Storytelling comes from taking your endless ideas and putting them into action. There's no greater gift we are given than our imagination- every day you turn the next page in your story.
Gintama: A Samurai Story Coping and Self-Acceptance by Finding the Child Within
One thematic element that’s always prevalent in Gintama is preservation of one’s meaning and identity within a world determined to eradicate it. This is especially true for samurai within the series, as Sakata Gintoki, Katsura Kotaru, and Takasugi Shinsuke often find themselves confronted with this philosophical quandary given their lingering trauma from the Joui War’s aftermath. This is especially evident during the Benizakura Arc.
Gintoki, while often pursuing childlike hobbies and engaging in immature behavior, seeks to find manners to cope with a world denying him a normal childhood. Only violence and self-preservation surrounded him. His behavior masks a desire to protect the innocence youth provides, one where loss and trauma have yet to inflict unbearable pain. This includes the loss of his mentor Shouyou who he was forced to murder, a driving factor in his desire to preserve deep bonds with others.
Katsura, known as Edo’s most wanted terrorist and Joui faction leader, believes it is one’s responsibility to protect the country and its founding principles. While his childhood provided some warmth, it was filled with rules and regulations. His lifestyle now is no different; only there are more people to protect. With responsibility comes burden, and thus Katsura’s acts of confusion and silliness allow freedom only a childlike curiosity can provide. If his mind is free to find joy, thus his burdens are gone.
Takasugi, however, chooses a different path from Gintoki and Katsura. While the latter seek to find forgiveness within themselves and thereby find extrinsic meaning, Takasugi refuses to accept the current world and outright rejects it via extreme violence and anger. The Kiheitai leader is unable to forgive the cruelty and unpredictability of life, particularly Shouyou’s death. Thus, he seeks to maintain control by dictating ‘fair’ justice through his own cruelty. There is no innocence or fun in this world, only destruction - that’s all he is here for.
Because Takasugi cannot appropriately cope with loss and anger, he is unable to connect to his inner child and rediscover the youthful happiness that engaging with the outer world and others provides. His hatred is a mere manifestation of his self-hatred and unwillingness to trust in a better future, one with hope and promise. There is no meaning for Takasugi, only suffering. And with this suffering, everyone should suffer, because that’s all this hateful world offers us.
The Benzikura Arc concludes by Gintoki and Katsura rejecting Takasugi’s ambitions of destroying Edo, setting up future conflicts between them. It is a reminder of how important embracing our inner child is, for healing those wounds inflicted by others can only come from self-acceptance within. Those who can find meaning will always stand beside each other, and those who cannot remain alone. Meaning, after all, comes from understanding others.
Fuck Around and Find Out: A Meme Turned Character Development Tool
I love a good fuck around and find out meme. But something perhaps I love more is the use of fucking around and finding out in character development. Great characters, believe or not, will start somewhere on the proverbial fuck around scale. And they’ll eventually find out, for better or worse.
Think about it - character and plot development is contingent upon a character’s willingness or unwillingness to fuck around and find out. The entire purpose of a book is to demonstrate a character’s growth or lack thereof in response to what happens, and the rate at which a character responds (or even regresses) is the key driver that makes your characters intriguing.
So, how does one employee the fuck around and find out process for character development? There’s a Fuck Around and Find Out Graph for that! Below is a graph I made for reference if you need a starting point for mapping out your character(s) development and how it fits the main points of your story.
Main Takeaways:
All characters have a starting point on the Fuck Around axis
Negative number = characters who are slow to change, resistance to growth. These are your reluctant, passive protagonists, or those disinterested or unaware of the plot’s main conflict.
Positive number = characters open to change, more self-assured at start. High positive numbers are well-intended characters but overconfident and impulsive; they may care about the conflict but struggle to know how to help.
Type of Character Growth (plotline)
Character A is an example of writing linear growth, Character B is a character who has growing pains. Character A consistently grows at a steady rate, while Character B experiences more ups and downs.
You can have characters who have a horizontal line (e.g. character Fuck Around starts and ends at 4); these are best for secondary or supporting characters who act as a ‘stable’ influence. Compelling stories have a range of character ‘plotlines.’
Find Out - these are the main plot events/decisions where the character’s level of fucking around will be put to the test.
Use each number on the X-axis to represent an event/decision in your story. Your characters will either grow, regress, or remain the same (flat line). There’s no right or wrong way to pick!
Decide where the character should be at the Midway of story = 3, and Outcome = 6. This can help you to determine the type of growth your character has and ensures the plot supports their development.
Human Rights are Optional Inside the Absolutism Tunnel - Part II
Following up on this post regarding the Absolutism Tunnel and how moral absolutism leads to a narrowing of human rights, Elon Musk’s decision to purchase Twitter is a great example of Shallow Stakeholders narrowing the Tunnel. Stakeholders are those in which hold tremendous power to control the Tunnel’s access and make their motives very transparent.
In this case, Musk is a Shallow Stakeholder, which is ironic given his reputation and clout was built behind a very strong PR team using a cultish following to hide his flaws and frankly undeserved accolades. It is the employees at Tesla and Space-X who are responsible for their respective achievements, not some futuristic genius.
Luckily for us, he made the job of extrapolating his honest character much easier. During the past few months, this false narrative around him being a ‘futuristic humanitarian’ has been obliterated by Musk’s own actions before and after acquiring Twitter. Take away the fluff pieces and blatant attempts of pseudocelebrity and you’re left with someone lacking in character and self-awareness.
Make no mistake, Musk buying Twitter is not some moralistically generous plea to ‘save’ free speech. This is about power and control, and allowing for those harmful voices to regain an undue footing upon limiting social rights and true progress. When hateful groups are finally held accountable, the only way they can succeed in regaining power is to manipulate the narrative messages to control who and what is being said. Limit the oppressed voices by further boosting those which are threatened by meaningful change.
You see, its the left that is dangerous and has too much power! Conservative voices are being silenced, apparently, so people like Elon claim. By painting a false narrative of the ‘radical’ left as hateful and divisive, it is setting a precedent that those challenging the rise of fascism and unfettered capitalism are the ones who are wrong. Facism and capitalism go hand in hand, and those of Elon’s background benefit the most from such a corrupt system.
And in Musk’s narrow-minded and frankly disgusting worldview, what Twitter really needs to is to have unlimited free speech because it is ‘too left,’ and people like Trump who have actively harmed not only our own democracy but the lives of others under the guise of apparently fighting the most important battle in humanity’s future. Not eradicating cancer, nor fighting climate change, nor even ending world hunger. But freedom of speech.
We see this play out on Twitter because those who were previously banned for everything from inciting the Jan 6th riots to parroting hate speech have received reversals on said bans because it goes against the concept of ‘free speech.’ Therefore, in order to make Twitter better, we must therefore let the ‘right-wingers’ back in, or namely, any bigots that got kicked off the platform before.
Despite what his PR team tries to tell you, Elon is not a humanitarian and frankly behaves like a technofacist trying to create his own fucked up ‘ideal’ world. Yes, he is involved with space exploration and electric cars which are progressive in nature, but that does not discount the dangerous views nor frankly vile behaviors he exhibits that lends to hindering social progress. A technofacist really doesn’t want to make the world equal; if he did, then Elon would have agreed to address world hunger with the billions of dollars he has instead of buying Twitter.
But that would result in a meaningful change towards social progress and lessening the gap between the haves and have nots. Those who display a constant need for superiority over others, sadly, care more about protecting their ego-driven worldview instead of doing what’s best for society.
Shallow Stakeholders - make no mistake, they always tell on themselves. Especially the white incels.
One of the most common worldbuilding elements that is prevalent in SF&F is the use of colonialism to show the world/universe has a ‘greater evil’ which amplifies why the protagonist must overcome their enemy. However, the biggest mistake that writers do is making their colonialism background and/or plot lines Reactive instead of Active, whereby the colonialism is merely a reactive scenery to the character’s actions as opposed to the character being active in challenging it.
When colonialism is written as Reactive, here is what you commonly see the following mistakes:
Main character notices the issue but is only focused on fighting the big bad/main antagonist. They either half-heartedly or never address it because it often doesn’t affect them.
Main character is not of the repressed group(s) and shows limited empathy or understanding of the issues related to colonialism. Bonus points if they police others on how to ‘protest’ or fight back.
For the above, the main antagonist is defeated but no threads or discussion is included in the book about addressing colonialism. There is no ‘what happens’ to the outer world and those impacted.
Characters who are impacted the most by colonialism either die, are used as tragedy porn to glorify the main character, or are written to say the situation is fine. Their voice is limited and often silenced.
Subtopics related to colonialism, such as slavery, are written as surface level and main character never engages with said subtopics. The characters acknowledge the issue, but it takes a backseat to other elements and is rarely mentioned again.
When your writing has one or more of the above, it comes across as stilted, shallow, and sorrowful, for colonialism is multi-layered and has implications for centuries. It never fully goes away no matter the passage of time. This is especially true when the main character is an analogous white woman/man who is lauded as a hero but lets others remain disenfranchised in the background.
Therefore, it is important when writing to never use colonialism as a worldbuilding element unless one intends to be Active with it. This also applies to imperialism but for simplicity’s sake, I will be using colonialism in the post.
Therefore, when looking to use Colonialism effectively within writing, here are some tips on writing more Active:
Main character, although will fight the big bad/main antagonist, is forced to confront colonialism at several points along the way. Start with small scale issues and get larger - hiding of cultural knowledge, differences in citizen travel rights, and stealing of sacred relics are examples of small and large scale elements. This will allow you to show both how the mundane and plot are impacted.
While a main characters being a part of repressed groups will provide the strongest narrative, you can of course write a main character of a majority group as long as they show care and interest in address colonialism. The key is to focus on emotional cues - show how their shattered worldview leads to fear, denial, confusion, etc, to build a realistic development of challenging one’s worldview.
Include discussion throughout the story on how to fight the system, limitations the characters face, and what questions remain at the end of the story. Remember, colonialism often expands hundreds of years and won’t be eradicated within a day. The goal isn’t to resolve everything, but rather, give the reader an understanding of what is possible and why characters should have hope for a better future.
Reconsider the way in which characters from the world’s minorities are treated - avoid unnecessary deaths, allow them to have their own narratives, and have them serve a role in addressing colonialism instead of standing there for the main character. This also applies to appearances and mannerisms - the more unique and personalized you create characters, thus will they become more relatable and engaging.
Pick 1-2 main topics related to colonialism and engage your characters with them to increased degrees as the story unfolds. How do they impact day to day life and what obstacles do they cause for the character? Think about what the purpose of this engagement is and what you wish for the characters to learn (both internal and external) and/or act upon by this development. Use a 2:1 internal-external ratio since the mindset is always the most fundamentally changed by engaging in the world.
“If I lose my magic, that means I’ve lost absolutely everything.” -Kiki
One of my favorite movies growing up was Kiki’s Delivery Service (1989), and I still look back at it fondly due to the thematic exploration of ‘finding the magic within,’ the challenge of overcoming self-doubt and uncertainty that comes with growing up and struggling to fit in. Even as we reach adulthood, finding that magic within is not always easy to attain, as no one is ever fully immune from this struggle.
Kiki’s story is culmination of this journey, perhaps in some ways literally since as a witch in training, magic is a part of her daily routine, and using a broomstick is vital for her success in the ‘Witch Delivery Service.’ Being a witch of course makes her a bit different than her peers, but it is okay at first given she did not share this gift with anyone, and spent her life mostly in isolation. Because doing otherwise would require her to be vulnerable, which is something Kiki has established as a worrisome failure to avoid.
Being out on her own independently proves the ultimate test for Kiki, as her self-confidence and beliefs are challenged by the real world which isn’t as black and white as she believed. Kiki soon struggles to make deliveries, loses the ability to understand her talking black cat Jiji, and soon finds herself unable to fly. The magic is temporarily lost as Kiki struggles with the grief and doubt that comes with ‘losing our way’ in the expectations and uncertainty of life, and wondering if we can recapture the magic again. Life, as Kiki knew it, seemed forever changed in a terrible way.
Kiki’s journey is one of a powerful message, as she is eventually able to relearn the ability to fly by finding a new perspective on the gift of flying, namely, the gifts that come from accepting what makes us unique and sharing them with others, our own magic within. While rescuing Tombo is a key plot development, this is major undertaking for Kiki because she no longer has Jiji to guide her. She must look within to the find her magic instead of relying on the reassurance that Jiji often provided. This large step to trust herself without needing Jiji and learning through her mistakes allows Kiki to regain confidence and resume broomstick flying, because she allows herself to be vulnerable.
While Kiki does not regain the ability to understand Jiji, it serves a reminder that in life change is not always avoidable, and sometimes it will shake us to the core and evoke those worrisome fears and uncertainties keeping us from reaching our potential. But with time and dedication we come to realize the real magic comes not from whether we meet expectations and demands of the outside world, but rather, is deep within us. We may not need to fly on a broomstick like Kiki, however, the struggle to find one’s self will always keep us grounded until we work through the fears and doubts keeping us from finding the magic.
No matter how challenging or unexpected life can become, we too can find our magical gifts like Kiki - except no broomstick is required.
Commercialization of Art: More of the (Merged) Same
Something very impactful to the publishing community is the DOJ’s antitrust case against the merger of Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, a trial that began on Monday and is expected to take a few weeks to settle. The main argument lain out is how popular authors will be impacted, but that is only telling one part of this horrid story.
Penguin Random House, one of the big names in publishing, is receiving pushback for trying to acquire another big name, Simon & Schuster. What was once a known industry with the Big 6 publishers will soon find itself looking at Big 3 or sadly Big One should this antitrust trial fail to stop the merger.
Stephen King, who is signed to Simon & Schuster, served a witness today speaking out against this merger. Of note was his commentary regarding how a lack of competition and essentially less companies will ultimately make it harder for authors to succeed should they not meet the commercialized demands of these publishers.
It also will make things exponentially harder for writers who are not proven with a sales track record to support themselves financially, let alone be published. It is like bidding for a house with the card stacked against you, and this quote from King’s testimony is quite apt:
“You might as well say you’re going to have a husband and wife bidding against other for the same house."
Having been within the industry for numerous decades, King states in his testimony during the beginning of his career he did not use an agent and had the freedom to shop around publishers. But with the number of publishers being absorbed or sadly folded, this is the not reality anymore. King states that his financial privilege allows for him to work and support independent publishers, the same publishers who are at risk by these acquisitions absorbing more money and power. But that is privilege few writers possess given most authors under independent publishing do not have the sales nor notoriety that King has.
While publishing trends will always dictate what is in ‘trend’ or ‘popular’ and thus impact the best seller lists and whatnot, a global mega-corporation of one publisher is not a good thing whatsoever. This will only lead to greater challenges in having unique and oftentimes marginalized voices from having their opportunity to succeed, let alone be heard. Having a consolidation only means that capitalism will continue to strip creative art of its diversity and unique strength in numbers, instead, settling instead for sure fire and the same to ensure maximum profit. The route to become published will become that much harder given the imprints, even if ‘different,’ are owned by the same companies.
While financials will always matter to some degree, we do see this effect within society, particularly the last decade within entertainment - many reboots and remakes are greenlit to screen, sixth, seventh, or even eighth cover/special editions will be produced for popular books, and television would rather have dozens of spin offs then taking a chance on something new. While we may be entertained, it is merely more of the same but packaged just slightly different. And with a reduced competition by these merging companies, those smaller publishers will struggle to stay afloat, thereby limiting the capability of writers who often get their first break into the industry via this route and remain sustainable.
Should the merger be successful, this will only further harm the independent publishers and average writer, for giant publishers are not going to take a chance on anything they do not feel will sell pushing numbers, and thereby leaving a lot of talent and innovation out in the cold that otherwise would be recognized with a more diverse and frankly equal publishing industry. There will also be less leveraging power and ability to negotiate with fewer publishers around. Sure, there is always the ability to self-publish, but most authors are not in the position to do so since there is considerable amount of time and effort (and money!) needed to replace the role of the publisher.
Klaus Hargreeves: Rebirth Through (Numerous) Deaths
From Umbrella Academy, Season 3- Seven Bells: Episode 9, Netflix
Season Three of the Umbrella Academy was the Rebirth of Klaus and his literal coming to terms of being able to die a million different ways and resurrect himself. In this season, the culmination of his ability to overcome his personal fears of the unknown and death, particularly the fear of responsibility, was a huge reason why the Academy was able to survive Oblivion.
Season One Klaus had a minimal understanding of his powers other than his father traumatized him for life by locking him inside a ghost-haunted grave. He can see ghosts and talk to them, including Ben, who serves as his voice of reason. Understandably, Klaus’ coping mechanism of drugs and alcohol led to addiction and struggles to quit. But he is afraid of the unknown and death, thus refuses to try and engage with his gifts and falls further into addiction. This is evident when he returns from Vietman, where he is devastated by his lover Dave’s death. He struggles to accept Dave’s passing. Ben recognizes this struggle to let go, and is often encouraging Klaus to speak with the dead, such as during his hostage situation. And by the end of the season Klaus is able to use Ben’s powers to stop the Commission guards from attacking his siblings, showing a willingness to try using his powers.
Season Two Klaus experiences a more personalized version of death. While Klaus did survive the Vietnam War, his lover Dave did not. And in this new timeline, perhaps Klaus can rewrite the universe and prevent Dave’s death. Despite his numerous attempts to change Dave’s decision to enter the military, in the end, he cannot change this decision. With Klaus’ humorous experiences as a cult leader, it demonstrates the power and influence he has over others and knack for helping us find a type of rebirth. And it is here where he begins to try merging with Ben to overcome regret and fear - he cannot control the deaths of others, but perhaps he can allow others to find peace. It is this merging that ultimately is why Ben is able to leave this realm and find peace, for Klaus’ willingness to attempt using his powers allows Ben to say goodbye to his loved ones and family. In some ways, he is saying goodbye to his old self.
Season Three is where the greatest change happens. Having experienced the metaphorical death and rebirth of not only his cult members but also Ben, Klaus is ready to finally begin his own death and rebirth. While his original aim was to understand his past and why Reginald took him from his mother, Klaus finds himself wanting to learn more about his powers and why he was put through the training. In order to fully understand his powers, Klaus would need to overcome his fears of death and allow himself to rebirth through the unknown. Through his humorous albeit effective ‘car dodgeball’ training with the new universe Reginald, Klaus was able to see the bigger picture after countless deaths, and how death itself is not always permanent but may lead to a needed rebirth. There is a value to undergoing an ego death, which was the ultimate conclusion of the training - to help Klaus see the benefit of change and growth.
This culminates in the decision for Klaus to kill himself in order to help Luther find peace in the afterlife. Although he is reluctant at first to return, by doing so he is able to inform his siblings the truth of what happened and ensure that Luther could say goodbye to Sloane.
Although Klaus has seemingly lost his powers like his siblings at the start of Season 4, I am excited to see where his character goes. While I’m sure he will enjoy the lack of ghosties for a bit, Klaus is a far cry from his Season One self. I predict he will play an important role in helping Reginald come to terms with his wife Abigail’s death given her resurrection seems to be a large motivation for Reggie to reset the universe to his own liking. But death comes for everyone, no matter how much we try and manipulate fate.
Using a Crossover in Fiction - Don’t Turn the Ball Over
Crossovers in fiction seem to be a trend of late given the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, creation of Netflix shows such as Leigh Bardugo’s Shadow and Bone that incorporates her Six of Crows work, and of course, television shows such as the FBI series.
While writers require an established set of universes to make this happen, the question becomes whether the crossover is the right ‘move’ to make. Of course, anyone can use a crossover, but should you do it? If done incorrectly, it can come across as fan service, rushed, or a desperate attempt at money grabbing if one series is vastly less popular than another. In short, its kind of like using a crossover move on someone in a basketball game and getting it stripped, losing the handle, or worse, committing an offensive foul - none of which are good outcomes if you are trying to win a game.
So when should a writer use it? Here are some analogies for when a crossover is best used to prevent causing a turnover (in readership). This can also be applied to fanfiction, which is an excellent medium to practice crossover works.
Determine Whether a Crossover is the Right Move
Being able to get past your defender is an important part of basketball, and likewise in executing on a writing crossover. When people think of Marvel, the immediate response is ‘I can do this too!’ The problem is that Marvel has decades of comic books and readership to draw upon - these characters have been interacting already and these movies are drawing upon actual comic scenes. Figure out what the outcome is and how the characters will get there by asking some questions to determine feasibility. The more you have to change, the less feasible the crossover becomes.
Ask Yourself:
What is the purpose of having the crossover and why should the characters interact?
How should the characters develop through their interactions and does it impact their current statues?
What will be the outcome of the universes colliding and how does the interaction change the environment?
Evaluate if Too Many ‘Screens’ are Necessary to Advance
One way to fully alienate your readers is by trying to force a crossover without any previous character and plot development justifying it. If Series A, B, and C should be together but aren’t connected previously, this is too many screens to get past for a reader. Readers of Series A may not want to have to read B and C because of the effort or perhaps simply they don’t have interest in them. Therefore, start to brainstorm what information must be incorporated in the text. If you find it will require multiple chapters for readers to understand, this might not be the right crossover to write.
Ask Yourself:
What basic knowledge is required by the reader to understand all of the universes and/or respective characters?
How will not knowing the character(s) or character impact the reader’s ability to understand the plot?
What information do you need to ‘tell’ within the story to ensure readers can grasp the required facts?
Make Your Move Early, Not Late
The best time to establish a crossover was the last book/chapter/paragraph you published. The second time is now. When you are putting together a crossover, the plot needs to support it and should plant the seeds for a justified connection. If you fail to establish the crossover early, it will come across as jarring and frankly toe the line of fan service without a purpose. While mid-credit scenes and post-credit scenes work in the Marvel Universe, the problem is without the visuals that film provides ‘selling’ your vision is much harder in written form. Therefore, you will want to introduce the conflict and characters sooner rather than later to ensure your readers have time to digest and understand.
Ask Yourself:
Who are the main players of the crossover and how will they be driving the plot?
What is the setting that the story will take place in and what are the main rules/facts the reader must be able to understand before the plot proceeds?
What is the main conflict and how should the characters immediately react?
Consistently Execute Your Move (Worldbuilding Connections)
To get better at the crossover move, you will have to practice this quite often. The same goes for writing a crossover. Simply starting off a story with a crossover of characters and leaving it there will not be enough. You will need to continue executing this practice to ensure the reasons behind the crossover remain consistent and develop plotwise and character wise to where you need them. Starting off the story on a strong note is important but adding worldbuilding and character development throughout the story will ensure a realism that can invest readers across fandoms, and bring levity to situations that might seem far-fetched or impossible at first glance. Realism is needed to prevent confusion, frustration, or disengagement from readers.
Ask Yourself:
What are some characteristics of the universes that I can add in this chapter(s)?
Why should the character(s) act this way based on what happens to the plot and is it realistic?
How will adding this worldbuilding or characterization element impact the established rules of the universes?
Abortion Rights: “Approved” Circumstances by Demand Only
When Roe v Wade was overruled yesterday on the heels of a major 2nd amendment decision, the message was sent loud and clear:
Your child/children must come into this world regardless of the circumstances, but no matter the circumstances, they will not demand these children are afforded the right to exist without worrying about being shot.
The right to carry guns with liberal, unbridled freedom, it seems, is more important than the basic tenants of ensuring a woman’s reproductive rights. School shootings will not stop anytime soon, but something that will is the ability to have safe and affordable opportunities, especially within minority and/or under-served communities. This is going to have a devastating effect on women who aren’t in the position to have a child but do not have any feasible or safe options to terminate.
This outcome is sadly not something that sprung out of nowhere, and not due to the ‘accidental’ leak a few weeks ago. With Trump’s election in 2016, the roots of this wretched plant began to grow and festered over the half-decade. It was often said that Roe v Wade was never in danger, that the risk level was impossible, that many of us were simply overreacting. And yet, here we are in 2022, facing something no citizens of any country frankly should be subjected to:
Your circumstances only matter if we legally demand it so. Because when vocal minorities, and in this case those who are anti-choice, are given the circumstances to allow their hateful and frankly myopic demands to become validated, thus the rights of those they seek to disenfranchise can be struck down, one vote at a time.
It’s certainly going to an uneasy path going forward, especially given that other important rulings are at risk due to a court of conservative, hypocritical old white men who prefer the ‘good old days,’ a vile woman who probably wishes the Handmaiden’s Tales was actually real, and one judge (Thomas) who has no qualms about his wife’s role in the insurrection. This includes contraception access and same-sex marriage and forthcoming rights, and perhaps interracial marriage, but Clarence Thomas would never allow the last one because that personally impacts him unlike ‘correcting the error’ of legal gay marriage.
Where the US goes from here is not certain, but one thing is - to counter those votes we lost, we must continue to punch our own and make our voices heard. Now more than ever, it is vital to vote in the midterms this fall to ensure we can continue the fight. Grassroots donations, volunteering, and protesting are all great actions we can take, but voting out those who wish to take our votes away will ensure we demand that those bigots no longer have the circumstances to take away our rights.
One of the elements I really appreciate about Twilight Princess is the shadow-looming atmosphere. Everything about Hyrule is darkened, cast amid literal shadows to reflect what is the reestablished crossing between the Twili and human realms, and consequential threat posed by Ganondorf’s sudden return.
Where it executes well from a narrative standpoint is using the shadow self as a motif to drive the plot and character development. The shadow self is often described as one’s memories, personality quirks, or even thoughts that we are unable to face, therefore, lurks in the shadows of our mind until we are forced to face it.
But in Twilight Princess the message is clear both literally and figuratively: conquer your shadow self, or it will conquer you.
We see this quite literally with Link’s transformation into a wolf. During this time, he is forced to work with Midna, the cursed former princess of the Twili, who needs his help for her personal reasons, Until Link is able to shift back into a human, he is faced with having to explore the sometimes darker sides of heroism, which includes being used as a part of someone else’s agenda, relying on physiological instincts instead of reason, and inability to see (sometimes literally) the light at the end of the tunnel. Its also a really great exercise for the player, as you will often stumble into darkness until Light Spirits are gathered.
While he does eventually regain his human form, Link’s turning point is perhaps during the encounter with the Hero’s Shade. Link is shown the regret lurking in the shadows should we not face the things that challenge us the most. The Hero’s Shade, in this case, is a literal representation of what can happen when we don’t face the shadows and linger in our regret. We remain stuck in them, perhaps even in the after life. And it is not until Link works with the Shade is the Hero finally able to rest in peace- the shadows were conquered because he was able to pass on the swordsmanship training that he regretfully was unable to before death.
Conquering of shadows is also evident with the thematic parallels between Midna and Zant, as the former is able to overcome her shadow self and the latter unfortunately succumbs to his own shadows. Both of them have ambition and desire, and want to remain in control. Midna and Zant also struggle with trusting others, but the difference is that Midna was forced to face her own shadows to overcome her fate, whereas Zant could not. Not all ambition and desire is bad, however, it best served when considering the best interests of all parties involved. Midna learned this but Zant refused to.
This is perhaps reflected in the fact he never takes off his mask and controls every aspect of his takeover, refusing to open up and be vulnerable. Zant remained in the shadows because forming trust was too difficult and feared doing so would cost him ambition and desire, and therefore took him down a tragic path of self-destruction.
His fate goes to show those who face their shadows will overcome whatever darkness lays ahead, and those who can’t? Well, they can never escape.
James Patterson and the Room of White Male Entitlement
James Patterson without a doubt is a very successful author when it comes to revenue and quantity of books. His plug and chug process appeals to mass-market fiction and will always have retail success; his works can be found on the best seller list. Quite easy to do when you have over 300 titles to your name. The odds, like being a cis white male, will always be in your favor.
Patterson actually began his career in the 1970s in advertising, where if you were not a straight, white male, well...you were not welcome into the ‘old boy’s club’ and remained outside the Room of White Male Entitlement.
The Room is a metaphor for the ways in which marginalized groups are ‘locked out’ of opportunities and face an inability to access the same opportunities and resources. However, the way to think about is that cis, white males who are given ‘keys’ by society can always enter the Room without questioning, obstacles, or any pushback whatsoever.
Fast forward to over fifty years later, Patterson is going on the record to state it is apparently very, very hard in these modern times for heterosexual/cis white guys to succeed, and perhaps are being shut out of the Room?
According to a recent Times of London (link to a WA Post response article here) interview with James, “just another form of racism. What’s that all about? Can you get a job? Yes. Is it harder? Yes. It’s even harder for older writers. You don’t meet many 52-year-old white males.”
You mean the demographic who makes up the majority of our CEOs, governmental leaders, industry gatekeepers, and dominate the wealth lists, maybe the fiction bestseller lists too James? The very same demographic who has created and upheld the Room of White Male Entitlement many of us cannot access?
In fact, James is a great example of those in lounging the Room not having to put in a lot of effort to attain success:
Patterson delivers exhaustive notes and outlines, sometimes running 80 pages, to co-authors, his printer regularly discharging collaborators’ efforts like lottery tickets. “The success rate when I write the outline is almost 100 percent. When other people do, it’s 50 to 60 percent,” he says.
Is it possible that white men aren’t the most deserving to enter this proverbial Entitlement room? That maybe a woman, BIPOC and/or LBGTQ+ people are more talented and perhaps getting the so-called opportunities over the cis white males that James is referencing is due to merit or talents? Of course, I think most of us can agree with that.
But for those of a similar background to James, admitting that would challenge the Keykeepers of White Male Entitlement, those ensuring that keys remain limited and hard to get for those who are not cis, white males. And if anyone does get in, comments like Patterson’s have an implied undertone of suggesting those of marginalized backgrounds aren’t getting in by merit but rather ‘a quota.’
Thus, challenging the status quo breaks the established rule keeping the Entitlement room locked from access: it is always the marginalized person’s fault for being locked outside. You were never invited inside because you weren’t qualified enough, and now you are being invited inside only out of diversity needs, not of merit.
Therefore, it is important to challenge these notions of Keykeeping, regardless of whether malicious intent or not, for these comments ensure that the Room remains locked and many of us remain outside the opportunities and merits we deserve. While I do see that James has issued a Twitter apology, and certainly don’t discount that ageism is a concern within publishing, its not the older cis white men who are getting shut out of opportunities.
Its those who remain outside the Room of White Male Entitlement.
I just finished Season 4, Part I of Stranger Things, and one of the standout elements of the series in the way in which it continues to capture the Stages of Grief through character development of the Hawkins kids. Below are thoughts on which characters mirror the stages of grief and how it forced them to grow.
Season One: Denial and Lucas
Most people understandably think of Joyce Byers when it comes to dealing with denial in season one, as the paranormal experiences she encounters lead to the discovery that Will’s disappearance in the Upside Down was covered up as a fake death.
Lucas, however, has a much more subtle development. He, like the audience, perhaps is in denial of the plausibility of not only Will’s existence but also Eleven’s powers. He is by far the most grounded of the kid’s group and Lucas is the friend who has a very solid understanding that Will is dead and as friends they need to move on. Lucas also rejects at first the notion of paranormal activity. He is constantly skeptical of whether any of their plans will work, distrusts having Eleven join their friend group, and accuses Eleven of being dishonest and purposely leading them astray. To him, friends do not lie and it is this denial of Eleven actually being truthful that keeps him from seeing the truth. But once he goes to the Hawkins laboratory and sees for himself what is going on, there is no more denial left within him. His arc is about overcoming the denial he faces in that sometimes situations will not make logical sense and by giving others a chance to share unexpected perspectives, he can grow through the limitations that denial of the unknown presents.
Season One: Anger and Mike
Mike’s thematic representation as the second stage of anger is much more obvious, as his anger over Eleven’s sacrifice to save him and his friends leads to a grief he doesn’t know how to appropriately handle.
Mike is shown to reflect upon his memories with Eleven, and gets to the point where he tries to connect with her via walkie talkie regardless of the implausibility. Although he is somewhat successful with contacting her, he is unable to come to terms with her ‘passing,’ and gets angry with his friends for trying to get him to move on without her. Mike also is shown in a flashback to show great anger towards the laboratory staff, refusing to cooperate and tell them anything about Eleven. He also expresses anger at Hopper for lying about Eleven being alive, and is abrasive towards Max. We see his anger start to be challenged once he recognizes Will needs his support and it is this driving force that makes him realize that friends may come and go but anger will never bring back those who are lost. Overcoming anger is key to his role in helping others.
Season Three: Bargaining and Will
Will truly drew the short straw given how traumatic his experiences were across the first two seasons. It is not surprising then that he represents the Bargaining stage, both in the sense of internalizing bargains and with others. It is now his time to try and reconcile his previous existence with his new one.
With growing up comes a similar bargaining. Will wants play Dungeons & Dragons with his friends, just like the old days. However, he is often rebuffed for foreign concepts such as girlfriends his friends suddenly find interest in. This is paralleled to his sensing of the Mind Flayer, personification of fears he cannot escape and is unable to directly address. A fight breaks out between him and Lucas and Mike over girls because of anxieties he will be left behind. This is mirrored in scenes depicting him as a third-wheel, thus leading to a bargaining of shame with himself. And the more he continues to bargain, does Will goes to more extreme measures to get his friends’ attention, sometimes to his detriment. By the end of this season, he learns to channel his intuitiveness to literally pick up on his own fears, and also the Mind Flayer, to help overcome his own worries and stop the dreaded creature.
Season Four: Depression and Max
The character development of Max in season 4 is nothing short of exceptional and is a great example of the Depression stage. Max’s struggles to deal with the complex emotions surrounding Billy’s death sets the stage for season 4 and drives the plot forward.
Complicated is a way describe her volatile relationship with Billy, especially given his sacrifice to save Max and her friends at the end of season 3. There is an underlying guilt about feeling relief over his death while simultaneously grieving what could have been. Max becomes emotionally withdrawn and isolates herself, including the decision to break up with Lucas. These complex feelings are taken advantage of by Vecna, whose teasing threats to kill her forces Max to write ‘goodbye letters’ that express those painful emotions she wasn’t able to convey. This leads her to visit Billy’s grave, where the confrontation between her and Vecna emphasizes the strength that comes from support and drawing upon one’s nspiration. In this case, it is Max’s friends and her favorite song ‘Running Up That Hill’ show her there is still much joy in life and it is that will to experience joy allowing her to escape Vecna.
Now, that leads us to the final Season Five. Who and what will this be about? I predict it is about Eleven and Acceptance. She herself has already gone through the previous stages of grief and should she wish to face the Mind Flayer head on, Eleven must fully accept herself.
Self-Acceptance in Majora’s Mask: Skull Kid and Vulnerability
"Let's play something else. Let's play good guys against bad guys. Are you ready? You're the bad guy. And when you're bad, you just run. That's fine, right?" - Lunar Child with Majora’s Mask
One of my favorite themes explored in Majora’s Mask is self-acceptance. Throughout the entire game, Skull Kid is literally and metaphorically running away in response to his fear and anger of being rejected. His choice to steal Majora’s Mask started as a simple reaction from feeling left behind by friends (Four Giants). Skull Kid believes he is undeserved of genuine connections and is totally fine to be alone, therefore, does things to push people away.
This decision manifests in the disaster of Termina facing a terrible fate of being destroyed by the moon in three days. And during this time does the Mask manipulate Skull Kid into making more bad decisions to validate his world view that he is unwanted and inherently bad. Because if he keeps running away and doing things that require/force him to be alone, he can never be hurt again nor worry about being vulnerable in friendships. And only bad people are alone.
However, when Link reunites with Skull Kid inside the moon’s imaginative and frankly bizarre field, he is subjected to a few games at the behest of Skull Kid, and also posed with some introspective philosophical questions. The last being the quote above, where Skull Kid is actually revealing his mindset and finally allowing himself to be vulnerable - that he struggles with believing he is inherently bad and therefore must run away from others to avoid being rejected.
Although on a surface level the quote is suggesting Link just needs to run while they play a final game, it actually is the Skull Kid questioning out loud if he is a bad guy and hoping that perhaps someone will listen to him and maybe be his friend. Because of Link does not run away and chooses to be friends despite all that transpired between them, perhaps Skull Kid is worthy of friendship and doesn’t have to be alone anymore, nor intentionally push people away.
And perhaps, he no longer has to run. From himself.
The Poppy War: A Well-Contrasted Story of the Impersonal versus Personal
“War doesn’t determine who’s right. War determines who remains.”
I want to start this post by saying how much I love ‘The Poppy War.’ RF Kuang not only wrote arguably the best fantasy book in 2018 but also how to effectively capture the strife and implications of real-life warfare and how its impersonal nature will always entail some level of personal implications.
The Poppy War is based upon the Second Sino-Japanese war, which was a one of the most bloody and costly wars within Chinese history. Kuang did not shy away from addressing the Rape of Nanjing, opium and drug use, as well as the ruthless consequences that come from war.
Her work is also a masterclass on using Narrative Contrasts, where one employs directly opposing narrative decisions/strategies to establish strong character building while increasing reader investment.
Where Kuang really shines is in her contrast of personal prose versus impersonal action. The juxtaposition of such heartfelt and engaging prose against a very grimdark and downright uncomfortable at times plot really shows the power of narrative and authorial intent. That is, the use of a character’s inner thoughts, can be powerful in the right hands. And in this case, you are in good hands with Kuang. By using narrative monologues that show Rin’s most inner thoughts such as “No—they couldn’t just do this to her...but she didn’t have to lie down and take it. She had come from nothing. She wasn’t going back to nothing,” really speaks to the vulnerability many feel when it comes to failure, and the worries we will fall back to square one. We too, like Rin, may have to keep fighting failure and the fear it drives until we succeed. I also want to call out “Everywhere she traveled, everywhere she escaped to, she was just a war orphan who was not supposed to be there. She felt so terribly alone,” because while most of are not war orphans, the feeling of otherness and the loneliness it brings is something many of us will face at some point and adds layers of complexity to Rin’s character. These personal anecdotes also serve a purpose of humanizing Rin and understanding her actions, whether right or wrong, stem from a need of self-preservation from a world often rejecting her very existence.
Secondly, there is also a thematic character development contrast of ‘Likable-Unlikable Protagonist’ that Kuang is able to effectively execute with Rin, the book’s main character. She faces an existence deemed inferior due to her skin tone, gender, and socioeconomic status, and is reminded of this throughout the book; this makes her struggle quite sympathetic and during the Sinegary military academy chapters, you can’t help but root for her. And yet, Rin engages in what one would consider to be morally questionable actions, ranging from stealing opium to committing genocide against the Mugenese, With the combination of Kuang’s personal narrative and unsettling backdrop, Rin comes across as humanized and in some aspects relatable. It makes you wonder that if you were Rin, would you make the same choices. The character development is also gradual, so while you may not agree with Rin’s decisions, they are understandable. Kuang does this by first shifting thoughts at the beginning of the War when unable to control her powers (wanting the Mugenese general to suffer), to gradually taking action in warface (becoming more ruthless as the War goes on in response to her people’s plight), and choosing her path (committing genocide against the Mugenese in revenge).
Finally, her work also is a solid example of allowing female characters to challenge what is the ‘archetype acceptability paradox.’ This paradox is where the more embedded into societal norms a character is, the greater you can expand their narrative to challenge such ideals without compromising strong character development. Rin’s development in Poppy War is not dictated by romantic relationships nor the male gaze, in fact, her decision to eschew an arranged marriage is the catalyst for her entry into the military academy and escape the abusive environment that her society deems ‘ideal.’ Her solution to painful periods getting the way of her studies? Getting rid of her uterus. While it could be perceived as anti-feminist given the graphic nature, I find it can also can serve as symbolically rejecting the societal notion that woman were to remain home and raise children; she made the choice to remove her uterus, and a choice to reject society’s imposed childbirth role. Rin is shown to go out of her way to challenge what women were thought capable of, and is viewed as the more ruthless one compared to her commander, Altan. In addition, the contrast of her upbringing versus what she must become sets a needed example that women do not have to shy away from facing the darkness male leads must face in warfare. And woman, if they choose, should be allowed to succumb to a darkness often blockaded from access within literature.
OFMD - Use of Thematic Elements That Challenge Toxic Masculinity
I recently finished Our Flag Means Death, and while there are a plethora of things that I could highlight from the writing perspective that are positive, what really stands out is OFMD’s constant, subtle ways in which it challenges toxic masculinity and as byproduct, what it means to be a man.
What made OFMD stand out to me was the manner in which it subtly challenged toxic masculinity by using strong narrative techniques interwoven into the plot and character development. Below are four main execution examples of how the writers did this - casting, character development, scenery dialogue, and limiting the heteronormative lens.
Diversity in Representation - Through Casting Choices
There is diversity in body types and racial representation within the OFMD crew, and not those that simply meet the ‘ideal man’ that we often see in fantasy pirate shows. Many of the cast is queer and deviates from said ideal man. For example, men with larger body weight and/or softness to their bodies are not used for laughs and are allowed to have meaningful roles and relationships, such as Oluwande, a larger-sized black man who has blossoming relationship with Jim, and is seen as a competent, loyal crew member who is capable of handling any situation you throw at them.
We also see this in the queer identification of many characters, going beyond black and white definitions of either you are straight or not. Jim, who uses they/them pronouns in the show, is a great non-binary representation since they don’t fall into the typical stereotypes in media regarding non-binary people, instead is a dynamic character who is not defined their sexuality and grows in their development in their quest for revenge. Jim starts to unravel their desire for revenge as their initial desire to kill wanes over the season as they open up and show vulnerability to others.
By the way, the crew’s queerness is also historically accurate. Pirates were actually quite queer and a lot of understanding has been skewed since most shows with a pirate cast or theme are casted very heteronormative and able-bodied (Ed btw is not able-bodied, he has a mobility aid - a knee brace).
Promotion of Vulnerability - Through Character Development
Vulnerability, and the willingness to allow male characters to exhibit such is done well. In OFMD, men are not chastised or seen as weak by demonstrating any sort of vulnerable emotions. This is not the case with the crew members, as they themselves despite the risk and violence in their profession, do not look down upon vulnerability. Lucius and Black Pete’s relationship is a great example of finding calm within each other to let go of ‘revenge’ and ‘anger.’
You can think of their ship as a metaphor for escaping toxic masculinity and delving into uncharted waters of what a society could like without the shackles of toxic masculinity anchoring us down at the dock. All of these crewmembers challenge this through their development, but none is more compelling than Stede. He literally is living that story and finding himself through a lens that is not smudged by toxic masculinity.
Stede leaves behind a normal life of a wife and children that a proper gentleman should have, which includes the normalization of violence we still see today. He mentions having a “mental devastation” of witnessing violence as the primer that welcomes him to the show. But his character arc and relationship with Ed and the crew shows how mental health and challenging notions of who we ‘should be’ demonstrates that is okay to not fit the ‘norms’ of how men should behave, and also that we should challenge this notion of finding violence to be glorified. It is okay for men to feel worry, to open up about sensitive topics, and certainly cry.
Acceptance of Others - Through Scenery Dialogue
Acceptance of others is a huge thematic arc in OFMD. Shutting down homophobia, as an example often perpetuated by toxic masculinity, is treated as we should strive for. Blackbeard’s first mate Izzy Hands found his bigotry and bullying denounced. Right away, the tone is set that homophobia is not only unacceptable, but also should be rightful denounced, especially those that are rooted in toxic masculinity. Izzy is stripped of his duties to demonstrate how important it is reject such notions.
All of the pirates are accepted without question. You see this through the specific dialogue between characters, including their traumas. “If someone returns from the raid mentally devastated, we talk it through as a crew,” is a rhyme spoken by Stede but speaks to the importance of the group being able to open up to each other. There is also the acceptance of belonging, such as Ed not feeling worthy of wearing a fancy handkerchief, to which Stede responds with “Look at that. You wear fine things well.”
Another example is the challenge in finding acceptance, even within ourselves. Ed’s comment regarding “Blackbeard always wins - that’s the thing, he can’t fail. Its not even a challenge anymore,” isn’t just a boredom with life, but rather hints at the face he’s just treading water and needs a new start, which requires self-acceptance he hasn’t quite addressed. There is also a wonderful comment that Spanish Jackie makes: “All The Revenge, And Rage, And Anger, It Ages You,” which really gets through to Jim and also speaks to a development about herself. It is these small moments in the dialogue that speak to this theme.
Rejecting the Heteronormative Lens - Through Camera Focus
Finally what I found refreshing about the growing relationships between characters is that their development was not rooted in hypersexualization like unfortunately a good number of MLM relationships are. You can spot this problem in both written and video mediums by comparing this kind of relationship to heterosexual ones - queer-based relationships often focus primarily on the fact they are having sex, and are treated as a spot on the pseudowoke bingo. And when characters engage in sex, it is not treated as shocking, scandalous, or sinful, the three woes of non-heterosexual relationships.
The standout element of OFMD relationships is that the emotional aspects of the relationships are built upon prior to the physical, taking away a lens that would limit the impact it has on viewers who can relate. When a queer relationship is under the hetereonormative lens, the consequences are that the relationship is portrayed under the guise of either comedy, gratification, or derision from toxic masculinity. Instead, we find Oluwande and Jim are hoping to overcome mental barriers closing off their hearts, Stede and Ed have a mutual need for acceptance and change, and Black Pete and Lucius need someone to simply understand.
How OFMD challenges the heteronormative lens is by using a camera focus that focuses on details of care and affection unrelated to sexuality. An example is the camera panning in on the hands of Ed and Stede during pivotal moments, specifically, their slow but growing desire for physical affection and allowing themselves growing intimacy. Little things such as Ed grabbing Stede’s hand when the latter is covering in the bed from injury, Stede using his hands to set Ed’s handkerchief in a pocket, and the constant affections of hands when they kiss (this is really evident with facial touches). Hands, in this case, represent the vulnerability of reaching out and the vulnerability of accepting.
The Three Whats of Chemistry and Romantic Development
When it comes to developing chemistry and romantic development in your novel, there are Three What (should) questions you ask before beginning to write the story:
What should the characters learn and overcome or not perhaps not learn and overcome as a part of their growing dynamic?
What should the pace of their progression be - fast, slow-burn, a what-if, never takes off, etc, between the characters?
What should the outcome be for their chemistry and/or romantic development?
When thinking about the Three Whats, consider complexity, development, and execution.
The more complex of a relationship you want to build, the more development is needed within the text to ‘sell’ your chemistry. Remember, nothing is more jarring than a coupling/poly grouping where everyone is enmeshed within each other immediately despite the lack of reasons to have emotional connectivity and investment with each others.
If you are writing a one-off/one book, good development should culminate in a decision of said partnership/conclusion; if over a series, ideally the culmination can wait until book 2-3.
By mid-part of the book is ideally where any shift in romantic feelings should reach a turning point - how should their partnership stand at the end of the book.
Note - this does not mean physical affection cannot be obtained immediately. What this does suggest, however is making sure the emotional development between the characters continues to grow
Define how the respective relationship will develop and what particular lessons should each learn from each other? What are the things that draw them together and where are the areas that you anticipate they will struggle with? Ultimately, there should be a purpose behind the partnership and where your partners need to end up because of said partnership.
Any event can spark their first interaction. The ‘meeting’ the first time will dictate how to develop their chemistry and what the plotting should be over time.
Should match each character’s arc so their development is realistic and forces them to grow (you can decide if its good or bad growth). For example, if a character needs to develop the ability to trust others, their romantic interest(s) should address this theme as the story develops.
Determine the event in the plot that will ‘define’ the outcome. Usually this is around 3/4 at the end the novel and confirms the future direction. This can be a confirmation, decline, or progression of a relationship.
Finally, one of the most important elements in fiction writing is executing your narrative voice. This is particularly important when writing a novel that contains numerous romantic connections or partnerships. Have you ever read a book where the relationships ‘sound the same?’ That is because there is no distinct voice behind them and shows a lack of execution.
Start simple by using different tones between your romantic developments. Examples include using sarcasm or humor, proper and polite language, or even awkwardness or shyness. You will want to use a different tone for each development to diversify the messages.
Making ‘interaction quirks’ and building on them- such as names they call each other, activities they enjoy, or even body language cues, adds dynamic value to the relationships. The more these quirks stand out, the more memorable the relationship(s) will be.
Keep a consistent pace while sharing the voice. For example, if a relationship should be a slow burn, a common mistake is having them get together too soon. Likewise a hot and cold relationship should not have stability. Any ‘showing’ that contradicts your ‘telling’ decreases the power of your narrative voice.
Human Rights are Optional Inside the Absolutism Tunnel
**Note - I made some edits from the original post months ago, however, the ongoing situation is escalating into disturbing levels and thus some of the fluff was cut out to expand upon the real-world implications**
The Absolutism Tunnel is whereby one’s perspective in the world is so limited, that anyone standing outside the tunnel is subjected to absolutisms. In real world terms: if you do not fit the tunnel’s requirements, you are not only denied entry, but more important, are further marginalized and harmed by the tunnel’s rules.
This is often reflected JK Rowling's moral absolutism of individuality within her literary works, wherein if the person she thinks is good and deserving wins in the end. And regardless of the greatest evil being vanquished, under no circumstances can we challenge the system and therefore expand the Tunnel. The worldview is static and anything that dare challenges it is not allowed inside.
You see this same absolutist mindset in someone like Elon Musk, where his actions are supposedly in aim for the ‘greater good,’ except his black and white thinking is no different in Rowling’s in that if something or someone doesn’t fit their specific worldview, it is deemed as ‘not good.’ They are both also a very dangerous example of what happens when we seek to define moral goodness with wealth.
Wealth does not make one’s value greater than others, but sadly, their influence is largely magnified as a capitalistic world deems them champions of a frankly immoral and flawed system. And when these voices are absolutist in nature, thus does it perpetuate a cycle where the harmed groups are silenced through clout and ‘credibility’ gained by one’s perceived status of ‘goodness.’
Therefore, below the cut is a case analysis on absolutist thinking and oppression of rights, and how this applies to Rowling and her literary works.
Back to Rowling, the absolute thought process is evident within her works and particularly of note Harry Potter, such as Hermoine’s challenge to stop elf slavery is deemed over-reactionary and that the elves like being enslaved and although namecalling is bad, the prejudicial system mudbloods and half-bloods face is never challenged. The bad guy is killed, therefore, we should move on and be happy, regardless of the limitations that leave many outside the Tunnel.
Harry himself becomes of a part of the flawed wizarding police and doesn’t sadly have any forethought or reflection of how the corruption leads to many ills in the wizarding society. In short, its okay to kill the bad guy, but don’t you dare think of challenging the system.
Upon further examination, we also see this restrictive worldview in the manner Rowling approaches women in the text. Women in Harry Potter who are full figured are not usually characterized positively, women who are ‘girly’ are also slanted as shallow and dumb, women she notes as ugly are given ‘mannish features,’ and women who are not cis? Well, unfortunately they do not exist, as the sheer effort of making Albus Dumbledore gay off screen is apparently enough to demonstrate her allyship as a fervent supporter of LGBTQ rights.
This is also a woman who has yet to have a main female protagonist despite the fervent dedication to feminism. I guess having your main character always be a straight white male (on the conservative side).
But sadly, we do see hateful rhetoric in the current twitterverse commentary that Rowling either tweets herself or retweets from others best defined as Gender Critical allies insulating from any challenge or critical analysis. Additionally, upon further inspection, the facts presented either do not stand once examined or are cherrypicked to demonstrate one instance is a mirror of an entire situation fitting her agency. This sort of logic bending is used to protect an absolute line of thinking in what and how a woman should be. Of note is the absolutisms that Rowling’s viewpoints often impose onto trans women (and in some manners trans men and transbinary individuals) and further challenging their rights in the guise of ‘protecting women’s rights.’
The Tunnel, therefore, is clearly established:
That the definition of a women is dictated by having a period, that gender-restrictive bathroom laws are necessary to protect from ‘men dressing as women,’ that progressiveness of trans rights may falsely lead to erasing women, and that if we don’t heed the ‘message’ around the definition of sex, our rights as women will be stripped to name a few.
Rowling tweeted on June 18th, 2020, that she would march with you if one was being discriminated on the basis of being trans. But it comes with a caveat - only if you don’t challenge her Tunnel. That is the difference between those who are truly allies and are not - the former look to expand the Tunnels and break apart its Absolutisms, not uphold them.
And the more entrenched will they shout louder, ignore feedback, seek to silence the opposition, and refuse to grow. When your actions are bound by one’s ego, unfortunately, those unable to seek introspection and perspective will become lost in the ego’s manipulations. In their mind, they are the victim and those they impose their Absolutisms upon are clearly wrong, and if we just ‘listen,’ we’ll eventually get it and praise them as a ‘hero.’
Then, because of this inability to seek introspection nor perspective, you will find the person becomes more and more dependent on proving their point, eventually getting to the point where they will use the filmiest of arguments to prove they are still ‘right.’ There is no fabricated reality where this person is wrong because everything and anything and anyone that fits their narrative will be used to validate their worldview. Meanwhile the true reality around them will continue to crumble into nothing - ask Graham Linehan about that one.
And thus, the Tunnel gets narrower and narrower and narrower....until one is just left with their ego, alone. That is the difference between those who have empathy and those who do not and pretend themselves to be- the former seeks to understand and will grow from their experiences, the latter will not.
Always seek to challenge the Absolutism Tunnel - the more we work to expand it, thus will our ability become stronger to ensure human rights are achieved for all.
