mouthporn.net
#media analysis – @treepyful on Tumblr
Avatar

Salt Water

@treepyful / treepyful.tumblr.com

The cure for everything is salt water - sweat, tears or the sea. (Isak Dinesen) :: 30s. Queer. Scientist. Two decades a fen. Any pronoun will do. :: Fandoms: Star Trek, Leverage, Stranger Things, Schitt's Creek, The Witcher. :: I adore a rare pair.
Avatar
reblogged

Hi! Would you ever consider doing that spirited TED talk about why Lovecraft now appeals specifically to the marginalized people he hated? I'm trying to make sense of it myself and it would really help to hear your informed opinion!! Sorry if you have already written about it or if it's maybe too personal! Hope you guys are doing well during the lockdown :)

Avatar

Yeah, sure.

Lovecraft’s work deals intimately with the pain and fear associated with feeling alienated from your community, your ancestors, and even yourself. 

A lot of his stories are about how there is something ‘different,’ about you or the people around you, that fills you with unease, but is also difficult to define. Your family feels malevolent to you; you feel like everyone in your small town is watching you, or has bad intentions towards you; you know that there’s something that just isn’t RIGHT about yourself. 

Your community might want to force you into a religion, or even a partnership, that seems unspeakable to you, and which fills you with horror.

Sound familiar?

These themes are relatable to LGBT people, to disabled people, to non-neurotypical people, to biracial people, or to people of color who are being raised in communities in which they are an overwhelming minority.

The Shadow Over Innsmouth is probably Lovecraft’s most famous story. It’s about being trapped in a small town where everyone is a part of a terrifying religion that personally hates you, everyone is being forced into horrifying heterosexual couplings of in which one of the partners is a literal monster, for the purpose of breeding, and in which the protagonist survives, escapes, and the government bluntly condemns his tormentors.

As a gay little kid growing up in conservative Maine, this was big for me.

In the end, the narrator of Shadow Over Innsmouth realizes he’s descended from the cultists of this town, and that he is becoming the thing he previously hated and feared. I also was afraid of never getting out of my town, and one day turning into someone just like the people who made my life miserable. To me, it read like a horrible cautionary tale: get out, and don’t look back. What’s going on here is wrong, and you need to pull yourself away, before the pressures of your family & community turn you into one of them.

But that’s The Shadow Over Innsmouth: a story which features alien miscegenation, sure, but not usually one of the stories that gets specifically called out when people talk abot how racist Lovecraft was.

The White Ape is probably the most racist thing Lovecraft ever wrote (also titled Facts Concerning the Late Arthur Jermyn and His Family). It’s about a man who goes to Africa, falls in love with an ape, successfully reproduces with it, and then all of his descendants are criminals and madmen, with unpleasant, twisted appearances. It’s told from the POV of one of his more distant descendants, who uncovers this information while researching his own geneology, and, upon discovering that there’s an ape in his lineage, commits suicide by dousing himself in lighter fluid and setting himself on fire.

Yikes.

And yet...this story speaks to me, too. There’s a history of serious alcoholism in my family. My mother was an alcoholic. I asked questions: her father was an alcoholic, and suffered from hallucinations as well. His father was also an alcoholic, and he beat his wife and children savagely. And his parents? I don’t know. No one was ever willing to talk to me about it. But every generation I looked back, there was more abuse, more mental illness, more violence. 

The idea that, if I could look back far enough, I could discover a progenitor that had poisoned our entire family was something I dwelled on, as a kid. Would I want to know the truth? Would it make any difference? Would I have some kind of crisis if I found out that I was a descendant of a rapist, or a murderer? How would I react if I learned that I was a part of a cycle of violence and substance abuse that no one before me had managed to escape?

The White Ape is super, super racist, obviously, but it’s not just racist. Taken another way, it’s a story about dysfunction being passed down within a family. It’s a sins-of-the-father story. And if you come from an abusive home, that’s compelling.

Look, Lovecraft was a mega racist. He was also a man who struggled with mental illness his entire life, who had watched both of his parents die in mental asylums, and who never found success in his life. He was afraid all the time, and he wrote about how frightening the world was to him, and how he never felt like he was truly a part of it. 

The racism sucks. 

The rest of it, if you’re a person who has been mistreated or marginalized, can really resonate.

Avatar
Avatar
wizzard890

The feeling that there is something, somehow, cut-into-your-very-bones wrong with you. The constant fear of being found out. The heads of people turning as you pass, filling you with the certainty that they may somehow see you as you don’t want to be revealed. And if you were acted upon, by the universe, would anyone care? Would anyone listen to you or help? Is there even a somewhere to run?

Lovecraft’s characters live in this terrible state of fear. The man himself, racist and shockingly, often bewilderingly bigoted, lived his life in a similar state. One does not excuse the other, nor can you pick Lovecraft’s fears apart from the stories he wrote. But so many of the terrors that run under his work are ones that marginalized people know all too well, and there is a painful sort of meaning, of recognition, in that. 

Avatar
roach-works

fearful people often end up bigoted because it’s very hard, when you’re very scared, to interrogate whether or not anything you’re told is a threat is in fact actually that bad. you’re already scared. people who tell you how to navigate a frightening world full of obscure and complex dangers become trusted very quickly, because it’s such a relief to hear someone validate your own anxiety. you see people get very bigoted, very fast, when they get sucked into cults, scams, and populist movements, all of which meet in the middle, and all of which use fear to control their victims.

lovecraft was notably racist even for the time he was in. his contemporaries remark on it. but look at q-anons and terfs and antis and neo-nazis today. it’s not about education, stupidity, hatred, lack of opportunity to know any better, mental illness-- it’s just fear. fear is at the heart of everything they do, the kind of fear that makes you stupid, and violent, and insular. the kind of fear that makes you see monsters everywhere. lovecraft wasn’t afraid because he was racist. he was racist because he was afraid.

and stories about fear, about what we’re afraid of, and why, and if the fear is worse than what we’re afraid of, or if there really is something out there that’s coming to get us, and how that fear makes us stupid more often than it makes us smart, and what we do to each other out of fear, the lengths we go to, the ways we lose our humanity or deny it of others.... of course that’s good horror. that’s what horror IS.

Though I will strongly argue that his stories ARE also about mental illness and about being made other and monstrous by it, but also about surviving it.

Like the way that he's racist as shit do not get me wrong, Lovecraft is ablist as shit. The Music of Erich Zahn is this wonderful weird stew, right: it's this mess of lateral violence and connection, of the narrator being a patronizing ablist little shit to this mute violinist but also because of their shared mental illness (which he discusses explicitly, albeit in period-normal language as "nervous" disorders or "temperament" or whatever) or what he assumes is; the looming spectre of any Lovecraft story is "madness", this undifferentiated mass of "losing your mind", and it's both fundamentally, throughout the mythos, ablist as shit and also so clearly coming From The Inside, from this fear and this awareness and this experience.

The internalised ablist self-loathing in, eg, The Statement of Randolph is amazing; the way in which that underpins and fundamentally structures his relationship with Harley Warren and with how things unfold. And I think that is another element, as well: his narrators are often weak, often deeply fucked up, afraid, they freeze, they panic, they make stupid choices, they go crazy.

One of my things as a mentally ill person is that I need the word "crazy"* because I need something to describe the times (universally negative) when the inside of my head is a sharp-edged pit of knives divorced from reality that is not touched by "irrational" or whatever the fuck softer, kinder, more appropriate word you can come up with. And Lovecraft also captures that. He captures living with that, struggling with that; he also captures watching someone you love struggle with it (and succumb to it) in astonishingly accurate form, especially for what people did, in fact, deal with in terms of "treatment" from his era.

And he captures coming out the other side of it: of the shaky sense that you're PRETTY sure you're in touch with things as they actually are now, that you're, well, sane, but the now-forever-present awareness that that can happen, that you can end up where you were, that it's always there to go back to if something goes wrong.

I absolutely don't think we should lionize him; I 100% backed, for example, the change for the World Fantasy Award to something other than his head. He was a racist ablist and several other ists trashfire and I see zero need to ignore or make that palatable.

You don't HAVE TO, in order to engage with his work, and especially don't have to in order to use it as a place to start - to dig, and to make something else out of it. There's shit in there, so shove it somewhere to decompose at whatever degrees centigrade it is that sanitizes things and use it to fertilize new roses. But there is stuff in there that touches those feelings of alienation and fear and aloneness and taintedness better than almost anyone, and I don't have to think he was a role model to know that.

{*nb: not interested in a debate about this at this time; you are absolutely welcome to have your own relationship with this word, in your space. This is mine, in mine. Thank you.}

Avatar
Avatar
assiraphales

I think every film critic review needs a footnote called the “fun-o-meter” where they ignore everything they said in the previous paragraphs and have to answer objectively. put it on a scale. good good to bad good to bad good to bad bad. for example. did venom get a 30% on rotten tomatoes? yes. but watching sweaty tom hardy sit in a fish tank and eat a live lobster was VERY fun. some movies aren’t meant to win awards. they’re just meant to be a hoot n a holler

this is the energy we need critics to start bringing back to the table

yeah like any critic who can’t take the intent of the creators and the way audiences are widely receiving or interpreting the work into consideration they are a bit worthless

critics panning venom just looked so silly because like who is sitting down and taking venom seriously?

Avatar

There's... really nothing that weird or crazy about those books though. They're both perfectly coherent narratives that tie into the broader literary trends at the turn-of-the-century. They're much better understood as products of their social and literary context than as..... arsenic wallpaper fever dreams.

Common themes in horror/gothic fiction during the 1890s were fear of regression and a duality between civility and the Other: the thoroughly modern Mina vs the "devolved" vampire hordes; Dorian vs his portrait; also throw in Jekyll & Hyde as another contemporaneous example. You'll note all three involve anxiety about degeneration within the self.

These texts are written in a period wracked with social anxieties related to rapid technological innovation, the decline of the British Empire, the New Woman, and a preoccupation with "degeneration." (Though it's worth noting that Stoker and Wilde were both queer Irish writers, which influenced their writing as well.)

Dracula reflects many of these social anxieties of the 1890s. It can be interpreted as an early example of invasion fiction, representing the fear of the foreign "other" as threat; or about the feudalism of a declining aristocracy vs the modern London; or as a complicated depiction of women's sexuality and the New Woman; or reflecting Stoker's own sexual anxieties, given that he was likely queer and that Dracula was written in the wake of Wilde's trial which had a significant impact on literary circles. Note, too, that in period marked by rapid technological innovation, many then–cutting-edge technologies such as the typewriter and the phonograph act as tools to fight the ancient Dracula. (For more on different readings of Dracula and their historical context, see Maud Ellmann, preface to Dracula, Oxford World's Classic edition.)

While nowadays Dracula might be the most widely known early vampire text, it certainly wasn't the first, and Stoker "came up with" much of it not by licking the wallpaper but by studying folklore and expanding upon earlier vampire stories that were already shifting the vampire figure into the cunning aristocratic archetype we know today.

Oscar Wilde was a prominent figure in both the Aesthetic and Decadent literary movements, which challenged Victorian values of art needing "moral instruction" by instead valuing beauty, intensity, excess, artifice, and "art for art's sake." The Picture of Dorian Gray is part of that tradition and draws on the works of his Aesthetic predecessors such as Walter Pater. Dorian Gray's dramatization of Aesthetic values and exploration of themes such as excess, the role of art, duality, and Faustian bargains were probably more inspired by Wilde's active involvement in the Aesthetic literary circle and as a known social commentator than it was by, y'know, lead poisoning or whatever.

I know this was just meant to be a "funny ha ha not that serious" tweet, but why do we have the impulse to dismiss art as the kooky byproduct of wallpaper and cough medicine, rather than look at works of literature for their actual content and in the context in which they were written? Why do we blame it on ~bonkers nonsense from people high on cocaine because they didn't know better~ instead of actually engaging with the works?

The less pithy truth is that they got their ideas by being... writers who lived in a particular context, whose works contain the influences of their contemporaries and predecessors, and who were writing in a particular social climate and belonged to specific literary schools of thought.

I realize the internet would prefer to believe the curtains are just blue or whatever and that literary criticism should be replaced with YA novels, but there is actually merit to analyzing a text for both its content and its context.

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
asneakyfox

a lot of really annoying media discourse on tumblr comes down to people having a hard time accepting that both of the following are true at the same time:

  1. for any work of fiction interesting enough to be worth talking about, there will be multiple equally plausible and valid interpretations that are possible - and by interpretations here i don't just mean headcanons about minor details, i mean how you read the core themes and character arcs. and very often some of those equally valid interpretations will directly contradict each other and that's ok
  2. not EVERY interpretation is valid, some are genuinely just dumb as hell and unsupported by the text
Avatar
reblogged

twitter is making me insane. everyone repeat after me: rocky horror was, moreso and before all else, a parody movie. a spoof. a direct, satirical reference to the sci-fi and creature feature canon of the golden age of hollywood. the opening song literally lists a huge chunk of the movies that it is directly spoofing. rocky horror was a parody flick like..... fucking,, "epic movie" of the '00s except 1) nobody had beaten the concept to death yet 2) it had bangers 3) it was written by some gay weirdo theater kids back when that was edgier and chiefly 4) this was the era when gay weirdo theater kids were writing bangers. it was so popular because it was funny and full of popular references to movies everyone had seen and was excitingly weird because gay weirdo theater kids had not yet penetrated culture and it had bangers, and also meat loaf was in it. it was not just some gay mecca of a film because straight people of that generation fucking love rocky horror, but the fact that straight people of that age fucking love rocky horror allowed their kids to see rocky horror and go to screenings way younger than they'd be allowed to see media made by gay weirdos normally so you then got a generation of shadow casts that did have a ton of gay kids running and attending them and who by and large didn't get the references in the movie. which is fine because the way we engage with and interact with media changes over time and it can exist both in the context of its origin and the context of the present. but my g-d some of you people have both lost the thread of history and are acting very stupid about this. the writer of rocky horror has been on estrogen longer than half of you people have been alive. genderqueer people of a certain age often don't have 100% perfect progressive politics. have i covered everything yet, what am i missing. someday we will be free of this discourse and i will ascend perfectly into the sky.

realized i didn't make this explicitly clear but every single one of the ""problematic"" scenes and tropes people love to go on about in rocky horror are explicit parodies of extant and nearly inescapable pulp sci fi/horror tropes of the time, like they were referencing movies and comics and media that the viewer base grew up with, the sex scenes and frank n furter as a character, etc are so over the top because they are parodies

Avatar
Avatar
not100bees

It's obviously not the most pressing issue in the world, but I do hate that people just categorically refuse to meet media where it's at anymore in any capacity. Like if a clip of like Grey's Anatomy is going around people are going to be like this is so unrealistic and melodramatic yeah because it's a melodrama. Look at this ridiculous rescue in 911 or 911: Lone Star, yeah because those are dramedies and you picked one of the ridiculous comedic rescue scenes that's ridiculous and comedic on purpose. Oh my God this sitcom character made a quippy remark about another character which would actually be really hurtful and harm their mental health they should be talking in Twitter and YouTube comment approved therapy speak. Are you new? Is that what's happening?

Avatar

“This representation was groundbreaking for the time and a lot of people liked it” and “This may have aged poorly and many modern audiences from the group don’t feel represented by it and are bothered by aspects of it” are not mutually exclusive

Avatar
tetranocular

see also: “it’s okay to feel uncomfortable with these pieces of media due to their clumsy—if not harmful—depictions” and “some people still enjoy them, despite their flaws, especially older people who grew up without the same amount of representation we have today, and it’s not your place to tell someone they can’t like it”

Avatar
lastoneout

additionally: "it's impossible to properly analyze a work without considering the context of the culture it was made within, you cannot approach it entirely from a modern perspective with modern sensibilities and standards because you may find yourself condemning something that has value because you don't understand why it was made the way it was for the audience it was trying to reach, and truthfully it is actually important to think about why even incredibly problematic works were made they way they were, because it makes us more aware of how our own biases and assumptions might influence the art we create today, as well as the realities of historic oppression people in power might want us to forget or at least pretend they weren't complicit in"

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
metanarrates

if you're cringing at the genre conventions of the genre you are writing in then why the hell are you writing in it. either have something substantial to say about those conventions or shut the hell up! i will not cringe alongside you at superhero powers and spaceship battles and big eldritch worms and bone magic. i came to this story to SEE that shit and I don't appreciate it when an author tries to pretend they're above the very things they're selling themselves on

stop wink wink nudge nudging me about how silly the genre is, asshole. i like that genre. I'm reading your story because I like that genre. your wink wink nudge nudging just tells me you're too unoriginal to deliver an actual critique and too irony-poisoned to unabashedly enjoy the clichés. again I ask: why the hell would you waste both of our times like this

honestly this is true even of genres I don't particularly like! i don't even enjoy romance all that much, but if I'm reading a romance novel, i expect there to BE romance novel trappings in there, and am therefore pretty fine with them existing. there are an awful lot of romance clichés that I hate, but it's still not cute or clever to include them just to laugh at them. why would you disrespect your own genre in such a substanceless way. say something true and beautiful NOW!!!!!

Your irony-poisoned "haha we know this is cliche and stupid" writing doesn't make you look clever it makes you look deeply insecure. It makes you look defensive. It makes you look like you think your story sucks and you're scared that the readers will agree with you so you're making your imaginary audience's point for them and jumping to their side preemptively to protect yourself from their judgement of your story.

The side you're jumping to is made up. The audience wants to see the genre they're reading; you're cringing and apologising for your story for no reason. It doesn't come off as clever, it comes off as either mocking your audience or having so little confidence in your own story that you're backtracking within the text itself. How can an audience get invested in a story that you keep apologising for within the text? Why are you making your audience's job harder? If you want your audience to commit, you have to commit first.

Avatar
Avatar
tlirsgender

Really the kicker about discussing colonialism intrinsic to certain fictional tropes/archetypes/genres/what-have-you is that white bitches et al get SO mad about it. "Ohh so I'm not allowed to play farming sims? Wearing a silly hat makes me a fascist now?" I was just exercising critical thought but yknow what? Just for you? Yeah it does

& it really speaks for... a certain way of thinking about how racism works, the way they'll jump to this dichotomy of Allowed vs Not Allowed. Cause that's not really how it works. If we actually wanted to simply #cancel everything with any sort of Historical Context or Unsavory Implications it'd never fucking end, due to the world that we live in. Good thing we're just telling you to think even a little bit about the ideas you engage with & this suggestion makes people Really Mad

It's that whole thing of, like, being more afraid of being labelled A Racist than really caring about minimizing harm. "Oohh this thing I like can't be racist because I'm Not Racist" no ❤

Avatar
Avatar
weepingchoir

can you give some concrete examples of what "writing defensively" sounds like? I'd like to apply the advice to my work but I don't know exactly what it means.

Avatar

It manifests differently in nonfiction and fiction.

Nonfiction is easier. I get a lot of essays that take momentary asides to promise that they're making a point, and that we'll all get to enjoy the point soon, if you just bear with them. Not only is saying that you're making a thesis not in fact making a thesis (and by literary rudiment, wordcount bloat), it's also drawing attention to the ways you haven't yet arrived at your thesis. It is counter-thesis.

In fiction, I find that it manifests in largely two ways:

  1. Good King Syndrome. You take the time to explain to the audience that this particular instance of something you understand to be real-life ethically, socially or politically incorrect (pardon my french) is exceptional and good.
  2. Very Bad King Syndrome. You take the time to remind the audience that you are real-life aware that the thing you're portraying is wrong.

Both of these methods of literary self-defense preempt a dialogue with the audience, a dialogue that doesn't actually have to include the real-life you. A complete work of literature can, if you let it, be a standalone entry into a discussion. It can run its own course. By preempting the dialogue, though, you are opening it, and by emphasizing the ways in which it does or doesn't reflect your real-life morality, you are inserting yourself into the dialogue. You've created a gap in your work through which your actual self is vulnerated, like a House of the Dead boss.

Often, defensive fiction will warp a character into a mouthpiece for author opinions. Readers can very easily pick up on when you're doing this. It disbelieves their suspension, and it turns the rest of the work into an open hunt for your real-life beliefs, invalidating its worth as narrative fiction in favor of a morality essay. Writing morality essays is the favorite activity of most bad writers, and most bad writers are readers. Which is why defensive writing doesn't repel haters, but in fact attracts them. You're giving them free raw material!

Avatar
Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
canonkiller

I just think everyone should take a moment to consider the question "what is your visual shorthand for cruelty?" and then follow it up with a critical "and who taught you that?"

specific examples include but are not limited to

  1. why is an evil timeline character design disabled? (why do the heroes go through equally punishing battles and never lose an arm, a leg, an eye?)
  2. why are the futuristic scifi terrorists uniformly darker skinned? (why are the heroes so much lighter?)
  3. why is the greedy boss fat? (why are the heroes skinny?)
  4. why is the criminal mastermind heavily scarred? (why is the brooding, traumatized hero unscathed?)
  5. why is the predatory creep a bearded person in a dress and makeup? (why are none of the heroes trans women?)
  6. who taught you that this is how things are?
  7. how long do you plan on repeating it?

guys the point is "reflect on how you have learned bigotry through exposure and you parrot it in your own works and in the fandoms you engage with without self awareness" not "tell me, specifically, what random motifs you think are evil"

on the flipside, to everyone adding notes about hooked noses, turbans + headscarves, nonwhite features and cultural clothing in general, mental and physical disorders, and surely others I've missed in recollection: you are entirely right and should say it.

Avatar

Not to get emo on main but you ever think about how the troop sang about their dreams of finding “a girl worth fighting for”, and they think their girl worth fighting for is one of romance, but the song abruptly comes to a halt when they find a different girl worth fighting for.

A tiny girl that had been killed at the hands of the Huns. A child too weak, too small to have any chance of withstanding the murderous invaders. That is their girl worth fighting for.

This is fucking horrific

It’s also worth noting that ‘A Girl Worth Fighting For’ is the last song in the movie. Up until here, it’s a fun movie, and the imminent invasion feels like it’s just there to keep the plot moving, and to provide a little bit of drama to spice things up. None of the soldier’s are quite taking this seriously yet; sure, Mulan wanted to save her father from the draft, and on some level she was aware that he would die if he went to war, but beyond that she’s interested in not being caught, and not shaming her family. Her motives are good, but they’re entirely self centered. All the other soldiers are more or less in the same boat - they want to get tougher, they want to impress girls, they want to be cool soldiers. Shang’s easily the most serious of the bunch at first, and even then it’s just because training bad soldiers will reflect poorly on him, and important people are paying attention.

The abrupt ending of ‘A Girl Worth Fighting For’ is the wake up call. The soldiers and the audience get slapped in the face with the realization of what’s really at stake here. China is being invaded. Villages are burning, civilians are dying, and this isn’t going to stop until the country is conquered or the invaders are defeated. This is not a fun musical, this is a major crisis.

Mulan is such a good movie for so many reasons, but the abrupt tone shift is such a major reason why. It’s an excellent commentary on the reality of war, and it being a kids movie just meant they had to make their point without showing any actual gore, which I’d honestly say makes it that much more poignant.

Avatar
taraljc

That moment, when they come over the rise and see the razed village is one of the best scenes in film. Period. Somehow, instead of giving me tonal whiplash, it took my breath away, and that’s one fuck of a balancing act.

Avatar
Avatar
orcbara

i swear to god if people don't start understanding that responding to doylist critique of a piece of media with watsonian exonerations is not an actual rebuttal

somebody saying "hey i don't like that the only gay man in this story is a weird pervert and it portrays gay sexual promiscuity as a moral failing and character flaw" cannot be rebuked by arguing about how the character's backstory or personality traits explain their behaviour. the choices made by a writer are all fundamentally mutable; somebody saying an author's choices should have been different is not going to be persuaded by an argument that takes those choices as immovable fact

Avatar

“What I assume my teachers were trying to teach me”

Huck Finn is about a white Southern boy who was raised to believe that freeing slaves is a sin that would send you directly to hell who forges a familial bond with a runaway slave and chooses to free him and thereby in his mind lose his salvation because he refuses to believe that his best friend and surrogate father is less of a man just because he’s black. Yes it features what we now consider racial slurs but this is a book written only 20 years after people were literally fighting to be allowed to keep other human beings as property, we cannot expect people from the 1880s to exactly conform with the social mores of 2020, and more to the point if we ourselves had been raised during that time period there’s very little doubt that we would also hold most if not all of the prevalent views of the time because actual history isn’t like period novels written now where the heroes are perfect 21st century social justice crusaders and the villains are all as racist and sexist as humanly possible. Change happens slowly and ignoring the radical statement that we’re all human beings that Twain wrote at a time when segregation and racial tensions were still hugely prevalent just because he wrote using the language of his time period is short-sighted and foolhardy to the highest degree.

Avatar
mikkeneko

I’m really kind of alarmed at the rise in the past few years of the “and we do condemn! wholeheartedly!” discourse around historical figures. it seems like people have somehow boomeranged between “morals were different in the past, therefore nobody in the past can ever be held accountable for ANY wrongs” to “morals are universal and timeless, and anything done wrong by today’s standards in the past is ABSOLUTELY unforgiveable” so completely, because social media 2.0 is profoundly allergic to nuance

please try this on for size:

there have always been, in past times as today, a range of people in every society, some of whom were even then fighting for a more just and compassionate accord with their fellow man and some of whom let their greeds and hatreds rule them to the worst allowable excesses. the goal of classics and history education is to teach you enough context to discern between the two, not only in the past but in the present

Avatar
three--rings

My mind just boggles at the “There’s Racism In That Book” argument.  Yes, there is racism in that book, because that book is ABOUT RACISM.  The message is that it is BAD. 

My high school English teacher, who was a viciously brilliant woman, used to say that when people banned Huck Finn they said it was about the language, but it was really the message they were trying to ban, the subversive deconstruction of (religious) authority and white supremacy.

Huckleberry Finn can actually be seen as a powerful case study in trying to do social justice when you have absolutely no tools for it, right down to vocabulary.  And in that respect, it’s a heroic tale, because Huck—with absolutely no good examples besides Jim, who he has been taught to see as subhuman, with no guidance, with everyone telling him that doing the right thing will literally damn him, with a vocabulary that’s full of hate speech—he turns around and says, “I’m not going to do it.  I’m not going to participate in this system.  If that means I go to Hell, so be it.  Going to Hell now.”

(I used to read a blogger who insisted that “All right, I’ll go to Hell,” from Huckleberry Finn is the most pure and perfect prayer in the canon of American literature.  Meaning, as I understand it, that the decision to do the right thing in the face of eternal damnation is the most holy decision one can make, and if God Himself is not proud of the poor mixed-up kid, then God Himself is not worth much more than a “Get thee behind me,” and the rest of us should be lining up to go to Hell too.  Worth noting that this person identified as an evangelical Christian, not because he was in line with what current American evangelicals believe, but because “they can change their name, I’m not changing mine.”  Interesting guy.  Sorry for the long parenthetical.)

Anyway, the point of Huck Finn, as far as I can tell, is that you can still choose to do good in utter darkness, with no guidance and no help and none of the right words.

And when you put it like that, it’s no wonder that a lot of people on Tumblr—people who prioritize words over every other form of social justice—find it threatening and hard to comprehend.

Avatar

In my experience, horror fans are by and large lovely people with a very healthy relationship to their genre of choice, but sometimes they fuck up and say something that in their ears sounds very affirmative of the movie of discussion and to everyone else sounds like the most sinister shit.

I mean the line that I think of first is “A kid dies in this movie.”

Which I suspect to horror fans is shorthand for “The director of this movie subverts horror tropes (wherein kids are usually immune to the monster/slasher/source of terror) to make something that is deliberately shocking. Seeing a child character die in this story is not a happy thing or a good thing, but for a horror story emphasizes that nobody is immune to the source of the terror, which makes the horror more serious and scarier.”

And to everybody else just sounds like “Oh this movie’s great! A kid dies in it!”

[ID: tags that read "op do you care to elaborate" /end ID]

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
raptorific

One of the things that always drives me insane is seeing people try to work out coherent chronology and continuity of the Mad Max series, and the thing that makes me crazier is when people push back on this by being like "it's a dumb movie about crazy driving and explosions! it doesn't NEED to make sense!" because in reality the lack of a defined chronology or continuity is a feature, not a bug, and the reason for it is not that the movies are too dumb to be held to that standard, it's that the movies are much smarter than anyone trying to Figure Them Out give them credit for

The short version of my explanation is that, in the Mad Max series, "Max Rockatansky" does not exist any more than "Jack" is a single boy who slew a giant, jumped over a candlestick, and went up the hill with his sister Jill

The long version is that the Mad Max series is a narrative within a narrative, with the movies being legends and campfire stories, an oral tradition of the storytellers of the wasteland, all of whom are, to some degrees, unreliable narrators because they're telling stories of things that happened a long time ago from their point of view, if they happened at all. The events of the movies are likely either exaggerated or outright invented whole-cloth in the same way that the myths and legends of antiquity were. "Mad Max Fury Road" is the founding myth of the Citadel, and if the Citadel is Rome, then Furiosa is their Romulus.

At some point, someone founded Rome, and the character in that legend may have been based on a real man, but how that man aligns with the myth is almost immaterial. The myths and legends of antiquity, crucially, all took place in what the ancient world would consider "the ancient world," in a mysterious far-off time period when the gods still mingled with mortals. Whether Max or Furiosa or Immortan Joe or any of the characters we see in the movie "actually existed" within the movie's world is as irrelevant as whether The Real Herakles at the root of the legend was actually the son of Zeus. In the story, he is.

"Max" as a character exists on the screen because a lot of the real stories in that world involve mentally unstable loners with obvious PTSD showing up, helping people out of a situation, and then leaving without telling anybody anyone about himself, and the oral histories and myths reflect that. "Max Rockatansky" is a stock character whose general identity and loose backstory is retroactively ascribed to any characters in any legend who fit that basic description.

To try to figure out the chronology and continuity of the Mad Max movies or the associated protagonist is like trying to figure out how it's possible that The Big Bad Wolf is killed in both "The Three Little Pigs" and "Little Red Riding Hood," or determine in what order Prince Charming married so many different fairytale heroines or why he never mentioned any of his past wives.

And, for the record, just to be clear so it doesn't seem like I'm overthinking this-- this is shown explicitly in the narrative, the second movie uses The Campfire Stories as an unambiguous framing device. The filmmaker behind the series has outright stated this is an intentional choice he made. This isn't just me taking the car explosion movie too seriously, this is the explicit text of the series

Avatar

is that piece of media actually bad, or is it just not following the blueprint you projected onto it? is that work actually not good, or are you just demanding something from it that is absolutely antithetical to its themes, genre, tone, and narrative goal? is that story actually poorly written, or do you just dislike that it is not the specific things you wanted from it that it never set out to be, never was, and never is going to become? is it actually bad, or is it actually well-executed and you just dislike the story it chose to be because it isn't catering to your specific desires and expectations?

People keep misinterpreting this post, and I keep hiding their comments. This is not saying "there is no such thing as a bad piece of media". This is asking that you examine whether your opinion about the quality of the work is actually based on that work's merits and the goals it set out to achieve, not on the fact that it is not what you wanted to force it to be.

There are indeed poorly written and executed works! A great many of them! There is a lot of shit media out there! If you ask yourself these questions and still find that the answer remains "It is indeed a poorly done work on its own merits and fails to achieve what it wanted to do," then congratulations, you've done what I'm asking here.

I've seen a great many tightly written works panned as narratively disorganized because it doesn't focus on the side characters they want or explore an inconsequential implication. I've seen people dismiss a nuanced and deft thematic arc as incoherent because it did not say the same thing as people wanted the work to say. This post is a litany against a very common approach in fandom space that pans a work as poorly written and incoherent SIMPLY because it is not what they've projected onto it and does not do what they personally wanted.

Not everything you dislike is poorly done—just as how, conversely, not everything you like is a technical masterpiece. There are bad works! I am not saying that there is not. What I'm saying is that there is at least a small pattern I've observed in some corners that firmly acts like: "My personal taste is equivalent to whether a work is executed well, and if a work does not match my projected expectations or do exactly what I'm into, then it is objectively bad."

Sometimes, often, a piece of media really is shit for some reason or another. What I'm saying is that some of you on this website act like the overlap between "works that are badly done" and "stuff I personally dislike" is a perfect circle. It isn't. Sometimes, it's well done and just isn't for you, and that's fine.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net