On RETCONS - Retroactive Continuity; And The Foreigner Series

I did a thing on Tumblr a few days ago on C.J Cherryh's Forienger Series, the latest book with it's appendix(epilogue) giving a precis of history (the story) up till now and my personal frustration that the author forgetting various facts, plot points, characters, the time-line, etc - has not only continued, but via this new appendix is being codified.

I thought I had everything to say done; well for the most part; until I sat down to reread and within not the prologue but the first chapter; now I'm not eagerly devouring plot, there's a point early on that makes it all hit me all over again.

Plus, my brain remembered the name of what's going on - RETCON.

Though, is it really a retcon if the author just has trouble keeping things straight, or the author themselves is an unreliable narrator?

Spoilery things ahead for those who've never read the series btw; will note major spoilers for most recent book if/when it comes up.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

So there's this: "All of Mospheria lived on the tolerance of the atevi. And the last decade or so, after a period of progress, had been a particularly anxious time — first the unexprcted death of Valasi-aiji, then the rule of the aiiji-regent, Ilisidi, Valasi's mother. Ilisidi had ceased meeting with Wilson-paidhi, who described negotiations with her as like talking to a stone statue."

So what's my problem?

It's been more than a decade. Much more. Closer to 15 years maybe even 17.

Cajeri is 9 (finally), then count the period of his gestation. 10 years. But before he was even BORN, things happened. Major things.

Then include the fact that the story skips ahead a few years in between three book arcs, from the declaration of the need of a space program, to the peak of the space program's manufacturing process.

Granted the last NINE (yes 9) books have all taken place within the past SINGLE YEAR.

And no, I'm not including the two year journey.

Destroyer - Pretender - Deliverer

Conspirator - Deceiver - Betrayer

Intruder - Protector - Peacemaker

All happen in the single year POST two year journey. They all happen in Cajeri's 8th year.

Three, three book arcs. That's a lot.

And yet the preceding 6 books (2 arcs) do actually jump time; for the space program, which includes Jason's time on the planet. And remember that once upon a time a couple of MONTHS would pass IN STORY between the end of one arc and the beginning of another, sometimes even between the end of one BOOK in an arc, and the beginning of another, IN THE SAME ARC.

One upon a time, Bren spent a week or so on Mospheira every couple of months - reporting in and dealing with his family.

Once upon a time, Bren took a damn vacation.

If we're to also include the period of Illsidi's regency, and include the initial assessment of how long Bren had originally been in Tabini-aiji's service BEFORE things in the first book pick-up and change the whole landscape of the Atevi… - That's more than 10 years. WAY more.

If we just include the time period when 'The Foreign Star Returned'; stuff, again happened BEFORE Cajeiri (Jeri-ji from Cajeiri?) was even born. That's still more than 10 yrs.

But put aside the number counting (Ha! If you don't read these books, you so didn't get that).

And there's other things going on; Valasi-aiji's reputation. Ok maybe not quite so important in terms of how the greater public maybe saw him, compared to an inner circle and [spoiler] Geigi was not part of the inner circle in those days. But Aiji popularity has been a political plot point a couple of times.

And what about when the plot hinged on things Phoenix kept secret from everyone? Why muck up the timeline as to when anyone besides Tabini found out about Reunion? And thus how things rippled from there?

Ok, you say, that's not maybe so important if it gets people reminded and caught up to the current moment - in which I give you a look of WTF, because, timing, time-lines, history, politics, ancestry, ancestral politics and ancestral imperative are kind of what DRIVE the plots in the series -so… WHAT?

But ok, we stick another pin in something and put it to the side.

Does anyone remember the Damiri-daja who was an effortless mix of savy and sensual Diane Caroll and challenging if mischievous Katherine Hepburn (or at least her movie career baseline)? Does anyone else remember thinking, post the two year journey and post the 'circumstances that happened therein' - that it seemed subtle writing to show her, just a touch clingy, just a touch shaken in some places, logically jealous of Illsidi, and somewhat lost in what should be familiar times?

Oh by the way; does anyone else realize, that the current set up as is, has Atevi gestating for AT LEAST a full year? From Cajeiri's 8th birthday to his 9th? And I say 'at least', because it was known upon the return and regrouping that Damiri was pregnant. And at a point Tabini admits that it was a heightened situation and they clung to one another and now there was this 'spare' - so to speak, that among Atevi equaled political trouble due to the format of his marriage.

But anyway, I thought a shaken, Damiri, having spent time primarily among Tabini's distant kin, faced with her own kin, both Atageini and Ajuri - suddenly clinging to them, kind of made sense. But then again? I remembered the fact that she'd purposely sent away ALL HER OLD RETAINERS, way before the official marriage, when they were just living together and she was Tabini-aiji's Lady - as a symbol of her confidence in relying on him and his people.

So to me, it was a matter of the difference between people she'd known for years, who'd even helped her through her first pregnancy and the first few years of Cajeiri's life (pre him cycling through relatives) vs all these people who didn't know her as her own person.

And of course there was a need to refill the apartments with servants post massacre.

When the reveal came, a reveal that seemed immediately to be forgotten in the next book - that the servants she currently had, given to her by her father (yet another wtf, since I'd been under the impression in early books that it was her father who'd died and her mother who'd returned to Ajuri, taking her child with her and leaving her Atageini Uncle (Tatiseigi) out in the cold or risk feud - thus his delight when she left THAT family and came to seek him out in her adolescence…)

But when the reveal came that the Ajuri servants were creeping about and spying, even on her child and she said that wonderful line in Intruder: "It seems superfluous to point out that you are not a foreign enemy and I have no need to spy on my son."

Granted, that's not quite true. It's been established that servants spy all the time. It's how information is passed. And that fact is used a lot. But the distinction was made of the difference between a servant in another household as part of a prior mingling of families, and a servant spying within the same house and household - on a child. And not via direction from a parent, but a grandparent who was not of the same house, had no relationship with the child and was instructing ACTIVE spying - going into areas not assigned, rifling through things, etc…

This was such a beautiful wrap up moment to me, of the consequence of Tabini et all losing ALL THEIR HOUSEHOLD and trying to remake it, and everyone around them trying to get a toe in. And the reveal of the insecurities Damiri's family plied in her; given what else she'd been through - her worry as to where her son's manchi lay, her grieving that it didn't seem to be to her and that meaning that the period of time between mother and child was forever gone and that THAT had been important to her - whatever the usual process for the raising of an Aiiji.

And how vulnerable she had to be, whether due to pregnancy hormones or just the exhaustion of having been on the run for months; that she went from having her own quietly respectful relationship with Bren, to utter, utter jealousy that this HUMAN had a relationship with her son and she didn't.

And from an in universe perspective, I was very intrigued and waiting for resolution of potential further insight into aspects of manchi etc - because Cajeiri is an aiji and manchi flows UP. So it was intriguing to understand that for children it doesn't work that way. Cajeiri is expected to have manchi TO certain adults and at some point that will change and he'll only COLLECT it.

And there'd been so much worry that his time primarily among humans may have damaged his ability to do what he'll need to do in future and make that transition. And could he even sense the flow of manchi NOW. And that had it's own resolution in that moment, with his mother's speech and her asking if she should stay married to his father or not.

And them having a discussion as a family that was so unexpected but delightful. His parents having talked but then included him after a point and getting his insights on the situation.

And then the very next book; the fight and effort to get into Cajeiri's room where he holed up after circumstances made him feel unsafe … suddenly transferred to his grandfather trying to get into the whole apartment and making a scene. NOT being denied entrance, all Ajuri servants sent away and Komaji storming down to a formal reception and making a spectacle of himself, accusing Illsidi of corrupting her own great grandson, and of Bren corrupting the next Aiji to be.

It suddenly went from an unsafe situation for Cajeiri, and a growth moment as a family - to Komaji somehow… desperately wanting succor and safe harbour.

Oh, I suppose he could have had servants spying as he tried to determine which way to jump. But that's not how it's presented at all in the retcon. Y'know, the very next book retcon.

But once again Damiri was unsure of her place, as if those moments of conversation with her son and husband had never happened.

Which is why I'm… "Is it really even a retcon if it's like the author FORGOT what just happened?"

I have no idea what it's like to write a book a year, in a single universe. But I do wonder how, if you are writing in the same universe - you forget what just happened?

I'm not even getting into make a bible of how things work in your universe. Everyone works differently. Though yeah, I kind of wish Cherryh had cause - "Where are the Determinists?" And what happened to the Astronomer Emeritus? And how his findings and continued development of such was meant to change the world; surely Geigi would still be in contact with the Emeritus' former students, even if the Emeritus himself had passed away. Though… he was there for that dinner before Cajeiri was kidnapped (post 2 year journey) and no mention again.

Does anyone else remember the Hashrid and Tashrid (I am likely butchering those names - but I cannot right now find the right wiki - the fan wiki created, I believe, to help Cherryh find info and I want my thoughts out); but remember the upper and lower houses that resembled Parliament? With a House of Lords and a House of Peoples and Tatisegi held prominence among the Traditional Lords (Hashrid), while Tabini was popular among the Peoples (Tashrid)? And it was a political coup that had given very much power to the people, away from the Lords in the formation of the government, of the aishidi'tat. Which is how Illsidi ended up a very temporary regent, twice, no thrice denied being named Aiji, because the Tashrid could not trust someone as traditionalist as she seemed to be to NOT favour the Lords over the common people.

Remember that? And what a political plot point it's been? How it focused and molded Illsidi's personal presentation, her plans etc?

And then there was that 'business editor' or whomever, who went all through one book, changing everything; spellings, how people said words in English to denote it wasn't their first language, AND adding 'Conservatives' and 'Liberals' everywhere in what to me seemed very human, and modern and from my perspective, very USian, on a system where it'd been overlapping associations and interests CONSTANTLY.

And now suddenly it's Liberals and Conservatives (capital 1st letter), everywhere; NOT Traditionalists. NOT 'the number-counters', NOT Determinists (whatever happenened to Geigi's faction of Determinists and how they ebbed and flowed within policies and politics?). Suddenly it's a two-party system, where before it'd been factional, if along lines of traditionalist and modernist. Which by the way are two very different things to 'conservative' or not.

Illsidi's eventual support of the space program made her no longer a 'traditionalist', thus her relationship with Tatisegi being so important; politically and personally. He holds the traditionalists to her, as she's now seen as a modernist and that's before her Southern-Eastern + Tribal People's initiatives.

I really enjoyed the political scene in this universe and these last few books it's gotten all very muddled.

There have been times things were mentioned; Bren considered a star spangled on black ribbon as 'Lord of the Heavens' and then that being mentioned as fact later. That's sometime's jarring. But it's far easier to think it was mentioned to the appropriate people and followed through on. It's a blip at most because there was a concrete moment to point to as to where. it. came. from.

But now with this appendix, I'm all; but what about… and… and… and…

And they're not mentioned.

The importance of Taylor's Children? Nope.

Phoenix's hierarchy? Nope.

Why Mospherians had/have the resentments they do re: Phoenix's ruling class/captains or don't give an fig they do? Nope.

How Phoenix's heirarchy works for Phoenix's people AND the Reunioners AND how that affects Caejeiri's human almost ashid? NOPE.

The fact Crescent Island failed? And how that reflects Mospherian government? NOPE.

How dangerous the Heritage faction was, and their collaboration with atevi across the strait? Nope.

And more…

Sometimes it feels like I'm reading a completely different set of books with EACH new release; and no one else when I peruse certain sites, ever seems to mention the inconsistencies. Or maybe they're reading a different book than I'm reading….

Then again, I often don't get the feeling that any of THEM? Are Black. So lots of what they get out of the series is 'exotic' rather than 'familiar' or 'understandable'. The consequences of a 'first contact' where the 'white guys didn't win' doesn't mean the same thing to them.

But yeah a multi-facets Atevi, interacting with multi-faceted humans, as a model for the Kyo had intrigued me. And now it feels like everyone and everything is being simplified.

====

All that said…

I still enjoy the books - yes, it's all the way here at the bottom. But I do. That's what makes the constant - but how did that happen? When did that happen? So aggravating.

My mind is always spinning at possibilities. Example? The long ago hints that if you presented yourself as unremarkable you could get lost in the shuffle in the Assassin's Guild (and end up marked dead). The original hints as to the importance of Algini (before he apparently gave that up) that STILL haven't born much fruit as to what sort of position that could be. The stress that now the major players are Cenedi and Banichi.

The reveal a few books ago, that the paidhi position was one of mediator between warring/feuding clans and associations.

And then you read that's part of what the Assassin's DO.

And you wonder, or at least I do, all over again at Aligini and Tano's placement, when Bren's position got more public etc… And at how corruption in the Guild ended up with him learning more and more.

And I end up pondering a white ribbon with a black one.

But that's just mah brainz.

And I want to giggle at 'mah brainz' but it gets tricky to conjecture when I'm trying to reconcile what was stated in the last book, with what's stated in the current, with what came before in the early books. And we're now some 15 books in, with the 16th almost done first draft I believe.

Seriously, where are the Determinists? What about the potential rise of the Astronomers? It should mean something politically (though it's no longer mentioned) that Geigi runs the atevi half of the space station.

Also: Geigi is Aiji of half the space station - right? But Bren is Lord of The Heavens. Is it just Bren's brain fart that he thinks he falls UNDER Geigi and not that manchi wouldn't flow UP to him?

See? See? I'd like to ponder actual structural complications vs unintentional retcons.

*sigh*

Against Prophecy

I think I have a serious peeve, twitch, irk, grating aggravation conception against Prophecy in Fiction. But it's a specific type of prophecy - because I'm sat here thinking that ' I know Duke Crocker from Haven's meant to die at the hands of someone with a particular tattoo and it doesn't bother me'.


So, what's the difference? Well first of all? It's who made the prophecy. I actually know. And when it was made - recently. And why it was made - because this was the seers gift/curse to see how people will die.


Does such a curse/gift make sense? No, not really. But I can take a step back for the sake of the in universe logic. Such an ability exists. And it has foreseen this main character's death.


Which leads to number four. This is a prophecy about how someone will die. It's specific. Most of the time it's 'The prophecized one' and there's some hazy handwavium about greatness against darkness or against the ultimate or some shite like that. Sometimes it's 'this is the one prophezied to end you - great evil mustache twirling baddie'. And there's only one prophecy of such type I actually buy into - the one regarding a certain baby ending the days of a certain King. Ahem. And it's got nothing to do with faith. It's got everything to do with the structure of the story making it seem like fate is sending out wireless signals, and of course this king had a hookup with the right people to try and clone those signals and read the messages. It was not, let's say, a message he was supposed to get - but he was working the angles.


So I guess that's the second kind of 'prophecy' I can handle. When something is on the wings of magic or existence and some folks with the skill to read it (but who shouldn't be reading it), hijack into the future to find out stuff. And then?  I honestly can't remember in this case if it was one item amidst dross, or if they were particularly searching for 'shall our employer be thwarted and leave us all out of jobs'.


I guess, I guess now that I'm writing it out - the thing that's upset me, aggravated me, pissed me off about prophecy in spec fic is that it's mostly a shortcut path to 'This is our chosen one - awwwh!' (cue the choir). The prophecy makes the character special. The prophecy means they were MEANT to do xyz and 123. The prophecy is guiding the tale, guiding their lives, blah blah blankety blah blah.


No one ever knows who gave the phrophecy. No one ever discusses the reliability of the source. No one ever discusses the possibility the information within it might have been warped - given that these shortcuts to greatness tend to be decades upon decades old, sometimes centuries old. Who the heck was trying to hijack the future that far ahead and for what purpose? it's just 'There is a Chosen One w/i this prophecy and that prophecy and this is the one! Awwwh!' (cue the choir again).


There's never a culture set up in these universes of honoring prophets either. Of say, having individuals for whom jacking into fate or the future is their gift/curse, and they have special school/temples/complexes with archives and librarians and they just see EVERYTHING (the poor suckers) and it all gets written down and someone somewhere decides that this prophecy is nothing but The Farm Cycle. And that orphecy is 'OMG The Royal House Shall Fall!!!'


Also, why are there never any consequences involving these prophecies? And no, I'm not meaning just in time for the protaganist to have some conflict. But why hasn't the 'Royal House' which 'Shall Fall' not hidden the prophecy, destroyed it, refuted it, burnt and salted the earth of the place where it came to be. Why isn't there a culture AGAINST seers (as much as there should be one for them)? Why isn't there misinformation purposely spread so this or that noble house could continue to survive, so that someone couldn't attempt to fit the bill of said prophecy in order to defeat their enemies (or maybe just people they didn't like)?


There is one other prophecy I actually liked. From the movie BulletProof Monk. And what I liked about it there is that the SAME prophecy held true for each individual who'd end up being 'special' over the years. That it was like a contract with fate "Once these circumstances happen, these individuals will be primed to be the next xyz." Like a program with a loop. In which case it feels less shortcut and more 'When the time is right, you will begin to know because fate loops this way. These things will always happen'. When you say something will ALWAYS happen - then it gets mystical to me. Then I don't take a step back so much, or at least can take a step forward into the world again, because the same circumstance for each individual through the years? That's actually interesting to me. And in the case of BulletProof Monk (the movie) it's VERY interesting. Because it's very specific. But not just for 'one' chosen, for every chosen. Ever. Forever. And it says nothing about whether said individual will succeed or fail - just that 'when these things happen, pay attention to this individual - it will be important'.


So what do we have, what do I have?


I need to know who made the prophecy. Why they made it. When they made it. How it's lasted so long (if it's been years and years). Is it untampered? What about it gives it the ring of truth? Was it specifically looked for? Is it about a specific situation? A specific circumstance? Was the seer trustworthy? Why does this prophecy matter? Why was the prophecy created ?

What I don't need; what I cannot enjoy reading is 'And the BLAH TITLE BLAH Prohecy has states a chosen one will come, and lo there will be turmoil, and yea verily the ultimate moment of the ultimate struggle shall arise....'


---
[hah, it looks like somethings just feel as if they belong here - even though, OMGWF is w/ all the white and open space blogger. Oh my EYES. Andwhy are my tags all squished up in a corner? OMG the gurbleick!]

Modelled Behavior (Precis)

I have, strong but incomplete thoughts on 'modeled behavior'. Why it matters, how it contributes to intergenerational trauma, how it's influenced and perpetuated by the media and why the very acknowledgement of it, as a concept and function of healthy human dynamics in broader generalized terms makes so much aversive racism/I didn't know it was racism defensiveness when called out, equal so much BULLSHIT.

There's also something brewing about sexism and other isms being modeled; from where they're being modeled, how they're modeled (and excused) and how that creates self-perpetuating systems of oppression.

But the thoughts aren't complete, because there's so, very much involved, from the dog whistle; children need two married parents/two married heterosexual parents, to gays turn you gay. This thing where somehow it's only ever parents who deviate from the (societally approved) 'norm' modeling behavior, but no one and nothing else is creating a framework for which any and everyone from ages 0-30 picks up concepts on how to handle the world around them.*

But basically? Gay Panic Defense? Modeled. Rape Culture? Modeled. Sexism? Modeled. All those books talking about the commodification and sexualization of girlhood? They're discussing modeling. The doll test? That was about what was modeled.

And there are hazier thoughts about what European, European Descended interference in PoC ways of life, tribal structure, family structure - the degradation, humiliation and subjugation of various peoples was modelling and how coping mechanisms of that were modeled and how striking out past that began to be categorized as mental illness - schizophrenia, how draptamania was recategorized and given a different name.

With a side point (intergral but a little parallel) about how veterans of bullshit horrid childhoods who want to move past and embrace their lives and true self-worth have to deprogram themselves, accept that what was modeled wasn't healthy, so they don't internalize it and stay frozen all their lives (emotionally, mentally) or worse, become an abuser/oppressor.

But like I said, incomplete. Possibly because it all infuriates me so damn much.


_____

*Footnote: The advertising industry hires experts on child psychology to streamline the best models of behavior to put into their products to get children nagging, bugging, throwing tantrums and demanding products. It's behavior they're actively cultivating - the modeling presented in their work. Not just for children, though for me that's the most atrocious, but attacking insecurities to get people to 'buy more stuff' / the shift from promoting the product, to selling a lifestyle, selling fear, selling a sense of not being good enough without their products or the stamp of approval of their brand.

Incomplete Thoughts + Reflections

When I first came to the USA, I hated Black Americans. I didn't realize I hated them, but I did. Mostly because I didn't know what the fuck was going on, and they seemed to. But everytime I was in a place, as time passed and I got older, to ask what was going on? I got told I needed to accept I was black.

And I didn't. I couldn't.

The way it was phrased didn't come across to me as anything different than what White Americans had told me the moment I showed up; lose the accent, lose the references, stop being so strange, watch our shows, talk our talk, give up who you are.

I wouldn't.

I wasn't Black - I was Caribbean. I was Trini. I was Bajan one generation removed and naturalized.

And Black Americans kept telling me - No. You're Black.

And I kept saying, though not in these exact words. Fuck you. I will not give up who I am. I will not give up what I am.

I've mentioned before in other places, how much it cost me, how much it still hurts to have given up so much to accept being Black. Because you see, I had to. I was clueless for too damn long and it was hurting me. I couldn't see the fists punching me, couldn't understand why, it all seemed nonsensical, because I couldn't see the pattern. And I couldn't see the pattern, because the pattern started, with me being Black.

My father told me a while back, that coming to the USA meant that when he awaked in the morning, he's no longer a man. He's a Black man. And he had to come to accept that. Embrace it. Live with it. Deal with it.

There's a lot of layers; just the tip involving model minority issues, colorism, immigration issues some Black Americans don't think they need to pay attention to because it doesn't affect them and more, bound up in my family's confusion in dealing with being Black and relating to people who identified as Black.

There's a lot of cultural issues. Again something my father has mentioned and I too discovered on my own. Coming from a culture where the one who keeps their temper and is the most reasonable is King, to a culture where the one who's most aggressive, is seemingly most powerful, is King; Our politeness looks like weakness. Someone else's aggression looks like a lack of self-control.

I think there's a lot of confusion too. Maybe not as an adult. I don't know. I'm speaking from my memories as a child. From being told about Black American Culture, and Pan-Africanness and not at all getting it. Because I was lucky enough to grow up in an atmosphere where I took certain foods, clothing, music & rhythms, ways of talking and relating for granted.

Then came a time, a couple of years ago, maybe a decade or so ago? When I started listening. Don't know how or why it happened. Maybe it was that a Black Female Voice, a strong voice, sounded familiar. Or maybe it was because those voices were talking about something that wasn't about difference; but something I could identify with; something I had begun to experience and consciously recognize.

They were talking about being black and female and looked down upon. About expectations, and being touched without permission, and the random hair fondling - sweet heaven's mercy the random hair and skin fondling. But they were also talking about the atrocities of slavery and how that echoed through the generations.

I'd just begun to make sense of my own uncomfortable feelings about having my personal boundaries transgressed, not just by family members/dysfunctional dynamics surrounded extended family etc... I also knew the history they mentioned.

I knew about it. I'd grown up learning that history. It was my history. But it was also theirs. And it was no longer abstract, because they weren't talking about it, the way I'd heard it in USian schools - at a remove. They were talking about it, the way I'd heard it growing up; real and painful and gritty and blood ties.

So, I started listening. And listening. And listening.

And it made me feel a little better, not just to realize I'd given up (or felt like it) who I was to accept the label black for a reason even if I hadn't been able to articulate it. But that I didn't have to give up anything at all. That there was a term - multi-racial. That there were people aware of what it meant to be multi-racial and the child of multi-racial parents, and to live in a state of culture fusion.

That there were people who while stressing that here and now, in this place and culture I found myself living in, I needed to understand I was Black - these people weren't phrasing it to me as something I had to choose and something I had to give up. And I was old enough by then to understand it for myself and not just take an adults word that that is what they wanted.

But I was listening. And these voices talked and dealt with pain and anger. And hearing it, it helped me identify mine. Because I listened. Because I respected them because previously I had been listening. And I wondered 'Why are they so angry? Why are they so hurt?' And then I realized, I was hurt and angry too. I just hadn't put a name to it, confronted it, lived in it. It'd been pushed to the back of my mind. But here these women were, doing more than surviving, doing more than living behind a scab, numb and unknowing.

The thing about being angry though? About acknowledging hurt and wrongs? It's a point wherein you don't forget anymore. You don't ignore. You notice things. You notice a lot of things, and you start to interpret what you see, without that buffer in the way to divert things to a 'safer place'.

In hindsight, it makes sense that as I grew stronger and recovered from an abusive childhood, I'd incorporate what I was learning into my every-day life. I'd begin to recognize there were abusers I'd been giving a pass to. People and institutions hurting me, that I hadn't wanted to admit were doing what they were doing.

I don't know if the voices that guided me were going through similar with professional help, or if they, perhaps like both our foremothers had to figure it out for themselves, bit by painful bit and imprint the picture on their minds so they wouldn't forget.

---

Aside: There's a point here I'm not sure how to make succinctly let, about learning in fits and starts about Black American Culture, Being Black In Northern America. That it is a culture, with a history and dynamics of it's own. That it's not all at all about loss and lack and the past. It's a living, growing culture, constantly under attack and being co-opted. But my understanding about that, came about as I began to understand better the concept of cultural imperialism and dominance, and what older relatives had been fighting against. That fighting imperialism and loss of something they'd held on to through the generations, became associated with pushing against ALL USians. All North Americans.

When Black American Culture gets co-opted and pushed as 'just plain ole modern Americana', if you don't know the history? You, or at least I, didn't see a difference. Someone promoting their culture in a certain way, seemed like someone promoting their culture over mine or, unfortunately, not having any culture to lose and try to hold onto in the first place.

It's been hitting me hard, that even now, there's this 'tower of babel' affect going on, actively being promoted, that keeps or at least can keep, various African Descended Peoples from talking to and with one another. It goes on in intra PoC ethnicities as well, because the medium, the messenger is tainted - it's oftentimes being controlled by other than any of us.

Dub & Rap I both started hearing, noticing at around the same time in the 80's. I'm not someone to know which came first, or discuss the difference in rhythms, beat and cadence. I do know that the moment dub became associated with 'American Rap' - it didn't matter to the adults in my immediate surroundings that it was homegrown. It became associated with things - with violent things. And these days I find myself wondering a lot at approach and perception - because if what was being discussed in rap, had been sung in Calypso - I don't think many in my personal extended family would so much have blinked; respect your mothers and the women in your life? Embrace creativity? Remember the past? Hold your head up high? Fight the powers that bind you? Money's important but shouldn't be too important? Sometimes you just want to shake it loose and dance? Y'know, Old School Original Rap?

But that association, with a power that was changing a culture, that consistently seemed to say 'you're good and quaint for a vacation, but really, why are you so backwards'?

Now I understand it as same shit, only slightly different 'flavour' as 'But Black Americans ain't ever done nothing, created nothing, had nothing...etc...' Or as I like to call it ' Ragtime, Jazz & Honky Tonk just sprang out out of thin ass air, cause America is just like that - bullshit'.

TL;DR? I personally took the time to listen, and found a community filled with people I could talk to, with and about certain things. But it's the listening that's the hardest part. In my case it was unfortunately having enough experience to identify with what I'd heard, but until I could recognize the experiences were the same or similar? I just had to trust someone else's lived experience. I had to trust there was a reason for the anger and be in a place to recognize that anger is a damn healthy reaction in the first place. And a healthy reaction doesn't hurt anyone who acknowledges it for what it is.

Assumed Consent To Objectification

Thoughts come at me from all over. In this case, watching a video about the Mass Effect 3 ending a few weeks ago, I heard someone break down the meaning of informed choice / informed decision, for why the endings are horrible; namely that without knowing the full consequences of your actions, without being able to interrogate for more information, any choice you make is no real choice because you cannot internally follow a line of logic to a reasonable conclusion. They brought up the Socratic process, reasoning, logic and several other things.

For me, something I had always taken for granted, as understood, was laid out into words and via an analogy and it became the difference between instinct and logic; the difference between arriving at the answer at the math problem without being able to show the work, and having three sheets of proofs.

- ||||||||||| -

[Mass Effect 3 Ending: Tasteful, Understated Nerdrage (SPOILERS) - 4:11 - 4:40]...

"Back in the day in Ancient Greece, Socrates would sometimes wake up in the morning, put on his best philosophising robe, go down to his academy, stroke his beard thoughtfully and then ask one of his students a question that began with; Suppose _______. He would outline a hypothetical situation and challenge his students to use their creativity and reason to determine the proper thing to do. This is called a Socratic Exercise."

Mass Effect 3 Ending: Tasteful, Understated Nerdrage (SPOILERS) - 11:50 - 12:20 ]...

"Details used to matter in Mass Effect. But in the ending they're ignored. How can I make this choice, if I don't know what the possible consequences of it are. Where's the agency in making a choice if I don't understand what it is that I'm doing. That's not a choice at all, it's just something that superficially resembles one.

This is not a socratic exercise anymore, because I can't approach it with logic and reason. I can only approach it with flimsy conjecture or by trying to second guess the intentions of the writer."

- ||||||||||| -

I grew up calling Socractic Exercises - 'Mom's Homework', 'Grandpa's Story Time', & 'Daddy's Being Difficult'. I've been doing them, since I was about three. Reasoning on this level is instinctive to me and it had never quite occurred to me that others couldn't follow said reasoning and didn't utilize it for everything.

Thus why the video made an impact for me, in terms of the phrase 'Informed Consent'. Informed Consent is about making an aware choice, making a rationed decision. And I've heard about it for decades specifically in regards to sexuality, and a woman's autonomy. And it seemed a cultural thing that it had to be reminded about, in those cases in particular.

If judgement is impaired then you can't make good choices, that seemed obvious to me; especially considering the fact that judgement being impaired by sleepiness, can result in not turning on the bathroom light for a middle of the night pee, and falling into the toilet bowl if there are certain people in the house. You're not making the best decisions - able to partake in the best decision making process when you're half asleep.

Sleepiness, sleep deprivation impairs judgement; logical. Chemicals in the system also impairs judgement. And thus hormones in the system also impairs judgement and emotional states are often associated with surges of hormones and thus emotional states are also a place of possibly impaired judgement.

Simple.

Except, not so simple. Not so simple at all and I kept running nose first into how not simple it was and being horribly confused by the lack of thinking.

And I just saw it again. Not just a lack of respect for what Informed Consent and an Informed Decision means, but a kind of Assumed Consent, that's been scaring me for ages now.

What prompted me to write this post - the final straw; a tumblr response by Blogitty-Blog-Blog" regarding a post where there's an image of a young boy, claiming when he was 14, he got his young girlfriend pregnant and 'she killed my son'.

Blogitty writes:

“Why must the fetus pay the price of the parents mistakes?”...It’s not just the males fault, but also the female. She lost her right to her body when she let him inside her, so anything she says about how it is her body is utter b.s...I am completely against what they did as it was stupid in every sense of the word. This is why we have an age of consent... But that’s yet again another human being who has had the right to life stolen from them because some uptight women feel that their body is more precious than that of a baby. Nice move there. It shows real respect for other people, great empathy skills."

Aside from the fact that I find Blogitty showing absolutely no empathy of their own right now, even as they call out what they claim to be the sociopathy of people who believe women have a right to determine what happens to their own bodies - there are other things as, or possibly more and relatedly disturbing.

"She lost her right to her body when she let him inside her, so anything she says about how it is her body is utter b.s..."

"...because some uptight women feel that their body is more precious than that of a baby."

I've been having some thoughts for a while now, about sexuality portrayals in main stream media (particularly USian), with some focus on porn. And it's all swirling together around the concepts of informed decision making, personal autonomy and how so much porn, erotica, sexual portrayals in varied media, is saturated in a Culture of Assumed Consent To Objectifaction which, if it isn't the same thing AS Rape Culture is pretty damn close to it.

There seems to be this definition of sexual activity as kyriarchal status choice that doesn't get the spotlight in places where not only can I see it and involve myself in it, but where young women (and young men) can become involved as well. When I do see it, it's usually flying over the heads of huge swathes of the population; namely the white population, as WoC on Tumblr discuss it as it (assumed consent to objectification + assumed consent to sexual objectification)relates to repercussions to Women of Colour, due to centuries of institutional white prejudicial racist baggage on their bodies and in particular the repercussions to WoC in traditional subservient service jobs.

I see conversations on the intersection, but not broader conversations about the origins, power and control of this Assumed Consent Culture and how to attack and dismantle it; possibly because too many white individuals are busy trying to justify their personal emotions on a thing - and thus miss the point of how and why it and all intersections should be feminist issues but currently aren't.

'She lost her right to her body when she let him inside her, so anything she says about how it is her body is utter b.s...' - Combine that thinking with purity balls. Combine that thinking with abstinence only sexual awareness programs. Combine that, with porn that has increasingly shifted to a near sociopathic level of objectification; where recievers of the phallus are automatons with holes to be brutalized, disrecpected and subjected to all manners of uncleanness and pain.

Here I admit I haven't seen much male on male / gay porn, to note if the language of the scenes; the subtext is the the same as what I've observed just being alive right now, and dealing with heterosexual based porn (in advertising to actual erotica). But I'm going to keep trying to keep my language inclusive.

This stuff scares me. The unchecked, non-perceptive, privilege assumed domination going on regarding sexuality, scares me. That the first time someone has penetrative (any form of it) sex, if there's not a ring/marriage license, some form of possessive framework in play then that body no longer has any autonomy... and if that person is not white, they never had it and will never have it.

Further, if that person has sexual aspects outside the mainstream then they're ASSUMED to have consented as well, to sociopathic objectification.

Thus consequently, individuals who are not white, who have sexual aspects outside the mainstream, in such an environment, not only aren't counted as people, but are often assumed to have consented to everything and anything with anyone and attempts to affirm that they maintain personal autonomy is often met with violence, brutality and rage.

But let me back up. A culture of Assumption of Consent / Assumed Consent (a little rape culture, a larger layer of kyriarchy...) - what is it that it is assumed an individual is consenting to? What stereotypes are playing into that? What isn't being thought about, because it's been the brick layer foundation of interaction for so long and people are loathe to change it?


'She lost her right to her body when she let him inside her, so anything she says about how it is her body is utter b.s...'

So the girlfriend of a 14yr old boy, thought she was giving informed consent to him, and only him. Whether or not she was capable of giving said consent in the first place - let's put that on pause for now. It is apparently assumed that she KNEW, and understood, fully, that she lived in a society that deemed her first penetrative sexual experience as a fully aware declension into non-citizen, non-human status? That she CHOSE this new status?

And even the fact that she got pregnant, thus to my mind proving she had not at all been prepared for the consequences of having piv sex, and thus wasn't truly able to make an informed decision - she's still held to have lost ALL RIGHTS to her own body?

Ignorance of the law does not excuse crossing it?

Uhm, doesn't that attempt to criminalize sex? Oh wait. Forcing pregnant women to have children they don't want has been seen as 'fit and proper punishment' for the longest time already, hasn't it. And cross dressing and homosexuality actually has been criminalized in the past and is still on the books in some places, or was as recently as ten to twenty years ago.

Thing is? If people had actually consented to dehumanization, objectification, violence, brutality and pain? Then yes, they could be considered deviant. And then it would make sense, perhaps, to have debates and dialogues about if there was anyway that could ever be experienced in any kind of safe space / why would anyone want to experience, etc...etc... I'm not versed in BDSM culture except the barest of basics; I apologise if my phrasing is offensive. Email and let me know.

But just living your life? Just being non-white? Just being someone who has received penetrative sex outside of sanctioned marriage or a long term relationship or whatever that arbitrary goalpost is? That's not choosing deviance. Nor is it somehow accepting the truth of some blatant obvious signpost of natural/inherited wtf ever deviance. That's NOT an informed decision to CHOOSE a lesser status than human*.

Hmm, maybe next time I'll get around to posting what disturbs me about the kyriarchal dominance games in an assumption one has chosen to be a dehumanized, sexualized object and how I relate it to the term 'kyriarchal status'.

---
* BDSMers aren't choosing to be thought of, seen as, or actually be sub human or less than human either. May need to work on that phrasing.

---

OT PS: As much as there's a thriving community of conversations on Tumblr that interests me and I have looked into missing e quite recently; I'm upset at notes that images etc, can be removed by Tumblr staff - lack of autonomy of one's tumblr space. That, plus their lack of following through non racistly on abuses towards Bloggers of Colour - has me disinclined to join the medium.

Me, My Strange Brain & I

I just happened to catch "Perchance To Dream"; an episode from Batman: The Animated Adventures, that surrounds a situation where Batman is given a chance to have 'the perfect life' via The Mad Hatter - via a dream. And I found myself thinking, after I finished watching, how much that show meant to me as a child/youngster/teenager, even if I couldn't then articulate it.

Unlike the Catholic Church that I had so far interacted with, it didn't say that I was somehow blessed due to the dysfunction in my family, or that it was a test or trial of spirit - it said simply that my pain was part of who I was. It made me me. I hadn't asked for it. I didn't necessarily want it, but it helped form me, it was a part of my foundation. Without it, I wouldn't be me, I wouldn't be who I had become and was becoming.

It said that being me was OK. Being me, was truth.

I joke a lot of the time that I belong to The Church Of Batman. And thinking about that episode, writing about it now, the joke seems less 'ha ha, tease' and more philosophical actuality. Sometimes it feels like everything I learned about surviving in life and how to be a good person, was pretty damn much directed by Batman*.

He will always be my hero for taking his pain and loss and directing it towards protection. For being an example who knew loss would define him, but chose how. Who reached out to others feeling similar pain and isolation and offered direction and guidance, or just a sense of purpose, and who created his own family. Batman didn't give up on having family, closeness, nearness, it's just in a perhaps unexpected, untraditional paradigm.

Someone showed me a page the other day; Wonder Woman shooting guns. I think they said Guns of Eros, or some such. And after I had my moment of eyerolling, I did end up wondering what story that told; story as in aesop's fable, moral folktale, ethical framework. Do people even realize that? Even though they themselves may often call the Christian Bible - The Greatest Story Ever Told?

Stories to live your life by. Stories to guide your perspective in the world; how you treat others; how you treat yourself.

The current crop of comics writers and execs and artists; are they story-tellers? Is there a story they want to continue with the characters? Something that builds on what drew them into that world?

Recently I caught up to Written World, by Ragnell and caught her late 2011 early 2012 OMGWTF over Captain America implicitly condoning torture and was reminded of Box in The Box, oddly enough. He has a theory that the current crop of writers detest heroes; Don't believe in them and thus do not create or perpetuate them.

And now I wonder, what goes through the minds of those who joke to themselves that they belong to 'The Church of Captain America'. How do they deal with someone like Cap walking out to let others torture for information? Is it like losing one's faith in a more traditional religion? Is there a sense of emptiness and loss, and crushing betrayal and despair? Do the writers of that tale; were they ever members of that Church? Or are these actions some odd kind of Cold War, an anti-evangelism? Or are they the types who think it's worth nothing but mockery to speak of these things in terms of religion, spirituality, ethics, personal templates?

Though if they did, would they still roll their eyes at concepts like diversity, intersectionality and social justice; cause those fit the mission of a spiritual philosophy very well.

All I know is for myself, and that suddenly it makes sense why I was both so happy to rediscover comics several years ago, and why I ended up walking away. I lost them because of being in an unfamiliar land and not knowing quite how to get back into them. It was like not knowing how to get to church, realizing you had no idea the name of your faith to even ask about the building. And then I found them again many several years later and had to face what they'd become... and were still becoming.

Heh, corruption in the church, I suppose.

But it does make sense to me, why I'd walk away and hold on to my memories, and the lessons I'd originally learned and not try to fit what was being displayed into the framework that helped make me part of who I am. Maybe some people can. I can't. I may not honor Hera or Thor or Pele or Kali Ma and my fondness for Mary may be vestigial. But I realize, I do honor Diana the Wonder Woman, Batman, and on occasion Superman. Funny, how so many call them 'The Trinity' and yet....

Maybe one day someone will explain to me how and why others hold on and pay money while hoping. Or perhaps why they believe DC and Marvel and the like hold exclusive rights to interpretations; can hold their honored figures hostage.


PS: It probably also explains why, for me, my personal iconography; Superman or rather Clark Kent remains a seeming Asian American adopted by two well meaning white folk in Kansas; why Bruce Wayne was a white mask for black Batman, and why I always wonder why Diana isn't brown and Greek enough on the paper.

* For the record Dad, you've always been my Batman, or rather Batman's always been my fictional Dad. You both had 'protecting the innocent' in common.

Hmm

I need to rewrite this post on Erasure, Dehumanization & Oppression. It was slippery when I wrote it, and it feels slippery still. Just started re-reading it, and I know there's a better way I can put it. I'm just not sure what that better way is yet.

But there has to be one, that doesn't make me feel as if the pieces start getting slippery one two paragraphs in.

Ruminating On FilmCritic Hulk; Thoughts On Criticism

HULK ESSAY YOUR ASS: TANGIBLE DETAILS AND THE NATURE OF CRITICISM.

Some people will not like the written style of the essay, some may not enjoy reading it, due to said style. I've done my best to c/p the parts I find most relevant to the dynamic I see often between readers, authors and book critics, especially the divide between readers and 'professional' book critics. And most especially between authors, professional book critics and readers with a particular perspective and the language to express it aka social justice readers.

I am aware of the words just before I start c/ping that discuss bias involved in opinions. I believe having a bias towards social justice and non invisibility of minorities is NOT actually a bad thing and counters the bias against paying attention to these matters as all, as if the world were a contextless, historyless rainbow farting magic bunny land.

Bold and italics (strong and emphasis) as originally posted. Things in colour are my emphasis.

YET HULK DESPERATE KNOW WHY PEOPLE RESPOND TO MOVIES WAY THEY DO. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW THEY THEN PROCESS AND EXPLAIN THOSE RESPONSES. THE ANSWER NOT JUST RELATE MOVIE CRITICISM, BUT UNIVERSAL CRITICISM. HULK BELIEVE CENTER AROUND ONE THING:

TANGIBLE DETAILS....

OK. HULK KNOW YOU THINKING “TANGIBLE DETAILS? DUH, OF COURSE! WHAT YOU IDIOT? OF COURSE THE FREAKIN’ DETAILS MATTER!”...

OUR ABILITY PROCESS THINGS INHERENTLY LINKED TO AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WE UNDERSTAND...

IT OKAY IF NOT KNOW LOT ABOUT CERTAIN SUBJECT. THERE ACTUALLY SUBCONSCIOUS WAY IN WHICH MOST OF US ABLE PROCESS SIMPLE GOOD OR BADNESS OF JUST ABOUT ANYTHING: MOVIES WORK ON LARGELY VISCERAL LEVEL. FOOD CAN TASTE GOOD OR NO TASTE GOOD. SPORTS TEAMS HAVE WINS AND LOSSES. PRODUCTS CAN SIMPLY WORK OR NO WORK. THERE WAY WE UNDERSTAND SOME FORM RELATIVE VALUE OF ALL THESE THINGS.

BUT WHEN COME TIME ACTUALLY EXPLAIN THEM, NOT EVERYONE HAVE LANGUAGE/VERNACULAR TO BEST EXPRESS WHAT AT PLAY. SO ONLY WAY CAN EXPLAIN ANYTHING BY PRESENTING EVIDENCE. AND EVIDENCE 100% DEPENDENT ON THINGS WE NOTICE. AND THOSE THE TANGIBLE DETAILS.

… and FOR MOST PEOPLE, IT NOT ALWAYS THE RIGHT DETAILS PER SAY, BUT INSTEAD THE ONES THAT SIMPLY STICK OUT MOST....

BEING “EXPERT” JUST MEAN YOU ABLE MAKE THE LESS TANGIBLE DETAILS, WELL, TANGIBLE...

THIS MEAN FILM CRITICISM MORE DEPENDENT ON WHAT OTHER FILMS SEEN AND PROCESSED BEFORE IT AND HOW FAMILIAR CRITIC WITH FILMMAKERS. WHICH JUST MEAN ANY INTANGIBLE DETAILS IN MOVIE SEEM EVEN MORE IRRELEVANT TO CASUAL OUTSIDER. BUT OF COURSE SEEING TONS MOVIES = CRITICAL. IT ALLOW CONSTRUCT PERSPECTIVE. A SENSE OF FILMIC TRENDS. NARRATIVE. UNDERSTANDING. ALL THAT GOOD STUFF...

BUT EVEN IF THE “EXPERTS” = THE QUALIFIED ONES, EVERYONE STILL HAVE RIGHT THEIR OPINION ON MOVIES. IT ULTIMATELY JUST A CONVERSATION AFTER ALL....

IT HARD LEARN HOW DIGEST WHAT OFTEN EMOTIONAL REACTIONS.

BUT EVERY YEAR HULK GET SHARPER IN ABILITY TO EXPLAIN IDEAS, THE VISCERAL REACTIONS, AND THE SUBCONSCIOUS FEELINGS THAT MOVIES ALWAYS ELICIT. THE EDUCATION NEVER STOP.

Do note, I will laugh at anyone who comes away from this thinking I'm describing activist reactions to exclusion as purely emotional, and thus untrained and in need of processing. Emotions aren't separated from the insult of invisibility, no. But people capable of having an actual conversation (however highly peppered with cussing) have long since processed all that they can bear, and then some.

I will also laugh at anyone walking away from this thinking the only reason these things are seen, is because people are looking for them, with some kind of 'Playing The Race Card Super Cool Spectacles'. You don't look for invisibility, invisibility slaps you in the face - which oddly enough makes me think of that so and so who was all 'Straight White Male Gamers Are Being Oppressed' at the Bioware Dragon Age 2 people. Not being specifically catered to - nay, exclusively catered to, felt like invisibility to him, and thus like a slap in the face.

Think For Yourselves - As Long As You Agree With Us

K-Box: The purpose of releasing advance promotion for a product is to get people to prejudge it.

Admittedly, it's to get people to prejudge it POSITIVELY, but if they see the advance promotion and prejudge the product NEGATIVELY, then you really can't complain about the fact that they're PREJUDGING it, because that was the entire PURPOSE of your advance promotion, was to get them to do EXACTLY THAT.

Rather, you're just upset that they're not prejudging it the way that you WANTED them to, which is an entirely different complaint, and moreover, is not the AUDIENCE'S fault, because if your advance promotion fails to inspire the specific TYPE of prejudging that you were aiming for, then it's YOUR fault for releasing that advance promotion in the first place, and NOT the audience's.

Producers of media are not ENTITLED to our support. Saying that we OWE it to them to give them a chance is MORALLY wrong. They are an entirely DISCRETIONARY expense, and they should NEVER see themselves as anything more than that.

This quote is in relation to superhero comics (particularly Spiderman comess and wtf). But it pinged really hard to me. It reminded me of my altercation with Johanna of ComicsWorthReading (re: racism), and various interactions in the past between people listed on 'When Fangirls Attack' going 'OMG another misogynistic piece of tripe' and others going 'But you haven't bought it, it's just a cover, you don't know, etc...'

The entitlement reminds me of more than comics, however. It reminds me of how all media is promoted.

* Promotion is for pre-judging

* If you prejudge negatively, then you don't have the skills to prejudge at all

* Therefore you can't really judge it, unless you buy it, read it, read the whole series, have in depth discussion with the artist...

Somehow, free-will, individuality, depth of self and experience, personal likes and dislikes, (disgust of cultural appropriation, racism and misogyny) somehow do not come into play. Free Market, Scree Farket and the Circular Logic Brigade.

It feels like at some point, someone decided 'You can't judge a book by it's cover' should be extrapolated to books with description art dust jackets, comic books, movie trailers and other material meant to hook interest.

Somehow the fact it doesn't hook interest or in fact turns off, becomes not a problem created by the original producers, or the marketers, but a flaw in the person of the consumer themselves.How dare they not just open up and swollow...

Y'all all know how I feel about non-con privilege fellatio.

The illusion that those 'in charge' want the rest of the world to think for themselves... How deep does it go? How much bigger is it becoming? I mean, past the 'If it's pink girls and women must buy it, because we made it pink!' and 'Real men should find our commercials funny, if you don't, then you're not a real man, so you better buy our product quick before someone finds out!?

Is it any wonder there's a serious problem with bullying? It's effing everywhere! It's how they sell things to us, from themselves (politicians) to toilet paper.

It's 'Bomb you back to the stone-age'.

It's 'You're protesting a two year sentence on the murderer of an unarmed black man? We're gonna rough and lock y'all ALL up.'

Think for yourselves, as long as you think what we want you to.

Recognition, Codes & Box Office Draw

In a review for the book,Queen of the Orcs by Morgan Howell , first in a series and disappointingly the only book in the series I found palatable, I wrote this:

These reviews leave me thinking that people are recognizing patterns in their reading and thinking that the ability to recognize a pattern is actual analysis and not merely the first step in comprehension. Like some blogger I read said about the recent batch of spoof movies; they have no substance and don't actually parody anything, the audience is just laughing because they recognize the pop-culture reference; a Pavlovian reaction?

The concept of recognition has been nibbling at me again since I saw the latest The Last Airbender trailer. That sentence right there, by the way, is warning enough to scroll past if you're tired of hearing people be disappointed at rampant appropriation and whitewashing.

The Last Airbender trailers, and the movie itself, has a lot for fans of the tv series to recognize.

* Siblings in the snow = Sokka and Katara.
* A tattoo extending over a boy's forehead = Aang
* The manipulation of fire, air, water and earth = bending
* Particular names
* Particular phrases
* Particular places
* Appa

It is exciting to recognize something, to know what something is supposed to be, even when it's in a new form, a new medium; even when it is a new interpretation. A lot of my own enjoyment of Batman Begins, for example, was in recognizing batarangs and other devices, as well as recognizing characters. There's an insider's kind of glee to see the new interpretation but know what the original looked and sounded like. There's a bit of that involved in fanfiction as well, reading it and writing it both; though in writing it the fun is in coming up with a new interpretation whether you're writing an AU or a 'missed scene' or a set of continuing adventures.

That Recognition Glee is what's counted on when Hollywood takes inspiration from somewhere else and brings a book, tv series, comic/graphic novel to life. That's part of why they bother to do it in the first place; because those who liked/loved it once, will WANT to see a new spin on things. Assuming the movie isn't meant to round off a series that never properly ended, that is. Still, taking from somewhere else and bringing it to the silver screen is a unique relationship, with hesitances, false starts, supposedly good natured intentions...

The Batman franchise is not the only franchise I've done this not quite a love affair dance with. There is also Star Trek; largely the movies of The Next Generation cast. Some I loathed, some I loved and in both there were things I adored beyond reason. To me, Nemesis has nothing to recommend it, and yet seeing that Riker and Troi do indeed marry was such a big thing. It is as if I've separated that scene from the rest of the movie, suspended it in amber in my head because as a fan of both characters it was so important and so wanted and so wonderful to see realized.

Recognition (Glee) can go hand in hand with analysis, but that is not at all an automatic pairing. And in all honesty it doesn't have to be.

It isn't granted that a franchise's adult fans will bring more critical depth to a viewing than the younger fans. And when the franchise has primarily younger fans to start with, when that's the core...

A:TLA has adult fans , that's a fact. I am one of them. But there is also this, there are very different skills involved in creating a two hour movie that either entertains adults, or entertains children while hopefully not completely boring the pants off adults and the skills of getting children involved and intrigued in a storyline for season after season, show after show. In the latter doing the job well seems to be all that's necessary to also draw in adults.

I mention this because Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko created and midwifed the birth of something amazing with multiple layers. Avatar: The Last Airbender, the animated series has been nominated for and won awards because of that brilliance, dedication, care and respect (for their inspiration sources and their audiences).

The Live Action Movie, only has to build on that; it was already several rungs up to possible success before anything started. M. Night Shylaman only has to infer to those layers, throw a few reference points around and invoke a large enough upswell of Recognition Glee to skate by. The rest can be held aloft by CGI and effects.

I didn't like Star Trek: Nemesis. But the wedding in the beginning carried me through the movie. I didn't walk out. (Nevermind I like to think my sitting there was partly stunned disbelief)

How far will a little Recognition Glee take this film? How many butts will stay in the seats? How many seats will be filled due to the urge to have that experience; that excitement at seeing something beloved come to life in a new way? Can M. Night Shylaman temper the lack of a round, silver haired Iroh with a few bits of jasmine tea dialogue? Can he skate past a Dragon Ball Evolution to an Eragon (just under breaking even) because of Appa?

I want to believe that the lack of Asian culture will be noticed. I want to further believe that viewers of the series who go to see the movie will find themselves admitting something is missing. I'm just not sure I quite dare hope they'll recognize what that something is, and realize the loss of it detracts from the Avatar:TLA experience; and that protesters involved with Racebending.Com ARE NOT just bunch of haters.

And here is why.

Recognition Glee is pretty powerful. I'm currently watching a break down of what's been wrong with the TNG franchise films; it's a quite sarcastic set of reviews by RedLetterMedia. It was actually a shock to have it pointed out that perhaps the reason I hadn't enjoyed so many is because they'd become action films instead of adventure/exploration and were hardly tightly scripted. Even after just watching scenes pointed out, my memories, for example, of Insurrection are of my joy at seeing favourite characters being happy or involved in aspects of their careers they like, or exploring particular aspects of their personalities.

I cannot imagine Avatar:TLA having any less strong a pull of Recognition Glee. And when I add white privilege to that...Will those A:TLA fans be able to see how whitewashing diminishes?

When you put Recognition Glee beside a white privilege that sees everyone as white to start with; white with a prominent nose & curly hair, white with a tan & different hair, white with different eyes...; it becomes, a lot harder I think for people to catch a clue. How things look; how they look as someone always imagined them, or how they look even cooler; how the story matches parts they already know; how there are places and things they can remember and smile about and nod to; that's powerful. Recognition is one of the first skills human beings learn; it's how we learn to speak, how we learn the dog in the book means something in relation to the dog walking by on the leash.

It's possible their response to the Live Action Movie will reveal them to have fallen for a completely different show than the one the rest of us saw. The characters might have the same names, but the universe might be very different. If they see generic martial arts fantasy that's just using certain names, and some Asian and Inuit props will they stay in those seats, happily, as the box office inches up? Will it be A:TLA to them?

And if they don't see A:TLA in the movie what will they see?

Right now, what seems crushingly more likely to me, is that the movie will sink at the box office for poor production values, dismal dialogue and general malaise of BLANDESS and take the matter of the whitewashing beneath the waves of fail with it. The trailer shows fake rocks after all. FAKE ROCKS! Fake rocks are for theatre productions and a completely different type of suspension of disbelief. Fake rocks also look ridiculous juxtaposed against the backdrop a few scenes earlier of Greenland's icy majesty.

Fake rocks and cgi fire making the movie somehow not Avatar:TLA is not at all like realizing Kataara isn't Kataara, because she's been modified for a 'general audience' and that modification erased who she is. Take the Inuit out of Kataara and you don't have Kataara anymore. Take the China out of the Fire Nation, and you don't have the Fire Nation. It's like erasing memories - remove someone's memory of an experience and you remove how it shaped them, which means you change them. Erase a memory and you erase a piece of them. Ethnicity and culture are one lengthy string of memories that build upon memories that build upon memories; internalized, life experience, recognition glee.

Whatever term they have for it, Hollywood knows all about Recognition Glee & Recognition Rejection. And they've been pointing at Recognition Rejection for years when it comes to heroes and leads of colour - except the place they point to keeps changing. First it was 'The South Won't Show This & We Will Lose Money' and now it's 'Middle America Likes To See Itself And It Is White Or We Will Lose Money'.

"Well we don't want to upset people, and well, the coloureds should just be glad we're risking putting them on screen in the first place. Look, we know what we're doing. We're putting coloureds in roles we know regular people can expect them in - roles that fit them, fit their place in society. That'll get people used to seeing them up on the screen. A Chinese person as the hero? With Chinese culture everywhere?! We'd never make movies again! You can't bring change that quickly,! People just won't accept it! Hold your horses! Patience is the key here. Patience and calm."

Now it's the 21st century and we still have the Mammy/Sassy Confident, The Inscrutable Servant or Villain, The Hot Spicy Cha Cha and all those other stereotypes that 'fit their place in society'; those stereotypes that bring their own Recognition Glee - for white viewers and Recognition Rejection, for PoC sick and tired of narrowed and negative associations.

Hollywood might be a place with individual struggling artists. But the people in power aren't poor struggling producers/movie studio moguls/directors/investors. No. What they are, is soaking in greed and cowardice and have been for so long as an industry they barely know anything different. They're the ones who created the concepts of the 'general audience', and 'relatability' as a sugar coat for racism and white superiority. They're the ones who have the movie industry set up so that equal time equals segregation (black movies, kung fu imports, foreign stuff, foreign brown stuff).

And then, every time Recognition Glee does happen with an audience for a lead/hero of colour, they're the ones calling the phenomena a one off and an exception.

The next time someone dares to spit out the ridiculous 'But Hollywood wouldn't do that - they want to make money! And everyone's money is green!' I shall be violent. We've got history proving that PoC money isn't as green as the money from States that once threatened to ban Hollywood altogether.

We've got HISTORY showing what acceptabilities were codeified, and thus became tropes and visual cliches and thus became how movie makers see the world when they visualize. And as much as other things have changed and aspects of the code have been challenged and dropped; Hollywood's still running scared, cowardly and tight fisting the dollar when it comes to race.

Monster's Ball and Precious are both of the 'fit their place in society' type movies. Academy Nominations and wins don't mean a thing other than they're very good 'fit their place in society' type movies with good 'fit their place in society' type roles.

Meanwhile something like Avatar: The Last Airbender comes along and Hollywood totally misses that its popularity is about Recognition Glee, because it has conditioned itself to ignore non-white Recognition Glee. That's how Hollywood, Paramount, various executives, investors and even M.Night Shylaman missed that Avatar: The Last Airbender's popularity had as much to do with Hanbok's and Jian's; Guru's, Chakras & Yogis; and MesoAmerican Sun Dials; as story, characters and plot.

I'm convinced they don't recognize and realize that PoC word of mouth spread. And that the extra eyeballs for their overflowing demographics and other measuring came from PoC excitement.

"Mommy! Mommy! There's this boy on tv! And he's the hero! And he looks like me!"

I'm sure they can't see the reason so many PoC absolutely adore Avatar: The Last Airbender, is because of how it felt for them, for us, to recognize things on screen. White American audiences (and many white creators) aren't familiar with people besides them, experiencing Recognition Glee. That's how they missed how much it meant for PoC fans to recognize their lives; history, culture and heritage; on screen.

Which is why as obvious as it seems to me that a production crew who removed the cultures of the universe, couldn't then create that universe well via props, script etc... I am scared those fans will sit down in those seats and be convinced they're watching exactly what they've always seen. And worse, be convinced the only reason their Recognition Glee didn't kick in, is because someone didn't CGI Appa fluffy enough.

You've seen the trailer. What do you think?

[Usual Comment Rules Apply]
ETA: To add emphasis.

What Is Value?

On the internet, distracting myself and I come across a page with this header:

Why Do Africans Scar Themselves: Self Hate?

We will ignore the over-arching term 'Africans', treating the continent as a single nation with a single people and no divergent lands, nations, tribes, clans, religions, etc.. And we will also ignore the fact that I was looking up black skin body art & modification and not anything slanted negative.

I found myself thinking, a few minutes before I saw that page, and that header, that there is something noteworthy that scarification on black and brown bodies is a sign of primitivism - the kind synonymous with deprivation, lack of western education and generally seen as bad. But Scarification on white bodies is a sign of reclaiming the primitive, where primitivism is about listening to one's instincts, being true(er) to oneself, a purposeful rejection of fitting western society's expectations of what is civilized - it's the good kind. It's independent and counter-culture in a way that actually fits, mosaic-like into the over-arching culture.

When it's on white bodies, rejection of western civilization's expectations is empowering, unique and strong. When it's on black and brown bodies, rejection of western civilization's expectations and understandings is misguided, illogical and one of many green lights that it is ok for whites to treat these black and brown bodies, adult bodies, as if they belonged to perpetual children.

This all isn't new though. Grow your own food? It's poverty and lack of infrastructure in one case, and reclaiming the pioneering spirit and being health and environmentally conscious in another.

The intersection of class throbs red and raw here; like the difference between $20 dollar worn jeans with fuzzing cloth rips and $120 dollar jeans, pre-washed, pre-broken, pre-artfully applied rips. Those fashion shows 'inspired' by the homeless. The moment those entrenched in power, controlling the institutions of the land do something, it levels up. Again nothing new, crack vs powdered cocaine and jail time - for example. But it does all make me think of that ' everything up for grabs' attitude and how a thing is suddenly shiny and new because it's been birthed into a higher class, in the eyes of/among an institutionally favoured group.

It kind of explains anti-equal marriage from that perspective too - marriage as a once protected class for those institutionally favoured being downgraded. I realize now when people say 'it devalues my traditional marriage' they aren't at all using the wrong words or making a ridiculous claim, in their minds. And to many of them it was devalued once before, when interracial marriage was legalized.

Femininity as a downgrade from masculinity. I'm just repeating previously stated facts now, aren't I. Homosexuality as somehow, also a downgrade from masculinity. Trans issues going 'Equal Value' blowing up minds.

Micro-brewery, specialty beer bringing the working man's drink up a level.

Teenagers worrying about going up a level with one brand, and hoping not to go down a level with another; brands as class and institutions.

My confusion that Paris Hilton (and other celebutante blonde women) could get famous and richer for being ghetto; tits out, no panty flashing, boyfriend fighting in public, pulling out hair and weave, being drunk in public, needing jail, covered in bling (brand tags & jewelry), sexually compromising images - still a celebutante, not seen as 'just trash'.

Even The Last Airbender's whitewashing becomes people complaining about something they liked being 'bumped up a class' from tv to movies, from Heroes of Colour to White Heroes.

It all takes me right back to that header. Black and brown bodies - self hate? Someone wonders. White body, independence and self love as understood.

NB: No, WS, racism won't disappear if classism disappears. Racism took on a life of its own beyond being a new form of classism, more than 500 years ago. It's not going back in the box.

ETA: edited for typos