Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 25 2017

9471 9db9 500
9474 a875 500

the-infamous-mister-gates:

Serendipity saying it how it is

(Dogma, 1999)

9476 3135 500

thinkpositive2:

The measure of a man’s real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out. 👉 @howtothinkpositive #life #happy #quotes #inspiration

anomolousarcanum:

Multidimensional awareness.

fieryartemispublications:

agendershittyknight:

When my son turned 10 he started talking about wanting to learn to code

I hope tumblr also decides this now that it has turned 10

911 I’d like to report a murder

nederys:

marauders4evr:

I’ve spent years making post after post trying to pinpoint the exact thing that Daniel Handler (Lemony Snicket) did differently than J.K. Rowling, which caused him to somehow turn Olaf into an amazing villain while Snape is still causing hatred and controversy in the fandom a decade later.

And after mentioning something in passing in another post, it suddenly hit me what that difference was.

J.K. Rowling approached her character with the mentality that a person can be redeemed if its revealed that they could have been a good person but circumstance and tragedy got in the way. She sees the fact that you could be forced into being a horrible person as a huge tragedy and tries to emphasize what could have been. She doesn’t just do it with Snape (Dumbledore’s another great contender) but Snape’s arguably her biggest victim when it comes to this. She shows you what his life was like and lets you know what could have been if only this had changed or that had changed. And she does so in a way that makes you feel sympathetic towards Snape, enough so that you’re supposed to totally agree with Harry when he names his child after him. Because sure he wasn’t that great but he could have been had the situation been different.

And Daniel Handler begins doing the same thing with Olaf. After books upon books of building him up to be this evil guy, he abruptly releases one of the most tragic backstories in villain history, making you realize that Olaf‘s life could have been a lot different had he not been forced into certain situations due to tragedy and circumstance. And like Rowling, Handler also presents this as something that’s tragic. But here’s where he differs. 

Because Rowling’s stance is: “This character could have been this instead and can you imagine how wonderful that would have been, had it not been for these circumstances?”

Whereas Handler’s stance is, “Well yeah, this is what the character could have been but this is what he ended up becoming and like it or not, this is who he is and this is who he’ll be remembered for.”

Rowling wants you to know that doing horrible things doesn’t make you a horrible person because there could be a rhyme or reason to your actions. A solid grey morality.

Handler wants you to know that doing horrible things does make you a horrible person because no matter what the motif is, you’re still doing horrible things and will be remembered for said horrible things.

Which is infinitely more tragic, infinitely more morally ambiguous, and infinitely more interesting.

J.K. Rowling tried to redeem Snape.

But Handler? Handler managed to redeem Olaf and not redeem him at the same time. Handler made his backstory tragic and he showed the reader exactly how things could have ended up, causing you to sympathize with the villain. But he also showed the reader exactly how things did end up, reminding you that no matter what could have been, it’s not what happened; instead we have this evil man who has done horrible things that are far too heinous to take back, no matter how much he may want to.

And while Rowling and many other YA authors took the approach that it’s never too late to redeem yourself and become the good person you should have been all along, Handler straight up took the, “Nope, for some people it’s far too late and no matter how much they may want to redeem themselves, they never will and they’ll have to die knowing that they are hated.”

And I don’t care how much you love Harry Potter, Handler’s approach to this character and the overall bleak philosophy and moral implications is on a whole other level of writing! I think the only other piece of fiction I’ve ever seen that approaches this philosophy of un-redemption is Bojack Horseman and you can still argue that Handler does it better because he’s able to scale it down so that kids can understand it, even if they don’t want to.

And yet, at the end of the day, Handler’s entire philsophy of how you might not be able to redeem yourself can really be summarized in one gif:

That’s bull though. It’s the same ableist and reductionist vision of trauma that permeates every social justice-ridden space. It’s based on a fundamental discomfort that it can’t split people neatly into the unambiguous abusers or unambiguous victims; and survivors especifically in good or bad ones, according to whether their coping mechanisms turn out to be adaptive or not.

I wish people in fandom knew how to apply “cool motive, still murder” more to their own heroes and less to the anti-heroes and villains. Virtually all of the woobifying discourse around villains is actually a phantasm of purity wank. I’ve asked so much times for receipts and never gotten proof that villain fans are claiming that they’re heroes or that their wrongdoings justify anything. That they’re righteous. It’s the opposite; people take a feast to pour their vitriol, hate and pettiness on the wretched because they think they aren’t reprehensible.

This OP shows that pettiness from the start of the post with Harry’s son. As someone in the replies said, if you’re interested in important differences, try to differentiate Voldemort from Snape, and not box Snape as redeemed or unredeemed - a question nobody needs to answer for anybody else. Homage through naming isn’t beatification. The faulty reasoning leads up to an eventual non-comparison, as if it answered a deep question they hadn’t just asked themselves for obvious reasons. It’s a rationalization. If a person who is narratively in the path to be terrible ends up doing good and kind things, it becomes difficult to call them a “monster”. It becomes uncomfortable that people would point it out, engage or be interested by it. That’s when it suddenly becomes an “endorsement” or “dangerous portrayal” of “redemption”.

How about this: some characters who do bad shit do more bad shit, some also do good shit. Snape’s character is just fine. He makes sense in its work and universe and has good and bad qualities, as a human being. Stop looking for excuses to hate him or at least be straight about it and hate all the bullies in HP, without counterfactuals (like James Potter) all the same. 

Or I mean, have your irrational preferences, but don’t dress up either with sanctimony or sophistry. It’s so disingenuous. And it’s absolutely nothing revolutionary to have a character born, live and die seen as an evil-doer, that’s like every dehumanizing portrayal of NPD, ASPD, DID, psychosis, etc, used to make your fave look heroic and of “virtuous character”. Yet more of that good ole’ fandom ableism for the mental illnesses nobody cares for.

sarcasticcollegestudent:

writing-prompt-s:

You are suddenly able to see numbers above people’s heads which are counting down and you have no idea why. One person you meet reaches 0 and…

They sneeze. it then resets.

phisobi:

smeasel:

targuzzler:

what if mayonnaise came in cans

that would suck because you can’t microwave metal…

good morning to everyone except these two people

9484 b411 500

m4mbore:

“Believe.”

themyscrian:

i cant believe the most peaceful, healthy, loving relationship in American Gods so far has been between two blatantly Muslim men, who spoke in Arabic to each other, and not one minute of it was portrayed as threatening, suspicious, or uncertain.
i cant believe i got to watch a long, graphic gay sex scene between two Muslim men of colour, and it wasn’t treated as perverse, dirty, or shameful.
i cant believe both actors have been blatantly supportive of their roles on twitter, feeding into fan hype for an Actual Canonical Gay Couple and not just baiting for views

i can’t believe we got so fucking lucky with this show.
this shit is so important to me.

9494 8675
9500 a27d 500

June 24 2017

9505 ae00 500

livingflame:

Ruins of Ahn'Qiraj, Silithus, Kalimdor, 2006

9512 c4b9 500

langernameohnebedeutung:

“If politics were an episode of a daily-soap:”

“Martin wants Angela’s job no matter what, but she’s still pulling all the strings. What they both don’t know: The mysterious Russian Vladimir has a dangerous plan. Meanwhile Donald is scheming and fires his colleague James. Emmanuel has other problems: He’s in love with a much older woman. Will it work? And what is evil Beatrix planning next?”
9515 d6ed 500

June 23 2017

ilcastro:

stardustandswirls:

me to the demon in the corner of my room: ain’t u got shit to do

Demon to me: I could ask you the same thing

acesirius:

acesirius:

acesirius:

acesirius:

i love when ur writing an essay and u all of a sudden get a burst of inspiration or find the perfect source to back up ur point and it’s like the clouds have parted and everything’s clear and ur not gonna have to drop out

never mind everything sucks essay writing is horrible i have no clue what im doing im gonna drop out and become a street performer

NEVER MIND IM THE KING OF ACADEMIA IM GONNA GET 100% IM GONNA FINISH ON TIME AND HAVE A WELL STRUCTURED ARGUMENT AND IT’S GONNA BE AWESOME

never mind.

Tweeted

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl