narrative strategies

We’re all stories in the end...

What will follow is a very long explanation of why I think BBC Sherlock has become fan fiction in every sense of the word, applying a technique called estrangement effect to achieve as well as envision this. It has been happening since S3 - but came into full force in S4 and especially TFP.

Let me state at first: Sherlock Holmes is dead. He died after jumping off Bart’s. That’s the one thing Mofftisson did that no other adaption has dared to do. Not even ACD did describe Holmes dying. But Mofftisson showed us: Sherlock jumped and hit the pavement. We saw it, and it was never explained how he survived. Because he didn’t. What we watch in TEH is altered footage, like in the beginning of TST. Alienated ficitional reality.

But still Sherlock came back. How is this possible? Because Sherlock Holmes never lived, and so could never die; because Sherlock Holmes as a fictional character has long ago crossed the line between ficiton and reality. He exists in both worlds, the ficitonal and ours. Schödinger’s Sherlock, so to speak.

Mofftiss (and Steve Thompson) have adapted Holmes for the 21st century - with all its consequences. They are the first who allow Holmes to die - as it should have been, in Watson’s arms. This is truly new - like it or not.

But why could he survive? Because of the fans. Fans brought Holmes back in 1903 - and they brought him back in S3 (or even MHR). Whereas S1 and S2 might still be somehow canon compliant if modernised, with S3/MHR the show left the realm of ACD and became something else. It became our story. We are the narrators. Therefore, we appear, for example, as Anderson or the Empty Hearse Club, before we, in TAB, leave this concrete narrator position behind to ascend onto yet another narrative level.

Many commented (and lamented) the change from S2 to S3. The show became a romcom! The cases didn’t matter anymore! All those new characters! All true - because the BBC adaption had detached itself from ACD and started to become its own work of art, it’s very own pastiche. That might be self-referential; and perhaps wasn’t even always well made (TFP!) - but I think we should stop applying real life structures and standards to this work of art - because it simply doesn’t work. (And, as every writer, Mofftiss have the right to fuck their own story up).

The audience and fandom struggle with a lot of twists after S2 because making the distinction between canon compliant fictional verisimilitude and the realm of associative fan fic is especially hard to mark with a figure like Holmes - who seems real and yet never was. On the other hand, he is the perfect character to undergo such a narrative transformation.

If this interests you, please continue under the cut.

Keep reading

More meta: But, if it was a fantasy inside Sherlock’s Mind Palace™ and he is so obviously in love with John, why hasn’t he imagined himself kissing him?

@sherrydcherry​ and me were having this fascinating conversation (which was basically babbling about how amazing the special was and when the f#ck are they going to make this sh#t canon because it’s about motherf#cking time), and then she asked me: 

“I was thinking, why hasn’t Sherlock brought himself to imagine (or see) in his mind palace a kiss yet? I mean he obviously loves him!“ 

So I started to write down my answer going as far back as the beginning of Series 3, and somewhere along the way it turned into a very fruitful piece of meta, so I’m sharing it.


Do y’all know how in TEH, when the Sherlock Fan Club (The Empty Hearse, but to avoid confusion with the episode’s name I’ll keep calling them that) started speculating about how he could have survived The Fall, they fantasized about Sherlolly and Sheriarty?

Well, there has always been one thing nagging at me about that.

There were enough fans in the club for both Sheriarty and Sherlolly shippers to exist among them.

Originally posted by it-s-bread

Originally posted by gifystuff

And yet, do you mean to tell me, considering all the comments the media made about John’s ‘bachelor’ status…

…as well as the fact that John and Sherlock had been living together for years…

 …the fact that they stayed in a hotel together during the case in Baskerville…

…despite John always being used as a way for criminals to get to Sherlock…

…the fact that they ESCAPED from the police together…

…Despite ALL OF THAT, do they really mean to tell us there was not a SINGLE Johnlocker in the Fan Club, no one that could have come up with a fantasy about Sherlock’s survival that involved Sherlock and John fleeing the country together?

Because I mean, the fans being the Sheriarties and Anderson being the Sherlolly (lol, I’m still not over how hilarious his heteronormative mind is) implies that the fans ARE aware of the fact that Sherlock IS, indeed, very much gay. 

And do you know what other things the fans knew that could have confirmed the “Johnlock escaped the country together” theory for them? They knew that John wasn’t living in Baker Street anymore. They probably had no clue as to what his new address was, but they knew the flat was empty. 

Granted, John didn’t leave the flat until months after The Fall, but they could have come up with some explanation for that, something like “well, John couldn’t just LEAVE the flat in the SAME day that Sherlock ‘died’, that would have been too obvious.. So he waited for a reasonable amount of time before he went to meet Sherlock in… say… Amsterdam for example, so that no one would be suspicious, and then they started a new life together under false identities…”

*clears throat* 

MY POINT BEING

There was enough material for the Fan Club to put together a story about forbidden love and eventual eloping (and I, in fact, think someone must have done it), the same as there is enough material in Sherlock’s Mind Palace/drug-induced fantasies that it would be possible for him to hallucinate about finally banging John.

So the big question remains: Why the HELL wouldn’t they all do it? Sherlock, the Fan Club, the writers, whoever, why wouldn’t they simply show us what is obviously in their minds? Here’s what I think:

Because the Sherlolly and Sheriarty fantasies were a discard method. 

This was the writers going, "Look at how weird and out of the blue this would be, there is no way that we could organically include this in the plot, just scratch it, lol!”. This was their way of “invalidating” both ships. 

You don’t simply show the culminating moment of a ship (aka passionate kiss), laugh at it, dismiss it as a stupid daydream and still manage to keep that ship’s validity status. 

So, this was really a discard method. Something like, “Hey, Sherlollies and Sheriarties, have this consolation prize and go home; there is nothing left for you here”.

So if we continue along that line of thought, it makes sense that, if they indeed are going for Johnlock as the endgame, they don’t use their way of TAKING THE TRASH OUT in order to hint at John and Sherlock becoming canon.

If they did, it would send mixed signals, and honestly, when you’re going for the endgame in a slow-burn story that’s been unfolding for the past six years, you don’t simply give away one of the most important moments (the kiss) just to hint at the chance that it may, indeed, happen one day.


And that’s as far as my theory goes concerning why we aren’t being shown what is clearly on everyone’s mind these days.


edit: tagging @malinwolf because she’s always ready to hop on the crazy train :D

anonymous asked:

Your anons are always on point with their analysis

i love my anons, this is so much fun, it’s like we are all taking this course:


English 301: Comparative Study of Taylor Swift Songwriting and Music Video Symbolism and Metaphors,  Advanced Analysis (13 units)

Concepts of the self, irony, love, betrayal, the imagination and artistic creativity, and the dynamic relationship of the artist to nature and society. Studies in themes such as surrealism, romanticism, realism, expressionism and the absurd. Intensive focus on writing about symbolic concepts. Comparative, interpretive study of the treatment of artist and literary works from various periods and application to society and culture, in light of these works’ historical and sociocultural contexts. Advanced survey of fiction, drama, and poetry by artist and comparison to other artists of the past and present. Literary analysis of voice, imagery, narrative strategies and lyrics. Discourse on changing relationship between the artist and the environment. Analysis of application of the art and artist’s role in modern culture including comprehensive study of artists impact on society.    

Must have taken prerequisite courses to register:

  • Introduction to Taylor Swift
  • Fearless: Freshman Seminar
  • Speak Now:   Critical Inquiry
  • Red: In depth analysis, 2011-2014
  • 1989: Theory and Criticism
  • reputation: Taylor Swift in the Contemporary World

Lecture/Discussion. Must be taken concurrent to Directed Group Study (adv.). May be repeated six times if subject matter differs. Offered in alternate years, or as decided by Program Director (TS). Intended for majors only, no GE credit. Class held: 7 days a week

tolhinata  asked:

Hi, How are you so smart? Your analyses are amazing! Did you take any formal training in story telling or something? Im very curious. Sorry if I sound like a creep.

Too smart for my own good, I sometimes think, but thank you. :)

Yes, I do have formal training in storytelling. I have a doctorate in creative arts, with creative writing as my field of interest. My thesis focused on genre, and especially generic hybridity in speculative fiction.

It’s why I’m so interested in the narrative patterns Davis uses in Teen Wolf, as they are a lot more sophisticated than I was expecting of this kind of show.

His use of theme is really superb and is definitely his biggest strength as a writer; I’ve rarely seen better in TV storytelling. His narrative is also very ambitious, which I admire, and I wish he’d stop undermining that aspect by lying about it. His lack of signposting is probably his biggest weakness as a writer, as it makes the story hard to follow, especially for casual viewers, and it also has a tendency to make foreshadowing look like mistakes.

A lot of TV shows bore me pretty quickly, because everything is telegraphed miles ahead and there’s no surprises. In contrast, Teen Wolf is basically a logic puzzle in story form. They are my favourite type of puzzle. One of the reasons I fell in love with science fiction, and especially time travel stories, is because they are often story-form logic puzzles; not many other genres do them. Even crime shows tend to be more linear and wrap up in a single episode, and the twists are by-the-numbers, happening at certain beat-points every time.

Teen Wolf does two other things I especially enjoy. It regularly inverts cliches in order to highlight oppressive cultural narratives which are usually taken for granted; and it’s being told in a spiral, which is another favourite of mine, and also fairly rare except in time travel stories. :)

I can see why maybe the show doesn’t appeal so well to more casual viewers, because these kinds of narrative techniques and structures just aren’t that common in TV, and with the sketchy signposting it does take some work to follow. It’s become harder as the spirals have layered on top of each other too, expecting you to make connections with what has gone before and draw conclusions from the similarities and contradictions. I really like it, though. It expects viewers to be smart and work to understand the plot. It’s refreshing.

If Sterek goes canon, I think Teen Wolf might become my number one favourite TV show of all time, despite its flaws (or maybe even because of them). Right now, Princess Tutu and SeaChange are ahead of it, and it’s about neck-and-neck with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

[S]:Collapse

mayhaps im just repeating what someone else has already said and said better but [S]:Collide needed to be way smarter than it was 

like. i genuinely think hussie wrote the scene and its prior framing around the striders, terezi, vriska, and john and/or roxy, and then tossed in the rest w/o regard to what could reasonably be deemed a satisfying ending to their arcs.

here’s what could have been tighter:

Keep reading

In Defense of GOT S7

I am the last person in the world who should be writing this post. I’ve never been one to wax poetic about GOT as a whole show. For years I had a love-hate relationship with it. I’ve enjoyed it as much as I’ve criticized it, every year finding myself going, WHY AM I STILL WATCHING THIS SHOW. This sideblog name really does say it all. I was Here For The Starks. Everything else I merely tolerated. Last year was probably the only season since Season 1 that I enjoyed wholeheartedly and that’s mostly due to three episodes. 

So, this was not the post I planned to write post-finale. I started several posts on other things, left unfinished. But somehow, this was the post that I was compelled to finish. Go figure.

Below, I explore the role of the audience reaction, how assumptions can be used to mislead, and a limited Stark POV can be a narrative strategy. From there, I consider the season’s expectations, flaws, and possible intentions by breaking down one example of the season’s structural writing.

Full disclosure: I discuss my own personal reactions in this, and as a Starks fan that sees Jonsa and Undercover!Jon, I am biased. But far before any of those things, I was a Whedonverse fangirl fascinated by the potential in solid structural writing across a season of television. Over a decade later, it’s still one of my very favorite things to analyze. What results is a weird combination of both a personal and analytical look at this season. Yeah, I don’t know either.

THE AUDIENCE REACTION FACTOR

I’ve sat on my GOT finale thoughts for a good week now. When I reflected on it, I discovered it was mostly because my honest reaction was more in response to other fans than anything constructive about the narrative itself. My years in and out of fandoms make me hyperaware of the black hole that is commenting on other fans’ reactions. I try my best to avoid it.

I’m especially hesitant about my reactions to this show, knowing how fast the deck can be flipped, leaving you cold clocked in the dirt. The minute I’m laughing my head off about one thing, I leave myself wide open for the show to blindside me. As a general rule, I’ve always thought that the second you are sure of anything in GOT/asoiaf, you better watch out. Unexpected has always been the name of the game. 

But as GOT Season 7 progressed and more things sharpened into clear view for me, I found it more and more difficult to discuss each ep without including the nebulousness that is this audience reaction factor.

Particularly since 704, I’ve felt that our reactions are a necessary part of the season. It began as just a lowkey feeling but grew with every episode. More and more, I felt like I was purposely being mislead and like a stubborn mule, I dug my heels in to look closer. What I saw was a season laying traps for its audience in the form of missing scenes, unreliable narrator techniques, and misleading dialogue, to use our fears and worries and assumptions about these characters, especially House Stark, against us.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Sea, I just don't understand. How can it be so shady? Looking at this from any angle, every angle is fucked up. I just can't believe that h&l weren't/aren't more than just friends. At the same time, the other stuff is making me lose my damn mind. There's SO MUCH evidence for one angle and I think this just Can't not be real, and then there's the evidence from the other side that makes me go uhhh most recently, the "L"/"E" tattoos, I mean... how do you explain that?! It all seems like a sick game

Well, that’s just it.

These things are meant to sow doubt. And they’re very clever.

The “other” stuff you mentioned– the E and L tattoo, the matching outfits, the baby photos, are done with such visibility and intentionality, when everything else is hidden.

Remember when Danielle and Fizzy did the mannequin challenge in November 2016, diverting attention away from Louis’s being at the hospital with Jay? (Emmie actually pointed this out to me). They were in no mood to do a stupid mannequin challenge. But it bought some time for Louis.

They travel in anonymity 90% of the time… until they don’t. They can walk the streets of London and Los Angeles as ordinary people (as Niall says, he is almost never recognized), until they can’t.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

I know that this isn't the type of question that like you know, generates notes or recognition for the one who replies but like what do you think is the appeal for tinhats, though? I've never really managed to answer that question for myself you know? And it's something that honestly always bothers me. You don't have to answer if you dont want to btw.

Hey Anon, don’t ever think you can’t ask me a question because it doesn’t generate notes. Notes or recognition isn’t why I answer asks :).

Wow I guess I’ve never really sat down to organize my thoughts on it properly you know?

I think people can have different opinions on this but for me personally, I need to have a starting point. A baseline. And for me that baseline is that these people do not seek representation as members or supporters of the LGBT+ community in any way.

To be perfectly honest, I think a big part of the appeal is the angst. The pain. Which is a bit sick if you sit down and analyse it but it’s the truth and it’s something that anyone who loves fanfiction or is dedicated to a fictional fandom can spot and identify. For example, I love angst. I love reading characters and relationships develop painfully because I find it much easier to sympathise and connect to them.

But that’s in fiction.

The problem is that in Larry and Ziam, the lines between fanfiction and reality have been blurred so much that they’re almost nonexistent.

I guess what I’m about to say is more of a sidenote but bear with me : there was a point during 2008-2012 that the media did that exact same thing to Cheryl. I’ve read articles about her that seem like very well-written fan fiction but based on real events that she was going through. People would publish stories with speculation about whether Cheryl was going to die like Princess Diana and become a national icon or something.

To my utmost horror, I’ve even read an article that very much insinuated that Cheryl’s bitter end would be suicide which - my God.

My point is that people tend to sympathise with people who suffer. And for instance, in Cheryl’s case, that’s exactly what happened. Cheryl went through a shitstorm of things and people raised her into a pedestal of a weeping angel.

(I’m not really exaggerating.)

Why did I say all this?

Because it’s easy to fall in love with the pain in someone else’s life. And sometimes it’s easy to get carried away and want to fall in love with someone else’s life story and that’s why fanfiction fuels those desires.

I once had to write an essay on tropes, and three of the most popular narratives/strategies used in books is : 1. Unrequited Love, 2. Hurt/Comfort, 3. Tragic Ending.

There is this concept that people who receive these stimuli wish the obstacles in life to be bigger/more dramatic/more traumatic because it enhances the happily ever after that follows.

But Larries and Ziams have decided through fanfiction that this happy ending will never exist for these men unless it includes these men revealing a relationship between them - which is wishing for a Hurt/Comfort story to come true, just like in their fanfictions.

And if they don’t come out - Tragic Ending takes over, and it’s sad because this reveals that tinhats are dripping in fiction.

They’re dripping in words, arguments and claims used deep within the fanfiction realm - their conspiracy theory is literally like you take an Alternate Universe work and try to prove it’s true.

And some of them, looking at their posts, accepted in their own head that all the things that these boys have been through (still in their head) will eventually be necessary steps to them getting finally freed from a management that in fiction stands as an obstacle to a forbidden love.

The logic that suffering enhances the satisfaction of a happy ending is a tried and true narrative strategy. Broader culture borrows this narrative logic of the hard-won happily ever after, too. Sometimes, though, the narrative structure that privileges the satisfaction of a happily ever after functions to repair things that should not be repaired. From the vantage point of having found love, we re-see the terrible things they’ve undergone, and aren’t able to wish those things away because we see them as steps on the path to where they are now: in love, happier. Love, romance, the happily ever after, become narrativized as the goals of the life story.

And this is it, for tinhats. Like the Larrie claiming that the media will absolutely forgive Harry and Louis or Liam and Zayn when they come out and say “hey you know we’re in love, we had to go through all of that (enter : a bunch of illegal stuff) to get where we are, instead of - you know, not signing” and that will be considered okay.

But it won’t. Because it’s not real life.

In real life, gay teenagers aren’t looking for representation in Louis Tomlinson, Harry Styles, Zayn Malik and Liam Payne.

In real life, closeting very much exists but it has never included the faking of babies and 7 year discrimination contracts and in real life, everything can be challenged even if the challenge proves to be unsuccessful.

It’s a concept they created in their own minds, a story fleshed out in their own minds, a tragic narrative of their own fantasy, fake babies of their own imagination, evil boss dudes of their making, women as closeting machines, families as puppets, truths as lies, photos as lies, words as lies.

Everything’s a lie for them.

Everything but Their Truth.

What’s the appeal in my opinion?

What it most probably always has been for anyone who’s ever engaged in such behaviour.

The notion that They Know Something More. Something Sacred. Something Special. A Secret.

They Know.

(When in reality, They Wish.)

youtube.com
Modern Interpretations of Greek Chorus

Oedipus El Rey

Greek tragedy remains the foundation of modern theater and performance - but obviously playwrights and creators are finding new ways to adapt these classical tropes. One of our favorites to see is what people do with the Chorus: what was once just a narrative strategy to move the plot along has become a character, a group of characters, or some other entity living within the world of the play. Oedipus El Rey shows us a fluid and spiritual take on the tradition chorus, allowing its members to easily redefine their role in the show. This video from our friends at @national-theatre explores several other examples.

Theatre historians regularly attribute the paucity and brevity of Shakespearean women’s roles to the inadequacy (or the expense) of the apprenticed boy players. They have not as often remarked that female characters rarely appear unaccompanied by males. The all-male acting company contrasts the boy and the mature male to create the illusion of female presence. To leave a boy alone on stage is to relinquish the difference on which his feminization partly depends. At such moments, poetic, rhetorical, and narrative strategies must accomplish what the presence of the adult actor does in other scenes: they must maintain the female persona by dominating the impersonator. Such textual strategies, originally designed to feminize the boy actor, may infantilize or eroticize the woman who now plays the woman’s part.
—  Playing the Woman’s Part, Performing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre, ed. Sue-Ellen Case

anonymous asked:

I apologize if you've already covered this and I missed the post... But what are your thoughts on Alix's birthday gift? I'm not convinced the watch was just a plot device for her akumatization. Do you think of her as an ally or potential enemy?

I don’t really think of Alix as anything other than a minor/background character at this point. However, her father is very interesting. Aside from the fact that he appeared in two episodes and both his children were akumatized, he also shares the purple color scheme that Nooroo and Hawkmoth share - 

(handy scarf for covering things up too)

He also shares in bone structure very like Gabriel and Hawkmoth’s. From the front, he has fuller lips than Gabriel–similar to Hawkmoth’s–but that is all I’ve really been able to ascertain. I don’t have access to the episodes in high enough quality to make in-depth comparisons between Hawkmoth, Gabriel, and Kubdel. I do know that the silhouette in Origins lacked a mustache, but mustaches can be grown and cut (it also lacked glasses and Kubdel isn’t shown wearing a silver ring as Gabriel does, but, then again, Gabriel and Hawkmoth have different teeth). It also seems to me that both Gabriel and Kubdel have similar odds in coming across the butterfly miraculous–Gabriel has some kind of connection, the peacock, and the book, whereas Kubdel is a historian that clearly has access to knowledge and items beyond the expected (Alix’s watch). Either one could be a red herring for the other, in my opinion, but after the spoiler that showed us The Collector, I have a hard time believing that Gabriel is Hawkmoth, as The Collector looks like it might be Gabriel akumatized. There’s no proof, of course, but the design shares so many similarities with Gabriel himself that it seems extremely plausible - 

Hair, stripes, ascot, suit. Body type. 

And it seems to me that if Gabriel isn’t Hawkmoth, there’s a good chance we’ve seen Hawkmoth already and just not realized it. I mean, this is also equally as unlikely, but it’s a common narrative strategy–hidden in plain sight. 

But anyway, it’s all speculation. Hawkmoth could be someone we don’t even know or have seen yet. As far as Alix, though, I don’t view her any differently than I do the other minor student characters. 

Originally posted by yourreactiongifs

To be permanently sentimentally involved with the inhabitants of a
fictional possible world we must then satisfy two requirements: (i) we
must live in the fictional possible world as in an uninterrupted
daydream; and (ii) we must in some way behave as if we were one of
its characters.
        It can thus happen that, when we enter a very absorbing and captivating possible narrative world, a textual strategy can provoke something similar to a mystic raptus or to a hallucination, and we simply forget that we entered an only possible world. It happens especially when we meet a character in its original score or in a new enticing context. But since these characters are fluctuating and, so to speak, they come and go in our mind, like the women in the James Prufrock’s world, talking of Michelangelo, they are always ready to mesmerize us, and to make us believe that they are among us.
—  Umberto Eco, “On the Ontology of Fictional Characters: A Semiotic Approach”
My second reason for wanting to direct attention to Afrofuturism is political. From the ongoing war on terror to Hurricane Katrina, it seems that we are trapped in an historical moment when we can think about the future only in terms of disaster – and that disaster is almost always associated with the racial other. Of course, there are many artists, scholars, and activists who want to resist these terrifying new representations of the future. As a literary scholar myself, I believe that one important way to do this is to identify the narrative strategies that artists have used in the past to express dissent from those visions of tomorrow that are generated by a ruthless, economically self-interested futures industry. Hence my interest in Afrofuturism, which assures us that we can indeed just say no to those bad futures that justify social, political, and economic discrimination. In doing so this mode of aesthetic expression also enables us to say yes to the possibility of new and better future and thus to take back the global cultural imaginary today.
—  Lisa Yaszek, “Afrofuturism, Science Fiction, and the History of the Future”

The difference in narrative strategies right now is so funny. 

Typically, at invite-only industry events, asking the famous people for pictures is frowned upon. Some might do one or two, but most most don’t put themselves in a position to be around fans and get asked for pictures throughout the night. It’s why we didn’t get fan pics of Harry inside the Clive Davis event. It’s much more exclusive. 

But Louis went to the Pre-Grammy party crawling with young female types not afraid to ask the celebrity for pictures. Amazing!

  • Harry: Exclusive rock star friends; Parties with the Azoffs and Ringo Starr
  • Louis: Totally approachable; Stands in front of fan for pics; takes 10 fan photos inside industry party

Everyone got it yet?

anonymous asked:

but this is not about pr from 1d's side, not their say - this is about a company buying the rights to use a single song from sony in an ad, just like car companies and food companies and all kinds of companies buy random songs to use literally always - if anything it's good marketing from coca cola bc they know it'd bring a good reaction - but still, not a decision that'd go through 1dpr

i understand where you’ve coming from, but it strikes me as incredibly improbable that the same team that has gone to great, well-documented, and altogether harrowing lengths to drive home the message that every member in the band - and especially the two members portrayed in this commercial - are In Fact Straight would not make explicit, high-stakes stipulations such as “don’t make a commercial putting the narrative we’ve spent the better part of half a decade desperately trying to suppress on blast” when handing usage rights over to corporations, especially corporations that 1) dominate the global market and 2) have a documented pr relationship with the band that has, in the past, included advertising the product while also advertising a bearding relationship as reality during the worst of the closeting

the fact that this was greenlit demonstrates, at the very least, the absence of such stipulations which is in itself cause enough for analysis on our parts

and knowing what we know about one direction’s team and their documented pr practices, it’s 1) nearsighted to suggest this isn’t one of the biggest examples of a tangible shift in their strategy and narrative and 2) improbable that this wasn’t enthusiastically approved - or even suggested - by one direction’s team rather than simply allowed

anonymous asked:

Your romanticizing of a real woman who did real damage to a lot of people is a kinda disappointing :/

I mean, I won’t deny that I am very fond of Hilary Clinton’s campaign strategy, the narrative she and her managers have decided on, her packaging—I’m aware that it’s certainly not the Absolute Truth, but I like it as a decision all the same. Every candidate is packaged these days, right? Like Crest versus Colgate, it’s a matter of personal preference rather than deep ideological divisions. As everyone and their mother has pointed out, Hilary and Bernie share a lot of the same Democratic makeup; they agree on more than they disagree on. 

(….Trump, of course, is an exception. If Hilary is Crest and Bernie is Colgate, then Trump is scrubbing your teeth with baking powder and a fucking twig.)

But I don’t stand behind any of her foreign policy (I assume that’s what you’re referring to) and that’s why I’ve been scrupulous to vote for Democratic senators & reps. The hope is that a Democratic Congress with less of an interest in continuing the drone warfare and/or the interventions in Iraq and Syria will curtail a lot of Hilary’s warhawk tendencies, via the natural restrictions to the presidential war powers.

In short, I like her narrative, I connect with it on a personal level, but I can handle that in conjunction with awareness of the actual policy she represents.

(….also, if I can put in a plug for local elections—as someone from Illinois, a state which has been scraping by (i.e., dissolving into chaos) without a budget for the past year………who you elect as governor is so much more impactful than the president. Absurdly so. Just saying.)