its his world, we’re just living in it
opening my followers every day and blocking the pornbots like a humble farmer pulling weeds from the vegetable garden. wiping my brow of sweat at my labours in the sweltering sun
been thinkin about how my ethics professor back in undergrad was like.
look. there’s no such thing as perfect altruism. you’ll always get something out of helping or being kind to others, whether it’s a stronger relationship or returned kindness or just the feeling of having done good. there’s nothing inherently bad about getting something from doing good either, especially since it’s completely unavoidable. people being rewarded for putting love into the world doesn’t make the world a worse place. so just do as much good as you can and don’t worry about being “selfless” while doing it, because being truly selfless is in fact impossible.
and like man did that take the pressure off of Being A Good Person!! you’re allowed to enjoy helping people! you’re allowed to be kind without worrying that you’re maybe secretly just doing it for yourself!! it’s okay if you are doing it for yourself because you’re still being kind to others!!!!!
if it makes you happy to help people then actually you are helping two people
PSA if you read a fic for a relationship style that you don't normally like, and you like the fic in spite of the relationship, only comment with the first part of that sentiment!
"I really liked this!" not "I really liked this even though I don't want to see these characters in this sort of relationship!"
Comment Fail Field Notes
Comment Type: Backhanded Compliment
Sub-type: Lowkey Homophobic
Research Notes: Usually seen in response to works featuring a non-canonical queer pairing. Readers leaving this sort of comment frequently feel a need to add justification for their dislike of the themes they voluntarily read and admittedly enjoyed. (ex. "I stick close to canon," or "it just doesn't make sense given the setting," etc.)
Classification Note: Shares the "[CENTRAL THEME] is bad, but this is good" format with other Backhanded Compliments. Differs from the Highkey Homophobic sub-type by the absence of explicit homoantagonistic rhetoric.
Impact: Authors receiving this type of comment typically report frustration, a general feeling of ickiness, and a desire to "fucking increase the fucking thing."
Recommendation: Readers are advised that comments of the Backhanded Compliment type are highly likely to result in author irritation and highly unlikely to result in future fic more aligned with their personal preferences. Consider comments of the Short and Sweet or Emoji Enthusiasm type instead, or simply Kudos and Close.
"A Dream of a Thousand Cats" isn't my favorite Sandman tale. (It was my first though, since I started with Volume 3.) But the Netflix adaptation is worth it, if only as a reminder to audiences that Dream is NOT human and he doesn't only serve humans.
In the Sandman universe, everything dreams. Even stars and planets.
What also gets lost in the Netflix adaptation yet is so obvious in the comics, is that when characters look at Dream, they see a version of Dream in a form that is familiar *for them*.
Dream is described as a god. But he is NOT a god. When people meet him, they have so many preconceived notions of him. He has many names. But what he truly is, is a *function* and *byproduct* of the universe who developed a personhood over many millennia. He's had no identity outside of his job.
Yes, he has 'siblings'. And not all of them are like him. A few of them are actually worse. But for some reason, people tend to look at Dream and insist on judging him by human standards. Aside from Death, his 'family' is deeply dysfunctional. And she's mostly absent from his life, cause her duties keep her very busy.
This is why he's an emotionally stunted, duty-bound workaholic obsessed with rules and responsibilities. As a parentified child who didn't get a childhood, I related to Dream a lot. I was curious about the nature of his work, plus how vast AND alien AND alienating it was for him.
I don't think the Netflix adaptation is good at conveying that at all. People just look at him and see an asshole.
The visual cues of Dream's otherworldliness in the comics, was constant and upfront. Netflix only imparted it when Dream visited Hell and ran into Nada, and Dream suddenly appears black. But since Dream spends 99% of the time looking AND sounding like a pale British white dude, people forget that's NOT what he is. His form is something that is imposed on him. His work too, is something that was imposed on him.
He just takes it so seriously, that people think his job was his idea. It's not.
Hi Annie D, I've always loved the title of your fic "A Crash Course in Someone Else's History" (2012), plus the fic itself. Is the title a reference to anything? I ask cause I've noticed that fic titles are typically allusions to songs or other works.
----
Hi there! Oooh that's one of my lesser-read D/C fics (understandably, though) and I appreciate it! 🧡 The title isn't a reference to to anything specific, it's one of those near-literal summary titles I sometimes use (ha Convenient Husbands) because in effect the fic is about pre-s4!Cas getting a crash course in the history and relationships he'll develop over the next 3 seasons, but from s4!Cas's POV that "history" belongs to "someone else," i.e. not him. Because he'd never do any of those things they say he'll do👀
Thank you for writing it! When I first saw it, I thought it was a wonderful analogy to describe how people try to get to know each other, especially at the start of a relationship. I also find it a great reminder for how we're always both teacher and student, when it comes to understanding ourselves.
(For everyone else, this was the fic and I highly recommend it: https://archiveofourown.org/works/563603)
Charities/organisations to avoid:
PETA: They’d rather spend their money on publicity campaigns than on the animals in their care. PETA killed 73.8% of the animals in their care in 2015 (x)
FCKH8: Is a for-profit company that exploits oppressed groups for money. They’re also wildly uninformed, and spread misogyny, cissexism and bi/panphobia, as well as stealing their posts/designs (x)
Autism Speaks: They spend most of their money on researching a way to eliminate autism, heighten the stigma against autism and don’t have a single autistic person on their board (x)
Please support other, better charities, and feel free to add any others you can think of to this.
paintedspectres
prochoice-or-gtfo
^ Important reminder to NOT waste any money donating to these groups
Reblogging because of the added info about Wounded Warrior.
A good way to know if a nonprofit you’re donating to is allocating their money in the right way is to check out their Charity Navigator rating: http://www.charitynavigator.org
It’s good to know where NOT to put your money, but I promise there are local groups that can help a lot that are not going to be on that charity navigator tool. Use the fact that you want to help as a community builder. Reach out and ask local activists to what to put your money toward. Then you can talk to people and know exactly where the money goes a lot of the time (but don’t try to control what they can do, that’s manipulative).
My first salaried job (I made $31K) was for a real estate mogul that owned 6-7 Manhattan hotels and was landlord to several charities and non-profits. For one charity, their monthly rent check was $166K. Knowing that made me feel sick, tbh.
I only saw Rogue One cause I heard everyone dies. Donnie Yen was a bonus.
But this film also helped me realize that my biggest problem with Star Wars is how -- despite being a film series about war -- war gets treated as a scrappy adventure.
Star Wars prioritizes style over substance. So much of the character writing lacks nuance. Until Cassian. Cause Cassian is a war orphan, so he's an innocent victim. But he also grows up as a spy and assassin. He's done bad things for a good cause, and doesn't see himself as a good person. He's got trust issues, moral ambiguity, and his self-awareness gives him a depth so little of the other characters have. Of all the rebels, I felt like he actually has experienced war. Author Myke Cole once said that PTSD "is the wages of a life spent in crisis." I relate to that. And Cassian embodied this.
Luke was the same. Anakin too. Add abysmal Jedi parenting skills into the mix, and you're going to get really messed up people. And the other films don't highlight this. Cause escapism takes priority.
I know The Last Jedi gets a ton of hate from older fans. But Luke's character evolution made sense to me. He was a farm kid who knew his adoptive parents/relatives were murdered, had to kill his own dad, and was left alone at the end of the final film cause his sister (who he had feelings for) ran off with his new best friends to fight an empire. He becomes a war hero, sure. But if he's a human being at all, his mental health will not be in a good place.
It's scary how many years it's taken for fans to realize the Jedi really suck and their mumble jumble philosophy can be harmful. It's scarier when there are fans who still can't see it. The Sith are attractive cause they validate people's pain and traumas and resentments. But they don't teach anyone healthy coping mechanisms either.
I wonder if the storytelling got better cause as a culture, we're finally starting to respect therapy. And we've spent the past two decades with Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of vets who are only in their 30s or 40s now. We are more likely to know one.
sua-sponte-deactivated20200331
I’m watching that documentary “Before Stonewall” about gay history pre-1969, and uncovered something which I think is interesting.
The documentary includes a brief clip of a 1954 televised newscast about the rise of homosexuality. The host of the program interviewed psychologists, a police officer, and one “known homosexual”. The “known homosexual” is 22 years old. He identifies himself as Curtis White, which is a pseudonym; his name is actually Dale Olson.
So I tracked down the newscast. According to what I can find, Dale Olson may have been the first gay man to appear openly on television and defend his sexual orientation. He explains that there’s nothing wrong with him mentally and he’s never been arrested. When asked whether he’d take a cure if it existed, he says no. When asked whether his family knows he’s gay, he says that they didn’t up until tonight, but he guesses they’re going to find out, and he’ll probably be fired from his job as well. So of course the host is like …why are you doing this interview then? and Dale Olson, cool as cucumber pie, says “I think that this way I can be a little useful to someone besides myself.”
1954. 22 years old. Balls of pure titanium.
Despite the pseudonym, Dale’s boss did indeed recognize him from the TV program, and he was promptly fired the next day. He wrote into ONE magazine six months later to reassure readers that he had gotten a new job at a higher salary.
Curious about what became of him, I looked into his life a little further. It turns out that he ultimately became a very successful publicity agent. He promoted the Rocky movies and Superman. Not only that, but get this: Dale represented Rock Hudson, and he was the person who convinced him to disclose that he had AIDS! He wrote the statement Rock read. And as we know, Rock Hudson’s disclosure had a very significant effect on the national conversation about AIDS in the U.S.
It appears that no one has made the connection between Dale Olson the publicity agent instrumental in the AIDS debate and Dale Olson the 22-year-old first openly gay man on TV. So I thought I’d make it. For Pride month, an unsung gay hero.
obsessed with that thing about sith names coming from words that start with "in" (invader, insidious, etc) because that means that hypothetically there could be a darth gredience
Darth Stagram
Dark Stant Mashed Potatoes
Darth Uyasha
Lady of shallot. Lady of onion. Lady of garlic. Lady of chives.
its 4am and I have no control over what i draw
And in the palace pantry near
Died the sound of royal cheer;
And they cross’d themselves for fear,
All those Judges of Palate:
But Lancelot mused a little space;
He said, “She has a lovely taste;
God in his mercy lend her grace,
The Lady of Shallot.”
- Alfredo Lord Venison :p (aka me)
Re: previous post; I realized my feelings were very rooted in how fandom has shaped my relationship to entertainment.
What I love so much about fanfiction, is how much of it, are essentially exercises of empathy. Multiverses are a major trope now, but embracing expansiveness (whether of themes, emotions, sexuality, gender, power, etc), has always been the basis of art within fandom.
This is not an Oscars post, but sort of is:
We talk about actors too much and think about *why* too little.
We don't meet actors as actors; we first meet them as their characters. As stars, actors covet roles that they can shine in. An actor playing a popular character generally has it made. This is why I have zero interest in Michael Emerson's life or career, but would treat Harold Finch like family. I would obey Captain Sisko, but not Avery Brooks. I would murder teenage Joffrey Baratheon, but give Jack Gleeson full hospitality.
We feel attachment to actors thanks to several psychological effects, including the "parasocial phenomenon" and because their lives are under constant scrutiny. "Misattribution of arousal" is another, and means the false attribution of emotion to a person, when the bulk of the emotional lifting is done by the experience instead. Reality TV shows like The Bachelor rely on this. You stick people in situations that feel good -- like a romantic getaway -- and they'll associate that feeling with each other. It's emotional hacking.
These all create false intimacy. So we transfer our admiration for the portrayal of a character to the actor. Some people can't even seem to separate the character from the actor. We forget we value actors when their talent is how convincingly they can lie and memorize.
Sometimes, an actor's career is more than a job and ties into sociopolitical change. There is intent in the undertaking of projects. Or it could be, that their very presence in the industry, inclusion in certain films/roles, or newfound visibility with particular audiences, *is* the impact. Those moments are worth celebrating, not only of the actor, but because they're when we've stopped to take a good look at ourselves, as a society, and at our place in history.
Those are the film awards ceremonies I'd be eager to see. One that's basically a film history course AND a State of the Industry report. They can highlight things such as the challenges and innovations of production, procurement, VFX, travel, etc. But also, to celebrate the characters, who are always silent in these proceedings.
If you want a sense of how differently we can do things, Xiao Zhan (of The Untamed) and Gong Jun (of Word of Honor) penned very compassionate and personal letters to the characters they portrayed. I once said that we should be judging efforts at representation in media, based on how effectively they function as exercises of empathy. What these actors did, was truly one.
I think the Hunger Games series sits in a similar literary position to The Lord of the Rings, as a piece of literature (by a Catholic author) that sparked a whole new subgenre and then gets blamed for flaws that exist in the copycat books and aren’t actually part of the original.
Like, despite what parodies might say, Katniss is nowhere near the stereotypical “unqualified teenager chosen to lead a rebellion for no good reason”. The entire point is that she’s not leading the rebellion. She’s a traumatized teenager who has emotional reactions to the horrors in her society, and is constantly being reined in by more experienced adults who have to tell her, “No, this is not how you fight the government, you are going to get people killed.” She’s not the upstart teenager showing the brainless adults what to do–she’s a teenager being manipulated by smarter and more experienced adults. She has no power in the rebellion except as a useful piece of propaganda, and the entire trilogy is her straining against that role. It’s much more realistic and far more nuanced than anyone who dismisses it as “stereotypical YA dystopian” gives it credit for.
And the misconceptions don’t end there. The Hunger Games has no “stereotypical YA love triangle”–yes, there are two potential love interests, but the romance is so not the point. There’s a war going on! Katniss has more important things to worry about than boys! The romance was never about her choosing between two hot boys–it’s about choosing between two diametrically opposed worldviews. Will she choose anger and war, or compassion and peace? Of course a trilogy filled with the horrors of war ends with her marriage to the peace-loving Peeta. Unlike some of the YA dystopian copycats, the romance here is part of the message, not just something to pacify readers who expect “hot love triangles” in their YA.
The worldbuilding in the Hunger Games trilogy is simplistic and not realistic, but unlike some of her imitators, Collins does this because she has something to say, not because she’s cobbling together a grim and gritty dystopia that’s “similar to the Hunger Games”. The worldbuilding has an allegorical function, kept simple so we can see beyond it to what Collins is really saying–and it’s nothing so comforting as “we need to fight the evil people who are ruining society”. The Capitol’s not just the powerful, greedy bad guys–the Capitol is us, First World America, living in luxury while we ignore the problems of the rest of the world, and thinking of other nations largely in terms of what resources we can get from them. This simplistic world is a sparsely set stage that lets us explore the larger themes about exploitation and war and the horrors people will commit for the sake of their bread and circuses, meant to make us think deeper about what separates a hero from a villain.
There’s a reason these books became a literary phenomenon. There’s a reason that dozens upon dozens of authors attempted to imitate them. But these imitators can’t capture that same genius, largely because they’re trying to imitate the trappings of another book, and failing to capture the larger and more meaningful message underneath. Make a copy of a copy of a copy, and you’ll wind up with something far removed from the original masterpiece. But we shouldn’t make the mistake of blaming those flaws on the original work.
THIS POST WAS MADE FOR ME. Literally nobody gets how profound The Hunger Games are as a piece of literature, actually, because it’s been lumped in with all of the copycats that came after it.
“I’m tired of love triangles” THE HUNGER GAMES IS LITERALLY AN ALLEGORICAL FICTION REFLECTING ON THE MERITS OF JUST-WAR THEORY.
This is a FASCINATING article where Suzanne Collins talks about this. Basically, just war theory - popularized by Thomas Aquinas, and I didn’t know she was Catholic, so that makes a TON of sense how she would know about that, anyways, just-war theory advocates for this idea that a war can be just based on certain conditions being met. In the Hunger Games, Katniss is a stand in for humanity generally, a sort of neutral figure whose going through this moral/philosophical battle. Gale represents a favorable view of just-war theory, whereas Peeta represents - if not pacifism, then certainly at the very least, a rejection of war.
THATS WHY ITS SO FUCKING PROFOUND that Katniss ends up with Peeta, like, can we just collectively admire for a moment, the final passage of Mockingjay, now that we get that what’s actually going on is a statement re: cycles of violence and the needs of humanity?
“Peeta and I grow back together. There are still moments when he clutches the back of a chair and hangs on until the flashbacks are over. I wake screaming from nightmares of mutts and lost children. But his arms are there to comfort me. And eventually his lips. On the night I feel that thing again, the hunger that overtook me on the beach, I knew this would have happened anyway. That what I need to survive is not Gale’s fire, kindled with rage and hatred. I have plenty of fire myself. What I need is the dandelion in the spring. The bright yellow that means rebirth instead of destruction. The promise that life can go on, no matter how bad our losses. That it can be good again. And only Peeta can give me that.”
I MEAN. GOD. GOD. WHAT POETRY THAT IS. Humanity cannot rely on war, and hatred, and violence, it does not need it to live, it cannot feast forever on bread and circuses gained from blood. This passage nearly makes me cry every time I read it, it’s SO lovely.
Anyways, the Hunger Games rocks.
You know restaurants sometimes do a ridiculous thing where they serve you something very small, on a very large plate? The void between true substenance and its container is never so clear as in those moments.
Sentiment is like that very large plate, except it's actually empty. Plus, we have a harder time seeing the plate for what it is.
Let's say, as a common example, someone claims you are "in my thoughts". What exactly is to come of it? Are they ready to clothe you? House you? Bring over a pie? Most likely, it's that metaphorical, empty plate. And we're conditioned to believe this is OK. That it qualifies as a meaningful action.
(I think this happens when people exist in a bubble where those they know are generally well-provided for. And a bad situation is a temporary setback, not chronic deprivation. So platitudes are enough.)
When you hand people a large plate, do it with the intention of making sure someone eats, and soon. Which is to make sure the food is already on it, or at least, isn't far behind.
hopeful-trekkie-deactivated2022
James T. Kirk:
-Graduated in the top 4% of his year -was bullied by jocks -Is a history nerd -was so much of a teacher’s pet that he cheated on an exam and was commended for it -Was referred to as “a stack of books with legs”
Jean-Luc Picard:
-Spent all his free time drinking in pubs and playing billiards -broke more hearts than he can remember -started a bar fight that ended up in him being stabbed in the heart -likes to explore dangerous ruins of ancient civilizations for fun -wouldn’t even have become a starship captain if he wasn’t this much of a hothead
And yet people still manage to get it backwards???
I think it’s a problem of First Officer, really.
Jim Kirk seems like a wild man because he’s standing next to calm, logical Spock.*
Meanwhile, Picard seems stately and dignified because he’s standing next to Will “Any alien physiology is bangable if you just put some thought into it” Riker*.
* Of course THEN, we get to the next layer, which is that Spock is the dude who told the Vulcan Science Academy to fuck itself, while Riker plays the trombone.
The Federation is a confusing place.
It’s definitely also a casting thing, to be fair. Shatner got a SCRIPT that said “play a giant gay nerd” but he played him like a jock fuckboy, and Stewart’s script said “play a jock fuckboy” and he played him like a giant gay nerd. Both of these were inspired decisions and I love them for making them.
It’s age, too. We see Picard after he’s grown out of his nonsense. In the first episode, he has a talk with Riker like, “Hey, just so you know? I hired you because you got written up for calling out your last captain when he was being a dumbass. I consider calling me out when I’m being a dumbass to be an important part of your job.”
Meanwhile, Kirk is young and apparently hot (if you’re into that sort of thing) and all the alien ladies, through no fault of his own, want to bang him 100% of the time–this isn’t a thing he does on purpose and indeed is something he’s often horrified and baffled by.
I personally like that every Starfleet Officer ever seen has ‘Shenanigans’ as one layer of their personality, all that varies is how far down it is and what prompts it.
Well, Star Trek is canonically a society where you don’t have to work as a Federation citizen. (They are post cash, or something.) No one *has to* go into space for dangerous adventures. All those people have self-selected in StarFleet. It obv requires a certain level of shenanigans in your psych makeup.
Ling Wen: Just try to avoid Hua Cheng Xie Lian: no ❤️
with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
— King Lear, Act I Scene II
hannibal : what was the name of that person who was rude to you the other day?
will : his dogs' names are broomstick and butterscotch
hannibal : that's not what I asked
will : but that's the information I have