rich narrative

I wish the fandom paid more Satya Vaswani. She’s a super compelling character with the potential for a redemption arc just as compelling as the one that seems possible for Widowmaker. She’s a fundamentally good person doing the wrong things for the right reasons and the ambivalence she expresses towards Vishkar in A Better World feels like its potentially a very rich mine for interesting narratives and character studies. 

Plus there’s interesting interplay between her and Lúcio. Like they have similar backgrounds but ended up on opposite ends of a conflict and it’d be so interesting to develop that. They’re really cleverly designed foils I think, from a character background perspective.

And also she’s like… gorgeous.

Dear people who like the episode and think it was a narrative masterpiece and don’t understand what Johnlockers are upset about

it is in fact possible for something with amazing, nuanced, rich, compelling narrative to also be homophobic

and the homophobia is RIFE in this by making all of the villains queer or queer coded ALL OF THEM and some of them confirmed to be queer (Moriarty, Irene) but then leaving it ambiguous when it comes to the good guys - it’s saying that “well the villains are gay, sure, they’re evil though, but the heroes…well…we’ll leave that open to interpretation, i mean, idk, they might be gay, they are raising a baby together, but also, i mean, it could be platonic if you want it to, it just depends on your reading”

THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE ANGRY ABOUT do not tell me it’s cause Johnlock didn’t fuck, do not reduce this anger to Johnlock didn’t fuck

theguardian.com
Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries
New research shows that developing countries send trillions of dollars more to the west than the other way around. Why?
By Jason Hickel

…The aid narrative begins to seem a bit naïve when we take these reverse flows into account. It becomes clear that aid does little but mask the maldistribution of resources around the world. It makes the takers seem like givers, granting them a kind of moral high ground while preventing those of us who care about global poverty from understanding how the system really works.

Poor countries don’t need charity. They need justice. And justice is not difficult to deliver. We could write off the excess debts of poor countries, freeing them up to spend their money on development instead of interest payments on old loans; we could close down the secrecy jurisdictions, and slap penalties on bankers and accountants who facilitate illicit outflows; and we could impose a global minimum tax on corporate income to eliminate the incentive for corporations to secretly shift their money around the world.

We know how to fix the problem. But doing so would run up against the interests of powerful banks and corporations that extract significant material benefit from the existing system. The question is, do we have the courage?

10

Artist Fuses Vintage Photographs with Present-Day Paris to Make History Come Alive

These historical composites layered over modern day scenes showcase the timeless postcard perfection and rich narratives that flow through the streets of Paris. By combining past and present portraits of the famous French capital, art director Julien Knez showcases just how many changes the City of Lights has seen over the past 100 years.

I haven’t watched iron fist yet and I already hate it - they could’ve very easily had an Asian-American Danny Rand in Lewis Tan, who would’ve brought something actually interesting in exploring what it means to be an Asian-American/second-gen poc. Being from two places at the same time and never feeling like you truly belong to either (and being treated as such by people in those places) is the very essence of being an outsider and something I would’ve loved to see (probably because I am one too and I would like maybe just the smallest bit of representation on-screen) and the fact that sort of rich narrative was passed over for yet another white saviour story is the absolute worst.

Not to mention the fact they ended up casting Lewis Tan as a villain which is just a slap in the face - yet another poc being cast as being the evil character - so Marvel, until you start sorting your shit out, don’t claim that you’re at all progressive. Oh, and Finn Jones? You can go suck an egg. We don’t hate your show because Trump was elected - we hate your show because both it and the current presidency feature rich, white men who think they know better about cultural appropriation than the people who are directly affected by it.

machiavelliwithglasses  asked:

For the writer meme, since you seemingly write everyone I want to know 8. ^^

8. is there a character you love writing for the most? the least? why?

The character I love writing the most? Probably James or Ozpin. James is my favourite to write from an inside point of view. He has a lot going on that allows me a very rich, in-depth narrative, and I like to explore that. Ozpin I prefer to tackle from an outside perspective, as a lot of how I write them shifts with who is watching them. Perception is something I love playing with.

Qrow gets an honourable mention for having a narrative style that changes drastically depending on his age. From casual to snarky to old sad man.

The character I like writing the least is probably… from a POV perspective, it’s Roman. The man is freaking difficult to write and I try very, very hard to get his speech patterns and quirks proper, but it’s so hard. I can’t imagine trying to do a fic from inside Tyrian’s head, as he’s a lot more difficult than Roman from the inside.

From the outside? God, probably Adam. Partially because I have completely overused him and partially because he’s so hammy that it’s easy to write his villain-y without putting any sort of depth to it. Also, it creeps me out a lot how easy I can write him.

The Chitters

Kudos to Nancy Won for writing a gothic metaphor for the queer experience while actually including a queer couple in the text.  So often in fantasy and gothic narratives, the actual topic of the metaphor is kept in the subtext- we’ve seen that for eleven years on Supernatural.  And while that’s a perfectly acceptable and even compelling way of creating a rich narrative, it also means that what’s being discussed- queerness, abuse, trauma, etc- is left without textual representation in the text.

In The Chitters, however, the metaphor operates only because of the textual representation of queerness- ie Jesse’s anxiety about the closed-mindedness of the townspeople.  On the surface, he’s talking about the fact that he saw something that no one believed, and that even the sheriff shut him down despite seeing the exact same thing.  But because from the very first line in the episode, Jesse is established as queer in a small town in the middle of nowhere, his comments about the intolerance he faced as a child seem less about people believing him, and more about intolerance of another kind.

The dual meaning of Jesse’s words then lend the rest of the episode that same dual meaning, particularly considering the chitters themselves.  This MOTW is framed not by what we the audience sees, but what individual characters witness, from the cold open all the way through the investigation.  We don’t see the victims being turned into these creatures, but rather we see the survivors recounting what they saw and being dismissed by everyone around them.  The girl at the beginning was told that she’d been high, so it couldn’t have been what she thought.  Jesse was told it was a sexual predator and he was just making up stories.  Etta deflected and pretended she didn’t know anything until pressed, and even while she told her grandmother’s version of the myth, she stuck to her own story of a cheating husband.  The old sheriff was so sure that no one would believe him that he cut his daughter out of his life, both literally and metaphorically, told traumatized people that he didn’t know anything, and shut himself away from the rest of the world.

Compare all of this to Dean’s reaction on meeting Jesse and Cesar.  He called them brothers, and when Cesar corrected him, it still took him a moment to realize exactly what was going on.  Look at Jesse’s discomfort as soon as Dean says “You fight like brothers.”  This is the insidious, well-meaning form of homophobia.  The kind where you’re told that you can’t really be gay, you just haven’t met the right person yet, that it’s sexual perversion and you’re not a pervert, that you’re just making it up for the attention.  (Interestingly, most of those comments are things people say not to gay men, but to people who identify as bisexual/asexual/trans/pansexual/lesbian/etc.  Not that it’s relevant to this discussion, but it might be relevant to a certain character who may or may not swing both ways).

The chitters therefore become the reflection of a compulsory heterosexuality, where those who might feel differently are herded back into line.  The affliction is a dark and disturbing sexuality that consumes the host in the name of reproduction.*  Anyone who sees them for what they are- death of the self- are firmly told that they’re crazy, that the missing people just left the town and are happily living somewhere else.  Even those with the evidence right in front of their eyes dismiss it- most notably the sheriff, who killed his own daughter and then pretended that nothing ever happened.

Of all of the people involved in this, the only ones who were able to defeat the problem where the ones who ignored what others were saying, and stuck to what they knew was the truth.  Despite everything that happened to him, Jesse remained firm in his belief that he didn’t imagine what took his brother, that he could one day hunt it down and kill it.  He fought back against the intolerance that he faced, and came out the other side of it- not because he got his revenge, but because he was able to see past the lies and self-deceptions, and end up with the one person who understood him and supported him through it all.  His happy ending was not revenge on the dark mirror to a homophobic town, but getting past it, settling down with the man that he loves.

It’s hard, if not impossible, to not see this as a continuation of the destruction of Dean’s performed masculinity and heterosexuality.  While Sam was the one who was paralleled with Jesse on the basis of their devotion to their older brothers, Dean is paralleled with Jesse by occupying the negative space Jesse would normally fill in his relationship with Cesar.  In the conversation about Jesse’s revenge, Dean represents what happens after the revenge, but as yet without the happy ending.  After all, it’s been years since Dean shot Yellow Eyes, years since John died and passed on the mantel of obsessive hunting on to his sons.  The revenge that Sam and Dean sought left them without closure, but rather just more problems to solve, more battles to fight.  They both lacked the steady support of a partner like Cesar, who was willing to fight to the end for the man he loves, and also pull him away from that next battle so that they can go home and live their lives in freedom.

You can see where I’m going with this, I’m sure.

*Not to say anything against heterosexuality as a whole.  This is referring specifically to compulsory heterosexuality, where one is forced into a role without taking their own preferences into account.

Okay but like, I don’t have the time or the patience to put up with shows that queer bait. Maybe historically we’ve had to settle for subtext and entirely non-canonical ships but not anymore. Why would you lend your viewership to a show that is hostile or ambivalent to the needs of our community? Especially when there are a growing number of shows that produce inclusive content, full of rich LGBTQ characters and narratives. I truly don’t understand the appeal of things like Once Upon a Time, Supernatural or even Rizzoli and Isles. The producers, show runners and writers of these shows make a conscious effort to exploit the interest of queer viewers whilst explicitly denying them canon status in order to secure their straight credibility with wider audiences. Why even give them the time of day if queer content is what you’re looking for? Watch The 100, Orange is the New Black, Sense8, Orphan Black, The Fosters, Broad City, Carmilla… hell, even watch Faking It or Pretty Little Liars if you must. I just don’t understand why you’d stick loyally by content that refuses to represent you. Somebody explain!!! 

  • me: I dont understand why people are already choosing sides for civil war when its obvious the depth and richness of the narrative comes from the fact that both sides are right and we should be torn throughout the movie who we would stand with. After following tony for eight years and steve for five, we know each character, their journeys, and their inner struggles enough to be able to not only understand but empathize with both sides.
  • also me: team cap is the love of my life