Greatest Hits From My Blogs
Collection of posts (mostly from my Tumblr blog) that I find thoughtful or funny enough to save here for future reference, or as essay ideas! I do my best to preserve the original text, especially when it involves me talking to another person in order to not misconstrue words, but there are couple spelling and grammar liberties taken for making my own thoughts clearer.
The Disservice of the "Insane Lore" Angle - Feb 2024
A ramble prompted by watching a Kirby "Lore" video that did the very common song and dance of discussing the writing as a cryptic easter egg mess, and not a part of the broader theming of the series and all. Probably one of my biggest media pet peeves not just in the Kirby fandom but a lot of under-respected mediums and series.
I used to be one of those guys when I first joined the Kirby fandom, but every time I hear a discussion of the series writing that starts with "So the Lore is InSaNe-" and not like, "Kirby has a fun writing style that takes advantage of its cute exterior to tell cool stories that reward players' curiosity and leave lots of room for imagination-" I cringe so goddamn hard.
I kinda just hate that people approach things that encourage investment when they don't expect it as inherently absurd. Lit it is fun to joke about how absurd Kirby lore can be, but it really often comes with an air of disrespect or exhaustion rather than like, appreciation that these games are made by people who want to tell interesting stories when they could easily make as much money just making polished fluffy kiddie platformers. And when it's not met with exhaustion, it's met with - like I said before - that tone that it's stupid for a series like this TO have devs who care about writing stuff for it. Which is a whole other thing about people not respecting things made to appeal to kiddie aesthetic or tone.
Maybe the state of low-stakes YouTube video essays just blows cause people play up ignorance and disbelief for engagement, but like I swear to god I hear people use this tone for like actual narrative based games sometimes. Some people don't like, appreciate when a game is made by people who care a shitton in ways that aren't direct gameplay feedback. And they especially don't appreciate it when it comes from something with any sense of tonal dissonance, intentional or not.
Anyways, I love games made by insane people. I love games made with teams who feel like they wanna make something work or say something so bad. I love that energy, especially when invested into something that could easily rest on its laurels or which obviously won't be taken seriously. I love this in a lot of classic campy 2000s games, I love this in insanely niche yet passionate fan-works, and I love it in the Kirby series and its writing. Can we please stop talking about it like it's an annoyance or complete joke?
The Legacy of Mythologized Violence In Fantasy Media - Feb 2024
Explained in the text. Mish-mashing art with completely contrasting vibes can lead to some very intriguing introspection as you try to find where they relate...
Watched the NIN Broken short film and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power in the same day and it had me fucked up in the crib ranting to my bestie about how humans have been abusing art since ancient times to romanticize violence and teach people to forgo their compassion for one another, and how deeply embedded that legacy is in all art and culture, even down to stupid magical princess shows (the She-Ra reboot is good btw)
I'm just fucked up over how we're comfortable romanticizing war and violence if it takes on a certain mythical air, but all those aesthetics of mythic wars of good and evil come from ancient propaganda that was just as corrosive to those people as contemporary propaganda is to us today. Like,,,,
DID YOU KNOW MEDIEVAL KNIGHTS GOT PTSD???? THAT WHILE THE WAR STORIES WE USE TODAY AS FANTASY FLUFF WERE BEING WRITTEN THE PEOPLE THE WERE BASED ON SUFFERENED TRAUMA FROM IT??? I heard that like years ago and I'm still not over it.
Disney's Cinderella and Lost Disney Magic - Dec 2023
Piggy backing off of Star-Ocean-Peahen's great post on how Disney's Cinderella translated the fairytale into a film and filled in many of its logical holes with my own observations on how a lot of those smart writing choices are missed by people who don't see the utility in Disney's common tropes. Peahen's post was abbreviated here but I recommend reading the whole thing.
@Star-Ocean-Peahen:
After watching Cinderella (the original animated movie, which was my favorite as a child), it strikes me how it solves many common problems people have with this fairy tale. Like:
- Why did the Prince want to marry a lady he only met that night? Because his father was going to force him to marry someone, and he genuinely liked this woman.
- Why did Cinderella want to marry a man she only met that night? Because marriage was her best and most secure way to freedom. Fucked up, but you can't say it's unrealistic for the setting of a fairy tale. She also genuinely liked him.
- Why didn't Cinderella save herself? Because in real life, abuse victims should not have to shoulder that responsibility, and usually can't. In real life, you need and deserve an external support system. Asking for help, in this kind of situation, is very important. She is saved by others because she is loved. Because she is not alone. Because she has friends who love her, and want her to be happy and safe and free. Because in real life, people who want to help someone who is suffering are like the mice. We can't pull out miracle solutions, but we can provide companionship and if we're in the right place at the right time, we can help the person find a better life.
- Why didn't the Fairy Godmother save Cinderella from her abusive household, or try to help her sooner? Because she's magic, and magic can't solve your problems. Quote: "Like all dreams, well, I'm afraid it can't last forever." This (and Cinderella's dream of going to the ball) is a metaphor for pleasurable things in bad circumstances. An ice cream won't get rid of your depression, but it will provide you with a momentary happiness to bolster you, as well as the reminder that happiness in general is still possible for you. Cinderella doesn't want to go to the ball so she can get away from her stepmother and stepsisters, or so she can meet someone to marry and leave with. She wants to go to the ball to reminder herself that she can still have things she wants. That her desires matter. That is important because the movie does a very good job of illustrating Lady Tremaine's subtle abuse tactics, all of which invisibly press the message that Cinderella doesn't matter. While going to the ball and fulfilling her dreams may not be a victory in a material sense, it is still a victory against Lady Tremaine's efforts.
[...]
[...]
[...]
My reblog as @FruitsOfHell:
I'd like to add to the "Why Did Cinderella marry someone she just met?" because it speaks to a lot of what I love about the film and dislike about a lot of Disney movie criticism.
Throughout the film, Cinderella is established to be a very romantic character, which can be easy to take for granted with how ingrained in us that is for a Disney Princess, but in the context of the film it is a properly established trait. (Along with her kindness as defiance, which is another aspect taken for granted).
The ball is this one night in nearly her whole life where she'll see anything but the dusty corners of her house, and you can tell just how much it means to her by how she reacts to it in the lead up. To her gladly accepting an obvious trick from her step-mother at the opportunity, to her failing to convince herself that she'll be fine missing it, to her once again naive joy at the mice's dress, and her despair when it's destroyed.
When she arrives literally by magic she is utterly star-struck; she just wanders around the castle bright-eyed not even with any objective. Then, from out of the blue this incredibly handsome man appears and whisks her away to dance in the spotlight as a gentle waltz plays, they then walk through a lush moonlit harden under the stars, yadda yadda - it's that Disney magic.
But what I'm getting at here, is that that Disney magic is diegetic, Disney artists have written and drawn that charm into this film to SERVE THE NARRATIVE, not just because they're Disney so there must be sparkles and music. Cinderella feels those sparkles and music after a life of nothing but hay and laundry and brooms, and it's instantly a life-changing experience to her that culminated in dancing with that beautiful man.
The day after when she's reacting to the news of the Prince's search with her step-sisters, there's this great shot where they're scrambling to throw their laundry at her, and she is just standing their in an absolute dreamy daze, thinking about how she had danced with a Prince who was now doing anything to find her. So dazed, in fact, it becomes her downfall as she then neglects her duties to merrily hum and dance away to prepare for him, setting off Lady Tremaine.
The film very much does everything in its power to make the fairytale makes sense in a feature length film context, and this includes rather strong characterization of Cinderella and why she would follow fairytale logic. It's still because she is a fairytale character, but as a more grounded actor than a damsel in a 5-page story, she manages to bring that magic with her mixed with a fleshed out bittersweet naivety that the film wants you to understand the power of. How important it is to dream and imagine a better life for yourself in face of everything, the importance of not letting abused turn you cruel and spiteful to others (specifically those she has power over such as the animals of the house, the film is fine with her anger towards those who abuse her, and how spreading kindness will be rewarded. Very basic nice things like that, but executed beautifully and magically.
I feel as though a reason why some of this characterization is lost on people - besides cynicism - is due to the animation of the film, and how heavily rotoscoped Cinderella is in body and face. Rotoscoping can help make a character feel realistic, but if it's too juxtaposed with cartoonier figures (like the step-sisters, the King, the Duke, even Tremaine a bit) that acting instead becomes stiff in comparison. I won't go into that theory, but it did take me 3 watches and hyper-awareness of that to notice many of the characterization details I did.
Pixar's Elemental vs Disney's Zootopia on Racial Allegory - Dec 2023
People shit on Elemental for its race/culture allegory looking even more reductive and rigid than Zootopia's on the surface, but I think it actually used it super well. It feels a lot more like a very broad fable-ish metaphor than the sort of hard world-building with direct racial parallels found in Zootopia. Zootopia aged poorly because it was so fucking direct in its parallel imagery to real world oppression with the police angle, whereas Elemental is just generally about the experience of being an immigrant. The way it uses the infrastructure of the city being actively built for some and harmful to others is really clever too, I adored how they used that.
It also helps greatly that ELemental was written by a POC from the perspective of the marginalized because it helps to make the metaphor feel more cohesive. The choice to make Judy the main focus as a perpetrator of the systemic predator oppression that greatly mirrors real world anti-blackness aged like milt to me, it screams white guilt complex. And the fact it spends a lot of time not engaging with forms of prejudice besides the bunny oppression until it gets to that feels very flat. Elemental immediately explains its main allegory very strongly and from the perspective of those it affects, so there's no fluff or time spent ignoring the issues from the privileged perspective.
Literally the thing that will instantly kill your fantasy oppression metaphor is being white guilt-y about it or not thinking super hard about what you're paralleling if you're going to be as blunt as Zootopia. Stuff like accidentally giving the oppressed group a reason to be oppressed as you do with the predator-prey dynamic. It's just the biggest fucking red flag and shows little understanding of why these systems exist in real life. In Elemental the metaphor obviously uses a lot of imagery to show that the fire people are meant to be east asian-coded, but beyond that, its content just being a story about class and immigrant families. About being from different worlds and feeling like they're impossible to combine, because of experiences and backgrounds, which is expressed as being fire and water.
Unlike being a bunny and fox, that imagery is a bit less loaded and can be turned into a sort of mutual harm as it is in the film with Wade being at risk of evaporating as much as Ember is at risk of being put out. And, in the end, it's found that water can just bubble a bit as metaphor for a compromise. Which is fine enough and where the more fable-ish approach to the allegory became clear to me.
It's also used very cutely for their personalities too in a way that comes back to the background divide - Ember being fiery, anxious, and high-strung from pressures to support her community, and Wade being all blubbery and emotional but mellower because he lives in a supportive upper-class family. It's just a lot cleverer on a couple of levels than the bumbling between predators as black and brown people, but also their oppression is bad, but also they are dangerous, but also its cause of a conspiracy, and also prey are kinda like white women, and there's intersectionality but its shown horribly.
Despite Ember's racial coding, no matter how you code Wade's family, it doesn't matter because it is simply about - 'you live in a city that has integrated for you, and I don't' - which could apply to an upper-class family of any background, cause it's more of a class thing now. Even if he was black-coded (which I've seen from fans likely because of his VA, I don't remember if he was in the film's text), it still works cause there ARE affluent black families whom by nature of having been here and integrated are in that privileged role over a poorer immigrant family of any other race.
Allegories for class or upbringing usually age better, the systems that create those are a lot more basic and less loaded to parallel on a surface level than racism or misogyny. No that they CAN'T go really deep, but it's easier to not come off as blatantly offensive as long as you're not like a eugenicist about it.
HBomb and Plagiarism: Become Your Own Critic! - Dec 2023
Prompted by browsing opinions on the 2023 Plagerism and You(Tube) video essay by Hbomberguy. The video did genuinely really inspire me to be more confident in my own creative voice and opinion, but I was also peeved by people trying to be purists about how they engage with video essays and online reviews. I hope my two comments don't sound contradictory, I just think the best takeaway from the video is between being someone who watches other's media analysis a uncritically and someone who scoffs at the idea of relying on others' opinions on anything.
My other fun addition to the Hbomberguy video stuff is not just that you need to start checking everyone's sources just to make sure you aren't being duped, but to not use them as a stand in for media consumption/experiences either. Like I'm not gonna lecture you on reading sources cause I am the first one to not and that's my laziness, but like sometimes more important than checking the original analysis of something is just to see the thing being analyzed yourself. That;s not even about misinformation or lying, sometimes people's opinions just SUCK ASS.
Like there are YouTube video essayists I overall kinda respect, but they have dogshit opinions on some things. I used to love Jack Saint's bad faith, overly critical analyses of throwaway kids films, until I realized he also saw films that in my opinion had a lot of merit [the same way], and it turned me off from him. Big Joel is cool as hell, but anytime he gives his opinion on animation save like a few points, I completely glaze over and find him annoying. The other day I watched a video essay on the "Magical Negro" trope, and the first movie sourced interested me, is I watched it and I hardly understood why they put that in, it framed the movie as something it wasn't.
Just in general, it's good practice to make sure your opinions on media are your own and experience it yourself. MY biggest takeaway from the Hbomb video wasn't to throw rocks at Somerton or start obsessively fact-checking every essayist I watch, but to make sure I have a baseline of what they're talking about myself and not letting anyone throw around media examples with reckless abandon. The Celluloid Closet and Tinkerbelles and Evil Queens is on the watch/read list now, but the first thing I did from the words he stole from Celluloid Closet was watch Rebels Without a Cause out of curiosity of this gay subtext in a 50s blockbuster. And it was a super interesting experience that has given me my own unrelated opinions. Not to discount whatever important queer reading and historical importance the film has, but I'm happy I also have more than just that cause I Watched It Myself, not someone's specific and unavoidably biased reading of it.
The video isn't about cultivating suspicion but cultivating appreciation for the skills of analytical/informative/opinion writing. So even when people aren't being lying grifters, it's just good to be your own critic and media analyst. Maybe you'll even contribute to that world yourself, or maybe you'll keep all your cool opinions in your heart and die, who cares. The point is that unlike some people, your opinions and words are your own. It's a beautiful thing to have your own creative voice.
Later Addition:
Wanna add something cause people are coming at this post kinda hot:
There's nothing wrong to me about watching videos on media you haven't, never planned to, or because of the video, don't plan on consuming. The entire point of reviews as a subset of video essays is to help you allocate your time and money, and it's not a moral failing to use those as that and not go to a thing afterwards. It's also not "not engaging with people's opinions", cause you can do that just from the video. A good essayist of course sites examples of their critiques in full context, and you can gauge from there is they're being honest enough.
For example, I was never planning on watching Disney's Wish - I do not like it from appearance and don't feel like supporting Disney right now - but even from reviewers I like, I've seen them misinterpret things they've complained about. They still gave me a satisfactory overview of the film, and I just scrutinized their opinions based on their good-faith efforts to represent it totally. That's a thing you definitely should always do, as well as watch out for videos that seem to be missing context on certain points.
There are also lots of videos where some of the media being brought up is not being deeply scrutinized, but is a prop to another discussion. In that, the opinions you're engaging with are broader topics, where it's also really not a big deal if someone doesn't want to look at every piece of media thrown around in depth. But it's a good practice for your own enrichment, not like moral reasons. I'm just suggesting that you should make a habit of exercising your creative voice independently, no that relying on others' is bad as a viewer. (If you're making your own essay it's the opposite of course).
We do not have time to watch every 3-hour movie, watch every 7-season show, nor play every 60-hour game that is explored in an hour and a half video essay. That's why those videos exist, so people can express experiences just not everyone can get around to. When done right they still teach people the analytical skills to apply to other works, which is healthy whether the person then immediately does so on the source of the video's critique, or something random the watch a week later.
Five Nights at Freddy's Movie and General Series Writing - Nov 2023
FNAF was one of my first fandoms and I hold a lot of fondness for it that bubbles to the surface now and again. Years of falling in and out of love with it and its lore have left me with some takes I felt like sharing in lieu of the 2023 movie.
As someone who knows a good amount of FNAF lore but kinda doesn't give a shit about it anymore, I don't understand when people say the FNAF movie was just lore fanservice. I thought the plot was fun and established its own rules and stakes rather well, and I found myself engaged by this Mike's struggles. It's different from the Mike of the games (the last time I checked), and I'm happy they went with a protagonist who would better fit a movie's plot structure than a never-ending series of teasing games.
I know stuff like Vanessa being Afton's daughter is kind of a lore revelation I believe, but I twas also a good twist in the film and made her compelling. I'm kinda fucked up over characters who have loyalty to people they know are monsters but don't know what to do with it. And I'm also happy as fuck they didn't pull a Fanny (as fun as she could be), she just got to be normal and conflicted.
Other than the 2000s B-list kids movie conflict with the evil aunt - which honestly is corny in a good way - my only gripe with the story is that WHY Afton did the murders isn't established. He didn't get enough time to be a villain me feels, especially for how obvious the twist is, but like how often do murderers get good backstories in cheesy horror flicks? At least he didn't go on a tirade about remnant, the weird ass sci-fi magic the series brought in past "souls can haunt things" is wack to me, and I think from the film you can just extrapolate that he wanted power over his victims or somethin'. Which, I mean, is a common motivation for serial murder.
The movie is very cute and corny for what it is. Sometimes I wish it leaned into its melodrama more, but it's very fun. And it was worth it for the puppets alone. Speaking of the animatronics - I adore the characterization of them in this film, the biggest draw of them as horror mascots was always the mix between kid-friendly [and] fucked up and haunted. Them being sweet to the lil' sister and just wanting to play with her even if t meant murder was fun as hell. Personally I would've enjoyed seeing the kids also interact with the original personalities of the CHARACTERS of the animatronics, like forcing the machines to do their old bits even though they're in a horrible state. Driving home how decrepit and devoid of life the place these poor kids are trapped in is, yet they still just want to have fun and enjoy the silly cartoon animals. Stuff like that is what draws me to the aesthetics of the series honestly.
Later Related Post:
My dedicated take on FNAF as a series is that if you only count the main games from 1 to UCN you have an absolutely batshit insane and incoherent yet satisfying enough story for the series. From that you get the story of William Afton and his wacky murder spree that blows up in his and his family's face, Henry, the good natured business partner and bystander to the chaos, and the legacy of the Freddy's franchise permanently haunted by its inability to get go of greed in the face of tragedy.
Even though I think the series long ago wrote itself into oblivion with a lack of direction or substance to it's nightmare of a story, there is one core theme to it that I think is executed very well - that being to leave the demons to their demons and let sleeping dogs lie. Which is so ironic for this series it's almost Shakespearean but I digress.
I feel like I rarely see the anti-business aspects of the series talked about, which is like it's most strongly written feature both comedically and thematically. The games fucking loathe whoever the hell is ever running the locations at any point in time, with jokes about nonchalant health and safety violations and lackadaisical regard for the rights and lives of others. Which ends up [complimenting] Afton himself if he's not straight up running the joint. Afton and the in-universe franchise are parallels to each other, both unable to give up on selfish and destructive pursuits in face of complete backfire and tragedy, and they both come out if it haunted as fuck and haunting each other. Even though I said fuck everything but the game canon (meaning remnant from the books), I do think the pursuit of immortality is a good motive for Afton just cause it makes it similar to the Fazbear Franchise's constant need to stay relevant no matter what.
This then makes Henry a great foil to both the Franchise and Afton, being just as honest fucking guy who doesn't seem interested in abusing the legacy of his creations nor motherfucking child murder. And Michael as well being like his father physically, but being someone who can tell when he's fucked up and hurt those around him and repent for it. Even going through hell and similar consequences as his father but still staying on track to redeeming himself. If you squint and ignore a bunch of bullshit and focus on some reoccurring motifs, you can almost slap together a compelling tragedy about a mix of personal and corporate greed suffering supernatural wrath.
The animatronics too only ever seem to become worse the more I learned about supplementary material. Just stopping at "most of them are normal and got haunted, and sometimes Afton made wacky terrible monstrosities with haywire AI", is good for me. And it's insane it took till like, Sister Location for their animosity towards the night guard (Mikey Afton) to be explained, but it works for what I was saying about Mike's character; That he's literally going through twice as much hell as his dad did over a fifth of the sins and holds true throughout the whole series. I appreciate the interplay between the animatronics as children's mascots and haunted abominations landing on them having an [entirely reasonable] but bloodthirsty hatred towards their murderer. And for the toys, it was probably just that their facial recognition software was seeing Mike as William, and they were doing their job to protect the kids perfectly fine.
Even past UCN, as the lore and what plot there is continues to be shot full of holes and repaired with scotch tape, that theme of misfortune from greed is at least still there in Glitchtrap. But then once again, HOW ARE WE ERITING THIS AND HAVEN'T STOPPED YET?
Writing Characters With Mental Illness - Nov 2023
Elaborating on some tags I left on another post about mentally ill/disordered rep in media.
So like about my last reblog: personally I think it's usually a bad idea to write a character with the intention of making them fit into something like a mental disorder. I have plenty of characters who straight up have mental disorders I can list, but I didn't make them to be like that. I make a guy first, and flesh them and their personality and psychology out a lot, and then often I'm like, "Hey, they kinda fit into this," and then I use that to inform what other parts of their character might be like.
Because mental disorders are just a label of dysfunctional behavior that often clusters together, a mental disorder doesn't make you the way you are, it might predict other issues you have, but doesn't endow you with them. It's first and foremost a description of how someone behaves in a dysfunctional way that gives people an idea of what the hell is wrong with you.
A lot of people, I feel, also forget that with most disorders, you don't need every symptom listed to be diagnosed with it, and even if you don't reach the criteria for an explicitly listed one, there's usually a catch-all generic disorder, because this shit is a very tricky science. People are tricky, people's minds are even trickier, and psychopathology isn't some sort of precise measuring tool.
Because of that, if you're just gonna look up a disorder and say, "OK, I'm gonna make a character who's all that", you're... you're just gonna make a gijinka of a DSM criteria list. You're going to literally make a stereotype, no one is that simple, even people who meet all the criteria meet it in wildly different whats. In ways that would change based on opinion, from psychiatrist to psychiatrist LMAO.
Oh yeah, and then also that book (and all official info understandably based on it) can be so fucking wrong too.
Reblog From @OneHelluvaCritic:
I agree. It can put a character into the “character is the mental illness” trope.
Best example of that is the movie Split. They took a man with DID and made him a superhuman that has like 100 evil alters inside of him. It's actually fucking goofy how it turned out. It paints people with DID in a negative light and one person with DID might not be the same as another person with DID.
The same problem with a character in the TV series The Good Doctor. Again they took an autistc man and turned him into this superhuman that can cure illnesses because he's autistic. They completely ignore that autism is a spectrum and there's nuances to autism.
My Reply:
Oh man that’s like a whole other beast, but also one of the most common examples of what happens when you write a character to be a diagnosis first and a psychologically fleshed out character second.
People who write like that literally don’t comprehend mentally ill people as people in my opinion. The fact that they have to imagine them as these magical or dramatized caricatures to find them engaging enough to base a story around is kind of insulting.
People tend to love characters not intended to be a certain disorder who incidentally come across as such because in that case, someone is writing a person, and not a mystical creature dressed up in psychiatric language.
Angel Dust of Hazbin Hotel Fame - Nov 2023
Something really embarrassing I have to admit is that I LOVE the gay spider[*] from the demon hotel webshow[**] as a character concept so fucking much. Any time I think about him I am so infuriated he was the creation of Vizziepoop[***] and not a more promising work combining adult themes and cartoon media.
Like he's a closeted Italian mobster who went to hell and became a gay drag queen in order to indulge in the aspects of his life he never could and he was turned into a funny pink cartoon spider, like WHY ID HE IN THAT TRAINWRECK OF A SERIES?
Realistically he could only exist in an idea like that, but what I hate specifically is that I have very little faith in Vizpo*** to execute on the character properly. Don;t get me wrong, I know she is cooking with him! I know she earnestly with all her heat wants to craft a nuanced and engaging character in him. I've been following her since her Die Young and speedpaint days, and she has adored him and has been working on him for years. I just don't think those years will pay off at all.
I need to steal custody of this stupid fucking character from her, I can't stand it.
[*Angel Dust, **Hazbin Hotel, ***Vivziepop]
Liminal Space Video Essays - Nov 2023
One day I have gawt to find a really good video on liminal spaces and weirdcore/dreamcore/etc. Like, it is suuuuuuuuuuuuuch an interesting fucking trend, and deeply intertwined with the nature of the internet. It's a collective sharing of the sometimes existentially horrifying nature of memory and nostalgia that could only come together into a community as is now from the worldwide scope of the internet.
Like... without the internet there have definitely been explorations of the concepts of these dead static worlds, conglomerations of the mundane into something new and supernatural, but the way it's mixed with the indie creative cultures of the internet I think breathes life into it in its most perfect form.
The rise of the internet and 3D games and other such shifts being in the early childhood of this generation too adds so much. That artificiality and just barely covered up uncanniness of that era of technology really did something to our brains, and I love seeing that explored man. Like MAAAN, I LOVE INDIE INTERNET HORROR MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
Later Addition:
The best one out there I've seen is SuperEyePatchWolf's on Backrooms, Liminal Spaces and such and such. I actually have a very distinct memory of watching that one with my mom in an [apartment] that we had been in the on-and-off process of moving out of for months, and that I had my own personal connection with. Like I think by contextualizing it with his own experiences and greater context of art outside of what's typically associated with the aesthetic (literature and 19th century paintings), he really really made a good thesis on what that aesthetic is and what it's trying to do.
I wouldn't make an essay on it myself because almost every one I've seen is by people more my age who's depth of context on art and horror/surrealist media in general is pitifully shallow. And they very often cannot even say the distinction between "this thing influenced this movement", and "this thing was a precursor to this movement". And a lot just falling into describing the emotional features of the art ad nauseum without any deeper analysis of what goes into it.
And the issue is that that would kinda be me sob emoji, like I don't blame them they're doing their best. But I really need someone to do the whole artistic/cultural/psychological breakdown fr. This is, in my opinion, the most fascinating artistic movement/trend/whatever of our lifetime. And I want it to get that big juicy tasty analysis it deserves.
Nimona and POC Representation - Jul 2023
I saw a post about the representation of characters of color in Nimona (2020), and seeing as a POC perspective seemed to be missing in the replies I figured it would be good to add mine. I was less piggybacking off OP and more using it as a chance to say something that had been bothering me about the film. In retrospect, I sounded way more harsh than I meant to, I do respect Nimona for it's racial narrative, but as I said, it's not as powerful as emotionally Nimona's.
@VoidPumpkin:
Seeing analyses of Nimona is fun because they have really good insights and are analyzing every inch of this movie but in virtually all of them there is a gaping hole where the very obvious messages and metaphors in regards to race and racism in this film lay.
Like tell me, do you believe the story of a brown man, brought in by a black woman in an attempt to fix the systemic issues in a system where ancestry is valued over merit, is framed for the murder of said black woman by a white woman who is fueled by paranoia that a black woman’s efforts might upend the system, the supposed threat this brown man and of dangers that don't exist and a desperation to fulfill the legacy of a white woman who is a literal metaphor for the way bigotry is taught (in particular homophobia/transphobia). And thus the brown man is villianized for something he didn’t do and is forced to find support and companionship in another victim of the system, with this story ending with the white woman willing to destroy everything than let the brown gay man and a trans girl change the system/her mind, has absolutely no racial implications or messages surrounding race.
My Addition As @FruitsOfHell:
Personal take here (dw, I'm a professional black person), the racism and classism felt very on the nose to the point of being distracting to me. Cause it can do all that very obvious stuff all it wants, but then it still just typecasts the only two important characters of color as victims, and then heavily centers the story of a white-coded character's oppression. Not to mention that in its bid to do so it still ends up killing off its one important black character after a few lines of dialogue.
From what my friend intimately familiar with the source material has told me, that whole racism/classism problem is completely new as well, with the original knight academy having nothing to do with bloodlines and the old white knight of you're barely being brought up. Like it just feels like they wanted to add on these explicit layers of bigotry, but they did not at all flow as naturally into the narrative as the queerness. I think the story still works best when it's about Nimona's queerness, and in a way I think the metaphor of her experiences works well enough as a broad allegory for any kind of bigotry. WITHOUT adding in a black woman who exists to be killed, and a brown man who now only exists to be bullied by his white peers. If they'd stopped at the latter and just diversified the cast a bit more it would be less glaring to me at least.
There's still merit in a story just being so blatantly and obviously about racism, but it's a bit patronizing too. Like I said, when the story is mostly about a white-coded character.
EDIT: Ambrosius is Asian and I didn't realize upon first watch because I assumed he was still white like in the source material - oops! So there are 3 important characters of color, and Ambrosius's place in the narrative about model minorities and colorism is rather cool. But my main problem is still that the characters of color are not as internally and emotionally dynamic as Nimona is as a queer person. In a way, while Nimona feels like a very fully fleshed out allegory for an oppressed person and feelings of antagonism, betrayal, and despair, Ambrosius, Ballister, and the queen kinda just feel like pawns being moved around to create a story about institutional racism. Once again a story that I'm happy to see, but I think lacks a bit of depth.
Small Addendum:
I have like really really specific opinions on how you cast POC in a story like that where you want to REALLY specifically say something. Like I'm happy the movie WANTED to say "black and brown people who earn positions of power still aren't trusted by their peers", but you said that with one character who exists to Be Good and then is killed instantly, and another who spends the whole movie making puppy dog eyes until a white-coded punk character tells him he should be meaner. I can't even say Ballister's characterization is a problem, it's just Noticeable. And really all I can say is that I Notice Things, which is what I mean by those metaphors being "too glaring" to me. And I say this because NIMONA is right there whom represents queerness in a more elegant, allegorical, as well as literal sense. She, from the beginning, is allowed to be loud, proud, angry, punk, and have complicated feelings between antagonism and submission. By comparison, the messages about race and class feel a lot more flat.
Ask Sent By Oomfie @Eldritch-Elrics:
Q:
Re.Nimona: First of all great thoughts, really appreciate your perspective! Second - I believe Ambrosius is coded as Asian in the movie? He's at least voiced by a Korean actor. IDK if that changes anything about your analysis (esp since he's light-skinned), but I wanted to point out that the queen and Ballister aren't the only POC there!
A:
TY ^_^, when I scrolled a bit through the tags and reblogs the opinion seemed missing, and as much as I love this movie, it's just itched me.
And about Ambrosius. NGL, I only realized that might be so after I posted those and read a bit farther down the RB's lmao.
If Ambrosius is meant to be Asian-coded, I think that's epic, but a bit weird cause he's meant to be related to the big white knight of yore and like... if we're going to talk about racism maybe that should have been brought up? Like maybe it could have been cool if he had to deal with being the blood relative of this figure yet not the same race/not fitting her image, and that could have been part of why he was so sympathetic towards Ballister. That could be why his hair is dyed and not naturally blonde actually! But the world doesn't seem to be explicit in its race relations, so that isn't brought up or explored in a way that would have made Ambrosius the sort of explicit rep it would have been nice to see. Which is ironic with how blatant this is on the surface with Ballister and the Queen.
I saw some people saying he's cool model minority rep, but kinda every POC in the film is, which is my problem. It just rubs me a little wrong how one-sided and un-dynamic Ballister, the queen, and now even kinda Ambrosius are in their feelings towards the institution internally. Outside of being framed, on the verge of witnessing a war crime, or sympathizing with Nimona, they show little animosity or complicated feelings towards the institution; they have very clean and pure opinions.
I would have liked to see something like Ballister taping into some internal pent up frustration with being a token when he decided to bring down the institution, or him and Ambrosius explicitly bonding over not fitting molds as POC. Or... anything to work with about the queen. Maybe her fretting over Ballister, or showing some awareness and exhaustion beforehand. IDK. I watched the movie once a few weeks ago so if I'm missing details my bad. And on that note, thanks for bringing that up.
Mental Health Resources on NPD - Apr 2023
I've been trying to get myself to treat this blog more like a personal interests blog more than a specific fandom one, and part of that is gonna be me talking about not-fandom interests. Technically this one is still fandom related
Why the ever-loving fuck is it so hard to find resources on NPD that aren't about abuse victims??? I'm so serious, I understand the important on educating people about warning signs for abuse, but there is NOTHING east to find on this disorder that is not related to this specifically. Like beyond the fact that it paints NPD as Abuser Disorder, is it not also important to create resources for people to reflect on their own possible shitty behavior? People with NPD literally struggle to tell how fucked up their actions are, it would be really nice to have more resources to help them not only realize that but cope with it ithsdfkdsh??
I am very very interested in psychopathology and also have been suspecting myself of having a personality disorder for a while now, and boy is stigma just so so fun at making research for self and writing just so so difficult. The one I suspect myself of having isn't that bad to find resources on, but NPD is a nightmare. And especially with how stigmatized it is, I really want to find resources on it primarily from people with it, and not 93820932 pop psych articles about how slightly shitty behavior makes you a narcissist.