I have realised that I will not get my copy of TABINIOF for a couple of weeks. It may have officially been shipped out, but living in Japan I'm not getting my book until the 23rd. This makes me sad. This also means I'm going to have to completely avoid tumblr to preserve my reading experience. I can do that. I'm capable of a day or 10 away from tumblr, right? RIGHT?! *uncontrolled sobbing*
There’s something so strangely satisfying about blocking a user who’s being a douchenozzle in one of the tags you follow. It’s like pulling off a plaster.
That last gif for me holds the weight of so much. It's the eyes close in bliss/nostalgia/grief after he takes that briefest of sips.
It's more than just the first time he's had a drink in years, it's the first time that he has had that taste in his mouth. The taste is more than just good scotch, it's a taste of the first time in his adult life that he felt close to peace. It was a taste of feeling close to safe. It was a taste of feeling that he was not alone. A taste of a greater purpose and a taste of that desperate longing to be with someone; to play chess and talk about philosophy and feel something, anything, other than righteous anger. It was a taste of the man who was so close, too close and yet just far enough away for Erik to always know the peace he missed.
His closed eyes are more than just satisfaction and enjoyment. They are the intense pain of a moment too far gone. He has to close his eyes to hold back any other emotion. He trained himself, he would not feel it again.
Okay, okay, I’m going to tell you what Hermione sees in Ron.
A trio is a balancing act, right? They’re equalizers of each other. Harry’s like the action, Hermione’s the brains, Ron’s the heart. Hermione has been assassinated in these movies, and I mean that genuinely—by giving her every single positive character trait that Ron has, they have assassinated her character in the movies. She’s been harmed by being made to be less human, because everything good Ron has, she’s been given.
So, for instance: “If you want to kill Harry, you’re going to have to kill me too”—RON, leg is broken, he’s in pain, gets up and stands in front of Harry and says this. Who gets that line in the movie? Hermione.
“Fear of a name increases the fear of the thing itself.” Hermione doesn’t say Voldemort’s name until well into the books—that’s Dumbledore’s line. When does Hermione say it in the movies? Beginning of Movie 2.
When the Devil’s Snare is curling itself around everybody, Hermione panics, and Ron is the one who keeps his head and says “Are you a witch or not?” In the movie, everybody else panics and Hermione keeps her head and does the biggest, brightest flare of sunlight spell there ever was.
So, Hermione—all her flaws were shaved away in the films. And that sounds like you’re making a kick-ass, amazing character, and what you’re doing is dehumanizing her. And it pisses me off. It really does.
In the books, they balance each other out, because where Hermione gets frazzled and maybe her rationality overtakes some of her instinct, Ron has that to back it up; Ron has a kind of emotional grounding that can keep Hermione’s hyper-rationalness in check. Sometimes Hermione’s super-logical nature grates Harry and bothers him, and isn’t the thing he needs even if it’s the right thing, like when she says “You have a saving people thing.” That is the thing that Harry needed to hear, she’s a hundred percent right, but the way she does it is wrong. That’s the classic “she’s super logical, she’s super brilliant, but she doesn’t know how to handle people emotionally,” at least Harry.
So in the books they are this balanced group, and in the movies, in the movies—hell, not even Harry is good enough for Hermione in the movies. No one’s good enough for Hermione in the movies—God isn’t good enough for Hermione in the movies! Hermione is everybody’s everything in the movies.
Harry’s idea to jump on the dragon in the books, who gets it in the movies? Hermione, who hates to fly. Hermione, who overcomes her withering fear of flying to take over Harry’s big idea to get out of the—like, why does Hermione get all these moments?
[John: Because we need to market the movie to girls.]
I think girls like the books, period. And like the Hermione in the books, and like the Hermione in the books just fine before Hollywood made her idealized and perfect. And if they would have trusted that, they would have been just fine.
Would the movies have been bad if she was as awesome as she was in the books, and as human as she was in the books? Would the movies get worse?
She IS a strong girl character. This is the thing that pisses me off. They are equating “strong” with superhuman. To me, the Hermione in the book is twelve times stronger than the completely unreachable ideal of Hermione in the movies. Give me the Hermione in the book who’s human and has flaws any single day of the week.
Here’s a classic example: When Snape in the first book yells at Hermione for being an insufferable know-it-all, do you want to know what Ron says in the book? “Well, you’re asking the questions, and she has to answer. Why ask if you don’t want to be told?” What does he say in the movie? “He’s got a point, you know.” Ron? Would never do that. Would NEVER do that, even before he liked Hermione. Ron would never do that.
Melissa Anelli THROWS IT DOWN about the way Ron and Hermione have been adapted in the movies on the latest episode of PotterCast. Listen here. This glorious rant starts at about 49:00. (via atouchofdestiny)
I usual watch a video or something during my after run stretching, however today I couldn't be bother deciding what to watch. What I discovered, much to my horror, was that when I wasn't paying attention to a computer screen I have time to look at my floor. From up close.
Never do that. The images will haunt you for weeks.
I am now debating how long I can procrastinate on the whole hoovering thing before my floor actually starts to cause me ill health. Cleaning is definitely not my thing.
Sometimes I really want to join a convent. But like an atheist one. Basically a life of growing veg and daily meditating, but with other people. And not cult-y.
I'm looking for a gender neutral word to address one's parent, does anyone have one? I'm writing a story. I'm thinking 'Parr', but anyone else know any better terms or/and official one that replaces Mum and Dad. In the same way you might say, "mum, have you seen my homework?" Etc.
I have been having a few concerns about how tumblr views diversity. I will be rambling, and I will probably not come up with a coherent conclusion, so forgive me, this ended up being really unfocused.
Whilst tag surfing I've seen some discussions from people concerned that, despite the agreement that the show does much for positive representation of sexuality groups and women and the relative realism of a mono-cultureal rural town in England (where typically upwards of 80% and sometime even 90% are white british), that In The Flesh does not go far enough to show POC.
My concern is not based on that conversation. It is a good discussion to have about equal representation, and you will not find me adding to it. My problem has just been highlighted by watching people discuss the topic.
My problem is the use of the phrase POC. Person of Colour.
Something about it strikes me as wrong, as problematic when discussing the issue of diversity and diverse representation.
Basically I see the phrase POC too much of a sweeping statement. When you talk about POC representation, are you talking about a racial representation, or a religious representation, or an ethnic representation, none of these or all of these?
When you say you want black characters what do you mean? Do you mean you want African American representation, or Jamaican, or Nigerian?
Because these groups are not happy bedfellows often, there are long and complicated histories between them which should be considered carefully before you throw them together.
You wouldn't turn to a Pakistani Muslim person, point at a Shinto Japanese character on TV and say; there, your people are now shown and represented in a fair and equal way, but using the phrase POC suggests that showing someone other than a white character being represented is the only important thing.
You're not going to represent every religious, racial and ethnic group on a singular show. You're going to have too many characters! But also don't mistake a show not only showing white people being the same as being diverse.
I live in Japan, teaching at an international school, and in that school I teach a large range of students from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. But living in Japan it's hard to ignore the subtle ways that Japan is a very mono-cultural society. There is an underlying racism and curiosity towards people who are not Japanese. I have students who are known in their neighbourhoods as 'hafu'. Half. Half a person. Only half Japanese. Only half valuable.
And I cannot tell you how terrifying it is to walk past a 'Japan for the Japanese' rally.
But I do not see people complaining at Japanese shows for not having a diverse character basis, because it's 'realistic' that Japan would show Japanese characters, but in the In The Flesh discussions, when people have argued, that a town like Roarton would be mostly white british, people are, sensibly, arguing that TV is a place to transcend the reality and push for equal representation anyway.
But when do you see Japanese shows with Korean characters, or African-Japanese characters? Because trust me, those people exist in Japan. People on tumblr don't seem to kick up a fuss because the main characters are not white.
My argument, in so much that I'm arguing anything, is that we should transcend reality if we want to, but don't be so sweeping as to tell people they are fairly represented because a singular show or group of shows set in a predominantly white country has a character who is not white. We should try and hold all shows up, to show a range of peoples who have not just been lumped into one category.
In range we start to represent the diversity of the real world.
And I feel that it is a genuine diversity that we should be looking for when talking about representation, not focusing on whether a character is "White" or "Not-White" because when you say POC, that's what you're essentially saying. You should be focused on how those characters are represented honestly and sensitively, not just on whether they're represented full stop.
In order to truthfully represent diversely, media needs to resist turning diverse representation into a points system where it doesn't matter if a character is a caricature of xir 'group', only that they are shown. If our only stipulation to enjoy a show is that it has a 'POC', then we lose the sensitivities and the intricacies of true representation.
That being said, I don't think it's something that people should stop discussing and stop asking for POC, because diverse representation of all peoples, genders, races, religions, sexualities and ages is amazingly important in a diverse world. Just perhaps don't focus on POC being the only important thing about a character. Ask for representation, not just presence.
Now I'm getting AU feels, like Jethro was really Merlin, but he's long forgotten who he really is, but somehow like a changeling he's always able to fit into a family using that raw magic, and Arthur is reincarnated across worlds, and the first doctor looked like Arthur as a young man, and Merlin and Arthur finally meet but neither of the have a clue who the other is because it's been to long. And by the time the doctor/Arthur realises it's been too long. You can never go back. You must keep running.
jbbartram-illu
dededos
yousharknotpass
janainaart
kaledo-art
stormborns
