emphasis on the ultimate

I feel like society today puts way too much emphasis on success when we should be putting the emphasis on the process that gets us there. Ultimately being successful is just the destination in a journey that has no set timeline. Our successes and failures don’t define us so don’t let society make you think you’re worthless just because you’re not winning right now. Take control, push yourself and don’t give up. Focus on where you are right now and what your next step is, not where you’re “supposed to be” or where you desire to be. Pay attention to the process and knock shit off the list one by one until you reach the top.

“I wasn’t aware that super-mega-ultra-ley-cool was an adjective, Alan. Let alone one used to describe meditation.”

Reasons to watch Hellsing Ultimate
  • REAL vampire action (emphasis on real because violent and bloody and no mercy u v u)
  • Puts religion in a positive light on both the protestant and catholic sides
  • Badasses. Badasses everywhere. Even the butler and on the catholic side. 
  • Single lady Integra Fairbrooke Wingates Hellsing (runs an entire vampire/ghoul killing estate and got no time for a man u v u)
  • An ass-kicking yet bumbly and silly police girl with cannons (bitches love cannons)
  • Comic relief mixed in with beautiful and flowing action 
  • Engaging monologues (this anime has some of the best voice acting you’ll ever hear in an English dub) 
  • The perfect Halloween anime. Go watch while the season is still fresh!

So basically I suppose I’m… different. I dunno if it’s a ‘good different’, even, but it’s definitely very different when you literally just have one person in the entire fandom you can really say, 'yeah, I definitely agree’. And in that sense, I disagree with almost everyone about Series 4. That’s pretty different, as far as a response to a show goes, isn’t it?

I’m not only talking about opinions, but the *emphasis* placed on those opinions. Like, if I agree with you but ultimately I don’t care that much and you care a lot, we’re still ultimately disagreeing, in a sense. It’s hard for me to get super angry in the long-term without burning out and avoiding it, and I’m not nearly as political or specifically invested (comparatively) in my identity as a female or queer viewer. So in other words, I don’t really feel I’m *comparatively* emotionally fixated on either female or queer characters, either in BBC Sherlock or elsewhere. I’m interested and even invested, but if it’s about comparison to other people’s responses, I’m not that emotional myself. Mostly, I don’t personally feel I need representation as a woman in the audience of BBC Sherlock. I sympathize but I don’t *relate*, even though sure, I’m a lot like Molly. Sure, I’m given to hopeless, endless crushes. Sure. But so what? That’s a trait I share with millions of characters and even more real people, most of whom I don’t care for or know anything about. That’s just reality. Sharing certain traits with people is good for friendship or building empathy, but with characters I prefer understanding or enjoyment. Shared experiences are only truly meaningful for me when fiction illuminates them in some way rather than just faithfully reproducing a state of being I simply recognize as real. Like, surely that’s the *least* a good story can do.

Sherlock isn’t interesting to me 'cause he’s real or 'realistic’ (he’s not, in many ways), but because he captures and expands upon traits and concepts I’ve experienced in slightly different or even very different ways. That skewed reflection– that’s enlightening. That’s useful. I also find Sherlock interesting 'cause I admire him. I enjoy his many personal quirks, the way he’s written. I enjoy his depths, and this is because I feel I *know* him. I *can* know him, which I find absolutely essential to truly loving or caring about a character. I know a whole lot more about him, and it’s not because he has a hopeless crush on John, either. As I said recently, he doesn’t. At most, it’s a misunderstanding they’ve now implicitly resolved. More importantly, he’s the most vivid, most fleshed out character in a show I’ve loved as soon as I first saw it, only comparable to John… and we actually don’t know that much about John’s family or history (comparatively).

In the end, it seems to me that talking about any character other than Sherlock and John (and often also Sherlock and John) involves projection; in other words, talking about yourself. To be clear, I’ve spent my whole life understanding my own life and feelings through fiction. I’m just saying that, I suppose, there’s situations where other people’s personal experiences work to brilliantly bring light to the characters in a way I could never manage, because they are the things implicit in the text that I miss. I acknowledge that I don’t relate to certain minor characters like say, Kavinsky or Henry Cheng in The Raven Cycle, while other people do… and they write really great meta about it. They use their personal insight as a way in, as a motivation to do a close reading that works closely with the text. That’s amazing. I live for that reading that adds to the text while taking all of the nuances and narrative contexts into account. And then there’s simply projection, where the major context is personal, and only useful or enlightening *for* that person. This process can be cathartic and important for the individual in question, and I do sympathize. I just don’t relate to projection and/or strong feelings about minor characters who happen to be female (basically, Mary and Molly, though this extends to Mrs Hudson, Rosie, Irene and Janine). Of course, I definitely don’t need characters to be like me in general, 'cause that’s not how I relate to fiction.

In the end, I really don’t care about any minor character pretty much ever, unless that includes Mycroft (sort of… I only sort of care about Mycroft). I’m just… very, very single-minded. Once I’m really hyper-fixated on a character or pairing, there’s really nothing that can happen to distract me if I’m still interested in their world. Eventually I’ll get tired or burnt out, and I’ll probably have to take an indefinite break, but I don’t really… give up or focus on other things if there’s anything left to say about my favorites. Basically, here are the things I ultimately don’t really care about in BBC Sherlock:

  • Anything except John and Sherlock’s relationship, in whatever form it takes.

I think that’s why I can be relatively sanguine about Series 4. My interest in John and Sherlock is extremely broad within its purview, because it’s also very, very narrow in the larger context of everything you *could* talk about with the show (or fandom). By 'broad’, I mean I’m extremely flexible about what happens as long as it’s happening to John and Sherlock, 'cause… that’s what I’m interested in about the show (I mean, obviously I was into the whole romance thing, but that’s just what made the most sense at the time). Conversely, my interest is also very narrow. Like, I can’t imagine leaving the fandom because of Mary, for example, 'cause ultimately I’m apathetic since she’s not John or Sherlock, is she? If we’re just talking about John and Sherlock, we snap back to the fact that my interest is broad: it’s not just about my headcanons or specific goals or preferences. Anything I can see or acknowledge as making sense in characterization continuity (like I immediately could do with S4 John) is enough, with a preference towards interesting or unusual twists. I like surprises (whether in plot or characterization) if I can see why that something surprising happened in retrospect. I usually can. That probably goes a long way towards explaining why Series 4 worked so well for me (comparatively).

As I said, though. I certainly feel… different. I dunno where it is that I put 2 and 2 together and got 5, exactly, but I suspect it probably comes down to my somewhat radical apathy about Mary (and, you know, everyone else), and my general flexibility with plot devices and in terms of the line between romantic and platonic. Obviously I have my preferences and my (many) opinions, but it’s all fine as long as I feel everything always revolves narratively around Sherlock and John. And it clearly seems counterintuitive to most people, but I definitely still feel everything revolves around John and Sherlock’s needs, in S3 as well as in S4. I wanted Mary gone as soon as possible when John married her, for example, and she really was! As I wrote recently, there’s actually no sense of dwelling in tragedy when you really think of the pacing of S3-S4, and they move quite fast if you think about it. They used TEH to introduce Mary and reunite John and Sherlock. In TSoT, Mary and John got married in one ep, and the very next ep, their marriage was in trouble and Mary was revealed to have a secret past. In the very next ep, TST, it comes back to bite her and she dies. John spends one ep coming to terms with her death, his issues with Sherlock and himself, and then it’s all resolved just in time for the final climax of Sherlock’s own arc in TFP. That’s fast.

… Though, you know. Maybe that’s just me.

menacing-marshmallow replied to your post “Sometimes I worry about being a content creator in modern day. I don’t…”

yeah i worry about the ‘wow cool robot’ effect all the time, but then again, currently my only big project is literally just wow cool robot

And I mean, on a base level there’s absolutely nothing wrong with having visual emphasis, Gundam was ultimately designed and marketed to be attractive in that way. I think in your case though it’s a catalyst to bring someone into experiencing the rest of what the game has to offer. It just comes down to order of importance. 

3

Israel’s March 17 election is two years earlier than it should be, thanks to the collapse of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition government in December. Contributing to the breakup was an impassioned debate over whether a stronger legal emphasis on the country’s Jewish character would ultimately make Israel less democratic.

In Israel’s early years, leaders hoped that becoming Israeli would unite the nation’s diverse population, which now includes Jews of eastern European origin, of Middle Eastern descent and, more recently, from Africa; secular liberals; right-wing West Bank settlers; ultra-Orthodox of many sects and large numbers of Russians not recognized as Jewish by government rabbis. Twenty percent of Israeli citizens are Arabs; many feel loyal to both Israel and their Palestinian relatives.

All these individuals and groups have their own definitions of what it means to be Israeli. While more than three-fourths of Jewish citizens say they are proud to be Israeli, the number has been dropping in recent years, according to pollster Tamar Herman, with the Israel Democracy Institute.

In Israel, A Vote To Choose A Leader And An Identity

Photo credit: Emily Harris/NPR

Top: Daniella Weiss is a prominent West Bank settler who believes the entire territory should be recognized as part of Israel. Now a grandmother of 18, her activism at times leads her into conflict with Israeli authorities.

Left: Nava Hefetz directs the education program of Rabbis for Human Rights and is a strong advocate of studying the country’s founding laws that promise equal rights for all. She is a Reform rabbi in a country dominated by the Orthodox rabbinate. ‘I’m not recognized by the state,’ she says.

Right: Uzzi Ornan, 91, built bombs to fight the British who ruled before Israel gained statehood in 1948. He has since battled the state of Israel, saying he should be identified as 'Israeli’ and not as 'Jewish’ on official documents. A nation, he says is 'one territory, one people, everyone who lives here.’

[L]esbians are represented as outside the sexual economy, tied to home and childbearing, while the gay male characters exist in a world of backrooms and anonymous sex. Lesbians are thereby also […] situated outside potential radicalism and necessarily imbricated with assimilationist politics. [Suzanna Danuta] Walters asserts that such characterization is common to the “new queer culture” wherein “gay male sex and its histories have become the very model of radical chic”, while lesbian sexual history is characterized as nonexistent and lesbians are portrayed as puritanical. While repression of certain forms of sexuality and gender expression have certainly taken place, the emphasis on the “lesbian sex police” as the ultimate repressors, instead of the mechanisms of repression enacted by heterosexist and homophobic society, is curious.
—  Rebecca Beirne (2008): Lesbians in Television and Text After the Millennium