, duh lol, but I'm personally not looking for a bunch of Extra Good Things directed at the Batch as a requirement for forgiveness. Simply because that would reinforce the idea that they're 100% Crosshair's victims, Crosshair is 100% the bad guy, and he's the only one who needs to do any work to fix this situation. Crosshair needs to stop doing bad things (working for Empire). But the Batch needs to start doing good things too (reaching out to him). Especially since Crosshair made a good play already, only to be met with glares and distrust. He saved Omega! And AZI! And none of them cared. So am I (is Crosshair) supposed to believe that saving one of their lives again will result in a different reaction? That doesn't make much sense. And no, his own life wasn't at risk when he did that, but does every antagonist need to die/nearly die to prove they're worth fighting for? As you say, he's already shown that he loves them, far more than they've shown the reverse. Every time Crosshair hurt them (attacking) it was while he was under the chip's influence. In contrast, the group has no "I was being controlled" excuse for when they hurt him (abandonment). Season two needs to acknowledge the Batch's responsibility in all this—and acknowledge that they're all victims of the Empire—in order to figure out an appropriate arc for Crosshair's redemption.

Right now, the issue is not Crosshair loving his brothers, the issue is how Crosshair chooses to express that love: trying to keep them safe and giving them a purpose in life by joining the organization that's clearly going to dominate the galaxy. The only way to fix that, now that his offer has been rejected, is for him to realize that a life on the run from the Empire, together, is a better option for everyone. And the only way for that to happen is for the Batch to seriously offer him a place with them again. They need to make the first move here. They need to fight for him. And yeah, I totally get that a lot of people don't like that because it's not "fair." He's the bad guy. He's with the fascist allegory. He's killed people and has therefore lost any right to compassion and effort from the good guys... but if that's the case, then we just have to accept that (within the story-world, not from a writing perspective) Crosshair is unlikely to ever come back from this. When people reach that kind of low, they rarely pull themselves out on their own. They need other people to help them do that. Help them a lot. But with the exception of Omega's reminder—which Crosshair can't believe due to how everyone else has treated him—they leave him alone and seem to expect him to fix himself first, then he gets their support. It needs to be the other way around. Support is what would allow him to become a good guy again, not "Well, you'll get our love when you're good again, not before." That's unlikely to occur and, as discussed, it doesn't take into account things like this bad guy life being forced on Crosshair at the start. If the story really wanted this to be a matter of ideological differences... then make it about ideological differences. Let Crosshair leave of his own free will, right at the start. Don't enslave him for half the season, have him realize he was abandoned, imply all that brainwashing, give him no realistic way out, and then punish him for not doing the right thing. This isn't a situation where someone went bad for the hell of it—the story isn't asking us to feel compassion for, say, the Admiral—it's a situation where Crosshair was controlled and now can't see a way out. That context allows for the Batch, the good guys, to fight for him without the audience thinking the show is just excusing that behavior. They should have been fighting from the start, but since they didn't, I hope we at least start seeing that in season two.

Ultimately though... I don't really expect all of the above. The more balanced dynamics and having the Batch fight for Crosshair rather than Crosshair going it alone... I wouldn't want to bet any money on us getting it, just because these are things that should have been established in season one and would have been more easy to pull off in season one. (If the Batch wouldn't fight for Crosshair while he was literally under the Empire's control, why would they fight now when he's supposedly acting of his own free will? It's backwards in terms of the emotional effort involved.) But again, it could happen! I'd be very pleased if it did happen, despite the jarring change. I don't want to make it sound like I think they're going to write off Crosshair entirely. Far from it, I think there are too many details like his sad looks for that, to say nothing of Omega's compassion. But the execution of getting him on Team Good Guys again might be preeeetty bumpy. I expect it to revolve around Crosshair's sins and Crosshair's redemption, even if what I would like is balancing that with Crosshair's loss of agency, the Batch's mistakes, and their own redemption towards him.

Honestly though, I just hope that whatever happens happens soon. It's a personal preference, absolutely, but after a season of Crosshair as the antagonist, I'm ready for him to be back with the group, making the Empire (and bounty hunters) the primary enemy. Whether his return happens through a mutual acknowledgement of mistakes, or through Crosshair being depicted as the only one in the wrong who has to do something big to be forgiven... just get him back with the squad lol. Because if the writing isn't going to delve into that nuance, then the longer he remains unforgiven, the longer some of us have to watch a series while going, "Wait, wait, wait, I really don't agree with how you're painting this picture."

#TBB #The Bad Batch #SW #Star Wars #mymetas #long post

7 notes · View notes

ystk-archive · 3 years

Note

Okay let me get this straight, I know ystk will never talk about song lyrics, but do you think the lyrics to world fabrication are written in a viewpoint of a s*icidal celebrity?

I don't personally read world fabrication that way but that's what's fun about art I guess, you can interpret something in your own way and relate to it however you need/want to (and especially with him there's no authorial intent to have to worry about).

It's sort of hard for me to explain what I think about this song because while I don't think he meant for it to have a deeper meaning, it's lyrically interesting for his standard with its sort of dark humor and sense of twistedness. The fact that he brought it back to cap off the KPP album (in light of writing her a song like Gentenkaihi) also makes me wonder about its intent and how he perceives it. He's funny about lyrics because he's always been like "they mean nothing, they have nothing to do with me, they're just words to fit the melody" but writing doesn't necessarily have to be autobiographical on the level of Taylor Swift's Teardrops on my Guitar to still express something about its author. Toshiko even directly contradicted him about this in her solo interview in MARQUEE vol.39 from 2003 (this is my excruciatingly rough translation that could have errors fwiw):

― Besides "Koi no Hana," what other songs on High Collar Girl reflect your personal feelings? Toshiko: Hmm... "Koi no Hana" might be it. On the contrary, you can see Nakata-kun's on the other songs (laughs). Of course you can hear it through the sounds themselves, but if you look at his lyrics, you can see Nakata-kun's private life (laughs)... ― I see. Nakata-kun never says it's like that (laughs). Well then, for the two of you, were your personal experiences more closely aligned with the music back then? Toshiko: I think it was really close. I think Nakata-kun would say "that's not true" but maybe they're words that come from a place he isn't aware of.

Sooo my hot take on world fabrication is you can read it like pulling the plug on the fake world of the album (since it is technically the closer, I view it as the end credits song and tokyo smiling as the post-credits bonus) and/or foreshadowing the sort of radical shift that took place for him later in that year (2005) but not in a conscious way. He ditched all the falsehoods of his image -- the ojisan cosplay he adopted around 2003 to seem more mature/be taken seriously as a musician (which I have my own thoughts about whether or not this was necessary to his success buuut I'm not gonna delve into that right now!) and the style of music he'd established for capsule were not things he had been doing as a teenager and LDK signaled a migration back towards that. Which maybe calling these "falsehoods" is a little strong, people often change their appearances and interests and whatnot as they mature through their twenties and I don't doubt he does like the type of music he used to make with capsule, but he had this compounded with the fact that he became a public-facing musician simultaneously. You have more things to worry about when you're trying to sell something to people.

But IDK, that's just all my excessive psychoanalyzing speculation. The lyrics I'm actually fascinated by right now are Perfect Oneisan but I don't even know where to begin with that one...

#messages #High Collar Girl #MARQUEE #NEXUS 2060

4 notes · View notes

themelodicenigma · 4 years

Text

Part 2: Their dynamic and the way Terra teases her is like a sibling

Intro | Part 1

Their dynamic and the way Terra teases her is like a sibling

Discussing the meaning and authorial intent behind character actions is a tale as old as fandom time. Specifically, it’s usually about whether two characters doing said actions have a certain nuance to their relationship within what’s already established outright in the context—romance being a typical factor, or usually as a contrast, you might see this in advocating for a sibling-like bond instead.

Or, sometimes both simultaneously. That’s when it really gets fun.

Anyway, both dynamics sit pretty comfortably as common potential-additive elements that fans will speculate on for fictional character relationships, and this proves to be abundantly true for the KH fandom. Very true. A lot. For many characters.

For Terra and Aqua, romanticism is laid on well enough by their fans, but by the premise of this section, the sibling-like route has also been explored fairly well too. I’ve usually seen the latter brought forth to interject on those who ship Terra and Aqua together, and it alone would initiate a needless verbal bloodbath between those with differing reads on the character’s actions. Between Aqua making sweets for her fellow Land of Departure residents, Aqua worrying for Terra’s fight with the darkness, or Terra making fun of Aqua for being “girly”—people will have different takes on what this means additionally for the character’s established context:

Two fellow pupils and best friends that have trained and lived alongside each other for years.

That’s the foundation of their place relative to each other in this story, but expression allows that to be illustrated or embellished in numerous ways. There are a myriad of different examples in source materials like the games, novels, and even guidebooks that emphasizes what this means to the two and how their friendship is represented on their journey. The usage of the Wayfinders are a cornerstone for framing the strength of their relationship—this being truly relevant to the separation they face by the end of the game.

When the nature of the character’s relationship is established, this designates its functionality within the context, along with appropriate expressions and dynamic corresponding to it. These factors can change when the context, basically, creates the mechanic of differentiation to take place. This “deviation” of development that you’ll see characters go through story-wise is a common thing—”friends to lovers”, “enemies to friends”, “friends to family”, etc. Those are some of the basic ways in which the context of character relationships will deviate, and this can even be executed by certain actions that have a nature not fitting for what’s already established. The so called “no other explanation” bit somewhat aligns with this idea.

If the deviation doesn’t occur, however, then naturally what is already established contextually remains to be the “explanation”, so to speak.

When going by the context set for Terra and Aqua, there should be an understanding that the nature of all their expressions made don’t deviate from their established context above. This for neither a sibling-ship or romantic value inherently to their dynamic. Although the strength of their bond can be said to have grown greater after defeating Xehanort, the context still doesn’t shift from what is already understood.

To be exact, there isn’t anything that they’ve done or said that has the inherent meaning of these connotations. Now, I could take the time to go through every single interaction and represented sentiment towards each other exhibited in all previously mentioned source materials—but that would be a waste of time and too long to even do.

Horribly miserable, that would be.

In any case, the idea of seeing their dynamic as sibling-like isn’t really an immediate obstruction to Aqua and Terra contextually if not looking at it as an absolute claim. “Absolute claim” being: treating it as something that should be recognizable by everyone as it would be officially integrated by the context and/or more established subtext. Instead, after looking at what the context offers through their actions towards one another, either additive-reflection is really just personal perception by the end of it.

Unfortunately, not everyone abides by this logic. Since this is specifically about the sibling aspect, there is, however, one thing that stands out the most to me for the sibling claim—the moments when Terra is teasing Aqua about being “girly”.

To see the two following examples as sibling-like is perfectly up to you, naturally, but is that what the material is telling us or wanting us to think?

Terra teasing her for Wayfinder

In-game scene: Aqua explains the Wayfinders.

Birth by Sleep novel example of the same scene in Chapter 1 “Land of Departure”:

Wanting to tease Aqua as she shrugged, Terra raised his amulet that gave off orange light to the sky.

“You are such a girl sometimes,” he said.

“Hey, what do you mean ‘sometimes’?” Aqua grumbled, but Terra grinned, unfazed.

Terra teasing her for baking

Birth by Sleep novel example in Chapter 11 “Contrast”:

Ventus brought the cake to his mouth, and Terra took a bite of his at the same time.

“Oh, man, this is good. I swear, Aqua, this is the one girly thing about you.”

“And what is this ‘one’ girly thing about me, exactly?”

“Like how you love sweets and baking cakes. C’mon, Ventus, back me up.”

Terra sought his affirmation, but Ventus merely ate his cake in silence.

Teasing and playful nature of this caliber can indeed happen between siblings. Matter of fact, I’m pretty confident you’ll be able to verify such a thing empirically from a multitude of different media—a younger brother poking fun at his tomboyish sister is bound to hit the radar somewhere. However, this is something also notable between friends who’ve known of each other’s qualities for years, and even those who might actually be romantically interested. Such a call out from a guy to a girl isn’t exactly unprecedented between all three contexts, and it’d be very unreliable to say one is more common over the other generally in occurrence.

Though, the existence of these examples aren’t the crux of what make this a neutral action. The logic stands on the foundation of the statement itself. It doesn’t inherently retain a specific connotation of a relationship type to it because it primarily functions on indicating the views of the person speaking in regards to another person’s qualities. In other words—it’s a reflection of characteristic awareness. There would need to be other accompanying pieces of information to serve anything else significant.

For Terra and Aqua, the context tells us this is through friendship and being fellow pupils—which aids in the grounds of it being playful as opposed to being out of spite or as an insult. And for the statement itself, it serves as a commentary on Terra seeing Aqua as someone who doesn’t always have that typical type of personality and doesn’t do a lot of what he would consider “girly” things. Both moments are more or less initiated by Terra to something Aqua has done—it’s really more of a “what she does” sort of thing as opposed to Terra not recognizing her as a female in general. Keep in mind that the Ch. 11 quote is during the time Ven first came to them, so this changes slightly by the time we get to the beginning of the game, where “the one girly thing” (baking) turns into “you’re such a girl sometimes”. Baking sweets and making trinkets, along with the frequency of this, are two of the “girl-like” qualities he’s observed and determined over the years of knowing her.

With all that in mind, this doesn’t mean that Aqua isn’t intended to be considered a feminine character. Actually, Aqua’s feminine qualities were a focused point during her character creation. Looking at where and what was emphasized for this, it doesn’t contradict the idea of Aqua’s limited hobby choices not being particularly “girly”, for whatever that really means.

In addition to being “serious” and “a strict honour student”, her fighting style was made to be distinctly feminine, separate from that of Terra and Ven, making her a “magician girl”, as Nomura put it [via KHInsider 1]. In addition, Nomura wanted her to have the characteristics of a “strong girl” and to be “feminine and strong” [via KHInsider 2], this being seen also through the efforts of the voice acting. And while the motion capture of her character was done by a man, they paid close attention to make sure he showed Aqua’s “femininity and severe strength”. [via KHInsider 3]. Considering then of what could also be understood as “girly” things, like baking or making trinkets, if not even looking at her style of clothing choice—Aqua isn’t exactly unfeminine or anything, at least by the traditional standard that I’m sure most of you are thinking of.

As a person, she focuses much on being a Keyblader, so when she does take the time to do these different types of things, Terra’s “you’re such a girl sometimes” seems like a fitting tease from her long-time male friend whose primarily sees her on the training field.

Anywho, it’s pretty straight forward. It’s banter between friends who’ve known and trained alongside each other for years. But, with an awareness that it CAN happen between siblings, I can at least understand how the thought comes to mind.

However, there’s also a bit more to look at for the sake of interest.

By using the context that they have as fellow pupils, this actually reveals an interesting detail on how Terra views Aqua and aspects of Aqua's character. In the novel, a bit of analysis of the Ch.1 novel moment further aids our insight into there being more to Terra saying this than for teasing Aqua. Immediately following Terra teasing Aqua, the novel gives an additional introspection of Terra’s thought’s relative to the sentiment.

“Hey, what do you mean ‘sometimes’?” Aqua grumbled, but Terra grinned, unfazed.

Aqua could use Keyblades and magic about as well as he could. Maybe even better, Terra thought. She excelled at everything, and that’s why he was just the slightest bit uncertain. Could he really become a Master tomorrow?

If only one of us can become a Master, then the one who deserves it more might even be...her.

Given its placement here, this passage indicates that Terra thinks about this quality of her character relative to her abilities as a Keyblader. He’s being playful with his friend on the surface, but deep down it’s also an awareness of her capabilities and powerful potential as a fighter that are equal, if not better, than his own. He has trained alongside her as an apprentice for years, this most likely being their main interaction and occupation as their friendship has grown. Of course, it would seem to paint the idea that Terra aligns with a “tough, physical activity isn’t for girls” kind of mentality, but I wouldn’t take it as harm. It still effectively works as Terra’s acknowledgment of her abilities anyhow, along with the other aspects of what he knows of her.

On another side of this, it also essentially demonstrates qualities of Aqua’s character that, possibly, isn’t just limited to Terra’s point of view. In that, this is intentionally written in for the audience to understand that Aqua isn’t just a serious, tough, and studious woman—she also likely doesn’t often take the time out to do a wide variety of “traditional feminine” activities outside of her Keyblade training. There are a lot of varying commentary on what “traditional feminine” activities and mindsets are, of course, but it would be worth noting that the times where Aqua’s hobbies are shown (baking/making trinkets)—both moments are accompanied by Terra’s commentary on those being the “girly” qualities of her character. It is very likely, then, as someone who is very serious about her training, that Aqua doesn’t really indulge in a lot of those types of activities.

At the very least, still, activities that Terra doesn’t consider “girly”, anyway.

Narrative works in many different ways. Some things are explained contextually in a way that isn’t meant to present it as anything more than that character’s opinion. Very often, however, it’s there to act as genuine representation of who that character is—it’s just given through the eyes of another character. Whether we’re suppose to take this as just Terra’s opinion or as something that represents something of Aqua’s character is debatable, but I would argue that it happening twice when essentially describing how she spends her time makes is intentional in revealing the nature of her character. Of course as it is still banter, Aqua questions what Terra says when she goes along with it, but it does likely put things in perspective of what she does [doesn’t] indulge in daily. Terra is someone that is close to her, and already similarly, we had Aqua be the one to officially introduce the sibling bond that Terra and Ven shared—that didn’t turn out to be just her opinion, of course.

But I digress.

The primary function is that of showing a playful dynamic between the two. If to be reflective of a relationship type, at best currently it shows that they have known each other for a while and this is carried over from the possible amount of years representing their friendship and training together as Keyblade apprentices for years. It’s an expression formed by the context set in place for them.

There's no sibling functionality here.

On that note, there is one other particular thing that I mentioned very briefly earlier—Aqua worrying over Terra’s fight with the Darkness. This is something you actually see very often in regards to claim of romanticism. Something conducive of “only a girl in love is capable of worrying like this”, or something or the other. Opposite to that, however, are also the claims of it aligning with Aqua being a “hogosha” or sibling figure to Terra, instead.

We’re going to take a look at this further in the next part.

Continue to Part 3

#kingdom hearts #terraqua #terra #aqua #Ventus #kh birth by sleep #KH3 #analysis #kh bbs #wayfinder trio

10 notes · View notes

orionsangel86 · 4 years

Note

I'm tired of this discussion about Saileen or Samwena. Why can't be both? I recognize the potential that Sam and Rowena had for a romantic relationship, they really seemed to be going in that direction, and as Rowena said, they'd grown fond of each other. But I also recognize the potential that Sam and Eileen have for a romantic relationship, for reasons that we all saw at s11, s12 and s15. What do you think?

Hi there!

Is this discussion still ongoing? Since I have blocked it all out to be honest and refuse to engage in drama on the topic. But since you asked I will give you my thoughts on the whole Saileen/Samwena thing.

First of all I like your thinking! Why not both indeed! I don’t care for shipping wars but here’s the way I see things. I have never been a “death of the author” kind of person. My whole process for writing meta is what I think the writers and creators of the show are intending to convey when they tell the story that we see. In season 11, Eileen was introduced as a clear love interest for Sam. She has always been portrayed this way even after her untimely death (which I still believe only happened because they didn’t have any other close characters to the brothers at the time to kill off whose actors they could get last minute and whose death would be equally shocking - I know it’s just speculation but it’s my belief). I wrote a long post here about my love for Saileen and how it has been portrayed in the show. I am firmly still a Saileen shipper because it was just perfect from the start, but also I only ever “ship” things that I see within the show as being planted purposely by the creators. I ship Saileen because Saileen has always been a thing ya know? It’s not imaginary and never has been.

However, following Eileen’s death in Season 12, Sam and Rowena’s relationship has been heavily developed on. They bonded over their shared Lucifer trauma, their experiences with fear and their interest in magic. The relationship between them is complex and very much an enemies to friends (to something more?) set up. Sam is canonically Rowena’s protege and now her heir. The mutual respect they hold for each other is clearly noticeable and their destinies tied by fate through Billie’s death books could arguably be considered romantic. Basically, Sam and Rowena as a love story is certainly a dramatic and interesting one that ticks a lot of boxes for a lot of people. I do believe that for a time, the writers flirted with the idea of them as a romantic pairing and that there was clear authorial intent to code their relationship in a romantic way. Especially in seasons 13 and 14. Whilst I never “shipped” Samwena, I guess I saw it the way I see Drowley. I believed that it was being intentionally written with romantic undertones. I was all for it as a romantic pairing, have never been against it, but it didn’t feel me with “feels” either I guess. I love both Sam and Rowena individually, and whether the story took them in a romantic direction or not wouldn’t have bothered me. Had Eileen never come back, I would have squee’d and enjoyed it with the rest of you, even if I wasn’t super invested ya know?

I think a lot of people saw their relationship as romantic after the Billie death book reveal. It was a nice idea that Rowena’s “death” at Sam’s hands might be a metaphorical death where she would choose to give up her immortality for him. (It’s also an idea generally adored by Destiel shippers so it’s not surprising that this was something people got excited about).

Unfortunately this idea didn’t pan out and Sam literally had to kill Rowena. I am one of the people who really loved her death scene, because it felt like a true redemption and moment of empowerment for Rowena. I know that there are people who will disagree with me on that and that is absolutely fine. I guess for me, Rowena making that ultimate sacrifice just felt right for her character journey at that point because true redemption was something she still needed. Rowena was always previously an anti-hero character. She had still done a lot of bad and hadn’t really repented or redeemed herself for the bad she had done in the earlier seasons. She was still generally motivated by selfish desires and still pretty much made decisions for herself, though like Crowley, her respect and care for the Winchesters conflicted with her own selfish motivations and in the later seasons she chose to help them even at risk to herself, which put her well on her way to redemption of course. But this death was her actual redemption. Her true sacrifice, purely selfless deed, in order to not only save the Winchesters, but also the world.

Therefore I see her rise to power again as Queen of Hell as a reward for her sacrifice and redemption. I never believed that 15x03 was the last we’d see of her (too much womb and maternal imagery there). I believe that Queen of Hell is a satisfactory end point for her, having reached her full potential and freeing herself of all the former oppression and bindings that she faced. She is now one of the most powerful beings in the universe along with Chuck, Amara, Billie, the Empty, Eve, and Jack. It’s a position that makes sense for a character who has always desired unlimited power.

I also think that Rowena will continue to be a big player in the story. This definitely isn’t the last we’ve seen of her in terms of fighting the final boss battle, but her position as Queen of Hell I do think will remain a fixed position from here. Though if it isn’t, and the writers have something else wonderful in store for her, I will also be happy with that too.

Given that canonically Sam and Eileen desire and want each other, and are only being separated by Chuck (and look, I’m not gonna get real deep into it, but I felt that 15x09 did go far to stress that whilst Chuck set up the reunion because he wanted “romance” in his story, the feelings, the connection, and everything else between Sam and Eileen is 100% real. Sam textually states that it’s real after all (in a nice and also emotionally destroying mirror to Cas saying the same thing to Dean in 15x02 by the way - Forever a Destiel shipper here :P)) it is logical that Sam and Eileen will reunite and rekindle their romance at some point in a coming episode. I am of the belief that Saileen is probably our endgame here. I don’t think that they would have gone to the trouble to bring Eileen back in the final season, make her a love interest for Sam, only to either kill her off, kill him off, or separate them again and not have them be endgame.

But I could be totally wrong. Could Sam and Rowena still reunite and start a new love connection? Sure it’s possible. Rowena is coming back as well I would put money on it. We don’t know how the show plans to end after all. Who knows, maybe Sam will also sacrifice himself and go to hell and that whole Boy!King dropped story arc from season 3 will finally get picked up again! Sam and Rowena as Queen and consort of Hell could be quite an amusing and somewhat fitting end for them! The two characters who suffered most at Lucifer’s hands taking over and ruling Hell as a big fuck you to their tormentor is certainly poetic.

Maybe Supernatural will go super progressive and send Eileen to Hell too. Maybe the Queen will find herself in a loving polyamorous threesome for the rest of eternity?

Wouldn’t it actually be really fun if Supernatural ends with Castiel choosing humanity, and saying goodbye to his son Jack, who takes over the rule of Heaven, and at the same time Dean chooses to stay on Earth, and says goodbye to his brother (aka son) Sam, who takes over the rule of Hell as consort to the Queen in his new polyamorous relationship with both the Queen and his girlfriend? Dean and Cas live out a happy human life knowing they are the proud parents of the new rulers of Heaven and Hell?!?

Lol. Look I’m just trying to find a compromise here that all Samwena and Saileen shippers can agree on and if there is one thing we can all generally agree on it’s that Dean and Cas need to stay together whatever happens and fuck it out on the map table. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m joking of course. (or am I?!?)

So yeah. I follow people who are passionate Samwena shippers, and I follow people who are passionate Saileen shippers. I consider them all people who I care about and respect. I just want everyone to get along and if a polyamorous love threesome in Hell is how we go about that then I am totally down for that. :D

I haven’t got beef with anyone regardless of who they ship with who unless they plan to start harassing people for holding a different opinion, but I’ve already blocked all those people anyway. It makes for a much easier life. Trust me. :P

#saileen #samwena #destiel #sam x eileen #sam x rowena #sam winchester #rowena #eileen leahy #season 15 #spn speculation #spn meta #witch queen of hell #shipping wars #my thoughts #asks #anon #Anonymous

42 notes · View notes

bladekindeyewear · 4 years

Text

Bloggin’ bout HS^2 Commentary from start to Mid-Jan-2020

Sigh. Time to pay the piper. Someone’s gotta extract whatever plot-important and plothole mentions get mentioned in this commentary, even though reading behind-the-scenes stuff about Homestuck makes me even more nervous than reading frontend stuff ever could so I don’t really want to. FYI, that’s what you’re going to get out of my posts on these -- anything regarding plot stuff and plotholes, things we would’ve misinterpreted or missed otherwise, not any of the other paid content such as sketches or full quotes from them about things.

TWENTY FUCKING DOLLARS A MONTH!???!?? Is Andrew even seeing any of this cash? --no, not much of it I guess, he would want to make sure the WP folks get paid enough after the--

Yeah I’m not gonna even think about that.

Fuck it. I’m ponying up.

Alright, first commentary post on the Patreon, commentary and bonus sketches for Ghostflusters... whoa, this is long and extensive. Is it going panel by panel??

I guess I’ll give you a small quote just for a taste of how this starts...

Page 33: Not sure what any of this shit means. It’s pretty deep though. We were going for an echo of the beginning of the epilogue when John is dreaming in anime. Except here it’s Jake, and nobody is dreaming, at least not yet. Also an anime dream wouldn’t be a nightmare for Jake, since Jake likes anime. Or he used to. Now anime probably just reminds him of Dirk.

Good thing we’re never gonna hear from that guy ever again.

...because this commentary is sort of stylized. They’re kind of riffing on what they’re doing, and I get that -- when you have to write commentary you’re asking people to PAY for you can easily feel like you have to be entertaining. But they are describing the rationale for the shot choices they made and such. They’re also going for a sort of Andrew-recap sort of attitude, and I don’t blame them for that choice, either.

[Candy] Jade is...well, you’ll see.

GOD DAMNIT. Don’t remind me that Dave vanished on her forever while they were doing pro-revolutionary work and she’s probably going to be in a bit of a state! Stupid knowing author future allusions...

Then again, that’s exactly why I’m here blogging about the commentary for you guys -- for me to relay Authorial Intent on Stuff That Happened That Seemed Plotholey and Hints About What’s Going To Be Relevant.

I just, uh... didn’t expect there to be that MUCH of it. And that casual phrasing for that Candy Jade Is Going To Be Seen And Or Relevant hint is... kinda indicating to me that there’s gonna be a LOT more of that here than I wanted. :|

Continuing... there’s talk of why they started with Jake here, being unused to writing for middle-aged characters in Homestuck terms, et cetera, but again, I’m only here to relay anything with plot impact or SERIOUS perspective on how we should / the authors are viewing this. The rest stays behind the paywall for whichever of you all think it’s worth $20, I don’t really have a choice. At least now I know why there was no one to tell me what details were actually BEHIND the paywall. Seriously, that’s steep.

Speaking of how stylized the commentary is here, I can get why some might read it and view the authors as slightly callous -- I’m giving them PLENTY of benefit of the doubt, though. Andrew was FAR from callous and he hurt us worse out of love of artistic intent with the Epilogues than the HS^2 folks could EVER hurt us. Real Dirk-like, actually. Dirk is practically half of a self-insert, as we well know. No wonder Andrew thought the right thing to do was to take his hands off the story, what with Dirk’s villainous action being putting his own hands ON the story.

We like to make fun of Jake English as much as the next guy, but he probably is actually pretty good at “doing things” if the need arises.

Mhmm; there are some jibes at how screwed up Jake has made his life, but I don’t believe these authors actually disrespect Jake at all. He was dealt a bad hand by the story leading up to this point (quite INTENTIONALLY by Dirk’s narrative control in the Epilogues, too) and HS^2 and its bonuses so far have been exploring the heap of merits and potential he’s still got in him.

It’s kind of sweet how he wants to clean out his ecto-son’s house, even if most of that is to prevent the slow creep of mounting existential dread and narrative relevance.

Huh. So they think Jake can sort of feel that narrative relevance is seeping in around him, to him? That’s not out of the question at all.

Continuing... they’re going on a bit about the same sort of things I mentioned about their choices in detail or detail-less-ness when depicting people in this new format, considering ages and the paired text descriptions and such. That’s the sort of thing you’d traditionally want to pony up for commentary for, so rest assured that all that IS in their commentary posts if you want to do that. I’m kind of extracting the plot stuff out of the paywall just on principle.

A lot of making this comic--and every other comic ever--is trying to convey as much information with as little space as possible.

Quite so.

From this conversation we find out a couple things. 1) that Brain Ghost Dirk knows about Ultimate Dirk, and he thinks he’s a dickhead. 2) Brain Ghost Dirk knows who Jeff Bezos is, and Jake doesn’t. This could be a sign of a couple things, all of which are probably stupid.

This is ALSO what I came here for: Legitimate “don’t worry about it” handwaves about stuff that shouldn’t matter to us. I never ascribed the slightest bit of relevance or inference to BGDirk making a Jeff Bezos reference, and I’m glad I was completely justified in ignoring it. So far I agree with this probably-plural-but-acting-like-a-singular author’s train of thought.

Come to think of it, it’s maybe strange that in this Cool Future Earth where all of our characters are rich as hell, none of them have bothered to have any sort of corrective eye surgery. Jane, Jake, John, and Jade all still wear glasses. I guess they do have “signature looks” to maintain in regards to their brand.

I had to include this, I was legitimately curious. Understood it was probably an artistic decision to stay on-brand a fair bit -- and losing glasses even temporarily has a lot of thematic significance whenever it happens in Homestuck Proper -- but it’s nice to have some confirmation that this was the understandable rationale behind the choice.

Here we find out what Dirk thinks about Jake’s behavior of the last few years. In other words, we find out what Jake thinks about Jake’s behavior over the last few years. [...]

[Brain Ghost] Dirk is manipulating Jake here, but he isn’t actually saying anything demonstrably untrue.

Again, most of this was obvious at the time, but it’s nice to have authorial confirmation on what was being brought across as per the strange divide between Brain Ghost Dirk’s independent will and his mostly-part-of-Jake status.

Seriously though, shoutout to the conceit that god tiers can just fly endlessly, with no visible effort. It’s a really excellent form of narrative shortcut that fits perfectly into the bonkers vibe of earth c as a whole. Oh there goes one of the Creators, just flying over the Wal-Mart like an asshole.

You know... who IS doing the commentary here? One of the authors, all of them? One of the artists?? This really is a COLLABORATIVE effort between the authors and artists involved here, I think, and it shows in their clear surprise and appreciation for each others’ work that only settles into a full understanding instead of just knowing what one intended off the bat.

It calls into question exactly how much of the Condesce’s mind control was actually mind control at all, and how much was just a lowering of inhibitions.

Right, right.

We see Jane greeting Jake here with open arms, which makes you wonder exactly what is going on here. If you’ll remember from Candy, Jane has already served Jake divorce papers. A mystery in need of solving, for sure.

HERE we go! This is the potential plothole we were concerned about that got me alerted that the commentary had something to add in the first place. John mentioned toward the trail-end of the Candy epilogues that divorce papers had shown up for Jake. (And we also saw an HS^2 update ago or so that Jane hadn’t actually KNOWN Tavros was “awol” at all until he was literally a part of this whole clowncorpse logistics business.) So in light of what this post continues to say:

It could be that Jane has put aside the nasty business of their divorce in order to have a strong chest to cry on. Can’t really say I blame her. Jake English has many flaws but he does seem like a good person to drape yourself across and really let loose on. And without Gamzee there, Jane needs another punching bag.

...it all finally fits as pretty logically consistent, although the author is being deliberately coy in a way that leaves it open for more to be revealed later about exactly how this is happening. Good! No obvious plotholes in HS^2 (yet). That’s an honest relief. The more often they have something in mind where I’d previously worried they’d screwed up, the more often I can give them credit and speculate properly on those gaps in story-logic expecting something there, like we so often got to with Andrew before the retconsplit made even THAT kinda fucky.

If you’ve ever had a friend or family member go evil, you’ll know that one of the hardest parts is there’s always still elements of them that you like.

I can definitely say that from nearly personal experience.

Also, at this point in the story there is no lingering doubt that Jake and Dirk have had a sexual relationship. There’s a familiarity there that wasn’t around when they were teens.

I assumed so, but I guess I never thought ABOUT how I assumed so. Huh.

Do any of the creators have a moral leg to stand on if all they’re doing is curling up into a ball and hoping the world gets better without them? Actually, does anyone have a moral leg to stand on if they do that?

Almost Riddley, there.

These posts are certainly interesting! Steeply priced for what they are, but interesting. Moving on to the second of four so far... this one’s about Catnapped Part 1.

Taking over Earth C's business world certainly would have required rubbing shoulders with the already-powerful on the planet.

--yep, which I never doubted even when brought up in the Epilogues is a large part of her supply-side government views.

Ah, looks like the bonus commentary is a good deal shorter! But that bonus section was a good deal shorter than the story section covered earlier too, so.

On to the next one, for Clown Logistics.

Page 58: If you love Vriskas, i hope you enjoy more Vriska content. If you hate Vriskas, well. Here is another one that is kind of different. Feel free to contemplate nature vs nurture and how best to apply this dichotomy toward emoting about the vriskas of your choice how you see fit.

I’m starting to really enjoy this author commentary.

Tavros being named Tavros sure was a decision. Go back and reread the commentary for panel 58 but stop before the nature/nurture thing, since they are not clones, or even the same species. They just have the same name, which, in this universe, means you at least type kind of the same.

Hmhmm.

Page 65: Sometimes you try and come up with something to say about a page, and you cannot, and so you wait 8 hours, and go see Knives Out, and then you have 2 white russians, and then you still can’t come up with anything to say, but oh well! Commentary needs writing. Tavros is experiencing an emotion here.

Now THAT’s a mood. I gotta go see Knives Out sometime soon.

...Alright, I can see why some people think MAAAAYBE this author might be being a little disrespectful to the audience, but if they’re going based on THIS, I don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. This comment could have come from Andrew’s fingertips any day of the week!!! I honestly wouldn’t WANT replacement authors who couldn’ comment like this in there for a page in paid commentary, especially in a lighter section of the story that doesn't need too much said about it.

And I paid $20 for this shit.

...Continuing, I’m loving all this commentary on Harry Anderson. Representative excerpt:

Again, direct your eyes toward the boy. What a fucking asshole.

...these commentaries are honestly improving my mood! I didn’t expect that, really.

Ah, I didn’t even notice that the flying cars appear to be self-driving. I think maybe the back of my mind MIGHT have noticed but only a bit.

Referring to the corpse-carry crew:

Page 82: Pokedex entry for Magneton in Pokemon Sun: When three Magnemite link together, their brains also become one. They do not become three times more intelligent.

Ain’t THAT a mood.

(...I just had an internal “Wait, am I using that right, it being a “mood”? Isn’t that the hip new term, how do I have any right to latch onto that however much I feel it? Ohhh gosh I’m so fucking old” moment.)

It’s clear from the commentator’s complaints that the crew never viewed this commentary ALONE as worth upping the pledge to $20, but that’s... not quite a bad thing? I think it’d have been more disrespectful to think that they COULD make the commentary worth that. I doubt there’s a single person on their team who feels quite right about the business model (besides the artists they have plenty of context to know how deserving they are of a living goddamn wage), but it’s what they have to live with and go with, here. I feel weird for honestly understanding ‘em, and more than slightly pitying for how many people will look at all this and read “these assholes don’t care about us”. I really can’t think that’s anywhere CLOSE to true from this without more context. (And I really DON’T want more context, don’t send me any. I’ve got to read HS^2 and I’m enjoying reading it so far so let me keep enjoying it please. Background drama details make me nauseous, DON’T give me any if there is any (which I wouldn’t know about in the first place beyond an opinionated friend or two dropping hints in a bad mood).)

Did you know there are people who I’ve seen honestly believing “Undertale is pretty good but the creator is an arrogant asshole”?????

Because they saw his tweet about the game score passing Kojima’s MGSV on metacritic briefly and misinterpreted his wide-eyed disbelief, disbelief honed to nervous laughter to maintain sanity by Toby’s insecurity about his unprofessional work and work product??? They thought he was SERIOUS without any of the context of the usual insincere little dog persona they should’ve read into the game of his they played??

Awh man. That just ticks me off.

Anyway where were we.

Page 91: This is a flashback so I didn’t write this one, which means I thankfully don’t have to say anything about it.

Wait. What?

Are they trading off writers between chapters, or...? Hm.

Whatever they’re doing, it fits together pretty darn well SO far.

Alright, that finishes that off, time for the last commentary post on the second bonus update.

I don't know if you noticed, but everything is terrible right now. And I don't mean just in Homestuck's dumb fake earth. I mean in our dumb real earth.

Now that’s a mood.

I've been playing a lot of Death Stranding recently. Basically any media that you're making in 2019 has to either address what's going on around us or come off sanitized, sterilized, with its head in the sand. Kojima offers a simple power fantasy: Through Norman Reedus's sweaty, urine-filled labor, the things that divide us can be banished. America can be unified again.

Now THAT is a god damned MOOD.

The author(?) goes in about why this is happening, why Jane is being confronted this way, why she IS this way, et cetera.

Privilege, safety, and inherited wealth do funny things to the brain. People justify to themselves why they have what they have. If you have enough for long enough, you start to convince yourself you deserve it.

That’s one of the biggest goddamn reasons for the inequality and political landscape we have today IRL, yeah.

She saw a new world and chose, simply, to replicate the power structures of the 21st-century America she was raised in. Boardrooms, power pantsuits, formality and professionalism.

Jane's favorite comic, a noir-detective drama steeped in the pop-cultural trappings of pulp Americana, reflects this mindset.

So, our catgirl Seer of Light takes us through the looking glass, and we get to see an old friend.

Hm!

Nothing really to say, I just had to share this fitting context the author is giving. How things fit together even better than they seemed to, and this was all far from random.

I feel warmly ensconced in the womb of nostalgia, gently cradled on Norman Reedus's chest.

Pffffffff

Yep, more of what we already surmised and appreciated, how Swifer and Cliper were giving us some much needed perspective... the commentary post even has little traditional-Homestuck sprites for ‘em.

And... that’s it for the commentary so far! Again, I enjoyed all that more than I expected. $20 doesn’t sting for me as much as it does for others in general, but it stung a lot less after I was through reading all that honestly somewhat-entertaining stuff confirming a lot of the insights I’d thought the plot was having.

I’ll probably wait to check for further commentary posts until like... after bonus updates come out, in the future, and then just blog about whatever I’m not caught up on. Sound fair? I’m going to blog as often as a real or bonus upd8 comes out, but I’m not going to pop in more often than that for my own sanity’s sake. Have a good MLK weekend, y’all. :)

#Homestuck #hs2 #Homestuck Liveblog #bladekindeyewear #Homestuck Commentary #blastyoboots

32 notes · View notes

dabistits · 5 years

Text

Himiko & emotional intelligence

This is an aspect of Himiko that I deeply appreciate and want to talk about here, especially since I haven’t seen a comprehensive post about this character trait. I think this is especially important given her desire to Kill and Replace, but it also contradicts portrayals of Himiko that construe her as not particularly smart or strategic. Emotional intelligence is actually a huge asset of hers, in many terms, including as a weapon. She exhibits a profound and seemingly intuitive understanding of other people’s emotions and can modify her own behavior accordingly for her own ends. Below is a listed breakdown with specific examples, in no particular order of importance:

1. Intuitive understanding of unspoken feelings

This is probably the most prominent example, and which we see time and again. Himiko repeatedly makes assertions based off tangential information, which she surmises into an accurate reading of other people’s character. Ochako and Izuku are basically complete strangers to her, but with minimal interaction, Himiko’s able to deduce important relationships to both of them. In the latter examples, while Izuku and Jin have alluded to their feelings to or around her, Himiko cuts right to the heart of the issue: not only does Izuku hold Ochako’s abilities in a conflict situation in high regard, he trusts her; not only does Jin feel guilty for Magne’s death, he feels the most guilt, and cooperating with the yakuza hurts him because of his guilt.

She confidently makes a statement about three different characters, and she’s shown to be correct in how she interprets their feelings. Her intuitive deduction often acts as a narrative device to show authorial intent (that Ochako does have a crush, that Izuku does trust her, Jin does feel guilt), so it’s important that her statements are accurate. As a result, she happens to become one of the most emotionally perceptive characters in the series, almost to an unnerving degree, able to correctly make snap judgments about people’s feelings and relationships. But how else do you use a quirk like Transform, right?

2. Blending into her role

We’ve so far seen Himiko in four different transformations (Rock Lock isn’t on here because I got lazy lol). Quite obviously, she’s not perfect—Kemi’s classmates at Shiketsu notes that she’s been acting weird, and Izuku quickly figures out that the Ochako he rescued during the Hero License Exam was an imposter. That said, Himiko does several things very well that shows it’s not carelessness on her part, so much as reasonable limitations given how much she knows about each of these people.

Starting from the obvious: her mannerisms. Himiko adjusts her mannerisms according to whomever she’s imitating, including expressions, body language, and (I’m assuming, w/o the requisite Japanese knowledge to go on) speech. Her personas are distinctive in each instance, and tailored to suit the situation they’re in, from Ochako’s sheepish look to Izuku’s direct, urgent communication. Himiko assumes a, at the very least, passable imitation of people she’s, again, barely met, adopting salient behavioral traits so she doesn’t easily get found out. Even when Izuku calls her out, he points out technical flaws in her imitation of Ochako (that she didn’t float, the lack of planning when coming to save him) rather than obvious tells from personality.

That said, where and when Himiko uses her Transform ability is also strategic in nature. For sustained periods of transformation, she selected a target who she could imitate more easily, whose strangeness would be more likely to get overlooked. Shishikura Seiji says this about Kemi:

Himiko’s target and surroundings are carefully chosen to minimize chances of discovery, all strategic considerations that rely on an ability to read the atmosphere and people’s dispositions. She makes use of moments of confusion and plays off of people’s (but especially heroes’) need to react and help, betting on them to act before asking too many questions. This also raises an interesting question for me: in the hero license exam as Ochako, did she fall deliberately, counting on Izuku to catch her? Canon doesn’t make it particularly clear either way, but to speculate about it is fun in its own way.

3. Curiosity towards others

This trait ties in obviously to Himiko’s fixation on Kill and Replace, but it also serves to expand her understanding of other people. By asking these questions in her drive to satisfy her curiosity, Himiko must also necessarily take in and process the information she receives in response, so she necessarily acquires an (emotional) understanding towards others. While this line is directed to Izuku, her interrogation of him broadens her perspective about not only Izuku himself, but those who are like him—in this case, heroes. Both Himiko and Tomura (in the mall scene) seek out Izuku to elucidate certain ways of thinking that are foreign to them, and seem to come away from the interaction with some knowledge gained about the enemy. While Tomura is the one who clearly grew during his encounter, in beginning to use his acquired philosophy to gain legitimacy, it would be inaccurate to say Himiko gained nothing from hers, even if it was marginal enough not to be addressed in the canon narrative yet. She’ll obviously have more interaction with Izuku in the future though, so there should be plenty of opportunity to show how this encounter affected her too.

4. Using emotional information for her own ends

All of her skills amount to this—a brilliant play in the Hideout Invasion Arc that is vastly under-appreciated. Let’s set the scene: she and Twice have been drafted into the yakuza, whom neither of them much like, and now they’re embroiled in the yakuza’s affairs which involves a confrontation with heroes. They’re disadvantaged in terms of sheer physical power, they’re trapped in the battlezone with a significant risk of getting arrested, and their true target (Overhaul) is quickly making his escape while Mimic slows everyone down. Mimic is someone with whom she’d had a brief but antagonistic interaction that we know of, maybe more went on off-screen. Regardless, she understands enough about this person to figure out where he’s hiding (which stupefied the heroes), and exactly what to do to make him reveal himself against all his best interests. How she goes about this sets the course for the rest of the chapter.

With the right combination of words, she coaxes Mimic into self-sabotaging by revealing his location, and the heroes react exactly as she wanted them to. They prioritize subduing Mimic; once Izuku catches on to where he’s hiding, he takes him out, and it occupies all of the heroes for just long enough for her and Twice to make their escape. Himiko talks the situation into her favor, and ends up with one of the most troublesome yakuza members out of the way, and the road cleared for Twice and herself to execute their own plan to sabotage Overhaul.

I don’t think I need to go on about how amazing it is to manipulate a chain of events like that. Suffice to say that achieving such a result required a remarkable understanding of Mimic’s character and tics. She knew what to say that would dig the most at his insecurities, what would piss him off the most, and how the heroes would react. Basically, she played them, pretty much effortlessly and with very little time to think everything through. As stated in point 1, her ability to grasp a situation and all personalities involved seems pretty much intuitive, allowing her take advantage of what is going on around her. This is one of those scenes when the cunning of a character truly shines through, and it happens by allowing Himiko to take control of the situation just by reading someone’s personality and emotions.

5. Emotional intelligence=empathy?

One would think that this all amounts to an extremely sympathetic reading of her, and Himiko does tend to get very sympathetic reactions out of fans. After all, she’s redeemable by her age, she’s fun, and she has extremely endearing interactions with Twice. People particularly like to cite the scene above as evidence that she’s empathetic, and therefore not just a surface-level sadistic serial killer. I somewhat agree on these points, but although I’ve just spent a lot of words detailing indications of her emotional intelligence, I hesitate to assert that it necessarily makes her more predictable in terms of her loyalties or willingness to self-sacrifice.

So as to not get too deeply into what other people think or don’t think, I’ll just present my own argument here. While Himiko does show herself to be perceptive towards other people’s feelings, upset at the team’s loss of Magne, and reassuring when Twice is distressed, it may not come from a totally selfless, empathetic place. This is something of an extrapolation from her behavior in other instances, like the serial killing lmfao, but also this bit towards Tomura:

When faced with the possibility of doing something she doesn’t like, her reaction drastically differs from Twice. Twice is hurt by Tomura asking them to join the yakuza, but Himiko doesn’t seem to feel hurt; rather than echo Twice’s plea for consideration, her reaction is a logical, problem-solving attempt to remove the element that is making her do that which she dislikes. Her gesture towards Tomura is antagonistic. Her expression is placid, she even calls Tomura by his first name, but her action is a threat, making it clear she will hurt someone to get her way.

What I read from this interaction is that, to Himiko, people are disposable if they become ‘unpleasant.’ It’s the people on her good side who warrant her reassurance, but given that it’s Tomura she threatens here, that can change at the drop of a pin. This is why I hesitate to point to her emotional intelligence as something that indicates unconditional loyalty or compassion; there is very clearly a self-centered and opportunistic streak in the way Himiko evaluates people around her and her relationships to them, and that’s a trait that’s often overlooked. People are welcome to interpret her however they want, but I think her willingness to rebel against and threaten the people she deems friends is something that bears acknowledging.

6. Bonus: she still cares to remark on what Tomura thinks though

IT’S CUTE, that’s all.

Emotional intelligence doesn't always point to good deeds and intentions, and I think this aspect of it is ignored when it comes to Himiko. Focus on her character tends towards the moments when she's being compassionate (and I get that because it's really cute) but I feel like it undersells how manipulative she can be. She regularly uses her people skills to infiltrate, confuse, and sabotage, which is also very a interesting and fun part of her character. She can be strategic! She can be cunning! It's just a different type of intelligence that most of our main characters exhibit, especially in terms of how she uses it, but that's also part of what makes her a great villain.

#bnha meta #himiko toga #toga himiko

1K notes · View notes

permian-tropos · 5 years

Note

What is a "jungian freudian campbellian archetype of western canon" if I may ask?

Well it’s a whole lot of nonsense

The thing that I’m complaining about is a phenomenon that not a lot of reyIo antis particularly care about because to them, no reyIo analysis or speculation is valuable, because it’s reyIo. In this case I don’t think the problem is that it’s reyIo, but because it’s bad analysis.

There’s a subset of reyIo BNFs who use pseudo-intellectual language to try to prove their ship is going to become canon. The arguments can be extremely persuasive to fans who don’t know what real literary analysis looks like – specifically, fans who don’t know that literary analysis using a lens, such as Campbell’s ideas, or Jung’s ideas about archetypes, is not a tool to predict the future. You can’t apply your lens to an incomplete work and confidently determine authorial intent. Worse, I see people dismissing authorial intent, as in, the specific intent of Abrams and Johnson as writers, and clinging to the idea that some vague cultural force is in command of the Star Wars narrative, like Star Wars will have emergent properties outside the control of its writers and inexorably manifest The Collective Unconscious itself.

So I don’t care about garden variety reyIo shipping, as I’ve said a zillion times. If people want them to Bone tm and Smooch tm that’s really just their tastes in things. I don’t like the ship because I don’t really like the chemistry of the characters’ personalities, which is the least Problematique thing about any ship.

What I think genuinely is more problematic than shipping something dark, is going overboard with academic analysis that’s founded on confirmation bias, because it’s encouraging people to take the conspiracy theory side of fandom (which can be a fun outlet for your pattern-seeking hominin brain) and attach this kind of institutional legitimacy to it.

Also all those people thought they were Big Think smart brain geniouses and they weren’t and that’s just schadenfreude for me.

EDIT: Also you know what I don’t have a problem with at all? People having these massive analyses comparing reyIo to the Hero’s Journey or Freudian psychology and using that as their own inspiration! You can definitely have reyIo be about those things if YOU’RE the author and it’s YOUR intent. In fact, shipping was always about YOUR intent all along. That’s the point you guys.

#my post #anti reylo #tagging for peoples comfort #antis don't interact unless I know you I guess #this isn't here as proof all reyIo shippers are evul #I can't believe I have to be so vehement about this but I guess I do

13 notes · View notes

mustardyellowsunshine · 6 years

Note

There’s a question in my mind and I can’t get of off it.Do you think Kagome is really the reincarnation of Kikyou?How is it possible for both of them be alive at the same time if the soul is the same and Urasue took Kagome’s soul to relive Kikyou?And when Kagome took it back,she just took half of it?And in the end,when Kikyou died, not one single soul returns to Kagome’s body.But Inuyasha mistook their scents too,and the jewel was in Kagome’s body, and her resemblance with Kikyou.Idk. Thanks

Hello ‘Nony!

I’m sorry that it took me so long to answer this, but these are really interesting questions and I wanted to give them the time they deserved. For the sake of clarity, I’m gonna try to discuss these in order.

1) Do you think Kagome is really the reincarnation of Kikyou?

The short answer: Rumiko Takahashi clearly intends her audience to think of Kagome as Kikyou’s reincarnation, and I personally think authorial intent matters to some degree, so I’m inclined to say yes. But the longer answer? I don’t think the series is particularly successful at showing Kagome to be Kikyou’s reincarnation. There’s almost as much evidence to suggest that Kagome isn’t her reincarnation as there is evidence for it. The user @ka-go-me actually wrote a really great post about this. I highly recommend you read it, it’s probably my favorite Inuyasha analysis to date—particularly the theory that the Shikon actually absorbed Kikyou’s soul upon her death. (But seriously, read the post, it’s good good stuff.)

Honestly though, I share much of your confusion about Kagome’s supposed “reincarnation” status. Like why the heck did Urasue need Kagome’s soul to reanimate Kikyou when, after Kagome gets her soul back, Kikyou is perfectly able to stay animated using other people’s souls? Urasue suggests she needs the soul of Kikyou’s reincarnation, and yet Kikyou’s clearly able to keep her body going with other souls. And the answer doesn’t seem to be that Kikyou’s body “kept” some part of Kagome’s soul, because no such soul piece returned to Kagome when Kikyou died for the final time. So like… what the heck? I dunno man, and I question how much RT thought through all these details, either. (I mean, fair’s fair: the woman had a lot of details to juggle over a long period of time, but yeah.)

2) How is it possible for both of them [to] be alive at the same time if the soul is the same and Urasue took Kagome’s soul to relive Kikyou?

See above. The whole thing kind of reminds me of Polchinski’s Paradox – if Kikyou is the “original” soul from which Kagome is reincarnated, how then can Kagome go back in time and interact with Kikyo’s spirit? As you point out, how can the two be occupying the same space and time without creating a huge paradox? I DO NOT KNOW, MY FRIEND. I can only speculate. I sometimes like to play with the idea that it was Kagome’s power, as opposed to her soul, that helped reanimate Kikyou, but this is based on nothing other than the fact that Kagome is very very powerful (enough that Magatsuhi felt the need to put a seal on her). There’s not much evidence to go on, though, it’s just kind of a fun thought.

I also think it’s worth pointing out that the reanimated Kikyou is continually shown to be a diminished version of Kikyou; that is, she’s not the full, true Kikyou who’d been alive 50 years before. She still needs the souls of other people to keep her body stable, and it’s suggested by Kaede that the revived Kikyou is in some way powered by bitterness and anger (given the manner of her death)… all of which suggests to me that Kikyou’s true soul/spirit is not in that body. It’s purely magic and captured dead souls that’s keeping her around.

3) And when Kagome took [her soul] back, she just took half of it?

There’s no evidence of this in the series, though — we aren’t given any reason to think that Kagome didn’t get her entire soul back. She never indicates that she feels in any way altered or changed after the Urasue incident (and I’ll hazard a guess that missing a piece of your soul is something you’d feel). And again, if Kikyou had any part of Kagome’s soul, why on earth would she still need to take the souls of other people? Surely half of her “own” soul would do the trick? And… well, your next point says it nicely…

4) And in the end, when Kikyou died, not one single soul returns to Kagome’s body.

Yes! This seems rather telling, doesn’t it? It may not prove anything about the reincarnation thing, but I think it’s pretty strong evidence that Kagome had her entire soul returned to her the first time.

5) But Inuyasha mistook their scents too, and the jewel was in Kagome’s body, and her resemblance with Kikyou.

Well to be fair, Inuyasha only mistook their scents briefly, right after he woke up from being magically sealed to a tree for 50 years. Once Kagome is standing in front of him and he takes a better whiff, he realizes she’s not Kikyou (x). So I’m guessing that their scents are similar, but not identical.

But yes, Kagome’s resemblance to Kikyou is mentioned enough times through the early series that you have to wonder. It seems like kind of flimsy evidence, but from a writer’s perspective: patterns are intentional. Once could be an accident, twice could be a coincidence, but three times? That’s a pattern. And Kagome’s appearance is compared to Kikyou’s enough times that Takahashi is obviously trying to draw a connection there. That’s worth taking into account.

And the Shikon Jewel being in Kagome’s body is probably the most convincing evidence in the whole series for her being Kikyou’s reincarnation (though, again, @ka-go-me‘s theory is sooooooo good, it makes you rethink things).

So um… basically, if I’m reading my own response correctly, I went through your questions point by point just to tell you at the end: I DON’T KNOW EITHER, BRUH. I REALLY DON’T. The series pushes the reincarnation thing enough that we’re obviously supposed to believe it, but the evidence does not always align with it. There are lots of holes in that boat, and I’m not sure it’s seaworthy.

I wish I could’ve patched some of the holes for you, but… how about I stand here with you going, “WOW that’s a lot of holes”??

#ask #like honestly the reincarnation business is possibly the most confusing part of the series #but I guess time travel is always confusing #long post

55 notes · View notes

mittensmorgul · 6 years

Note

Hi! By canon I mean them both realized that they feel the same way. And I may be wrong, but I don't see it in S12. (Sorry my English, by the way)

Hi… your English is fine! And again, this is really honestly impossible to speculate on for me, because the way *I* see it, they kind of do know it. I mean… they think there’s nothing they can really do about any of it, but they aren’t entirely ignorant of the fact that they’d both literally die for each other, despite both of them only wanting the other to live for them.

I mean, that’s canon. And the way it’s been framed for years is a pinboard frame of romantic tropes.

Technically it’s all still subtext, but that doesn’t mean it’s “imaginary” or whatever. Which gets us into the “subtext is a valid layer of the text that the show itself has textually invited us to examine critically” which opens up the gigantic can of worms about things like authorial intent and acting choices and editing choices and visual narrative… and all the rest of the choices that go into producing the end product we get to watch and interpret.

So for me, I’m waiting for some sort of mutual acknowledgement that they understand the other doesn’t WANT them to act as their guardian, and that they don’t just NEED each other, but they WANT each other. And so far in s13, that’s not just the subtext of the story, but one of the main pillars of the narrative structure itself. Dean’s grief over Cas’s death is textually his primary motivation for everything he’s done and everything he’s felt in the last three episodes.

They’ve clarified the I/we conundrum, separating out how Dean feels compared to how Sam feels as Cas’s “family” and made it impossible for Dean to continue hiding behind that vague admission.

And once again, because people still seem confused about this… META WRITERS AREN’T PSYCHICS! WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PREDICT THE FUTURE! THAT’S SPECULATION. THAT IS NOT META.

And again, because I’ve said it so many times, I HATE SPECULATION!!!!!

I honestly have very little interest in trying to predict what may happen on the show. I find it takes all the fun out of actually watching the show for me.

It also makes it hilarious when I get the whackadoodle anti’s sending me anons like, “You’re delusional for thinking destiel will be canon in s13″ or whatever, because I’m like… “Well, you’re delusional for thinking I’ve ever actually said that…” Because again, I HATE SPECULATION.

(From an academic standpoint, I’ve never read a single argument from an anti that even merited engagement in a debate, because they’re all strawmen or ad hominem attacks, or the most ridiculous sounding “because I said so” sorts of nonsense. Like, sure Jan.)

Reducing all the meta to this “but when will it go canon?!” question is just… missing the entire point of what meta even is. It’s like… we’ve written literally millions upon millions of words about practically every aspect of this show, because that’s the part we find fascinating. And then somehow the tl;dr takeaway of that entire endeavor seems to be “BUT WHEN ARE THEY GONNA KISS?!” And it’s just frustrating.

Sorry, I’m not upset with you. More like this persistent misconception about what the point of meta is in the first place.

As for how I’d *personally enjoy* seeing it go canon? Please see my entire AO3 account. Some people speculate, I write fic where I get to have any ending I want. And I’ve written dozens.

I can’t tell anyone else how to watch the show, how to interpret canon. All I can do is keep writing about how *I* personally see canon unfolding.

Sorry I turned your question into a long and seemingly off-topic ramble, but I am tired. For a defense of my viewpoint on this, please see my whole entire blog (except the cat gifs, I guess. They’re probably not gonna give anyone any insight into how I analyze and view this show. Then again, even Chuck enjoys a good set of cat gifs.)

I analyze this show for fun. I continue watching for fun. Making predictions about whether or not the characters will continue along the arcs that (in all honesty) seem kind of obvious at this point… I mean, I am perfectly willing to give the Magic 8 Ball answer and say “Signs Point To Yes” or whatever, but as to the rest of it? The details of when and how all of it will actually happen on the show? Trying to guess how that will happen is just a pointless waste of time. For *me personally,* trying to do so defeats the entire purpose of even watching the show in the first place. It takes all the fun out of it for me.

Based on my understanding of how stories work, from a lifetime of media consumption and a decade of writing semi-professionally, from knowing hundreds of writers and others in the publishing industry (because that is my background– not television production or screenwriting, but the concepts and storytelling function on the same principles), at best I can make vague guesses based on the sum total of the story to this point, and extrapolate out how those particular narrative trajectories may continue into the future.

NO ONE CAN SAY FOR SURE IF THOSE PROJECTIONS WILL ACTUALLY MANIFEST IN REALITY. Except by continuing to watch the show, watching those narrative and character arcs evolve.

We can read the broad strokes, the major narrative themes, the character development and motivation... and we can make educated guesses about these main themes going forward based on what’s happened so far, because this is how storytelling works. There are basic rules that apply to how a narrative is structured, and we all have a subconscious understanding of it just from having consumed stories our entire lives. We’re not working magic here, we’re just paying attention, because this is just our particular brand of nerdery, you know? We’re like that one jerk in the audience at a magic show who’s figured out how all the tricks work. We can’t guess which specific trick is coming up next, but we probably have a general idea based on the story the magician is trying to tell-- his last three tricks have involved small animals appearing and disappearing, but now he’s taking off his hat... I bet he’s got a rabbit or something hidden in there... And once we see it what he pulls out of the hat, we can explain how and why he did it.

I really hope this makes sense, but I’m so tired of being asked to essentially ruin my own enjoyment of the show in order to pretend like I have some sort of crystal ball, or that I even have an opinion about what will or should happen in canon. It’s just not how I approach the show, or what the point of meta even is.

#the destiel #spn meta meta #ishi ixi #this is how stories work #revenge of the subtext

55 notes · View notes

voyageviolet · 5 years

Text

Just for the hell of it, I’m going to post the responses I’ve been writing for the Great Homestuck Reread.

DAY 1

I could have sworn I wrote something for this day, but apparently no??? Weird.

DAY 2, PAGES 127-247

Favorite Panel: John: Scold TT

This one's just cute to me.

Favorite Pesterlog: John: Answer chums.

Rose is being high-and-mighty about the FAQs while John panics about impending doom; meanwhile Dave is talking to himself about planet fucking Jupiter. These kids are a disaster.

Favorite Flash: S: John: Take a bite of the apple.

There's not a lot of competition for "favorite flash" in these pages, but I do think it's a great way for the story to really get started with a sense of urgency.

Missed Moments: Not much, but is that oil on Rose's wall? And I've never noticed John's shirt changing color.

Today's Question - Is Act 1 actually bad or are people just not giving it a chance?

I think Act 1 is great, but I didn't the first time I read it. It takes a while to get past the initial "What the fuck am I reading" response, what with the captchaloging and the cruxtruding and the other fake words. I started reading and gave up twice before I finally buckled down and decided, "I am going to find out what the deal is with the candy corn horns I'm seeing everywhere if it kills me." But if you decide to just relax and enjoy the ride, Act 1 is a lot of fun. It's just frustrating for the people who've been sold on Homestuck being this great epic adventure to have to get through the kids screwing around in the beginning.

DAY 3, PAGES 248-384

Favorite Panel: Dave's little gasp here. ~SO COOL~

Favorite Pesterlog: And here we have the first example of two of the gayest kids in Homestuck calling each other gay. These two are so much alike in their mostly-playfully-adversarial ways; they crack me up.

Favorite Flash: [S] YOU THERE. BOY. I'm the kind of RPG gamer that walks around and talks to every NPC and checks every little corner for items or info, so the walkaround flashes are always especially fun for me.

Missed Moments: -In the [S] YOU THERE. BOY. flash, WV knows who John Cusack is, as if he's some kind of universal constant.

-When I first read Homestuck, I didn't expect this quote to be referenced again: "You wonder if this rain will ever let up. It's driven since the month began, perhaps long enough to forget its purpose. It no longer even knows to assuage fire. Somewhere a zealous god threads these strings between the clouds and the earth, preparing for a symphony it fears impossible to play. And so it threads on, and on, delaying the raise of the conductor's baton. "

-And for something I missed this time around: Does anyone know what songs used to be on the [S] on page 338? There's still "Harlequin" and "John do the windy thing," but some have been removed, probably for copyright reasons. (If you're not sure what I mean, click the four corner buttons on that page.)

Today's Question - Who was truly at fault in the Rose/Mom pseudo-imaginary feud?

I talked a bit about this yesterday, but to simplify: It's Mom's fault, simply due to the fact that she's the parent. It's the parent's responsibility to engage with their child in a way that the child can understand and appreciate. Mom reacted to Rose in an overbearing way that had more to do with her own feelings than her child's feelings. For example, when young Rose asked her mom to have a funeral for her cat, she wasn't asking for an elaborate permanent monument; she was asking for help saying goodbye to a friend and coping with that loss. In spite of what I assume to be her best intentions, Mom failed to provide that. Their house is filled with this sort of elaborate expression of affection that completely fails to provide any real emotional connection.

Let me state for the record that Roxy is one of my favorite characters in Homestuck, but she's the version of the character who managed to pull herself together and support the people she cares about. For whatever reason, Mom is the version who didn't.

DAY 4, 385-509

Favorite Panel: ==> I forgot about this one, but John flying around the room with the pogo and the shaving cream is still hilarious.

Favorite Pesterlog: Dave: Pester Rose. The first crack in the cool kid's facade.

Favorite Flash: [S] Rose: Youth roll right out the front door. This is SO dramatic, what with the "empty suicide threat" and the "ironic negligence," and yet it's presented in such a cartoonish "lol whatever" manner. I wish we got more detail about their relationship at some point in the story - something like Dave's introspection and his interaction with Dirk - because this flash presents a pretty bleak picture.

Missed Moments: -From page 404's commentary: "Also, I like how WV is now helping out with the Con Air references through his terminal commands. He shows a striking ability to adapt to and participate in running gags. He is the type of guy who just "gets it", you know?" I definitely didn't pick up on this before. It's hard to pinpoint the places where the commands stop being authorial input and start being characters' input.

-424's commentary: "Judging by the commands, WV is just as caught up in the story as John is. Let's agree this is adorable." Definitely adorable, but I wonder, does WV know at this point that this is the story he was already caught up in?

-447: "There's the PUPPET CHEST he stores LIL' CAL in when he takes him out on gigs." BRO TAKES LIL CAL ON GIGS. LIKE GIGS IN PUBLIC? THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE WHO'S NOT A TRAPPED 13 YEAR OLD WOULD EVER ENTERTAIN THE IDEA THAT VENTRILOQUIST RAPPING COULD BE COOL. BRO WOULD GET DESTROYED ONSTAGE.

I always assumed that the puppet thing was exclusively online, but it sounds like Bro's life may be weirder than I ever realized - which is pretty fucking weird to begin with.

Today's Question - Is WV really just a one note joke character? No, I don't think he is. Every character in Homestuck is a joke to some degree, but that doesn't make them flat. WV has an emotional journey and narrative development that starts with his his silly obsession with eating green things, evolves through flashbacks of his rebellion against a corrupt monarchy and his friendship with PM&co, and ends with him starting (what seems to be) an egalitarian democracy on new Earth. He also serves to explain to the audience what happened to the old, now abandoned Earth without resorting to boring exposition.

Plus he's adorable and everyone loves him, so there's that.

Bonus Question - WHAT'S YOUR POGO MINIGAME HIGH SCORE???? Yeah I can't say I spent much time on that, but I did enjoy the song.

DAY 5, PAGES 510-644

Didn't get time to respond to this yesterday, oops. I'll make this quick.

Favorite Panel: Vaulthalla, baby.

Favorite Pesterlog: Rose: Answer Dave. Still love these kids, and the fact that Rose makes up a poem on the spot is pretty impressive.

Favorite Flash: Well, there's only the one, so...

Missed Moments: None this time.

Today's Question - Which of the items in your house would you combine to make a cool weapon? I'm gonna be a dumb nerd and admit that I'd like to see what I could make with some anime figures. I've always thought that umbrellakind was kind of fun, so why not mix animu figures with that. Like, a Sailor Moon figma with an umbrella could make a cute cheesy magical girl wand. I also have an old biting pear statue that I'm sure could make some interesting things.

DAY 6, PAGES 645-759

Favorite Panel: Democracy. The deadpan faux-seriousness combined with WV's cuteness is just delightful.

*Favorite Pesterlog: * There really weren't any of note in this section. This day's all about WV.

Favorite Flash: WV: Ascend. I've always found the longer flash videos a bit confusing; there are so many things happening at once. Damn if they aren't fascinating, though.

Missed Moments: -Page 721: "All of the chess moves were copied exactly from a famous game played by Bobby Fischer. I forget which one exactly, but it was super famous among dudes who bone tight up on their chess." Never would've guessed that. For some reason, it never even occurred to me that these would be valid chess moves rather than WV just throwing things around. -"The station's terminal is meant to "control" the client player of the kid whose house once existed where that station is. So WV's station, which was in Rose's location, gives commands to John, because John is Rose's client player, and she commands his game similarly. And the apple station commands Jade, because she'll be John's client player, etc. Did you realize this?" NOPE

Today's Question - What would WV's classpect be? Mayor of Can? I dunno, I've never spent much time on classpect theorizing. It's too complicated and too heavily based on speculation for me.

DAY 7, PAGES 760-885

Favorite Panel: Jade's holographic computer. Her life is ridiculous and otherworldly. Seeing the crazy things that are a mundane part of her reality is pretty great.

Favorite Pesterlog: A rare Jade-Rose pesterlog. Best appreciate these when you can.

Favorite Flash: [S] Rose: Ascend. There are a lot of fight scenes in this section, but this one is the most fun, and the one involving the least amount of child abuse.

Missed Moments: -"I wonder which troll named her Farmstink? Do trolls even have farms? Maybe they call them musclebeast pastures." It never even occurred to me that it was the trolls typing in names. I just thought of it as reader input.

-"With the (playable!) FRESHJAMZ playlist, we are provided with the implication that these are all songs produced by the kids collaboratively. Their icons indicate who was involved with the songs. Just another sign earlier in the story that these kids have some musical talent and this is the sort of thing they do with their spare time." I don't think I ever noticed everyone's icons next to songs, or if I did I didn't put it together that they were the ones making this music.

-"It's almost as if Bro is training him to face the last boss. Or it would be if last boss had the slightest thing to do with this creepy puppet, which of course is preposterous." Never connected those dots.

Today's Question - Is early Jade a good character? Why or why not?

Yes, on the grounds that she is precious and delightful.

More seriously, though, I think she's as good of a character as any of the kids, but she doesn't get as much narrative attention or development as I'd like towards the end of the comic. Early Jade, though, is arguably in the most fucked up situation out of all of the kids: Her grandfather took her to a deserted island and died when she was very young, leading Jade to assume he committed suicide, and leaving her with the responsibility of emptying out his innards to taxidermy his body (?!?). Ok, there's no way that last part ever could have been played straight, but the point remains that Jade has had to grow up in a pretty bleak and lonely situation, but she remains unfailingly positive and friendly. She's never had any hope of leaving her island and interacting with the rest of her planet before the game destroys it, but by watching the clouds on Prospit and by enjoying her friendships, she stays happy and hopeful. I can't see that as anything but impressive.

#homestuck #meta

1 note · View note

stretchjournalemerson · 4 years

Text

J. K. Rowling: Ruined or Revered?

By Cayleigh Pine

When I was in fifth grade, my overly-Christian mother finally allowed me to read the famous Harry Potter series, the same books that millions of children became avid readers of to the dismay of conservative church-goers against witchcraft. I distinctly remember being obsessed with the series, reading one book after another before bed, in restaurants and even during my brother’s basketball games. I became attached to the fictional wizarding world, and I admired author J.K. Rowling’s description of characters that any reader could fall in love with. And readers certainly did, with Harry Potter spanning a blockbuster film franchise, a theme park, a Broadway play, a video game, as well as several controversies regarding its creator. In an age where the fanbase of Harry Potter is stronger than ever, it seems that there are complexities beneath the surface of this fandom, with many furious at Rowling for adding new (and admittingly, strange) details to the Potter-canon, as well as problematic statements posted online. Going from an idolized billionaire authorial goddess to someone almost as hated as her Voldemort antagonist, Potter fans have changed over the years in their support of Rowling and how they view the series due to her many controversies. Due to this, many are conflicted on if they should still be fans of these works, or if they should allow Rowling’s influence to taint the positive message behind Harry Potter. All of this leads into the question: Should readers separate the author from their texts, or is their intent all-encompassing?

Readers tend to become fans of not only their favorite books, but of the authors that write them, leading them into learning about the author’s personal background and writing process. However, others tend to ignore who the author is in favor of not letting them influence how they read a story. “Death of the Author” is a literary concept that was created by Roland Barthes in the essay La mort de l'auteur published in 1967 (Barthes). This theory spawned off of the New Criticism literary movement, delving into the idea that readers should not have the author’s intention influence their understanding of the work being read, acting as though the author is dead or non-existent. Barthes argues that giving a text a single interpretation from the author limits the creativity and imagination the readers can develop off of that work, and how interpretive tyranny only works to the detriment of the reader, forcing an idea on them instead of having the reader come up with their own understanding (Barthes 5). This theorist explains that instead of looking to our authors as god-like and creating something out of nothing, Barthes tries to explain through this concept that there are no original works since writers are influenced by multiple factors, such as: mythology, religion, and other authors. This means there should be multiple interpretations since there are various sources (Barthes 4). In Ancient Greece, playwrights were open to where the sources of their stories came from, re-telling the tales of Achilles and Electra and others and never proclaiming to be original. However, in 1960s society, authors liked to pretend they were the sole, divine creator of their literary universes, and this has continued to the present. The popularity behind the term “Death of the Author” has risen and fallen throughout the years, but the support behind this literary concept has since gained traction with the recent advent of social media. Authors are now posting on their Twitter about character's motivations or secrets that were never expounded upon in their books, leading fans into an uproar against authorial intent.

J.K. Rowling has always been an author in the public eye, her Harry Potter novels launching her into a celebrity icon due to how well-loved they are. With around 500 million copies sold world-wide, she became beloved by many who thought of her as their favorite author (Pottermore). One of the many reasons for this is due to the Barthes-like influence her readers hold in viewing Rowling’s work. Christian groups protested the series after every release, believing that what was in the books promoted Satanism and the occult (Halford 2). Despite Rowling being a Christian (Halford 3), these religious fundamentalists practiced “Death of the Author” to ignore Rowling’s background that is similar to theirs, instead viewing their own interpretation of the Harry Potter series as an unholy promotion of witchcraft for children, which is a very different perspective from what the author intended. However, this also worked in the reverse for readers of the same religion. Many other Christians that are fans of the series used Barthes’ theory to interpret many Christian allegories in the series that they could relate to their own backgrounds, a common example being Harry’s sacrificial death and resurrection in Deathly Hallows mimicking that of Jesus Christ’s in The Bible. Christians seem to find their religion in the stories Rowling created, intentionally or not, and use their interpretations as evidence to the series being in support of or against Christianity.

However, religious groups are not alone in using “Death of the Author” to interpret Rowling’s writing. According to the study: “The Greatest Magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice” published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, psychologist Loris Vezzali asked fifth graders to fill out a questionnaire about their attitudes toward minority groups, then had them read excerpts from the Harry Potter books that dealt with prejudice. Specifically, the blood prejudice that is a major theme in the books about how some “pure-bloods” consider themselves better wizards than “half-bloods” or “muggle-borns” due their different backgrounds. According to readers, this is an allegory for racism, and this theory shines through with how Vezzali’s study proved that young readers living vicariously through the characters in Harry Potter impacted their attitudes positively towards marginalized people in real life (Vezzali). Readers tend to use this as a basis for the series being progressive, interpreting the series to be against racism. Unfortunately, the series is not as cut and dry as this. According to the Midwest Quarterly, author Christine Schott argues that there is racism prevalent in this series, but fans ignore these instances. The house elves in this story are essentially slaves for pureblood wizard families and who “do not want to be freed” even when characters offer to help save them. Schott explains that the creation of creatures that desire to be slaves teaches readers a message that some beings are naturally inferior to others and want to be enslaved, which is a horrible message if these books are supposedly “progressive” (Schott). It seems here that Harry Potter can be, and has been, interpreted in various ways, all due to who the reader is and how they utilize “Death of the Author”.

Besides there being many interpretations of this series, the majority of fans tend to look at the books as an allegory for sticking up for underrepresented groups. It seems that Rowling also gravitated to this positive interpretation, with how she began to make additions to her wizarding world in order to appear inclusive, but they all seemed to backfire. Her controversies began in a 2007 Q&A session at Carnegie Hall with fans of the recently released Deathly Hallows, where she stated Dumbledore was gay (Smith 2). This split the fandom into two groups: supporters who thought this was great representation for the LGBTQ+ community, and those that questioned why Rowling felt the need to reveal this if she never included Dumbledore’s sexuality in the books. The latter’s opinion has intensified over the eight years since this comment, and with Rowling’s new Fantastic Beasts film franchise—prequels including a young Dumbledore—that still do not explore his sexuality, fans are speculating that she has been using Dumbledore as a way to prove she is “progressive” with nothing to show for it, accusing her of the harmful marketing tactic “queer-baiting” in order to attract the queer audience while not offending conservative consumers (Bradley 3). This past comment led into more controversial statements, like her comparing her fictional werewolves to the AIDs epidemic in the US (Baillie 2). This shocked many people because most of the werewolves in her books were framed as villains that preyed on young wizards, so with Rowling’s commentary, this comment becomes a metaphor for gay people preying on children. Because of Rowling, the readers’ interpretation has shifted from viewing werewolves as mythological creatures to now gay predators in disguise. The add-ons do not end there, with Rowling beginning to use her characters to advance her political views, utilizing the titular character Harry Potter to say that he would support the boycott against Israel, so you should, too, as well as to deny describing characters’ races in her books in order to appeal to a more diverse crowd (Donaldson 4). She constantly uses her Twitter to inform fans of her new changes to her fictional universe, yet she disappoints them by not including her supposedly progressive ideals in her works outside of social media. Her race and sexuality-bending has become such a hot topic that it became a meme when a comedic article called, “J. K. Rowling Proves That You, the Reader, Were Gay All Along” was published in 2019 to The Hard Times, poking fun at Rowling’s new revelations about characters’ identities that are never shown in her books (Hernandez). Since then, thousands of social media users made Youtube videos, tweets, and memes, parodying her characters, and even her readers, finding out from her that they had an identity they never knew about. However, even with all of this, Rowling was never seen as a fully negative celebrity, at least until her most recent tweet.

In December of 2019, Rowling posted about supporting a transphobic woman named Maya Forstater in her mission on spreading the message that transwomen steal the jobs of ciswomen, repping the hashtag #IStandwithMaya proudly for all of her 14.5 million followers to see (@jk_rowling). This was met with huge outrage from fans, especially those in the LGBTQ+ community. Readers became upset because they felt if they liked Harry Potter, they were supporting a transphobe, and many began to attribute this series with a negative connotation (Donaldson 5). Her fans were mostly upset with the hypocrisy behind this tweet and how Rowling could disregard a minority group, even though her books supposedly stood up against prejudice. However, others argue that Rowling can say and do anything she wants with her characters and their identities, and even the overall message of her book, due to the fact that she is the creator of the series. Writer Natasha Troyka states that, “Barthes’ argument in The Death of the Author focuses on the impossibility of guessing the author’s intentions. If we can’t read an author’s mind, we shouldn’t fixate on authorial intent when reading a story” (Troyka 4). In the case of Rowling’s use of social media, her fans are almost able to read her mind about her intentions due to her excessive tweets. But even with her explanations, fans are rejecting her new form of Twitter-storytelling, using not only Barthes’ theory to ignore her authorial intent, but a rejection of social media in itself. Due to the fact that Rowling is not writing any more physical Harry Potter books and posting add-ons to her Twitter, fans do not count these changes as “canon”, and Troyka argues that that is largely due to the lack of respect fans hold of Twitter versus a book (Troyka 5). This writer mentions how with every sequel the wizarding world changed, with turning from bad to good (in the case of Snape) or even additions to the lore (The Deathly Hallows being created). Troyka asks: What’s the difference between a sequel and a tweet? Who decides the boundaries of works, if it is extra or canon? If it happens on Twitter, does it make the writing any less “real”? The argument here is that even if fans disapprove of Rowling’s quasi-progressive add-ons to Harry Potter, it is still her writing and she still is the creator, so they should count as part of the series, regardless of what platform they are released on. Despite this, it seems that fans are using Barthes’ theory to not only kill off the author, but also any disliked changes she wants to make to the series.

Even though fans hate Rowling’s new additions, considering them more fanfiction than canon, she has always been supportive of fans using her work to create their own fanfiction, with her spokesperson saying she is, “... flattered people wanted to write their own stories based on her characters” (Waters 1). This is not always the case with many authors, such as author Anne Rice (The Vampire Chronicles) threatening to sue her fans if they write anything involving her characters. And then you have former-Youtuber-turned-author John Green, who not only supports whatever fans want to do with his work, but the concept of “Death of the Author” itself (“Death of the Author.”). Green became a famous author off of social media, gaining a fanbase through informational literary videos that analyze classic novels, and then finally releasing a book of his own. In his book, The Fault in Our Stars, the protagonist Hazel gets to meet her favorite author, and learns he’s a reclusive alcoholic whose personality ruins his works for her. This is a commentary on how much influence an author can have on their works, and how an author can ruin their own books for their fans with their wrongdoings that can taint their art. In 2014, Green tweeted, “Books belong to their readers” (@johngreen), agreeing with Barthes’ theory that fans get to hold the interpretation of the work and ignore the author behind it, which is probably a stance he later regretted when he started suffering backlash from fans about his portrayals of teenage girls (“Death of the Author”). In a Tumblr post, a fan described Green as, “...a creep that panders to teenage girls to amass a cult-like following”, wherein Green responded saying he never sexually assaulted anyone (Jusino 3). It was an odd response considering the post never mentioned him doing this, so fans immediately were suspicious. This uproar faded into nothing, but it left many readers feeling uncomfortable with his writing, and in recent years, many posts online shame Green’s portrayal of teenage girls for being two-dimensional. This has led to many using fanfiction as a way to fix what Green created, having the readers utilize their own interpretations “for good”. This is also seen with Rowling’s fans creating fanfiction that they deem better than Rowling’s books simply because it follows their interpretations instead of hers. From this, it is made apparent that when readers begin to dislike the author, they either step away from their works, separate the art from the artist, or they rewrite it to better suit their own interpretations.

Rowling seems to bank on the fact that her fans are so besotted by Harry Potter that none of her controversies can get in the way of people’s love for the wizarding world. Even with all of her problematic statements, Potter fans are still around, shown in how her recent prequel films racked up around $814 million worldwide (Mendelson 3), and the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child play based on the franchise breaking monetary records on Broadway (Chellman 3). It seems that even though there are those that are against Rowling and her political stances, the majority are not against her work and will not be boycotting Harry Potter any time soon.

Overall, it appears that J.K. Rowling remains one of the most famous authors in the world, and her problematic comments throughout her career have not done much to bring down her rule other than turn her into a comedic meme. Personally, I believe that it would take a lot more than problematic tweets to shut down this massive franchise, especially since Rowling has not faced any real-world consequences monetarily-wise. This goes to show just how much people love Harry Potter since they are willing to pay the bills of someone who may hold harmful beliefs that readers do not agree with. It has become such a phenomenon that people simply cannot leave this series due to a problematic author, and unless Rowling Avada-Kedevra’s someone, I believe that fans will keep separating her from her work in order to enjoy it without a guilty conscience. Fans are comfortable using “Death of the Author” to ignore Rowling’s controversial past, and even I am guilty of this. I used to automatically associate Harry Potter with Rowling, but now I view the series as its own entity with no relation to its creator in order to feel as though I am not supporting Rowling. It seems that there is no clear answer on whether separating the author’s work from them is morally correct or not, however it appears to be a popular choice for fans that want to take their own interpretation of the series and do as they please with it, even if that means blocking out—or just blocking on Twitter—the very creator of the wizarding world they love.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my mother for eventually letting me read Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling for writing the series, as well as for being such a fascinating topic, and Professor MKB for supporting me and this paper with her wonderful feedback.

Works Cited

Barthes, Roland. La mort de l'auteur (Death of the Author). Aspen Journal, 1967.

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

Baillie, Katie. "JK Rowling says Remus Lupin’s condition as a werewolf is ‘a metaphor for

illnesses with a stigma, like HIV and AIDS’ ." Metro News, 9 Sept. 2016, metro.co.uk/2016/09/09/jk-rowling-says-remus-lupins-condition-as-a-werewolf-is-a-metaphor-for-hiv-and-aids-6118903/.

Bradley, Laura. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and Dumbledore’s Vexing

Sexuality, 16 Nov. 2018, www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/11/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-dumbledore-gay-queerbaiting.

Chellman, Jack. "The Gay Romance In The Cursed Child: A Letter To JK Rowling." Huffington

Post, 4 Aug. 2016, www.huffpost.com/entry/the-gay-romance-in-the-cursed-child-a-letter-to-jk_b_57a2a99de4b0c863d4002748?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKENG0nWy3.

Donaldson, Kayleigh. " J.K. Rowling is the Exemplification of Why We Need the Death of the

Author." Pajiba, 24 Dec. 2019,

www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/jk-rowling-is-the-exemplification-of-why-we-need-the-death-of-the-author.php.

Ellis, Lindsey. “Death of the Author.” Youtube, 31 Dec. 2018, https://youtu.be/MGn9x4-Y_7A.

Halford, Macy. Harry Potter and Religion, The New Yorker, 4 Nov. 2010,

www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/harry-potter-and-religion.

JK Rowling (@jk_rowling). “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep

with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya.” 19 Dec 2019, 12:57 PM. Tweet.

Jusino, Teresa. "What John Green Needs to Learn About Having a Dialogue With Female YA

Readers." The Mary Sue, 2 July 2015, www.themarysue.com/john-green-female-ya-readers/.

Mendelson, Scott. "'Crimes Of Grindelwald' May Have Destroyed The 'Fantastic Beasts' Saga."

Forbes, 19 Nov. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/11/19/box-office-crimes-of-grindelwald-may-have-killed-the-fantastic-beasts-saga-jk-rowling-johnny-depp/#483bd42122a2.

Pottermore (@pottermore). “However, when Hogwarts’ plumbing became more elaborate in the

eighteenth century (this was a rare instance of wizards copying Muggles, because hitherto they simply relieved themselves wherever they stood, and vanished the evidence)…" 4 Jan 2019, 1:34 PM. Tweet.

Pyrocynical. “J.K Rowling just ruined Harry potter.” Youtube, 3 Apr. 2019,

https://youtu.be/n3fwERuvEqI

Romano, Aja. "The Harry Potter universe still can't translate its gay subtext to text. It's a

problem." Vox News, 4 Sept. 2016, www.vox.com/2016/9/4/12534818/harry-potter-cursed-child-rowling-queerbaiting.

Rowling, and John Tiffany. Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Parts One and Two. , 2016.

Print.

Rowling, J.K., author. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Original Screenplay. First

edition. New York, NY: Arthur A. Levine Books, an imprint of Scholastic Inc., 2016.

Rowling, J. K., author. Harry Potter And the Sorcerer's Stone. New York :Arthur A. Levine

Books, 1998.

Seamus Gorman. “J.K. Rowling's Decline... (from the perspective of a harry potter fan).”

Youtube, 25 Mar 2019, https://youtu.be/CSXFdb_G4C8

Schott, Christine. “The House Elf Problem: Why Harry Potter Is More Relevant Now Than

Ever.” Midwest Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, Winter 2020, pp. 259–273. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=141673717&site=eds-live.

Smith, David. "Dumbledore was Gay, JK Tells Amazed Fans." The Guardian, 21 Oct. 2007,

www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/21/film.books.

Troyka, Natasha. "J.K. Rowling and the Assassination of the Author." Medium, 3 June 2019,

www.medium.com/@natashatroyka/j-k-rowling-and-the-assassination-of-the-author-49a66a756983.

Waters, Darren. "Rowling Backs Potter Fan Fiction." BBC News, 27 May 2004,

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3753001.stm.

Wimsatt, W. K., and M. C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 54,

no. 3, 1946, pp. 468–488. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27537676. Accessed 27 Feb. 2020.

Vezzali, Loris, et al. "The Greatest Magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice." The Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 23 July 2014, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12279.

#stretch2020 #researchpaper #harrypotter #emersoncollege

0 notes