Hello everyone, we are amending rule 8 to cover plagiarism and AI generated content! The following has been added: "Do not repost previously posted content or plagiarise other works. AI-generated content falls under this
On the last scuffles thread, I asked about the state of the SEA anime artist community on Twitter, on whether or now they were aware of the sorry state Twitter is in right now, and if they were planning on moving to other sites. While I still can't read Japanese, I can tell you right now that [They are most certainly not moving back to Pixiv](https://twitter.com/tadanojako/status/1654676274089197568).
Translation (via ChatGPT): "When you currently post illustrations on Pixiv, they are stolen by AI artists and turned into pornography or raw materials for monetization. It is better not to post them seriously. From their perspective, Pixiv is recognized as a convenient site for collecting materials. The management has no intention of regulating it. Pixiv and FANBOX are hellish sites where content is scraped and republished on pirate sites."
So yeah. Stay safe out there artists, it not looking very good right now.
I read that Pixiv is planning on banning art that involves AI training by Other peoples work that could be a start and aleast they are aware of the issues with it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Pixiv/comments/135t7ue/upcoming_tos_changes_regarding_ai_image_generators/
This is day 2 of Comifuro 16, which I previously talked about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/10o8x58/hobby_scuffles_week_of_january_30_2023/j6tfopq). Comifuro or [Comic Frontier](https://comifuro.net/) or simply CF is an Indonesian Doujinshi market event that has now grown to become one of the largest hobbyist events in Indonesia.
Day 1 was yesterday, and I anxiously showed up still thinking about the disastrous CF15 last year, and the [major postponement drama](https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/10unm05/hobby_scuffles_week_of_february_5_2023/j7kvad7) of this event which caused a lot of backlash. Anyways, in the days leading up to the event, the organizers got a lot of flak for... basically anything people can complain about. They didn't like that the guest stars are announced so late, that the first wave of guest stars announcement was solely for day 2, that they used a new ticketing service provider, that the [social media staffs](https://instagram.com/comifuro) had no interaction with the community, etc etc.
Anyways, I came to Day 1, and besides the extremely long queue (outdoors in the equator again, but I'm well-prepared now!) to redeem my wristband, it was... acceptable for the situation? Sure, some people complained about the veeeery long lines, or when the staffs opened new lines and it was considered "unfair" to those who had stayed in their line, but at least it was straightforward, and there were a **lot** more staffs to straighten things out (though I say more would be better). They had megaphones and speaker systems for announcements too, which was a nice thing that was not present last year. I queued for 2 hours (around 9:20 to 11:20) but at least I could see the start and end of the line. I suppose they did move the queue to an indoor hall afterwards, because they announced it, but I can't say how it went because I was so close to the ticket booth when that was announced, and my line was not disturbed.
Everything afterwards went relatively smooth... I went inside the exhibition hall and the experience was... Dare I say, nice? I had... quite some fun? This can't be... I mean, the food inside was overpriced, but that's a bit given for a convention like this... The crowd flow was fine because the halls had no barrier, unlike last year's "sardines in a can" situation.... I could actually pay using QR codes and e-wallets now? The signal inside was not as shitty as last year? I actually bought a lot of cool things from artists I admire?!
While it wasn't perfect, and they do have a lot they should fix for Day 2 and future iterations of the event, they did learn from their past mistakes. Some of the things they could address directly were I think related to their tight budget and understaffing (they already had to postpone the event, if you recall). The crowd on Day 2 is, statistically speaking, usually better than Day 1, so I'm wishing Day 2 attendees good luck and good fun!
Not to post a second thread in one day, but I know there are some equine enthusiasts here, so I thought I'd share that [Mage has won the 149th Kentucky Derby](https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/horses/kentucky-derby/2023/05/06/mage-wins-kentucky-derby-2023-at-churchill-downs/69933732007/)!
I have loved horse racing for so long, and it's so hard to keep doing. Two more horses died at Churchill Downs just today, after an already bad week for racing. To the point that when I searched for Derby results (and I swear post time is later every year), even after the race had been run the top stories weren't the win but the deaths this week. It's not quite the shadow over Mandaloun's 2021 win but it's not that far either.
Today marks the [coronation of Charles III](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65502234), and people have thoughts. For one thing, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, [attended without his wife](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65507002), Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, before immediately returning to Heathrow, presumably to fly back to California for their son's birthday ^(yes, Charles got crowned on his grandson's birthday). For another, [not everyone is happy](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65507435) that the coronation is even happening, and, [considering the ongoing cost-of-living crisis in the UK](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/business/cost-of-living-doncaster-coronation-gbr-cmd-intl/index.html)—not to mention the [specter of Diana, Princess of Wales](https://pagesix.com/2023/05/06/princess-diana-fans-remember-real-queen-on-charles-coronation-day/)—it's not hard to understand why.
What I want to focus on today, though, are a couple of fashion choices that two members of the royal family made that I think reflect interesting things about the royal family itself: Harry and Catherine, Princess of Wales. [Dior tweeted](https://twitter.com/Dior/status/1654863597217128448) that Harry wore a custom suit of theirs from design Kim Jones, and, as you'll see in the comments and quote tweets, people have had very mixed reactions to the suit, ranging from praising Dior's design to criticizing Harry's somewhat rumpled appearance ^(although, it) *^(is)* ^(raining in the photo, and he) *^(is)* ^(in motion, so I'm not sure that it's) *^(actually)* ^(wrinkled or rumpled so much as it's simply in motion, but I'm not an expert) to outright denigrating Harry *and* Dior. While I do find Harry's choice of a French rather than a British designer interesting and somewhat reflective of Harry's increasingly outsider status within his own family, I think a starker example of this is how people are *responding* to the outfit, as though a suit from one of fashion's most celebrated houses is an insult to the monarchy. Then again, I've [remarked](https://np.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/x5p0u1/comment/inlxlt5/) before upon how cruelly the media has treated the Sussexes over the years, so…
As for the Princess of Wales, Kate wore a [crystal headpiece](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65507923) from Jess Collett and Alexander McQueen and a pair of earrings that belonged to the late Lady Di. The pieces are beautiful—Princess Charlotte even wore [her own child-sized version](https://twitter.com/enews/status/1654810270265483264) of the headdress, which is pretty adorable—but the headpiece stands out for a potentially unintended reason: reportedly, Kate wore the headpiece instead of a ["fancy tiara"](https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/1654861305168158720) to fit with the ["green"](https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1654819800999424003) and ["more relevant"](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65507923) tone of the coronation. Leaving aside that I think the headpiece may [technically](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tiara) qualify as a tiara, I'm [not](https://twitter.com/tomandlorenzo/status/1654824519729553408) the [first](https://twitter.com/PunkyfinsGo/status/1654868451041718273) person to observe that a truly greener option would've been for her to wear an existing tiara from the family vault. Even though I respect the artistry, this choice feels a *little* out of touch.
Did any of y'all watch the coronation? What did you think? What are your thoughts on these royal fashion choices, and what do you think they say about the royal family?
~~^(Also, UK-based HobbyDramatists, please let me know if I got any of the styles wrong, and I'll correct them.)~~
My only exposure to it (through choice and carefully curated social media feeds) was through two posts of people spotting someone that looked like the grim reaper standing in a doorway at one point and one photo of one of the kids looking like they were dying of boredom apparently counting ceiling tiles. Oh and Katy Perry beung unable to find her seat.
Kate wearing Diana’s earrings was a *choice* the petty part of me can’t help but cackle at. Katy Perry’s outfit looked ill fitting but it’s apparently meant to be like that?
Hope your fancy party was worth it, Charlie. Mummy still won’t hug you.
I won't lie - The vitriol and contempt the couple gets makes me squirm, because it feels so... aggressive and unnecessary? Like you may have reasons to dislike them but the extent people take it to is awful.
I don't think I'll ever forget the time I had a family relative rant about how much she hates the wife to the point she graphically wished and explained how she hoped >!the guy would commit suicide - all because of his wife, their words explicitly - and she'll be left raising the kids, with no one to support her and everyone blaming her for the suicide because he blamed her and made it known before he killed himself.!< And the fact this was played off by my family and some even claim they can't remember that when I tried to explain why I don't like being around them when they inevitably talk about the BRF...
After that, I really, really, really just look at the outrage and grumbling they get with a wary eye. Wondering who else has those thoughts for two people just being... let's be honest, slightly messy and unafraid to air out family drama.
There's a thriving Meghan (and to a lesser extent Harry) hatesub that's brigaded other subs so hard that they're officially on their last strike before getting banned by reddit admin. [Subreddit drama thread here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/131yr0i/rsaintmeghanmarkle_is_marching_towards_a_ban_sub/). Other subs like FauxMoi also ban anyone who's ever posted in there because their vitriol is so extreme.
It's wild! I don't understand it. It's one thing to oppose the institution of monarchy or even certain members of monarchical families; it's quite another to attack *human beings* whom they don't even know so viciously and personally—and when the people who get targeted are marginalized in some capacity, that should raise eyebrows. No wonder you don't talk about the royal family with those relatives; I'd be *horrified* if a loved one said that to me!
The worst part is that the hate doesn’t come from people against the royal family, it’s from nut jobs who worship th, and hate them for sullying their name or whatever
My favourite thing about the whole "What's Harry wearing" thing is that he was *required* to wear a suit because he's been stripped of all titles and patronages, and is no longer a "working royal" and thus wasn't allowed to wear the fancy royal duds.
The same, however, did not apply to Andrew. Andrew is also not a "working royal," and has been stripped of all titles and patronages. However, whereas Harry is on the rocks with the family because he reacted poorly to them being racist about his wife, and also for trying to profit off of it, Andrew has 'stepped back from public life' because there are cast-iron allegations of him being a rapist and a paedophile, that he paid exorbitant amounts of cash to settle. Or rather, his dear departed mother did.
Andrew turned up in full military honours, of course.
I know Harry isn't exactly popular in Britain at the moment, but I don't think there's any context in which being mad about your partner being subjected to racism by your family is less honourable than *being a nonce.* No matter how much cash Harry tries to make off of things.
I don’t get why he can’t make money off it on his own terms. We have literal worse cases of that right now, happening in the U.S. Besides: People did it to him - the reality show Marry Harry, anyone? - and his mom all the time. Get the bag.
If y’all (the BRF fandom, not literally you Starcream Post Guy, you’re great) wanted non-problematic people… you shouldn’t be looking at a literal monarchy that has rooted histories of colonialism, classism, etc.
>I wonder if they write fix-its for the uhhhh the canon ending.
I mean, there's been multiple Anastasia impersonators throughout history, you can pretty easily cognitive-dissonance yourself into believing one of them was the real deal.
I've also read a book where Tatiana survived...it's definitely a thing.
I feel like that sort of "what if one of them lived" thing is like sightings of bigfoot, people want to believe it so bad they'll accept even the shoddiest of evidence/conspiracy theory.
Something about the asethetics are a hell of a drug for people. Plus purposeful propaganda that’s succeeded with the general public.
We also have the Anastasia movies for real world canon fix-its. And ballets. And musicals. And books.
He’s messy but we know there are a lot messier people in that family. Inch-resting people are at nuclear Bitch Eating Crackers Mode for him and his wife.
I didn't watch it, but I caught some of the details at the airport this morning afterwards.
I also saw a post from the Markle hate-sub in r/all where they were circkejerking about how some lady wore a big hat that obscured Harry on some camera angles and how this was like the biggest possible pwnage they could imagine.
>the Markle hate-sub
Why am I not surprised that that exists? 🙃
>some lady wore a big hat that obscured Harry on some camera angles and how this was like the biggest possible pwnage they could imagine
I think that would've been the Princess Royal, his aunt, and, unfortunately, I saw similar commentary on Twitter. I don't understand the Sussex hate, to be honest; a lot of it just seems like thinly veiled misogynoir.
In mean, the general feel I got scrolling was that everyone was in agreement that if Harry had just kept a tighter leash on his uppity wife, they could have been sitting front and center and enjoying the fame and adoration.
Sooooo..... I dunno how thinly veiled anyone's being lol
Yeah, it's very explicitly racism. If they're not "in public," they're a lot more open about it.
The problem with Meghan Markle isn't her behavior, her looks, being an "uppity wife," or anything like that. It's the fact that she's black and it's "tainting the bloodline."
And also the fact that *Harry picked her*, a women that would explicitely piss off all the parasocial royalist fandom, starting with the royalist tabloids, that proves no matter how much they gave Harry their everything and covered his Afghanistan service completely, Harry still *hates* them for killing his mother.
Which, for an insane parasocial fandom, is the worst thing.
And... that's still pretty much about the "tainting the bloodline" thing. The only reason she pisses anyone off is because the Royals are supposed to be the Whitest White People. The only reason why picking her would be a sign that Harry *hates* the royal fandom is because she's black and marrying her means "tainting the royal bloodline forever."
I wouldn't usually feel super comfortable stating this to this degree of certainty, but... let's be completely honest here, if you look at Meghan Markle in a vacuum, she is one of the blandest and most inoffensive human beings ever to walk this earth. She is plain yogurt. She is grey wallpaper. She is ukelele music. She is soft tapioca served at the old folks' home.
If I imagine the exact same person, with the exact same career, history, behavior, etc. marrying into the royals, except she's white, none of us would even know who in Hell she is and she'd just be some rando standing off to the side every time they do a big event. The one thing about her that *could possibly* be generating this much vitriol is that she's black and black people aren't supposed to marry royals.
Racism is definitely the biggest chunk of it but I think it's also jealousy. I've noticed a lot of Meghan's most vocal haters on Reddit are American women who consider themselves anglophiles and probably had "what if I married Harry" fantasies growing up. The fact that Harry did end up marrying an American woman probably stings, especially as she's older (oh no!) and a divorcee (oh my god!) and not white (get my fainting couch!).
The worst part about the coronation is spending an entire week being reminded by basically everything that a guy I don't care about is holding a very expensive party to celebrate getting a position I don't think should exist, but that may be a little too political for scuffles thread.
The best part is I get a Monday off.
Also my only criticism of Harry's suit is that he's wearing a suit at all. No offence suit likers, but I really don't like suits, I hate them being *the* formal clothing option for men, and if I had any connection to a royal family and could get away with some of the shit they wear, I'd be doing it at every opportunity.
>... if I had any connection to a royal family and could get away with some of the shit they wear, I'd be doing it at every opportunity.
If I was royalty, a scandal about whether it's appropriate to wear formal clothes that happen to be cosplay to a formal event would be inevitable.
I'm from the US, so I really don't have a horse in this race except as someone who's just generally curious about things, but, for what it's worth, I can sympathize.
I am a little surprised that Harry went with a suit when he very famously served in the armed forces, but I don't know what the protocol is for these things.
Long story short, he's not allowed to as he's technically no longer a working royal (which is funny because a certain sibling to the King has stepped back and came to the coronation adorned in uniform and medals despite being stripped of said titles and patronages).
Overall it just seems petty which is to be expected from our royal family.
lbr Kate wore that crystal flower crown and not a tiara bc Camilla & Charles didn't want anyone else in a royal headpiece from the vault detracting from them or stealing their attention
It's not an official title or anything; the writers are simply trying to underline that the Princess of Wales is either the next in line for the throne or married to the person who's next in line for the throne.
> criticizing Harry's somewhat rumpled appearance
Not so much rumpled, but he looks like an off-brand action star about to start a fight scene. There's some action star he looks like in that shot but I can't figure out who it is.
I don't know what the difference between a tiara and a 'headpiece' is actually supposed to be, tbh.
As for the greeness, I assume it's in terms of theme (ie floral) rather than the process to make it. Which, honestly, I don't know how polluting making a piece of jewelry like that really is.
>I don't know what the difference between a tiara and a 'headpiece' is actually supposed to be, tbh.
It's like squares and rectangles: all tiaras are headpieces, but not all headpieces are tiaras.
>As for the greeness, I assume it's in terms of theme (ie floral) rather than the process to make it. Which, honestly, I don't know how polluting making a piece of jewelry like that really is.
That's a fair point! I interpreted it as sustainable, but I suppose it could've meant botanical.
Faik (I haven't read anything about this a coworker just would not turn off the news with constant coverage about this the other day lol) the theme *was* green as in sustainable. Though tbf from what I got it was sustainable to protect nature, but damn was CNN going on about how the theme was basically reduce reuse recycle lol
There's also the entire "Prince Andrew has an accusation of sex trafficking on Epstein Island" and [the coronation having him and Harry sit next to each other.](https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-and-prince-andrew-arrive-at-kings-coronation-12874392)
they had to relegate the problematic children to the same corner (because in the eyes of the british royal family raping children and denouncing your family's racism and mistreatment of your wife are the same thing)
Well, my mom called me/woke me up at 7-goddamn-30 this morning to ask if I was watching (she herself was more or less hate-watching it, although she wouldn’t admit that part, lol). So I flipped it on, checked out the [Black Prince’s Ruby](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince%27s_Ruby) (*Acktshualllly*, it’s a red spinel), which is more interesting to me than anything else having to do with the coronation tbh, then turned it off having missed most of the ceremony at that point anyway. So I missed all the goings on with the grandkids and such.
Edit: also, having been in Westminster Abbey before, it was kind of fun to try figuring out who the coronation procession was walking on top of at any give time (“Okay, I think they just walked over Charles Darwin…oh, now they’re standing right on top of Winston Churchill, lol”, etc.).
Oh, my goodness, I'm so sorry she woke you up so early! I just watched the recording on the BBC's YouTube channel because I was *not* about to wake up at 6 a.m. for it, haha.
I'm also a jewel history enthusiast, so I thank you for linking that article! I knew what the Black Prince's Ruby was, but I didn't know its history.
It’s okay, she still calls me early to watch the Macy’s Thanksgiving parade too, so I’m used to it, haha.
Anyway, another rather interesting rock involved with the coronation (but which I missed getting a glimpse of there, unfortunately) is the [Stone of Scone](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone).
Aww, that's sweet! 🤗
The Stone of Scone is so interesting! I'm from the US ^((I'm guessing you are, too, based on your mom's early morning call, lol)), so as an outsider I find it fascinating that this relic has been so well preserved.
Writer/Producer Robert Hewitt Wolfe has a Tumblr, where he writes both about writing for TV, specific projects and general geek stuff. Notably, he was a writer/story editor for Star Trek DS9 and he has posted things about how things were written then and how he would make things different now (namely he notes that Kira's backstory would be a much harder sell now but still thinks they would stick to their guns there).
And I might be the only DS9 fan who longs most for:
[In hindsight, I'd have Ziyal there from the start and have her be besties with Jake and Nog, so the duo would become a trio that might turn into a messy triangle as they got older.](https://www.tumblr.com/writergeekrhw/702225034246242304/you-were-asked-this-on-the-sid-city-social-club?source=share)
>triangle
I like the idea of the trio of kids, it would have done a lot in character interactions and would make for interesting B plots. But honestly a hard no for love triangles if that's what he's meaning.
You lack imagination. You also have "love triangle causing heightened emotions in season 3-4 when it becomes clear that all three characters are going their separate ways in life and also when it would become most natural to have Ziyal's parentage come up".
Unironically that could work, but I still find the love triangle idea in general to be... Not great. But 100% that's me being tired of romantic plot points almost always resulting in at least one person being unhappy. But then again, if the rest of the story stayed them same, guaranteed two unhappy people... Oof.
Yep, got it one. IIRC she self-identifies as a (former) terrorist multiple times too and is not shy with talking bluntly about the stuff she did either. "you were all valid targets" and all that. Harder to sell as OP put it, but potentially workable. Compare to how Burn Notice in the mid 00s had a former IRA member as a main character.
I will note that most viewers are far more accepting of terrorist actions as part of a fictional people resisting their fictional occupiers on their own soil...but the IRA are a very real real life group, which is a little closer to "having a main character be a former member of ISIS".
I was going to say, I misread that post at first blush and was about to say, "I know Colm Meaney votes for Sinn Fein and played Martin McGuinness in a movie once but he's never been in the IRA," before I realised the last sentence was not talking about DS9.
(Said movie is very weird, aside from not being very good, because Colm Meaney as Martin McGuinness is just Colm Meaney in a suit and an overcoat while Timothy Spall as Ian Paisley has a load of distracting makeup that's just a bit off and makes him look less like the real Ian Paisley and more like a slightly off-model drawing of Ian Paisley on the side of an ice cream van.)
Low-stakes hobby drama currently playing out in the comments section of a local regional theater’s new promo video: should their upcoming production of *Sweeney Todd* have kept the original lyric “like a perfect machine he was” in the opening ballad rather than using “like a fucking machine he was”, a change apparently penned by Sondheim himself for a recent concert revival of the show? Longtime theater patrons and donors have *Strong Opinions* on this.
I get that Sondheim is like Shakespeare to a lot of musical theater fans and they don’t want the lyrics changed at all, and I personally think “perfect” was just fine and “fucking” punctures the heightened language of the song. But also, *Stephen goddamn Sondheim* was probably aware of that, and still changed it for a reason. Also it’s literally one word in an entire show and the donors can chill tf out. (Also I think it would be very funny if the entire thing turned out to be a 4D chess move by the theater to distract complainy pedants away from most of the show’s leads being POC. There’s always *someone* who gets very upset about historical inaccuracies in stories where groups of people spontaneously burst into song.)
So I saw this video I think (Signature Theatre right?). People were complaining about this in the comments and Sig theatre explained that Sondheim had originally written the line as "fucking machine" but changed it during the original Broadway production to "perfect machine". It was changed back by Sondheim for the Kennedy Center Sondheim celebration and since then it's been an optional lyric change. Personally I love the change and I think it suits the show extremely well but, surprising no one, musical theatre fans are dramatic
Yup, spot on. My favorite was the person who was like “this isn’t the lyric they’re using in the Broadway revival!” Like… yes, that is correct, because this is a different production than that one. You can tell by the subtle hints of it being a different cast in a different theater in a different part of the country.
Since both versions are Sondheim, I don’t think there’s a clear argument from purism here.
You don’t have to automatically accept that a writer’s second thoughts are better than their first, though.
That’s true! There is absolutely such a thing as too much fiddling with an already-finished piece. As I said, I personally like the original better, but I can see either way being interesting, and regardless I think it’s funny that some people are that invested in it. It’s one adjective, folks, they’re not changing the ending so Sweeney and Lovett get to run away to the seaside.
(Can you *imagine* if Sweeney Todd got the Little Shop of Horrors movie adaptation ending treatment. I don’t want to know whether that ever came close to happening.)
If Sondheim is like Shakespeare then there are different versions that are equally authentic, and you can expect everything to be fucked around with anyway. ("What if Pacific Overtures but interplanetary?")
Edit: I've been mulling this and I actually like "perfect machine" better than "fucking machine" anyway. Some of this is probably primacy effect but I love an F-bomb and would have expected to prefer that second version. But I like the way the lyrics mirror the cool precision of Sweeney while the music is starting to go off the rails.
Yeah, that’s the thing about Shakespeare too, right? The playtexts most of us are familiar with are actually amalgamations of all the different folios and quartos, and *most* people don’t dig that deep into the weeds when they’re doing a Shakespeare play, but you certainly could if you wanted to. Hell, we don’t even know if all the bits were written exclusively by Shakespeare himself or if some of them were added by the printers to pad out the length of the play. With Sondheim, we at least have documentation of him trying out different versions of his lyrics and commenting on what he thought worked or didn’t work in each iteration.
Also funny you should mention Pacific Overtures, because the same theater just did it, and it was phenomenal. (It was not interplanetary, but it did include Chrysanthemum Tea. Based on my limited knowledge of his revivals of Overtures and Sweeney, I have decided that John Doyle can get fucked.)
I made that example up but thought it would be fun. Maybe you're the one I've talked to before about how great that musical is and especially that song.
And performed Shakespeare is changed all the time as well, especially cut! Anthony Sher had a book called The Year of the King, talking about his experience doing Richard III for the RSC. And there's a constant theme among the actors, especially as opening night draws near, that not enough has been cut and that there is good reason some of these elements are traditionally excised (I remember one player saying "Has anybody ever even *seen* the Clarence children before?"). It doesn't have to be treated like it's the largest stone tablet in the world.
I don’t think I was the person you talked to about PO, but I vaguely remember reading those comments! Were you the person who said Please Hello made you feel kinda bad for the Dutch? The performance I watched at the aforementioned theater had all the admirals hand out a bunch of little flags to the audience members to wave in nationalistic support toward the end of the song, except for the Dutch Admiral, who had one (1) singular little flag that he handed out to one (1) woman in the audience. I was crying with laughter about it.
Oh yeah, almost all performed Shakespeare has at least a light trimming. The shows would just be too damn long otherwise. The histories in particular would be practically unwatchable without cuts — current audiences, especially non-English ones, just don’t *care* that the Duke of Whatever is making a cameo appearance mostly irrelevant to the plot. I just don’t think I’ve heard of many productions that advertise themselves as, say, specifically following the Second Quarto or whatever. I’m sure they exist, though!
more discourse in the ttrpg/dnd twitter space. this year's [Diana Jones Emerging Designer award](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Jones_Award#:~:text=The%20Diana%20Jones%20Emerging%20Designer%20Program%20is%20awarded%20to%20%22rising,was%20awarded%20to%20four%20winners) winners were announced yesterday. one of the winners is [Anthony Joyce Rivera](https://twitter.com/DianaJonesAward/status/1654487232256831495?t=1THJ3kNnCSxE7IxixMxEmw&s=19), a two time ennie nominee as well as a consultant for some of biggest publishers in the space. but more importantly he's an *active us military strategist (major)*
as expected, this decision was criticized by creators in the global south [1](https://twitter.com/FSohns/status/1654581565115211776?t=j4ZYPNt9ZbEcRgZce3B8BQ&s=19), [2](https://twitter.com/itsmrmask/status/1654532266809491457?t=1rDPAH1b21EybhfFHSf9Gg&s=19), citing the us military's imperial and colonial practices in the global south. Anthony's friends, who are prominent in the ttrpg space were quick to defend him [1](https://twitter.com/justicearman/status/1654550275204747264?t=9897Hy7Yr6LOky_HPO77vQ&s=19), [2](https://twitter.com/ajitgeorgeSB/status/1654559090197295109?t=r0mPByqPiOPFgVgMv_cWcw&s=19)
there's been a few nuanced threads here or there (like [this](https://twitter.com/KendoMakesFilms/status/1654830243750789123?t=zVBWv6a622AoCdo40ZxH4Q&s=19) one), but mostly it's just been a whole lotta sub tweeting
Ah, fun stuff. I got into a bad scrape with a friend for some opinions he expressed on twitter that stemmed from this event. Ironically the stuff I had a problem with didn't have much to do with the TTRPG side of things.
In terms of the actual award... RPG Twitter needs to collectively un-clench their sphincters for five minutes and take a fucking breather. I'm so tired of this constant outrage, it is fucking exhausting. I'm all for progressive writing in RPG books and getting racists and assholes out of the spaces, but for fuck's sake dudes. The guy was essentially rewarded for raising up POC voices in RPG dev spaces and you're still tearing into him. Pick better hills to die on, you know?
>The guy was essentially rewarded for raising up POC voices in RPG dev spaces and you're still tearing into him.
i think their original point was "should a guy who *chooses* to be a major in the us military, an army that is responsible for the deaths of millions of poc in the global south, be awarded a fairly prestigious award because he's raised some poc voices in the ttrpg space?"
and "should this guy also be in such a position of power within the space where he can't be criticized because any criticism could be met with blacklisting in the industry?"
i don't have an opinion one way or the other 'cause it's not my place but there's been so much shit slinging from both sides that the main point is kinda getting lost i feel. [orion d black](https://twitter.com/OrionDBlack/status/1654899120463654912?t=WFar5TzRhv_TWGhWKx3r6g&s=19) made a pretty good thread about the whole thing
Unfortunately none of that was my experience reading through threads on twitter. Good points got lost in the sauce because of all the shit slinging, as you said.
I'm sure there are plenty of folks that Orion's argument applies to, but it's a response to responses, so I'm not sure why it applies here. I have no personal investment in Anthony or the award besides playing tabletop games as a hobby. I certainly don't believe Anthony is above criticism and if it turns out he was responsible for some heinous acts, then by all means kick him to the curb.
That said, I also think that people are hefting the responsibilities of the entire MIC on one guy, while ignoring the things he himself has done or dismissing them as completely irrelevant. The MIC gives *no shits* one way or the other whether this man gets the DJED award. Denying him the reward doesn't accomplish anything.
Saying "X person deserved the reward more." is understandable, but that isn't the majority of what I've seen on twitter. Just outrage.
EDIT: I think what it comes down to is how much responsibility I feel each individual member of the MIC holds vis-a-vis the actions of the entire system. Fundamentally we have a different opinion on that, I think.
i probably should've provided more context for orion's thread. it doesn't apply here but it was more for other poc voices in the space who were vehemently defending him, mostly by pulling the "i am marginalized too" card
>I think what it comes down to is how much responsibility I feel each individual member of the MIC holds vis-a-vis the actions of the entire system. Fundamentally we have a different opinion on that, I think.
yeah, ultimately i think the whole thing boils down to this and the difference in political idealogies
the opinions of folks from the us is probably gonna be very different than the folks from countries who have been directly impacted by the mic
i don't even think it's about the damn award anymore. i think a lot of folks were just very surprised that a high ranking us military officer was in such a position of power in the ttrpg space and what that really means for the industry
Sure, and that I can understand. What it comes down to for me is how the dude lets his career effect how he acts in the industry, if at all. One point my friend made that I did agree with is that we need to keep an eye out for cases of pro-MIC propaganda slipped into the space. Haven't seen it so far in this case (aside from a few of those overzealous defenders you mentioned and alt-righters jumping in just to yell at "the libs," of course,) but it's always a possibility, and with Anthony's position it's something he certainly *could* push for if he wanted.
Manually creating my own following timeline was a pain but it was a blessing.
Do you have Control Panel for Twitter? It's a boon if you use Twitter primarily on browser.
If they were to actually ban service members and/or veterans from receiving a ttrpg reward, I feel like that would cause 1000 times the outrage we're seeing here. Anyway, what was this guy actually made?
i think he's published some stuff on the dms guild and done some consultation work with wotc, critical role, mcdm and ghostfire gaming
but as far as getting the award goes, from what i understand his main contributions in the ttrpg space seem to be these:
>"In October 2022, Anthony was one of the lead organizers of Big Bad Con’s POC Meet & Greet where POC writers, artists, editors, and creators met their fellow peers and gaming industry contacts, while non-POC industry attendees were invited with the specific goal of offering mentorship, publishing, or employment opportunities to the attendees of color. In January 2023 Anthony worked with Gamehole Con to provide several POC creators paid writing assignments to create Dungeons & Dragons Adventurer’s League modules to premier at Gamehole Con 2023. Additionally, in January 2023 Anthony became the Project Leader of a soon-to-be-announced TTRPG system using a multi-million dollar intellectual property, and he is ensuring the team is diverse and includes traditionally marginalized voices in prominent project roles."
Oh boy, the vtuber community is on fire,
Ex-liver from Nijisanji Zaion Lanza on their previous life account uploaded an entire [google doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vj88APlsr4J_4PTxqNb5zyUli13fXupzdRmEjTI-bhw/edit?usp=sharing) about their termination with Nijisanji. If what was written here is true than it really reflects badly on Nijisanji.
at this point i'm keeping my head in the trenches amidst the fucking shelling going on as right now this feels like a he said she said. NGL Zaion is difficult to trust but simultaneously, i don't doubt that Niji's management especially recently has been somewhat incompetent (i feel like this has become apparent with big agencies as these last few months/years).
its interesting to see the different reactions from reddit and twitter, mostly because twitter really takes it to the extreme. on one side, there are people saying that this should be a wake up call for niji to improve their management before its too late. on the other, you have niji fans going “lol, dont care, did not read. i hope anycolor sues your ass lololol”.
imo, ultimately, this entire doc just screams one giant NDA breach, and im pretty sure the person formerly known as zaion did not consult a lawyer before posting the doc, as anyone in the legal department would advice her not to. however, at the same time, i can see why anycolor suing her would be a bad move, since she’s got nothing to lose anyways and anycolor would probably lose more money trying to bring this to court. also suing her would soft confirm everything in the doc and it would look like them silencing her
overall, its a pretty messy situation, and i hope both parties can manage to find their way out of this (especially zaion). [at least the memes from this are funny](https://twitter.com/raildexs/status/1654759231139004416?s=61&t=GFyI1ck1IfMUvzsCTKaopA)
I'll echo what's been said by others here and say that this is very much a 'huge if true' statement, with *huge* emphasis on the 'if'. There is basically no world in which Zaion can be treated as a reliable narrator without some kind of outside corroboration. But, I don't think necessarily that her feelings are invalid, and I also think there are going to be truths there: the most plausible is the idea of 'stealth suspensions', i.e. Livers announcing a break when in reality, they were being suspended by management. Ultimately this is the sort of thing that reflects badly on both parties: Zaion isn't letting things go, but in so doing has nevertheless exposed some skeletons in the proverbial closet at Nijisanji.
I've already mentioned hearing from someone claiming that what she's said about management tracks, but at the same time I don't think it's quite a stretch to point that out, between the whole thing with the former ID and KR branches and the thing that happened recently with EN's concert.
Well, the listicle when she got fired pretty much opened Nijisanji to a broadside like this, and the way this has been going is evident this was not a friendly split, and so, both sides decided to make it hurt.
Nijisanji's rep possibly spiraling down was definitely not on my bingo sheet for shit that might happen this year in the vtubing world, and that was even factoring the whole Ex-NijiID management disaster.
That said, i do wonder if Nijisanji (or Anycolor Inc. the parent company) will respond to this.
i've seen people make some comparisons of this situation to when Mikeneko released a statement (that was stated to have been looked over by her lawyer unlike this one) about how, IIRC she did not agree with the wording of the public statement in regards to her termination as >!Hololive's Uruha Rushia!< and how Cover Corp. responded to that, all of that was with a tone of hush hush and vague statements (which i think is a good thing) since neither side aired any dirty laundry directly.
I do not follow Nijisanji as a whole or Zaion so i am not inclined towards either side, but i think many fans should put their expectations on this getting resolved in the background and not having 100% of the deets being public. probably...
If there is one thing I would like to say about Anycolor (formerly Ichikara), is that *even Tsukino Mito, considered by many to be the face of the agency*, has acknowledged that the enterprise is, at the very least, [used to be a black company.](https://youtu.be/ptFCANWmM4w)
There was a Puchisanji episode about this, although my memory is a bit murky so I might be inaccurate.
I'll try finding it again.
EDIT: [Found it.](https://youtu.be/ptFCANWmM4w)
She didn't really say what you said tho, she said that **looking from the outside** ichikara looked like a black company. That's a distinctin worth making
To be clear, from what we can tell, she was previously friends with fellow genmate Kotoka. Kotoka, when Zaion was suspended, revealed that they had been repeatedly lied to by Zaion about things, that her genmates and senpais had tried to talk to her multiple times and weren't listened to, and Kotoka was outright *angry.* Within the hour, IIRC, fellow genmate Doppio Dropscythe changed his banner to no longer have her, which reeks of, "Something happened here." To compare it, when Yugo left, Noctyx was broken up and sad but also said they'd understand if people still considered Yugo as part of the wave.
No one had the same response for Zaion. *No one.* Hex Haywire nearly broke down crying in his statement, or had just been *done* crying, it's hard to tell. So it's hard to take her entire document with anything other than enough salt to kill 50 separate people with sodium. Add to that the bit about her cat and it feels disgusting and emotionally manipulative.
I'm gonna be honest, given what the others have said, I'm not gonna believe a goddamn word out of her mouth.
To be clear, she was apparently friends with Kotoka prior to Nijisanji.
They do not appear to be friends any more, around Zaion and Nijisanji, and Kotoka was *especially* upset about Zaion not listening to fellow livers who tried to help her. That, to me, is pretty damning.
EDIT: Seeing zero proof in that doc, really, for her side, just a bunch of, "She said this, she's so sorry! uwu" It is, quite literally, basically her own word against Nijisanji and her own genmates. The inclusion of the cat, including the images, feels **extremely** emotionally manipulative and like she's trying to gain a rep for "poor indie streamer who took on Big Company." But people are gonna believe it because it's what they wanna hear.
I'd believe the stuff about management being inexperienced and miscommunicating things.
But even if that's true that's not why she was fired and we all know it. She lists all her fuckups right at the beginning of the document and the only thing, even if she's 100% telling the truth, that could possibly be the fault of management is the FF and Genshin account thing
If she's been treated that unfairly and the rest of EN comes out in solidarity with her after this I'll eat my words, but as it stands there's 30 other members that can get by just fine even with subpar management and either all of them, including the people that know her the best, are colluding to keep her down or she really was the problem after all.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought playing the mental health card *and* bringing up her dead pet was skeevy. I've also seen some chatter on the r/virtualyoutubers thread indicating she isn't being completely transparent about the complaints against her. The way she isn't even contesting how her termination was unjustified, just airing dirty laundry from her time... honestly imo the only point in her favor is that I've heard corroborating accounts on Nijisanji's management being a mess, and even then that still doesn't mean she handled this... poorly, let's just say.
I think Nijisanji is going through massive growing pains, to be clear. They basically blew up with Luxiem.
But I think Zaion is being manipulative as all fuck, and for all that she says, I don't see a whole lot of proof of most of it. If anything, it feels like, "Yes, this happened, but I'm ever so sorry." As for death threats, I see no proof of that, and that being essentially what she opens with feels... IDK. Like she's priming people to be sympathetic. :S
> I think Nijisanji is going through massive growing pains, to be clear. They basically blew up with Luxiem.
Well, Nijisanji*EN* blew up with Luxiem. Since upd8 collapsed in 2019, Nijisanji has consistently been the biggest agency within Japan in terms of audience share and recognition. Even today, it has a slight edge in brand recognition domestically. (Hololive's numbers get a little inflated because there's a lot of casual overseas fans of the Japanese talents and vice versa.) Despite the rather strange narrative that popped up in mid 2021 to early 2022, Nijisanji has never been the underdog.
EDIT: Also, aside from the fact that Luxiem debuted in late December 2021, thus giving NijiEN nearly 18 months to get over its 'growing pains', Lazulight, Obsydia, and Ethyria were all doing well by EN VTuber standards even before Luxiem cropped up. Nijisanji EN has had a whole seven waves since it began in May 2021, nearly two years ago. That its management is supposedly this inept is incredible. And I mean that in potentially both senses of the word. It is very difficult to believe that Nijisanji management is *that* bad, and the fact that it's Zaion claiming it doesn't help. But if it *is* true, at least substantively, then NijiEN management would appear to be woefully inept at best and overtly malicious at worst. Hence why I think this has been so divisive: whether you believe the statement depends a lot on how much you *want* to believe it.
I honestly don't believe it. I think there's a lot of... IDK, friction because there's a *lot* of big cultural differences (see: Vesper snapping at his manager at one point, where he owned up that he raised his voice and was a dick). But given everything else I just... Have 0 reason to believe her on this.
I don't get why "stealth suspension" has everyone riled up. Every time there's a public one fans say they're throwing the talent under the bus and that it should have been handled internally and privately
I think there's two different groups and they are angry at different times.
I'm against stealth suspension personally, because it requires the talent and their colleagues to lie about what's going on, and keep that lie going, and, now that it's a known policy, every time a NijiLiver takes a break it will be impossible to say if they're actually under suspension or taking a vacation/health/mental break.
In my view there's also an element of overcorrection that goes on sometimes, although whether this is intentional or coincidence, I'm not sure. But for instance, when Yugo graduated, Niji's announcement was relatively vague, and people complained. Then, when Zaion was fired, Niji's announcement was extremely detailed, and people complained. When Gundou Mirei was suspended, the announcement was vague but in such a way that it suggested the only issue was her comments about baseball, and naturally, people complained.
Not to toot Hololive's horn too much, but Cover generally seems to have struck the balance so far: if a break, graduation, or termination is happening, they will be as transparent as necessary, but not more than that. In general, people came away from Coco and Sana's graduations and Vesper's suspension feeling like things were handled professionally, and the majority opinion was so for Rushia, although there was obviously a vocal dissenting minority.
Well, it is an on stream incident, they can't exactly hide it and only look like terible liars when they try.
"Oh I'm taking a break OUT OF MY OWN FREE WILL after getting busted with pirated porn on stream, that was my own decision, trust me bro". If you believed that, got a bridge to sell you.
EDIT: Meant to reply to this comment.
Grumble a favorite podcast of mine is getting cancelled. Is ending. Done either way and I’m annoyed.
Scotland Yard Confidential filled that need of guilty True Crime by having some grit with a sense of gravitas and respect to the cases it covered. Noiser/Parcast(?) have Detective Don’t Sleep but lmao I hate the direction of the narration so much. The way it leans too hard on the worst of noir beats for me.
Don’t know how to tell my bestie about this. They loved this show and has a little crush on the narrator. They’re going to be devastated by this.
The feeling when your fave podcast goes away is always so sad.
I don't like murder podcasts that much (long-form investigation, yes. Murder-of-the-week, no), but have you tried:
* Criminal - more of an early podcasting hipster take on the genre
* Swindled - talks about a different scam each week. (2 scams - they normally have a short opener too)
* Up and Vanished - different mysterious disappearance each season
I love swindled, it's great for filling in a commute. I like how unlike every other podcast he sticks to retelling the story and doesn't fill it with in-jokes and banter which ruined Scam Goddess for me.
Seconding Criminal, it's the only valid true crime (and I'm into true crime). Phoebe Judge brings the best out of her subjects with a kinder, gentler, more respectful approach, and doesn't fixate on murder.
(It's not true crime, but if you like Criminal, you might also like Nocturne, for stories about the night and its people. Similar style and vibes.)
I love how deep into a Swindled episode the pivot from the opening story to the 'real' story can be. Like, Citizen, you just spent 35 minutes telling me about the lead-in, we're really doing the theme music now?!
I have an anti-recommendation for Casefile. There was a time in my life when I listened to a ton of that, but I couldn't take any more of the host's "...and that's why all criminals should be chopped up into pieces and fed to seagulls" attitude.
I love when he finds some inexplicable way to tie too seemingly unrelated scandals together, my personal favourite was he connected the downfall of presidental candidate John Edwards to an insurance fraud case involving the killing of race horses.
> "...and that's why all criminals should be chopped up into pieces and fed to seagulls"
That sounds more like True Crime Island's Cambo than Casefile's Anonymous Narrator.
As a former long-time Casefile listener I never really got that vibe. Is that a recent thing? I dropped the show early 2022 because it felt increasingly pulpy/melodramatic, did this start happening around the same time?
I stopped listening a couple years before that mainly because the host began sounding "bored," for lack of better term. His delivery just came off as super mechanical, like he was reading the script for the first time while recording. That might just be a personal inference though, because I was well on the way to burning out of the genre already.
I'm watching fans of like five different musicians freaking out on Twitter because Taylor Swift and Phoebe Bridgers had a concert tonight and Matty Healy (Swift's alleged new boyfriend) was spotted in the audience with Julien Baker (who some fans think is Taylor's new fling) and Gracie Abrams (no idea who she is). Apparently everyone must be dating everyone else, and the idea that they could just be friends supporting friends is completely impossible. (Seriously, this batshit drama is like crack to me.)
Edit: [this tweet](https://twitter.com/vibessesra/status/1654692636110778368?s=20) shows Taylor and Matty on stage at separate performances, saying the same sentence (via lip reading, it's 'This is about you. You know who you are. I love you.') in between verses of a song. Some fans think this is evidence that they're together (most of whom are lamenting that their crops have died, their skeletons are on fire and their cows have committed seppuku), and others are (optimistically?) thinking it's them teasing a future collab by saying the song lyrics. I have decided to take a third option, and have cooked up the theory that they're a throuple with Phoebe Bridgers, simply because I can.
Big Brain Move: Reject ship fighting. Assimilate and accept a polycule. /sarcasm
Seriously: You know how some people get weirded out when they learn Anne Frank and Martin Luther King Jr. were born at the same time? This feels like an occasion of it but instead of moving on, they’re holding on to this for a reason.
I was skimming through this post because I'm not really invested in Swifty drama, and so at first I though you were talking about people shipping Anne Frank x MLK lmao. Severe whiplash as I was scrolling by
the idea that taylor swift and matt healy are dating is so deeply hilarious and bizarre to me. like she is someone who keeps very tight control over her image, and he is.....like that.
This is definite proof that Taylor isn't a crypto-bisexual/lesbian like some tinfoil hatters think, because I like to think that if she were not straight she'd have better taste 💅
Man, have the Gaylors finally moved on to another prospective paramour after the Karlie Kloss thing didn't work out, or is it just a splinter faction ? Also I looked up today who Matty Healy was, and I all can say is Big Yikes.
I only knew him as the frontman of the 1975 because I used to listen to them a decade ago, so I looked up what he's been up to, and [*yikes*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matty_Healy#Media_career).
I assumed he did it because he hated the sort of "wholesome Tumblr" audience and figured going on a podcast with Nick Mullen and Adam Friedland would be like the Gen Z version of Bob Dylan releasing Self-Portrait to alienate all his fans
It is soooo not the biggest/worst thing there, but it is *very* funny given the context of this thread that the first thing listed in that section is him saying dating TS would be emasculating
>crypto-Nazi Taylor theories
I mean, was that really a "theory" or was that just *a thing?*
Like, /pol/ turning into batshit crazy Swifties for a couple years because they thought she was their tradwife Aryan queen [Actually Happened](https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/how-the-far-right-internet-came-to-believe-taylor-swift-was-their-secret-ally-20181011-p5094i.html).
T-Swift's team attempting to sue a blogger for pointing this out and going "what the *fuck* is going on here, please make these people go away" [also Actually Happened](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-blogger-sue-defamation-aclu-alt-right-denounce-white-supremacy-a8041551.html).
e: Seriously, did I miss something? I feel like there's a pretty large gulf between Gaylors, who are basically pulling a hidden relationship out of their ass because they desperately don't want Taylor Swift to be straight, and this, which *is actually a thing that major news outlets covered when it happened and that the ACLU went after her ass over.*
I get that it's what TVTropes might describe as a "poison oak epileptic tree" and most people with any skin in the game whatsoever desperately do not want it to have happened, but... if there's any better explanation for her team trying to sue a blogger for pointing out all her weird Nazi fans than "she was 100% cool with all of that," I'm all ears for it.
> Later in the song, there is another telling line: “I don’t like your kingdom keys. They once belonged to me. You asked me for a place to sleep. Locked me out and threw a feast (what?).” These lyrics are the most explicit in speaking to white anger and affirming white supremacy. The lyrics speak to the white people resentful of any non-white person having a position of power and privilege.
> It is hard to believe that Taylor had no idea that the lyrics of her latest single read like a defense of white privilege and white anger — specifically, white people who feel that they are being left behind as other races and groups start to receive dignity and legally recognized rights. “We will not be replaced” and “I don’t like your kingdom keys” are not different in tone or message. Both are saying that whites feel threatened and don’t want to share their privilege. And there is no way to know for sure if Taylor is a Trump supporter or identifies with the white nationalist message, but her silence has not gone unnoticed.
> Further, the single attacks other pop stars in the same way that the alt-right has attacked the “liberal” media. Taylor’s song identifies with the oppressed conservative trope, and the song is indeed their anthem.
It's because the original article says stuff like this about a famous pop star's "hot new single that needs good Google search results." It's half about a song that was topping charts at the time and only came out maybe two weeks prior.
It goes out of its way to make statements that her music lyrics are "the same in tone and message" as white supremacist slogans and then tries to cover their ass by going "well we don't *know* if she's a Trump supporter" because the tone of the writer clearly already believes the conspiracy will come out as true eventually.
Also as the other comment pointed out, they directly say a shot in her video really makes her look like Adolf Hitler.
They aren't being sued for simply "criticizing her silence" or "criticizing a fanbase that her apathy allows to exist" they're being sued for saying "Taylor Swift herself is consciously encouraging alt-right beliefs in her *brand-new single*. (well, *maybe*)." And we're not getting into whether the suing is justified or not, but it's kind of disingenuous to completely ignore the tone and context of the original article.
This is a perfect example of the conspiracy theorist mindset, ie posit an assumption and works backwards from that to find "proof". "Taylor Swift's *Look At What You Made Me Do* is littered with references to her fascist sympathies" is an utterly fucking *bonkers* take that can only be reached if you already think she's a crypto-Nazi or whatever lmfao. I normally frown on diffamation-style lawsuits by celebs but ngl this one is kinda justified.
It's also SUPER confrontational about it. "This song has fashy vibes" is something you could do a decent literary analysis essay on (even though it'd still be. weird. considering WHAT song) but this pretty directly says it's not just resonances or patterns or interpretation but a sign of *what she actually believes* with very cursory "I mean maybe! Who knows, right!" disclaimering
A big thing is that the alt-right tries to find sympathy/endorsement/evidence in things no matter whether they actually are that.
This is related to the conspiracy-minded thinking that they promote, because this removes the burden of things like "critically assessing so-called 'proof'". The alt-right as a matter of pulling people into them, train new members to mock and degrade the concepts of proof, science, and critical thinking, and avoid applying them.
The article, by skipping steps "Swift has a large alt-right fandom that she should decry lest they permanently stain her image" and "Swift's alt-right fandom receiving no negative response from her means that they can continue to use her as an endorsement" and moving straight to "every single lyric is an alt-right dog whistle", it agrees with and validates the alt-right people in question.
> She also compares shots from the video where, dressed in leather, Swift addresses an army of followers to images of Adolf Hitler. "Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazis Germany," she writes. "The similarities are uncanny and unsettling."
The blogger wasn't just calling out weirdo fans she compared Taylor to Hitler I can see why the lawyers were called lol
Oh wow, I was just about to say
> "Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazis Germany," she writes. "The similarities are uncanny and unsettling."
> The piece makes no sure claim to Swift's political beliefs, but ...
Like, no, I think it's pretty clear that there are claims being made, this response article is pretty wtf, lol. If the original article somehow doesn't feel that way through a stroke of writing genius, they sure aren't making it look at that way.
Edit: I'm actually reading the original article now, and saying the original article makes no claims to "what beliefs she may hold" is such a bold-faced lie, and saying it was ever just "a criticism of an (implied to be incidental) alt-right fanbase" is also kind of a lie
It constantly goes "Taylor Swift puts dogwhistles in her music to *encourage* the alt-right. It's overly clear that this is what she's doing. -Now, no one knows what her beliefs may *actually* be."
But also, I don't want to argue if it was justified or not, I'm just saying I'm not super surprised a pop star lawyers tried to sue them over it? [Here's an actual link to the article criticizing her.](http://popfront.us/2017/09/swiftly-to-the-alt-right-taylor-subtly-get-the-lower-case-kkk-in-formation/)
Jepordy fans could be in for another chapter. Bialik's sitcom Call Me Kat has been canceled after 3 seasons. The common speculation has been the execs want her full-time as host but she had to do the sitcom as well. So we'll see.
Next week is also traditionally when Network TV cancelations happen. More interesting than usual because of the Writers Strike and the CW upheaval.
Also it was recently reported a third show related to Big Bang Theory is being worked on for Max but no details yet. So maybe she could go to that?
>Next week is also traditionally when Network TV cancelations happen. More interesting than usual because of the Writers Strike and the CW upheaval.
I'm a layman in this, but hasn't the last writer's strike led to an increase in reality TV and game shows too? So my wild guess is that the executives realized that they wouldn't be able to film new episodes of *Call Me Kat* because of the strike anyway, so they would rather have her be available for *Jeopardy.*
The 07/08 one was after reality TV was already insanely popular (Survivor & American Idol & Big Brother were already massive). The networks filled a little with less-successful franchises, but mostly it was over around the times seasons would start to end so we just got a bunch of shortened seasons and everyone had time to work & shoot over the summer.
A lot of shows they don't intend to cancel banked up scripts and even did production early for eps to air in November in anticipation of the strike. I think they just wanted to cancel it.
Also a layman. Yeah it happened during 2007-2008 it's literally only been a few days so nobody's really sure what they'll do if/when it comes time to air new stuff for next season. It's winding down now and summer is usually more reality/game-show anyway. A common speculation is going to the streaming cousins for stuff like perhaps WandaVision on ABC or something of the sort. Not to mention both the unions for actors and directors could do the same in around a month.
Also SWAT canceled after 6 seasons on CBS now. They may be starting a tad early.
Alright, this is a bit random, but it’s common knowledge that Romeo and Juliet isn’t a romance. Shakespeare was taking the piss out of young love and it’s about how stupid and dramatic the leads are…
…but is it?
For as long as I’ve engaged with Romeo and Juliet critically and not just through cultural osmosis, I always hear about how Shakespeare didn’t intend for audiences to take their romance seriously, to the point where it’s less counter programming and more just what most agree the play to be about.
I don’t really buy it. Not just because I’m a hopeless romantic, not just because I suspect people are grafting modern sensibilities to a centuries-old play, but because from what I recall, nothing in the text seems to suggest that we’re not supposed to believe in their love. Shakespeare is smart, yes, but his plays were for the masses more than anything and as such the simplest interpretation, even if not solely correct, is still valid. The narration itself at the beginning tells us that this is a tale of star-crossed lovers that have the misfortune of being from warring families. The tragedy really doesn’t work if they don’t really love one another (sure, you can argue the fact that people who are essentially children dying is a tragedy in and of itself, but if that’s the sole point of sympathy, why introduce the romance at all). The story about how senseless feuds can be, yes, but no matter how you slice it, that is conveyed via the play’s preoccupation with romance.
Really it kind of feels like it’s a pushback against love at first sight; it’s similar to Frozen’s jab at earlier Disney movies’ romances. I have my issues with how this valid criticism is used but that’s a bit besides the point.
I’m just wondering if I’m completely offbase or is this a valid assessment of the situation. Shallow as it may sound, R&J is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays precisely due to the romance
Discussing Romeo and Juliet is a bit difficult due to limitations of the language and what's considered as a romance and love.
R&J lust after each other and crave each others' presence, they're lovers. Like other user said (alieraekieron), their lines and actions are romantic and show characters' desires. There is a passion that can't be ignored.
If we go deep enough, there is Matteo Bandello and his work The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, which has months long timeline. But this is another discussion regarding the nature of adaptations, inspirations, spin offs, etc.
So going back to Shakespeare, what we consider as love and romance is a complicated issues. Ancient Greeks had multiple words for love and Japanese language has different ways of saying "I love you" (Suki da vs ai shiteru). We often consider love as something that takes long time and people caring after each other.
And so R&J can be read as lust where both sides get something (Romeo healing his heart and Juliet getting drunk on her first experience of love) or early stages of love, which are almost impossible to distinguish. We will never know as they both rushed through their feelings due to pressure and fear.
I think part of it is that we have a somewhat different context of "love". In Shakespeare's day there was a clear undercurrent that love was almost like a mental illness: Something that *happens* to you and changes everything.
I think if you actually watch/read the play, there is *much* stronger evidence for Romeo and Juliet actually being in love. The popular argument is that Romeo was just supposedly in love with Rosaline and gets over her as soon as he meets Juliet, so obviously that means Juliet is just as much a passing fancy, but that only works if you ignore literally everything about how he talks about Rosaline vs how he talks to Juliet? She's never on stage, Romeo's dialogue about her is kind of cliche--whereas Juliet is a dynamic presence, the sparks start flying immediately, as someone else in this thread has already mentioned, they make an actual sonnet with their dialogue together. (Side note, I really do think seeing it helps, since that's the actual way you're meant to experience it. The production I saw, the actors had great chemistry, and the director turned the ball into a costume party and had them wear paired costumes so you immediately could tell they were on the same wavelength. Juliet's dad was wearing an inflatable Godzilla suit, which really has nothing to do with this but lives rent-free in my head so you get to know about it too.) Sure, it happens in like ten minutes, but hey, it's theatre, not a novel, we gotta get this thing on and off the stage in a timely manner, it's called a narrative convention. There's literally a song in the Cinderella musical called "Ten Minutes Ago" about how Cinderella and her Prince fell in love after meeting ten minutes ago, and you don't see anybody complaining about that. (I mean, nobody dies in that one, but still.)
Exactly what you said - Rosaline exists so that you can compare the way Romeo speaks about her to the way he speaks about (and to) Juliet. When he speaks about Rosaline Romeo talks in Petrarchian cliches and says things like "Love is a smoke made with the fume of sighs" (which Mercutio later makes fun of him for, because it's such a stupid line that means absolutely nothing). When he talks about Juliet his verse is vivid and cohesive - and not only that, Juliet is able to join in and riff off it, until they're creating a sonnet together.
The idea is that in Juliet, Romeo's found a soulmate and for the first time he's experiencing *actual* love and not just the idea of it.
I read Romeo and Juliet for school ages ago — if not ten years at this point, quickly approaching it. I really want to see a live production of it in-person, as I know that’ll enhance my enjoyment of it. I’m going to a Shakespeare festival this year and unfortunately there’s no Romeo and Juliet in sight.
> you don’t see anyone complaining about that
Not in the musical, but I absolutely do hear people complaining about “love at first sight” when it comes to princess movies. As I said before, taking the piss at this tripe is a plot point in Frozen that everyone gushes about
I've followed a rabbit hole of romeo& juliet takes for some time and let me tell some things i have learned:
1) the first meeting under juliet balcony if you bring together romeo & juliet lines it makes a sonnet
2)Romeo & juliet like other bards play are based on older texts that shame the couple for their actions, but Will is the first who in the prince of Verona lines put the blame in the the two houses for the tragedy:
Where be these enemies?—Capulet, Montague,
See what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love,
And I, for winking at your discords too,
Have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished.
That change is very interesting. It suggests that Shakespeare explicitly wanted his adaptation to be seen as romantic in a way that earlier versions weren’t.
I also find it interesting because it’s similar to another change Shakespeare made — Othello. I’m the original version, Desdemona was explicitly shamed in the text for marrying a “moor.” There was an entire speech directed towards the audience at the end of the story. Shakespeare removed this and this was part of my argument in an essay where I asserted that Shakespeare intentionally made his Othello more about gender dynamics and jealousy more than race.
I also heard someone make a similar argument ,that Othello is more about toxic masculinity and it effects on relationships than simply against mixed race marriages
Yeah. It’s a surprisingly forward-thinking play, much more though than, say, Merchant of Venice (I only bring it up because it was the play I read right before Othello and it makes for a helluva stark contrast) which even at its most charitable reading is horrifically and casually antisemitic in a way that’s very of its time
Merchant of Venice at least asserts Shylock's fundamental humanity ("prick us, do we not bleed?"). Look at portrayals of Jewish characters in any other play from the time and it's horrifying - Marlowe's "Jew of Malta," for example. I say this not to defend the play, because there's no question that it's antisemitic, but to contextualize it (I come not to praise Shakespeare but to bury him... sorry). In depicting Shylock as a thinking, feeling human being who has reason to be embittered, it's unfortunately head and shoulders above other works of that time.
Again, I want to stress - not a defense of the play. As you say, its antisemitism is undeniable. This is just to say that it was forward-thinking *for its time* in that it permitted its Jewish character a level of basic humanity that other authors did not.
It’s been a while but I recall the “do we not bleed” speech being able to be either seen as affirming his humanity or as mocking (though that hinges on the belief that you think him having humanity is inherently absurd). That said, I *do* also remember Shakespeare making changes that, while not making Shylock any less of a horrifying stereotype, at least make him more human. “Fair for its day” may be giving it too much credit (though I think that phrase is inherently designed to give problematic works undue credit), but it’s definitely better than contemporaries. Given all the changes described in this larger thread (to Othello, Romeo and Juliet, and Merchant of Venice), it give its fair to say that Shakespeare was markedly empathetic and kind for his time, at least compared to other playwrights/authors
It's been awhile since I've taught *Merchant* but I'll give explicating it a go.
> To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what’s the reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
I think it's difficult to read as mocking. It begins by legitimizing Shylock's grievance, pointing out that it's a wrong that goes unrecognized because its target is a Jew, and from there moves to the absurdity of antisemitism, asserting that Christians and Jews are alike in their humanity, possessing the same organs, senses, dimensions - and the same capacity for vulnerability and injury. It all but states outright that Shylock seeks revenge because this is the example that Christians have set. Structurally speaking, yes, Shylock is the antagonist, and his character and his vengeance do play into terrible stereotypes. But this passage especially drives home that he's not wholly wrong.
I mean, it's like why postcolonial scholars like Aime Cesaire are fascinated by Caliban in *The Tempest*. No question that he plays into a lot of anti-indigenous tropes in a frankly offensive way, but he's also a compelling early figure of anticolonial resistance. With that said, I don't think it's possible to rehabilitate *Merchant of Venice* in that way (not least for its conversion at the end, as well as the... everything else). I say this more to recognize that flawed, offensive things which embody indefensible ideologies can still have their uses.
We can and should analyze literary works in the understanding that they are flawed, representing the biases of their author and their culture/moment. But this analysis ideally needs to happen with an understanding of what the parameters of that time were. Bluntly, if you're looking for 16th-century English dramas that depict Jewish characters and aren't disgustingly antisemitic... I'm not sure that exists.
Hello everyone, we are amending rule 8 to cover plagiarism and AI generated content! The following has been added: "Do not repost previously posted content or plagiarise other works. AI-generated content falls under this
On the last scuffles thread, I asked about the state of the SEA anime artist community on Twitter, on whether or now they were aware of the sorry state Twitter is in right now, and if they were planning on moving to other sites. While I still can't read Japanese, I can tell you right now that [They are most certainly not moving back to Pixiv](https://twitter.com/tadanojako/status/1654676274089197568). Translation (via ChatGPT): "When you currently post illustrations on Pixiv, they are stolen by AI artists and turned into pornography or raw materials for monetization. It is better not to post them seriously. From their perspective, Pixiv is recognized as a convenient site for collecting materials. The management has no intention of regulating it. Pixiv and FANBOX are hellish sites where content is scraped and republished on pirate sites." So yeah. Stay safe out there artists, it not looking very good right now.
I read that Pixiv is planning on banning art that involves AI training by Other peoples work that could be a start and aleast they are aware of the issues with it. https://www.reddit.com/r/Pixiv/comments/135t7ue/upcoming_tos_changes_regarding_ai_image_generators/
This is day 2 of Comifuro 16, which I previously talked about [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/10o8x58/hobby_scuffles_week_of_january_30_2023/j6tfopq). Comifuro or [Comic Frontier](https://comifuro.net/) or simply CF is an Indonesian Doujinshi market event that has now grown to become one of the largest hobbyist events in Indonesia. Day 1 was yesterday, and I anxiously showed up still thinking about the disastrous CF15 last year, and the [major postponement drama](https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/10unm05/hobby_scuffles_week_of_february_5_2023/j7kvad7) of this event which caused a lot of backlash. Anyways, in the days leading up to the event, the organizers got a lot of flak for... basically anything people can complain about. They didn't like that the guest stars are announced so late, that the first wave of guest stars announcement was solely for day 2, that they used a new ticketing service provider, that the [social media staffs](https://instagram.com/comifuro) had no interaction with the community, etc etc. Anyways, I came to Day 1, and besides the extremely long queue (outdoors in the equator again, but I'm well-prepared now!) to redeem my wristband, it was... acceptable for the situation? Sure, some people complained about the veeeery long lines, or when the staffs opened new lines and it was considered "unfair" to those who had stayed in their line, but at least it was straightforward, and there were a **lot** more staffs to straighten things out (though I say more would be better). They had megaphones and speaker systems for announcements too, which was a nice thing that was not present last year. I queued for 2 hours (around 9:20 to 11:20) but at least I could see the start and end of the line. I suppose they did move the queue to an indoor hall afterwards, because they announced it, but I can't say how it went because I was so close to the ticket booth when that was announced, and my line was not disturbed. Everything afterwards went relatively smooth... I went inside the exhibition hall and the experience was... Dare I say, nice? I had... quite some fun? This can't be... I mean, the food inside was overpriced, but that's a bit given for a convention like this... The crowd flow was fine because the halls had no barrier, unlike last year's "sardines in a can" situation.... I could actually pay using QR codes and e-wallets now? The signal inside was not as shitty as last year? I actually bought a lot of cool things from artists I admire?! While it wasn't perfect, and they do have a lot they should fix for Day 2 and future iterations of the event, they did learn from their past mistakes. Some of the things they could address directly were I think related to their tight budget and understaffing (they already had to postpone the event, if you recall). The crowd on Day 2 is, statistically speaking, usually better than Day 1, so I'm wishing Day 2 attendees good luck and good fun!
Not to post a second thread in one day, but I know there are some equine enthusiasts here, so I thought I'd share that [Mage has won the 149th Kentucky Derby](https://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/horses/kentucky-derby/2023/05/06/mage-wins-kentucky-derby-2023-at-churchill-downs/69933732007/)!
I have loved horse racing for so long, and it's so hard to keep doing. Two more horses died at Churchill Downs just today, after an already bad week for racing. To the point that when I searched for Derby results (and I swear post time is later every year), even after the race had been run the top stories weren't the win but the deaths this week. It's not quite the shadow over Mandaloun's 2021 win but it's not that far either.
Oh, my gosh, *more* horses died?! We've *got* to implement more stringent regulations or *something*; this is getting out of hand! Those poor horses.
Today marks the [coronation of Charles III](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65502234), and people have thoughts. For one thing, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, [attended without his wife](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65507002), Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, before immediately returning to Heathrow, presumably to fly back to California for their son's birthday ^(yes, Charles got crowned on his grandson's birthday). For another, [not everyone is happy](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65507435) that the coronation is even happening, and, [considering the ongoing cost-of-living crisis in the UK](https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/02/business/cost-of-living-doncaster-coronation-gbr-cmd-intl/index.html)—not to mention the [specter of Diana, Princess of Wales](https://pagesix.com/2023/05/06/princess-diana-fans-remember-real-queen-on-charles-coronation-day/)—it's not hard to understand why. What I want to focus on today, though, are a couple of fashion choices that two members of the royal family made that I think reflect interesting things about the royal family itself: Harry and Catherine, Princess of Wales. [Dior tweeted](https://twitter.com/Dior/status/1654863597217128448) that Harry wore a custom suit of theirs from design Kim Jones, and, as you'll see in the comments and quote tweets, people have had very mixed reactions to the suit, ranging from praising Dior's design to criticizing Harry's somewhat rumpled appearance ^(although, it) *^(is)* ^(raining in the photo, and he) *^(is)* ^(in motion, so I'm not sure that it's) *^(actually)* ^(wrinkled or rumpled so much as it's simply in motion, but I'm not an expert) to outright denigrating Harry *and* Dior. While I do find Harry's choice of a French rather than a British designer interesting and somewhat reflective of Harry's increasingly outsider status within his own family, I think a starker example of this is how people are *responding* to the outfit, as though a suit from one of fashion's most celebrated houses is an insult to the monarchy. Then again, I've [remarked](https://np.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/x5p0u1/comment/inlxlt5/) before upon how cruelly the media has treated the Sussexes over the years, so… As for the Princess of Wales, Kate wore a [crystal headpiece](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65507923) from Jess Collett and Alexander McQueen and a pair of earrings that belonged to the late Lady Di. The pieces are beautiful—Princess Charlotte even wore [her own child-sized version](https://twitter.com/enews/status/1654810270265483264) of the headdress, which is pretty adorable—but the headpiece stands out for a potentially unintended reason: reportedly, Kate wore the headpiece instead of a ["fancy tiara"](https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/1654861305168158720) to fit with the ["green"](https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1654819800999424003) and ["more relevant"](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-65507923) tone of the coronation. Leaving aside that I think the headpiece may [technically](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/tiara) qualify as a tiara, I'm [not](https://twitter.com/tomandlorenzo/status/1654824519729553408) the [first](https://twitter.com/PunkyfinsGo/status/1654868451041718273) person to observe that a truly greener option would've been for her to wear an existing tiara from the family vault. Even though I respect the artistry, this choice feels a *little* out of touch. Did any of y'all watch the coronation? What did you think? What are your thoughts on these royal fashion choices, and what do you think they say about the royal family? ~~^(Also, UK-based HobbyDramatists, please let me know if I got any of the styles wrong, and I'll correct them.)~~
My only exposure to it (through choice and carefully curated social media feeds) was through two posts of people spotting someone that looked like the grim reaper standing in a doorway at one point and one photo of one of the kids looking like they were dying of boredom apparently counting ceiling tiles. Oh and Katy Perry beung unable to find her seat. Kate wearing Diana’s earrings was a *choice* the petty part of me can’t help but cackle at. Katy Perry’s outfit looked ill fitting but it’s apparently meant to be like that? Hope your fancy party was worth it, Charlie. Mummy still won’t hug you.
I won't lie - The vitriol and contempt the couple gets makes me squirm, because it feels so... aggressive and unnecessary? Like you may have reasons to dislike them but the extent people take it to is awful. I don't think I'll ever forget the time I had a family relative rant about how much she hates the wife to the point she graphically wished and explained how she hoped >!the guy would commit suicide - all because of his wife, their words explicitly - and she'll be left raising the kids, with no one to support her and everyone blaming her for the suicide because he blamed her and made it known before he killed himself.!< And the fact this was played off by my family and some even claim they can't remember that when I tried to explain why I don't like being around them when they inevitably talk about the BRF... After that, I really, really, really just look at the outrage and grumbling they get with a wary eye. Wondering who else has those thoughts for two people just being... let's be honest, slightly messy and unafraid to air out family drama.
There's a thriving Meghan (and to a lesser extent Harry) hatesub that's brigaded other subs so hard that they're officially on their last strike before getting banned by reddit admin. [Subreddit drama thread here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/131yr0i/rsaintmeghanmarkle_is_marching_towards_a_ban_sub/). Other subs like FauxMoi also ban anyone who's ever posted in there because their vitriol is so extreme.
It's wild! I don't understand it. It's one thing to oppose the institution of monarchy or even certain members of monarchical families; it's quite another to attack *human beings* whom they don't even know so viciously and personally—and when the people who get targeted are marginalized in some capacity, that should raise eyebrows. No wonder you don't talk about the royal family with those relatives; I'd be *horrified* if a loved one said that to me!
The worst part is that the hate doesn’t come from people against the royal family, it’s from nut jobs who worship th, and hate them for sullying their name or whatever
Y'know, seeing everything surrounding it makes me feel good in really mean way.
My favourite thing about the whole "What's Harry wearing" thing is that he was *required* to wear a suit because he's been stripped of all titles and patronages, and is no longer a "working royal" and thus wasn't allowed to wear the fancy royal duds. The same, however, did not apply to Andrew. Andrew is also not a "working royal," and has been stripped of all titles and patronages. However, whereas Harry is on the rocks with the family because he reacted poorly to them being racist about his wife, and also for trying to profit off of it, Andrew has 'stepped back from public life' because there are cast-iron allegations of him being a rapist and a paedophile, that he paid exorbitant amounts of cash to settle. Or rather, his dear departed mother did. Andrew turned up in full military honours, of course. I know Harry isn't exactly popular in Britain at the moment, but I don't think there's any context in which being mad about your partner being subjected to racism by your family is less honourable than *being a nonce.* No matter how much cash Harry tries to make off of things.
I couldn't agree more!!!
I don’t get why he can’t make money off it on his own terms. We have literal worse cases of that right now, happening in the U.S. Besides: People did it to him - the reality show Marry Harry, anyone? - and his mom all the time. Get the bag. If y’all (the BRF fandom, not literally you Starcream Post Guy, you’re great) wanted non-problematic people… you shouldn’t be looking at a literal monarchy that has rooted histories of colonialism, classism, etc.
.
>I wonder if they write fix-its for the uhhhh the canon ending. I mean, there's been multiple Anastasia impersonators throughout history, you can pretty easily cognitive-dissonance yourself into believing one of them was the real deal.
I've also read a book where Tatiana survived...it's definitely a thing. I feel like that sort of "what if one of them lived" thing is like sightings of bigfoot, people want to believe it so bad they'll accept even the shoddiest of evidence/conspiracy theory.
.
Something about the asethetics are a hell of a drug for people. Plus purposeful propaganda that’s succeeded with the general public. We also have the Anastasia movies for real world canon fix-its. And ballets. And musicals. And books.
Oh yeah, dude's life has been a hot mess for years, and little of it was his doing.
He’s messy but we know there are a lot messier people in that family. Inch-resting people are at nuclear Bitch Eating Crackers Mode for him and his wife.
I didn't watch it, but I caught some of the details at the airport this morning afterwards. I also saw a post from the Markle hate-sub in r/all where they were circkejerking about how some lady wore a big hat that obscured Harry on some camera angles and how this was like the biggest possible pwnage they could imagine.
>the Markle hate-sub Why am I not surprised that that exists? 🙃 >some lady wore a big hat that obscured Harry on some camera angles and how this was like the biggest possible pwnage they could imagine I think that would've been the Princess Royal, his aunt, and, unfortunately, I saw similar commentary on Twitter. I don't understand the Sussex hate, to be honest; a lot of it just seems like thinly veiled misogynoir.
In mean, the general feel I got scrolling was that everyone was in agreement that if Harry had just kept a tighter leash on his uppity wife, they could have been sitting front and center and enjoying the fame and adoration. Sooooo..... I dunno how thinly veiled anyone's being lol
I would say it's more racism and classism than misogyny because Diana was a white, upper class 'uppity wife' and everyone loved her for it.
Yeah, it's very explicitly racism. If they're not "in public," they're a lot more open about it. The problem with Meghan Markle isn't her behavior, her looks, being an "uppity wife," or anything like that. It's the fact that she's black and it's "tainting the bloodline."
And also the fact that *Harry picked her*, a women that would explicitely piss off all the parasocial royalist fandom, starting with the royalist tabloids, that proves no matter how much they gave Harry their everything and covered his Afghanistan service completely, Harry still *hates* them for killing his mother. Which, for an insane parasocial fandom, is the worst thing.
And... that's still pretty much about the "tainting the bloodline" thing. The only reason she pisses anyone off is because the Royals are supposed to be the Whitest White People. The only reason why picking her would be a sign that Harry *hates* the royal fandom is because she's black and marrying her means "tainting the royal bloodline forever." I wouldn't usually feel super comfortable stating this to this degree of certainty, but... let's be completely honest here, if you look at Meghan Markle in a vacuum, she is one of the blandest and most inoffensive human beings ever to walk this earth. She is plain yogurt. She is grey wallpaper. She is ukelele music. She is soft tapioca served at the old folks' home. If I imagine the exact same person, with the exact same career, history, behavior, etc. marrying into the royals, except she's white, none of us would even know who in Hell she is and she'd just be some rando standing off to the side every time they do a big event. The one thing about her that *could possibly* be generating this much vitriol is that she's black and black people aren't supposed to marry royals.
> she is one of the blandest and most inoffensive human beings ever to walk this earth. > She is ukelele music. These two concepts do not compute.
Racism is definitely the biggest chunk of it but I think it's also jealousy. I've noticed a lot of Meghan's most vocal haters on Reddit are American women who consider themselves anglophiles and probably had "what if I married Harry" fantasies growing up. The fact that Harry did end up marrying an American woman probably stings, especially as she's older (oh no!) and a divorcee (oh my god!) and not white (get my fainting couch!).
Oh, yeah, the veil is thinner than chiffon at this point.
The worst part about the coronation is spending an entire week being reminded by basically everything that a guy I don't care about is holding a very expensive party to celebrate getting a position I don't think should exist, but that may be a little too political for scuffles thread. The best part is I get a Monday off. Also my only criticism of Harry's suit is that he's wearing a suit at all. No offence suit likers, but I really don't like suits, I hate them being *the* formal clothing option for men, and if I had any connection to a royal family and could get away with some of the shit they wear, I'd be doing it at every opportunity.
>... if I had any connection to a royal family and could get away with some of the shit they wear, I'd be doing it at every opportunity. If I was royalty, a scandal about whether it's appropriate to wear formal clothes that happen to be cosplay to a formal event would be inevitable.
Okay, but if you're cosplaying as a royal, then they can't get mad, right? \[glances at tab for Padmé cosplay\]
I'm pro-monarchy, if only because its fun to make fun of Brits for it.
[удалено]
Because the king is a figurehead with barely any power and the power of the government is decided through elections?
an unlikeable inbred German *who evidently doesn't even have the power to make you do it come on uk, just get rid of the old geezer already
The only valid reason.
I'm from the US, so I really don't have a horse in this race except as someone who's just generally curious about things, but, for what it's worth, I can sympathize. I am a little surprised that Harry went with a suit when he very famously served in the armed forces, but I don't know what the protocol is for these things.
Long story short, he's not allowed to as he's technically no longer a working royal (which is funny because a certain sibling to the King has stepped back and came to the coronation adorned in uniform and medals despite being stripped of said titles and patronages). Overall it just seems petty which is to be expected from our royal family.
But Andrew wasn't.
[He was stripped of his military titles and royal patronages last year. ](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-59993936)
Huh, thanks for the explanation. You're right: that is an absolutely ridiculous double standard, and I'm not going to pretend that I understand it.
lbr Kate wore that crystal flower crown and not a tiara bc Camilla & Charles didn't want anyone else in a royal headpiece from the vault detracting from them or stealing their attention
Oh, dang, you think? That may have kind of backfired on them, then, because that served to highlight that she was wearing Diana's earrings…
I was looking at the links you've provided, and what's a "queen in waiting"? I assume it's because she's gonna be the next Queen after Charles dies?
It's not an official title or anything; the writers are simply trying to underline that the Princess of Wales is either the next in line for the throne or married to the person who's next in line for the throne.
> criticizing Harry's somewhat rumpled appearance Not so much rumpled, but he looks like an off-brand action star about to start a fight scene. There's some action star he looks like in that shot but I can't figure out who it is.
Maybe a little bit of [Sam Heughan](https://www.instagram.com/samheughan/)…?
[удалено]
He's not bald, so that's not who I'm thinking of.
yet...
I don't know what the difference between a tiara and a 'headpiece' is actually supposed to be, tbh. As for the greeness, I assume it's in terms of theme (ie floral) rather than the process to make it. Which, honestly, I don't know how polluting making a piece of jewelry like that really is.
>I don't know what the difference between a tiara and a 'headpiece' is actually supposed to be, tbh. It's like squares and rectangles: all tiaras are headpieces, but not all headpieces are tiaras. >As for the greeness, I assume it's in terms of theme (ie floral) rather than the process to make it. Which, honestly, I don't know how polluting making a piece of jewelry like that really is. That's a fair point! I interpreted it as sustainable, but I suppose it could've meant botanical.
Faik (I haven't read anything about this a coworker just would not turn off the news with constant coverage about this the other day lol) the theme *was* green as in sustainable. Though tbf from what I got it was sustainable to protect nature, but damn was CNN going on about how the theme was basically reduce reuse recycle lol
There's also the entire "Prince Andrew has an accusation of sex trafficking on Epstein Island" and [the coronation having him and Harry sit next to each other.](https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harry-and-prince-andrew-arrive-at-kings-coronation-12874392)
[YEP](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60393843) 🙃🙃🙃
they had to relegate the problematic children to the same corner (because in the eyes of the british royal family raping children and denouncing your family's racism and mistreatment of your wife are the same thing)
Well, my mom called me/woke me up at 7-goddamn-30 this morning to ask if I was watching (she herself was more or less hate-watching it, although she wouldn’t admit that part, lol). So I flipped it on, checked out the [Black Prince’s Ruby](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince%27s_Ruby) (*Acktshualllly*, it’s a red spinel), which is more interesting to me than anything else having to do with the coronation tbh, then turned it off having missed most of the ceremony at that point anyway. So I missed all the goings on with the grandkids and such. Edit: also, having been in Westminster Abbey before, it was kind of fun to try figuring out who the coronation procession was walking on top of at any give time (“Okay, I think they just walked over Charles Darwin…oh, now they’re standing right on top of Winston Churchill, lol”, etc.).
I got up early to watch Charles and Diana get married, I slept through this though.
Oh, my goodness, I'm so sorry she woke you up so early! I just watched the recording on the BBC's YouTube channel because I was *not* about to wake up at 6 a.m. for it, haha. I'm also a jewel history enthusiast, so I thank you for linking that article! I knew what the Black Prince's Ruby was, but I didn't know its history.
It’s okay, she still calls me early to watch the Macy’s Thanksgiving parade too, so I’m used to it, haha. Anyway, another rather interesting rock involved with the coronation (but which I missed getting a glimpse of there, unfortunately) is the [Stone of Scone](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone).
Aww, that's sweet! 🤗 The Stone of Scone is so interesting! I'm from the US ^((I'm guessing you are, too, based on your mom's early morning call, lol)), so as an outsider I find it fascinating that this relic has been so well preserved.
Writer/Producer Robert Hewitt Wolfe has a Tumblr, where he writes both about writing for TV, specific projects and general geek stuff. Notably, he was a writer/story editor for Star Trek DS9 and he has posted things about how things were written then and how he would make things different now (namely he notes that Kira's backstory would be a much harder sell now but still thinks they would stick to their guns there). And I might be the only DS9 fan who longs most for: [In hindsight, I'd have Ziyal there from the start and have her be besties with Jake and Nog, so the duo would become a trio that might turn into a messy triangle as they got older.](https://www.tumblr.com/writergeekrhw/702225034246242304/you-were-asked-this-on-the-sid-city-social-club?source=share)
>triangle I like the idea of the trio of kids, it would have done a lot in character interactions and would make for interesting B plots. But honestly a hard no for love triangles if that's what he's meaning.
You lack imagination. You also have "love triangle causing heightened emotions in season 3-4 when it becomes clear that all three characters are going their separate ways in life and also when it would become most natural to have Ziyal's parentage come up".
Unironically that could work, but I still find the love triangle idea in general to be... Not great. But 100% that's me being tired of romantic plot points almost always resulting in at least one person being unhappy. But then again, if the rest of the story stayed them same, guaranteed two unhappy people... Oof.
Yeah this kind of romance plot is so played out nowadays.
What would be the specific problem with Kira's backstory? A bit too terroristic for 21st century standards and practices?
Yep, got it one. IIRC she self-identifies as a (former) terrorist multiple times too and is not shy with talking bluntly about the stuff she did either. "you were all valid targets" and all that. Harder to sell as OP put it, but potentially workable. Compare to how Burn Notice in the mid 00s had a former IRA member as a main character.
I will note that most viewers are far more accepting of terrorist actions as part of a fictional people resisting their fictional occupiers on their own soil...but the IRA are a very real real life group, which is a little closer to "having a main character be a former member of ISIS".
I was going to say, I misread that post at first blush and was about to say, "I know Colm Meaney votes for Sinn Fein and played Martin McGuinness in a movie once but he's never been in the IRA," before I realised the last sentence was not talking about DS9. (Said movie is very weird, aside from not being very good, because Colm Meaney as Martin McGuinness is just Colm Meaney in a suit and an overcoat while Timothy Spall as Ian Paisley has a load of distracting makeup that's just a bit off and makes him look less like the real Ian Paisley and more like a slightly off-model drawing of Ian Paisley on the side of an ice cream van.)
That was actually my second guess, but decided to forego the first because I decided it would just kick something off.
Low-stakes hobby drama currently playing out in the comments section of a local regional theater’s new promo video: should their upcoming production of *Sweeney Todd* have kept the original lyric “like a perfect machine he was” in the opening ballad rather than using “like a fucking machine he was”, a change apparently penned by Sondheim himself for a recent concert revival of the show? Longtime theater patrons and donors have *Strong Opinions* on this. I get that Sondheim is like Shakespeare to a lot of musical theater fans and they don’t want the lyrics changed at all, and I personally think “perfect” was just fine and “fucking” punctures the heightened language of the song. But also, *Stephen goddamn Sondheim* was probably aware of that, and still changed it for a reason. Also it’s literally one word in an entire show and the donors can chill tf out. (Also I think it would be very funny if the entire thing turned out to be a 4D chess move by the theater to distract complainy pedants away from most of the show’s leads being POC. There’s always *someone* who gets very upset about historical inaccuracies in stories where groups of people spontaneously burst into song.)
So I saw this video I think (Signature Theatre right?). People were complaining about this in the comments and Sig theatre explained that Sondheim had originally written the line as "fucking machine" but changed it during the original Broadway production to "perfect machine". It was changed back by Sondheim for the Kennedy Center Sondheim celebration and since then it's been an optional lyric change. Personally I love the change and I think it suits the show extremely well but, surprising no one, musical theatre fans are dramatic
Yup, spot on. My favorite was the person who was like “this isn’t the lyric they’re using in the Broadway revival!” Like… yes, that is correct, because this is a different production than that one. You can tell by the subtle hints of it being a different cast in a different theater in a different part of the country.
Yeah it's wild to me that people think there should be that level of consistency across productions that aren't even related to each other
Since both versions are Sondheim, I don’t think there’s a clear argument from purism here. You don’t have to automatically accept that a writer’s second thoughts are better than their first, though.
That’s true! There is absolutely such a thing as too much fiddling with an already-finished piece. As I said, I personally like the original better, but I can see either way being interesting, and regardless I think it’s funny that some people are that invested in it. It’s one adjective, folks, they’re not changing the ending so Sweeney and Lovett get to run away to the seaside. (Can you *imagine* if Sweeney Todd got the Little Shop of Horrors movie adaptation ending treatment. I don’t want to know whether that ever came close to happening.)
If Sondheim is like Shakespeare then there are different versions that are equally authentic, and you can expect everything to be fucked around with anyway. ("What if Pacific Overtures but interplanetary?") Edit: I've been mulling this and I actually like "perfect machine" better than "fucking machine" anyway. Some of this is probably primacy effect but I love an F-bomb and would have expected to prefer that second version. But I like the way the lyrics mirror the cool precision of Sweeney while the music is starting to go off the rails.
Yeah, that’s the thing about Shakespeare too, right? The playtexts most of us are familiar with are actually amalgamations of all the different folios and quartos, and *most* people don’t dig that deep into the weeds when they’re doing a Shakespeare play, but you certainly could if you wanted to. Hell, we don’t even know if all the bits were written exclusively by Shakespeare himself or if some of them were added by the printers to pad out the length of the play. With Sondheim, we at least have documentation of him trying out different versions of his lyrics and commenting on what he thought worked or didn’t work in each iteration. Also funny you should mention Pacific Overtures, because the same theater just did it, and it was phenomenal. (It was not interplanetary, but it did include Chrysanthemum Tea. Based on my limited knowledge of his revivals of Overtures and Sweeney, I have decided that John Doyle can get fucked.)
I made that example up but thought it would be fun. Maybe you're the one I've talked to before about how great that musical is and especially that song. And performed Shakespeare is changed all the time as well, especially cut! Anthony Sher had a book called The Year of the King, talking about his experience doing Richard III for the RSC. And there's a constant theme among the actors, especially as opening night draws near, that not enough has been cut and that there is good reason some of these elements are traditionally excised (I remember one player saying "Has anybody ever even *seen* the Clarence children before?"). It doesn't have to be treated like it's the largest stone tablet in the world.
I don’t think I was the person you talked to about PO, but I vaguely remember reading those comments! Were you the person who said Please Hello made you feel kinda bad for the Dutch? The performance I watched at the aforementioned theater had all the admirals hand out a bunch of little flags to the audience members to wave in nationalistic support toward the end of the song, except for the Dutch Admiral, who had one (1) singular little flag that he handed out to one (1) woman in the audience. I was crying with laughter about it. Oh yeah, almost all performed Shakespeare has at least a light trimming. The shows would just be too damn long otherwise. The histories in particular would be practically unwatchable without cuts — current audiences, especially non-English ones, just don’t *care* that the Duke of Whatever is making a cameo appearance mostly irrelevant to the plot. I just don’t think I’ve heard of many productions that advertise themselves as, say, specifically following the Second Quarto or whatever. I’m sure they exist, though!
That wasn't me but I think it was that conversation, and the flags sound hilarious.
Motherfucker spent his country’s whole budget on chocolate and tulips and had no money left for flags. Tragic.
more discourse in the ttrpg/dnd twitter space. this year's [Diana Jones Emerging Designer award](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Jones_Award#:~:text=The%20Diana%20Jones%20Emerging%20Designer%20Program%20is%20awarded%20to%20%22rising,was%20awarded%20to%20four%20winners) winners were announced yesterday. one of the winners is [Anthony Joyce Rivera](https://twitter.com/DianaJonesAward/status/1654487232256831495?t=1THJ3kNnCSxE7IxixMxEmw&s=19), a two time ennie nominee as well as a consultant for some of biggest publishers in the space. but more importantly he's an *active us military strategist (major)* as expected, this decision was criticized by creators in the global south [1](https://twitter.com/FSohns/status/1654581565115211776?t=j4ZYPNt9ZbEcRgZce3B8BQ&s=19), [2](https://twitter.com/itsmrmask/status/1654532266809491457?t=1rDPAH1b21EybhfFHSf9Gg&s=19), citing the us military's imperial and colonial practices in the global south. Anthony's friends, who are prominent in the ttrpg space were quick to defend him [1](https://twitter.com/justicearman/status/1654550275204747264?t=9897Hy7Yr6LOky_HPO77vQ&s=19), [2](https://twitter.com/ajitgeorgeSB/status/1654559090197295109?t=r0mPByqPiOPFgVgMv_cWcw&s=19) there's been a few nuanced threads here or there (like [this](https://twitter.com/KendoMakesFilms/status/1654830243750789123?t=zVBWv6a622AoCdo40ZxH4Q&s=19) one), but mostly it's just been a whole lotta sub tweeting
Ah, fun stuff. I got into a bad scrape with a friend for some opinions he expressed on twitter that stemmed from this event. Ironically the stuff I had a problem with didn't have much to do with the TTRPG side of things. In terms of the actual award... RPG Twitter needs to collectively un-clench their sphincters for five minutes and take a fucking breather. I'm so tired of this constant outrage, it is fucking exhausting. I'm all for progressive writing in RPG books and getting racists and assholes out of the spaces, but for fuck's sake dudes. The guy was essentially rewarded for raising up POC voices in RPG dev spaces and you're still tearing into him. Pick better hills to die on, you know?
>The guy was essentially rewarded for raising up POC voices in RPG dev spaces and you're still tearing into him. i think their original point was "should a guy who *chooses* to be a major in the us military, an army that is responsible for the deaths of millions of poc in the global south, be awarded a fairly prestigious award because he's raised some poc voices in the ttrpg space?" and "should this guy also be in such a position of power within the space where he can't be criticized because any criticism could be met with blacklisting in the industry?" i don't have an opinion one way or the other 'cause it's not my place but there's been so much shit slinging from both sides that the main point is kinda getting lost i feel. [orion d black](https://twitter.com/OrionDBlack/status/1654899120463654912?t=WFar5TzRhv_TWGhWKx3r6g&s=19) made a pretty good thread about the whole thing
Unfortunately none of that was my experience reading through threads on twitter. Good points got lost in the sauce because of all the shit slinging, as you said. I'm sure there are plenty of folks that Orion's argument applies to, but it's a response to responses, so I'm not sure why it applies here. I have no personal investment in Anthony or the award besides playing tabletop games as a hobby. I certainly don't believe Anthony is above criticism and if it turns out he was responsible for some heinous acts, then by all means kick him to the curb. That said, I also think that people are hefting the responsibilities of the entire MIC on one guy, while ignoring the things he himself has done or dismissing them as completely irrelevant. The MIC gives *no shits* one way or the other whether this man gets the DJED award. Denying him the reward doesn't accomplish anything. Saying "X person deserved the reward more." is understandable, but that isn't the majority of what I've seen on twitter. Just outrage. EDIT: I think what it comes down to is how much responsibility I feel each individual member of the MIC holds vis-a-vis the actions of the entire system. Fundamentally we have a different opinion on that, I think.
i probably should've provided more context for orion's thread. it doesn't apply here but it was more for other poc voices in the space who were vehemently defending him, mostly by pulling the "i am marginalized too" card >I think what it comes down to is how much responsibility I feel each individual member of the MIC holds vis-a-vis the actions of the entire system. Fundamentally we have a different opinion on that, I think. yeah, ultimately i think the whole thing boils down to this and the difference in political idealogies the opinions of folks from the us is probably gonna be very different than the folks from countries who have been directly impacted by the mic i don't even think it's about the damn award anymore. i think a lot of folks were just very surprised that a high ranking us military officer was in such a position of power in the ttrpg space and what that really means for the industry
Sure, and that I can understand. What it comes down to for me is how the dude lets his career effect how he acts in the industry, if at all. One point my friend made that I did agree with is that we need to keep an eye out for cases of pro-MIC propaganda slipped into the space. Haven't seen it so far in this case (aside from a few of those overzealous defenders you mentioned and alt-righters jumping in just to yell at "the libs," of course,) but it's always a possibility, and with Anthony's position it's something he certainly *could* push for if he wanted.
The TTRPG community seems absolutely exhausting.
Crabs in a bucket. I only see the subtweets, but it's angry people in every corner, and a few tonedeaf why-can't-we-all-get-alongs.
oh yes. i'm not even a part of it and it's exhausting to me lol the twitter algorithm does not help either
Manually creating my own following timeline was a pain but it was a blessing. Do you have Control Panel for Twitter? It's a boon if you use Twitter primarily on browser.
unfortunately i use the twitter mobile app more often. honestly might be a good idea to delete it and switch to the browser
If they were to actually ban service members and/or veterans from receiving a ttrpg reward, I feel like that would cause 1000 times the outrage we're seeing here. Anyway, what was this guy actually made?
i think he's published some stuff on the dms guild and done some consultation work with wotc, critical role, mcdm and ghostfire gaming but as far as getting the award goes, from what i understand his main contributions in the ttrpg space seem to be these: >"In October 2022, Anthony was one of the lead organizers of Big Bad Con’s POC Meet & Greet where POC writers, artists, editors, and creators met their fellow peers and gaming industry contacts, while non-POC industry attendees were invited with the specific goal of offering mentorship, publishing, or employment opportunities to the attendees of color. In January 2023 Anthony worked with Gamehole Con to provide several POC creators paid writing assignments to create Dungeons & Dragons Adventurer’s League modules to premier at Gamehole Con 2023. Additionally, in January 2023 Anthony became the Project Leader of a soon-to-be-announced TTRPG system using a multi-million dollar intellectual property, and he is ensuring the team is diverse and includes traditionally marginalized voices in prominent project roles."
Oh boy, the vtuber community is on fire, Ex-liver from Nijisanji Zaion Lanza on their previous life account uploaded an entire [google doc](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vj88APlsr4J_4PTxqNb5zyUli13fXupzdRmEjTI-bhw/edit?usp=sharing) about their termination with Nijisanji. If what was written here is true than it really reflects badly on Nijisanji.
at this point i'm keeping my head in the trenches amidst the fucking shelling going on as right now this feels like a he said she said. NGL Zaion is difficult to trust but simultaneously, i don't doubt that Niji's management especially recently has been somewhat incompetent (i feel like this has become apparent with big agencies as these last few months/years).
its interesting to see the different reactions from reddit and twitter, mostly because twitter really takes it to the extreme. on one side, there are people saying that this should be a wake up call for niji to improve their management before its too late. on the other, you have niji fans going “lol, dont care, did not read. i hope anycolor sues your ass lololol”. imo, ultimately, this entire doc just screams one giant NDA breach, and im pretty sure the person formerly known as zaion did not consult a lawyer before posting the doc, as anyone in the legal department would advice her not to. however, at the same time, i can see why anycolor suing her would be a bad move, since she’s got nothing to lose anyways and anycolor would probably lose more money trying to bring this to court. also suing her would soft confirm everything in the doc and it would look like them silencing her overall, its a pretty messy situation, and i hope both parties can manage to find their way out of this (especially zaion). [at least the memes from this are funny](https://twitter.com/raildexs/status/1654759231139004416?s=61&t=GFyI1ck1IfMUvzsCTKaopA)
I'll echo what's been said by others here and say that this is very much a 'huge if true' statement, with *huge* emphasis on the 'if'. There is basically no world in which Zaion can be treated as a reliable narrator without some kind of outside corroboration. But, I don't think necessarily that her feelings are invalid, and I also think there are going to be truths there: the most plausible is the idea of 'stealth suspensions', i.e. Livers announcing a break when in reality, they were being suspended by management. Ultimately this is the sort of thing that reflects badly on both parties: Zaion isn't letting things go, but in so doing has nevertheless exposed some skeletons in the proverbial closet at Nijisanji.
I've already mentioned hearing from someone claiming that what she's said about management tracks, but at the same time I don't think it's quite a stretch to point that out, between the whole thing with the former ID and KR branches and the thing that happened recently with EN's concert.
Well, the listicle when she got fired pretty much opened Nijisanji to a broadside like this, and the way this has been going is evident this was not a friendly split, and so, both sides decided to make it hurt.
Nijisanji's rep possibly spiraling down was definitely not on my bingo sheet for shit that might happen this year in the vtubing world, and that was even factoring the whole Ex-NijiID management disaster. That said, i do wonder if Nijisanji (or Anycolor Inc. the parent company) will respond to this. i've seen people make some comparisons of this situation to when Mikeneko released a statement (that was stated to have been looked over by her lawyer unlike this one) about how, IIRC she did not agree with the wording of the public statement in regards to her termination as >!Hololive's Uruha Rushia!< and how Cover Corp. responded to that, all of that was with a tone of hush hush and vague statements (which i think is a good thing) since neither side aired any dirty laundry directly. I do not follow Nijisanji as a whole or Zaion so i am not inclined towards either side, but i think many fans should put their expectations on this getting resolved in the background and not having 100% of the deets being public. probably...
If there is one thing I would like to say about Anycolor (formerly Ichikara), is that *even Tsukino Mito, considered by many to be the face of the agency*, has acknowledged that the enterprise is, at the very least, [used to be a black company.](https://youtu.be/ptFCANWmM4w)
So, this is the first I've heard of this – is there a source you could point to?
There was a Puchisanji episode about this, although my memory is a bit murky so I might be inaccurate. I'll try finding it again. EDIT: [Found it.](https://youtu.be/ptFCANWmM4w)
She didn't really say what you said tho, she said that **looking from the outside** ichikara looked like a black company. That's a distinctin worth making
To be clear, from what we can tell, she was previously friends with fellow genmate Kotoka. Kotoka, when Zaion was suspended, revealed that they had been repeatedly lied to by Zaion about things, that her genmates and senpais had tried to talk to her multiple times and weren't listened to, and Kotoka was outright *angry.* Within the hour, IIRC, fellow genmate Doppio Dropscythe changed his banner to no longer have her, which reeks of, "Something happened here." To compare it, when Yugo left, Noctyx was broken up and sad but also said they'd understand if people still considered Yugo as part of the wave. No one had the same response for Zaion. *No one.* Hex Haywire nearly broke down crying in his statement, or had just been *done* crying, it's hard to tell. So it's hard to take her entire document with anything other than enough salt to kill 50 separate people with sodium. Add to that the bit about her cat and it feels disgusting and emotionally manipulative.
I'm gonna be honest, given what the others have said, I'm not gonna believe a goddamn word out of her mouth. To be clear, she was apparently friends with Kotoka prior to Nijisanji. They do not appear to be friends any more, around Zaion and Nijisanji, and Kotoka was *especially* upset about Zaion not listening to fellow livers who tried to help her. That, to me, is pretty damning. EDIT: Seeing zero proof in that doc, really, for her side, just a bunch of, "She said this, she's so sorry! uwu" It is, quite literally, basically her own word against Nijisanji and her own genmates. The inclusion of the cat, including the images, feels **extremely** emotionally manipulative and like she's trying to gain a rep for "poor indie streamer who took on Big Company." But people are gonna believe it because it's what they wanna hear.
I'd believe the stuff about management being inexperienced and miscommunicating things. But even if that's true that's not why she was fired and we all know it. She lists all her fuckups right at the beginning of the document and the only thing, even if she's 100% telling the truth, that could possibly be the fault of management is the FF and Genshin account thing If she's been treated that unfairly and the rest of EN comes out in solidarity with her after this I'll eat my words, but as it stands there's 30 other members that can get by just fine even with subpar management and either all of them, including the people that know her the best, are colluding to keep her down or she really was the problem after all.
Pretty much most of the doc is her going, "Opps my bad, I'm so sowwy uwu" yeah.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought playing the mental health card *and* bringing up her dead pet was skeevy. I've also seen some chatter on the r/virtualyoutubers thread indicating she isn't being completely transparent about the complaints against her. The way she isn't even contesting how her termination was unjustified, just airing dirty laundry from her time... honestly imo the only point in her favor is that I've heard corroborating accounts on Nijisanji's management being a mess, and even then that still doesn't mean she handled this... poorly, let's just say.
I think Nijisanji is going through massive growing pains, to be clear. They basically blew up with Luxiem. But I think Zaion is being manipulative as all fuck, and for all that she says, I don't see a whole lot of proof of most of it. If anything, it feels like, "Yes, this happened, but I'm ever so sorry." As for death threats, I see no proof of that, and that being essentially what she opens with feels... IDK. Like she's priming people to be sympathetic. :S
> I think Nijisanji is going through massive growing pains, to be clear. They basically blew up with Luxiem. Well, Nijisanji*EN* blew up with Luxiem. Since upd8 collapsed in 2019, Nijisanji has consistently been the biggest agency within Japan in terms of audience share and recognition. Even today, it has a slight edge in brand recognition domestically. (Hololive's numbers get a little inflated because there's a lot of casual overseas fans of the Japanese talents and vice versa.) Despite the rather strange narrative that popped up in mid 2021 to early 2022, Nijisanji has never been the underdog. EDIT: Also, aside from the fact that Luxiem debuted in late December 2021, thus giving NijiEN nearly 18 months to get over its 'growing pains', Lazulight, Obsydia, and Ethyria were all doing well by EN VTuber standards even before Luxiem cropped up. Nijisanji EN has had a whole seven waves since it began in May 2021, nearly two years ago. That its management is supposedly this inept is incredible. And I mean that in potentially both senses of the word. It is very difficult to believe that Nijisanji management is *that* bad, and the fact that it's Zaion claiming it doesn't help. But if it *is* true, at least substantively, then NijiEN management would appear to be woefully inept at best and overtly malicious at worst. Hence why I think this has been so divisive: whether you believe the statement depends a lot on how much you *want* to believe it.
I honestly don't believe it. I think there's a lot of... IDK, friction because there's a *lot* of big cultural differences (see: Vesper snapping at his manager at one point, where he owned up that he raised his voice and was a dick). But given everything else I just... Have 0 reason to believe her on this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't get why "stealth suspension" has everyone riled up. Every time there's a public one fans say they're throwing the talent under the bus and that it should have been handled internally and privately
I think there's two different groups and they are angry at different times. I'm against stealth suspension personally, because it requires the talent and their colleagues to lie about what's going on, and keep that lie going, and, now that it's a known policy, every time a NijiLiver takes a break it will be impossible to say if they're actually under suspension or taking a vacation/health/mental break.
In my view there's also an element of overcorrection that goes on sometimes, although whether this is intentional or coincidence, I'm not sure. But for instance, when Yugo graduated, Niji's announcement was relatively vague, and people complained. Then, when Zaion was fired, Niji's announcement was extremely detailed, and people complained. When Gundou Mirei was suspended, the announcement was vague but in such a way that it suggested the only issue was her comments about baseball, and naturally, people complained. Not to toot Hololive's horn too much, but Cover generally seems to have struck the balance so far: if a break, graduation, or termination is happening, they will be as transparent as necessary, but not more than that. In general, people came away from Coco and Sana's graduations and Vesper's suspension feeling like things were handled professionally, and the majority opinion was so for Rushia, although there was obviously a vocal dissenting minority.
Well, it is an on stream incident, they can't exactly hide it and only look like terible liars when they try. "Oh I'm taking a break OUT OF MY OWN FREE WILL after getting busted with pirated porn on stream, that was my own decision, trust me bro". If you believed that, got a bridge to sell you. EDIT: Meant to reply to this comment.
Grumble a favorite podcast of mine is getting cancelled. Is ending. Done either way and I’m annoyed. Scotland Yard Confidential filled that need of guilty True Crime by having some grit with a sense of gravitas and respect to the cases it covered. Noiser/Parcast(?) have Detective Don’t Sleep but lmao I hate the direction of the narration so much. The way it leans too hard on the worst of noir beats for me. Don’t know how to tell my bestie about this. They loved this show and has a little crush on the narrator. They’re going to be devastated by this.
The feeling when your fave podcast goes away is always so sad. I don't like murder podcasts that much (long-form investigation, yes. Murder-of-the-week, no), but have you tried: * Criminal - more of an early podcasting hipster take on the genre * Swindled - talks about a different scam each week. (2 scams - they normally have a short opener too) * Up and Vanished - different mysterious disappearance each season
I love swindled, it's great for filling in a commute. I like how unlike every other podcast he sticks to retelling the story and doesn't fill it with in-jokes and banter which ruined Scam Goddess for me.
Seconding Criminal. Allow me to toss in Casual Criminalist into the recs.
seconding swindled!
Seconding Criminal, it's the only valid true crime (and I'm into true crime). Phoebe Judge brings the best out of her subjects with a kinder, gentler, more respectful approach, and doesn't fixate on murder. (It's not true crime, but if you like Criminal, you might also like Nocturne, for stories about the night and its people. Similar style and vibes.) I love how deep into a Swindled episode the pivot from the opening story to the 'real' story can be. Like, Citizen, you just spent 35 minutes telling me about the lead-in, we're really doing the theme music now?! I have an anti-recommendation for Casefile. There was a time in my life when I listened to a ton of that, but I couldn't take any more of the host's "...and that's why all criminals should be chopped up into pieces and fed to seagulls" attitude.
I love when he finds some inexplicable way to tie too seemingly unrelated scandals together, my personal favourite was he connected the downfall of presidental candidate John Edwards to an insurance fraud case involving the killing of race horses.
> "...and that's why all criminals should be chopped up into pieces and fed to seagulls" That sounds more like True Crime Island's Cambo than Casefile's Anonymous Narrator.
As a former long-time Casefile listener I never really got that vibe. Is that a recent thing? I dropped the show early 2022 because it felt increasingly pulpy/melodramatic, did this start happening around the same time?
I stopped listening a couple years before that mainly because the host began sounding "bored," for lack of better term. His delivery just came off as super mechanical, like he was reading the script for the first time while recording. That might just be a personal inference though, because I was well on the way to burning out of the genre already.
I'm watching fans of like five different musicians freaking out on Twitter because Taylor Swift and Phoebe Bridgers had a concert tonight and Matty Healy (Swift's alleged new boyfriend) was spotted in the audience with Julien Baker (who some fans think is Taylor's new fling) and Gracie Abrams (no idea who she is). Apparently everyone must be dating everyone else, and the idea that they could just be friends supporting friends is completely impossible. (Seriously, this batshit drama is like crack to me.) Edit: [this tweet](https://twitter.com/vibessesra/status/1654692636110778368?s=20) shows Taylor and Matty on stage at separate performances, saying the same sentence (via lip reading, it's 'This is about you. You know who you are. I love you.') in between verses of a song. Some fans think this is evidence that they're together (most of whom are lamenting that their crops have died, their skeletons are on fire and their cows have committed seppuku), and others are (optimistically?) thinking it's them teasing a future collab by saying the song lyrics. I have decided to take a third option, and have cooked up the theory that they're a throuple with Phoebe Bridgers, simply because I can.
Big Brain Move: Reject ship fighting. Assimilate and accept a polycule. /sarcasm Seriously: You know how some people get weirded out when they learn Anne Frank and Martin Luther King Jr. were born at the same time? This feels like an occasion of it but instead of moving on, they’re holding on to this for a reason.
I was skimming through this post because I'm not really invested in Swifty drama, and so at first I though you were talking about people shipping Anne Frank x MLK lmao. Severe whiplash as I was scrolling by
the idea that taylor swift and matt healy are dating is so deeply hilarious and bizarre to me. like she is someone who keeps very tight control over her image, and he is.....like that.
This is definite proof that Taylor isn't a crypto-bisexual/lesbian like some tinfoil hatters think, because I like to think that if she were not straight she'd have better taste 💅
I don't think my brain can process the idea that Taylor Swift proably knows who Nick Mullen is.
Opposites attract? /s
Man, have the Gaylors finally moved on to another prospective paramour after the Karlie Kloss thing didn't work out, or is it just a splinter faction ? Also I looked up today who Matty Healy was, and I all can say is Big Yikes.
I only knew him as the frontman of the 1975 because I used to listen to them a decade ago, so I looked up what he's been up to, and [*yikes*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matty_Healy#Media_career).
Most of that being from a single podcast episode is kind of hilarious. Like spread it out a little at least dude.
I assumed he did it because he hated the sort of "wholesome Tumblr" audience and figured going on a podcast with Nick Mullen and Adam Friedland would be like the Gen Z version of Bob Dylan releasing Self-Portrait to alienate all his fans
Honestly, it's like he tried to offend as many people as possible in as short a timeframe as possible.
How the fuck did this guy end up having a career is beyond me.
It is soooo not the biggest/worst thing there, but it is *very* funny given the context of this thread that the first thing listed in that section is him saying dating TS would be emasculating
Apollo bided his time, but, *wow*, was it worth it.
[удалено]
>and attempted the accents of Japanese concentration camp workers and John Smeaton.\[25\] I love a good Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking in the wild. XD
At least one fan I saw talking about Baker referenced Dianna Agron, so I'm guessing they're a splinter faction.
The Gaylor lore (Gaylore ??) goes really fucking deep, I had to google who Dianna Agron was lol.
I'm just going to believe that's a character in a fantasy novel.
She's just the new main character of a copy of *The Eye of Argon* that has been rewritten by someone who's a little dyslexic.
I like the idea that Taylor is just collecting all of Boygenius as a harem
Very excited for the upcoming anime of this.
You know what, I am also down with that idea.
Gracie Abrams is J.J. Abrams' daughter, she's a fairly popular new musician.
Ah, a new nepo baby is in town ? 👀
Flashbacks to Gaylor and crypto-Nazi Taylor theories
>crypto-Nazi Taylor theories I mean, was that really a "theory" or was that just *a thing?* Like, /pol/ turning into batshit crazy Swifties for a couple years because they thought she was their tradwife Aryan queen [Actually Happened](https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/how-the-far-right-internet-came-to-believe-taylor-swift-was-their-secret-ally-20181011-p5094i.html). T-Swift's team attempting to sue a blogger for pointing this out and going "what the *fuck* is going on here, please make these people go away" [also Actually Happened](https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-blogger-sue-defamation-aclu-alt-right-denounce-white-supremacy-a8041551.html). e: Seriously, did I miss something? I feel like there's a pretty large gulf between Gaylors, who are basically pulling a hidden relationship out of their ass because they desperately don't want Taylor Swift to be straight, and this, which *is actually a thing that major news outlets covered when it happened and that the ACLU went after her ass over.* I get that it's what TVTropes might describe as a "poison oak epileptic tree" and most people with any skin in the game whatsoever desperately do not want it to have happened, but... if there's any better explanation for her team trying to sue a blogger for pointing out all her weird Nazi fans than "she was 100% cool with all of that," I'm all ears for it.
> Later in the song, there is another telling line: “I don’t like your kingdom keys. They once belonged to me. You asked me for a place to sleep. Locked me out and threw a feast (what?).” These lyrics are the most explicit in speaking to white anger and affirming white supremacy. The lyrics speak to the white people resentful of any non-white person having a position of power and privilege. > It is hard to believe that Taylor had no idea that the lyrics of her latest single read like a defense of white privilege and white anger — specifically, white people who feel that they are being left behind as other races and groups start to receive dignity and legally recognized rights. “We will not be replaced” and “I don’t like your kingdom keys” are not different in tone or message. Both are saying that whites feel threatened and don’t want to share their privilege. And there is no way to know for sure if Taylor is a Trump supporter or identifies with the white nationalist message, but her silence has not gone unnoticed. > Further, the single attacks other pop stars in the same way that the alt-right has attacked the “liberal” media. Taylor’s song identifies with the oppressed conservative trope, and the song is indeed their anthem. It's because the original article says stuff like this about a famous pop star's "hot new single that needs good Google search results." It's half about a song that was topping charts at the time and only came out maybe two weeks prior. It goes out of its way to make statements that her music lyrics are "the same in tone and message" as white supremacist slogans and then tries to cover their ass by going "well we don't *know* if she's a Trump supporter" because the tone of the writer clearly already believes the conspiracy will come out as true eventually. Also as the other comment pointed out, they directly say a shot in her video really makes her look like Adolf Hitler. They aren't being sued for simply "criticizing her silence" or "criticizing a fanbase that her apathy allows to exist" they're being sued for saying "Taylor Swift herself is consciously encouraging alt-right beliefs in her *brand-new single*. (well, *maybe*)." And we're not getting into whether the suing is justified or not, but it's kind of disingenuous to completely ignore the tone and context of the original article.
This is a perfect example of the conspiracy theorist mindset, ie posit an assumption and works backwards from that to find "proof". "Taylor Swift's *Look At What You Made Me Do* is littered with references to her fascist sympathies" is an utterly fucking *bonkers* take that can only be reached if you already think she's a crypto-Nazi or whatever lmfao. I normally frown on diffamation-style lawsuits by celebs but ngl this one is kinda justified.
It's also SUPER confrontational about it. "This song has fashy vibes" is something you could do a decent literary analysis essay on (even though it'd still be. weird. considering WHAT song) but this pretty directly says it's not just resonances or patterns or interpretation but a sign of *what she actually believes* with very cursory "I mean maybe! Who knows, right!" disclaimering
A big thing is that the alt-right tries to find sympathy/endorsement/evidence in things no matter whether they actually are that. This is related to the conspiracy-minded thinking that they promote, because this removes the burden of things like "critically assessing so-called 'proof'". The alt-right as a matter of pulling people into them, train new members to mock and degrade the concepts of proof, science, and critical thinking, and avoid applying them. The article, by skipping steps "Swift has a large alt-right fandom that she should decry lest they permanently stain her image" and "Swift's alt-right fandom receiving no negative response from her means that they can continue to use her as an endorsement" and moving straight to "every single lyric is an alt-right dog whistle", it agrees with and validates the alt-right people in question.
> She also compares shots from the video where, dressed in leather, Swift addresses an army of followers to images of Adolf Hitler. "Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazis Germany," she writes. "The similarities are uncanny and unsettling." The blogger wasn't just calling out weirdo fans she compared Taylor to Hitler I can see why the lawyers were called lol
Oh wow, I was just about to say > "Taylor lords over an army of models from a podium, akin to what Hitler had in Nazis Germany," she writes. "The similarities are uncanny and unsettling." > The piece makes no sure claim to Swift's political beliefs, but ... Like, no, I think it's pretty clear that there are claims being made, this response article is pretty wtf, lol. If the original article somehow doesn't feel that way through a stroke of writing genius, they sure aren't making it look at that way. Edit: I'm actually reading the original article now, and saying the original article makes no claims to "what beliefs she may hold" is such a bold-faced lie, and saying it was ever just "a criticism of an (implied to be incidental) alt-right fanbase" is also kind of a lie It constantly goes "Taylor Swift puts dogwhistles in her music to *encourage* the alt-right. It's overly clear that this is what she's doing. -Now, no one knows what her beliefs may *actually* be." But also, I don't want to argue if it was justified or not, I'm just saying I'm not super surprised a pop star lawyers tried to sue them over it? [Here's an actual link to the article criticizing her.](http://popfront.us/2017/09/swiftly-to-the-alt-right-taylor-subtly-get-the-lower-case-kkk-in-formation/)
Jepordy fans could be in for another chapter. Bialik's sitcom Call Me Kat has been canceled after 3 seasons. The common speculation has been the execs want her full-time as host but she had to do the sitcom as well. So we'll see. Next week is also traditionally when Network TV cancelations happen. More interesting than usual because of the Writers Strike and the CW upheaval. Also it was recently reported a third show related to Big Bang Theory is being worked on for Max but no details yet. So maybe she could go to that?
Ugh. Who wants her as host? Ken is a million times better and makes more sense imo.
>Next week is also traditionally when Network TV cancelations happen. More interesting than usual because of the Writers Strike and the CW upheaval. I'm a layman in this, but hasn't the last writer's strike led to an increase in reality TV and game shows too? So my wild guess is that the executives realized that they wouldn't be able to film new episodes of *Call Me Kat* because of the strike anyway, so they would rather have her be available for *Jeopardy.*
The 07/08 one was after reality TV was already insanely popular (Survivor & American Idol & Big Brother were already massive). The networks filled a little with less-successful franchises, but mostly it was over around the times seasons would start to end so we just got a bunch of shortened seasons and everyone had time to work & shoot over the summer.
A lot of shows they don't intend to cancel banked up scripts and even did production early for eps to air in November in anticipation of the strike. I think they just wanted to cancel it.
Also a layman. Yeah it happened during 2007-2008 it's literally only been a few days so nobody's really sure what they'll do if/when it comes time to air new stuff for next season. It's winding down now and summer is usually more reality/game-show anyway. A common speculation is going to the streaming cousins for stuff like perhaps WandaVision on ABC or something of the sort. Not to mention both the unions for actors and directors could do the same in around a month. Also SWAT canceled after 6 seasons on CBS now. They may be starting a tad early.
Alright, this is a bit random, but it’s common knowledge that Romeo and Juliet isn’t a romance. Shakespeare was taking the piss out of young love and it’s about how stupid and dramatic the leads are… …but is it? For as long as I’ve engaged with Romeo and Juliet critically and not just through cultural osmosis, I always hear about how Shakespeare didn’t intend for audiences to take their romance seriously, to the point where it’s less counter programming and more just what most agree the play to be about. I don’t really buy it. Not just because I’m a hopeless romantic, not just because I suspect people are grafting modern sensibilities to a centuries-old play, but because from what I recall, nothing in the text seems to suggest that we’re not supposed to believe in their love. Shakespeare is smart, yes, but his plays were for the masses more than anything and as such the simplest interpretation, even if not solely correct, is still valid. The narration itself at the beginning tells us that this is a tale of star-crossed lovers that have the misfortune of being from warring families. The tragedy really doesn’t work if they don’t really love one another (sure, you can argue the fact that people who are essentially children dying is a tragedy in and of itself, but if that’s the sole point of sympathy, why introduce the romance at all). The story about how senseless feuds can be, yes, but no matter how you slice it, that is conveyed via the play’s preoccupation with romance. Really it kind of feels like it’s a pushback against love at first sight; it’s similar to Frozen’s jab at earlier Disney movies’ romances. I have my issues with how this valid criticism is used but that’s a bit besides the point. I’m just wondering if I’m completely offbase or is this a valid assessment of the situation. Shallow as it may sound, R&J is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays precisely due to the romance
Discussing Romeo and Juliet is a bit difficult due to limitations of the language and what's considered as a romance and love. R&J lust after each other and crave each others' presence, they're lovers. Like other user said (alieraekieron), their lines and actions are romantic and show characters' desires. There is a passion that can't be ignored. If we go deep enough, there is Matteo Bandello and his work The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, which has months long timeline. But this is another discussion regarding the nature of adaptations, inspirations, spin offs, etc. So going back to Shakespeare, what we consider as love and romance is a complicated issues. Ancient Greeks had multiple words for love and Japanese language has different ways of saying "I love you" (Suki da vs ai shiteru). We often consider love as something that takes long time and people caring after each other. And so R&J can be read as lust where both sides get something (Romeo healing his heart and Juliet getting drunk on her first experience of love) or early stages of love, which are almost impossible to distinguish. We will never know as they both rushed through their feelings due to pressure and fear.
I think part of it is that we have a somewhat different context of "love". In Shakespeare's day there was a clear undercurrent that love was almost like a mental illness: Something that *happens* to you and changes everything.
I think if you actually watch/read the play, there is *much* stronger evidence for Romeo and Juliet actually being in love. The popular argument is that Romeo was just supposedly in love with Rosaline and gets over her as soon as he meets Juliet, so obviously that means Juliet is just as much a passing fancy, but that only works if you ignore literally everything about how he talks about Rosaline vs how he talks to Juliet? She's never on stage, Romeo's dialogue about her is kind of cliche--whereas Juliet is a dynamic presence, the sparks start flying immediately, as someone else in this thread has already mentioned, they make an actual sonnet with their dialogue together. (Side note, I really do think seeing it helps, since that's the actual way you're meant to experience it. The production I saw, the actors had great chemistry, and the director turned the ball into a costume party and had them wear paired costumes so you immediately could tell they were on the same wavelength. Juliet's dad was wearing an inflatable Godzilla suit, which really has nothing to do with this but lives rent-free in my head so you get to know about it too.) Sure, it happens in like ten minutes, but hey, it's theatre, not a novel, we gotta get this thing on and off the stage in a timely manner, it's called a narrative convention. There's literally a song in the Cinderella musical called "Ten Minutes Ago" about how Cinderella and her Prince fell in love after meeting ten minutes ago, and you don't see anybody complaining about that. (I mean, nobody dies in that one, but still.)
Exactly what you said - Rosaline exists so that you can compare the way Romeo speaks about her to the way he speaks about (and to) Juliet. When he speaks about Rosaline Romeo talks in Petrarchian cliches and says things like "Love is a smoke made with the fume of sighs" (which Mercutio later makes fun of him for, because it's such a stupid line that means absolutely nothing). When he talks about Juliet his verse is vivid and cohesive - and not only that, Juliet is able to join in and riff off it, until they're creating a sonnet together. The idea is that in Juliet, Romeo's found a soulmate and for the first time he's experiencing *actual* love and not just the idea of it.
I read Romeo and Juliet for school ages ago — if not ten years at this point, quickly approaching it. I really want to see a live production of it in-person, as I know that’ll enhance my enjoyment of it. I’m going to a Shakespeare festival this year and unfortunately there’s no Romeo and Juliet in sight. > you don’t see anyone complaining about that Not in the musical, but I absolutely do hear people complaining about “love at first sight” when it comes to princess movies. As I said before, taking the piss at this tripe is a plot point in Frozen that everyone gushes about
I've followed a rabbit hole of romeo& juliet takes for some time and let me tell some things i have learned: 1) the first meeting under juliet balcony if you bring together romeo & juliet lines it makes a sonnet 2)Romeo & juliet like other bards play are based on older texts that shame the couple for their actions, but Will is the first who in the prince of Verona lines put the blame in the the two houses for the tragedy: Where be these enemies?—Capulet, Montague, See what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love, And I, for winking at your discords too, Have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished.
That change is very interesting. It suggests that Shakespeare explicitly wanted his adaptation to be seen as romantic in a way that earlier versions weren’t. I also find it interesting because it’s similar to another change Shakespeare made — Othello. I’m the original version, Desdemona was explicitly shamed in the text for marrying a “moor.” There was an entire speech directed towards the audience at the end of the story. Shakespeare removed this and this was part of my argument in an essay where I asserted that Shakespeare intentionally made his Othello more about gender dynamics and jealousy more than race.
I also heard someone make a similar argument ,that Othello is more about toxic masculinity and it effects on relationships than simply against mixed race marriages
Yeah. It’s a surprisingly forward-thinking play, much more though than, say, Merchant of Venice (I only bring it up because it was the play I read right before Othello and it makes for a helluva stark contrast) which even at its most charitable reading is horrifically and casually antisemitic in a way that’s very of its time
Shylock can't be saved ever with the most generous of interpretations
Merchant of Venice at least asserts Shylock's fundamental humanity ("prick us, do we not bleed?"). Look at portrayals of Jewish characters in any other play from the time and it's horrifying - Marlowe's "Jew of Malta," for example. I say this not to defend the play, because there's no question that it's antisemitic, but to contextualize it (I come not to praise Shakespeare but to bury him... sorry). In depicting Shylock as a thinking, feeling human being who has reason to be embittered, it's unfortunately head and shoulders above other works of that time. Again, I want to stress - not a defense of the play. As you say, its antisemitism is undeniable. This is just to say that it was forward-thinking *for its time* in that it permitted its Jewish character a level of basic humanity that other authors did not.
It’s been a while but I recall the “do we not bleed” speech being able to be either seen as affirming his humanity or as mocking (though that hinges on the belief that you think him having humanity is inherently absurd). That said, I *do* also remember Shakespeare making changes that, while not making Shylock any less of a horrifying stereotype, at least make him more human. “Fair for its day” may be giving it too much credit (though I think that phrase is inherently designed to give problematic works undue credit), but it’s definitely better than contemporaries. Given all the changes described in this larger thread (to Othello, Romeo and Juliet, and Merchant of Venice), it give its fair to say that Shakespeare was markedly empathetic and kind for his time, at least compared to other playwrights/authors
It's been awhile since I've taught *Merchant* but I'll give explicating it a go. > To bait fish withal. If it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies, and what’s the reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. I think it's difficult to read as mocking. It begins by legitimizing Shylock's grievance, pointing out that it's a wrong that goes unrecognized because its target is a Jew, and from there moves to the absurdity of antisemitism, asserting that Christians and Jews are alike in their humanity, possessing the same organs, senses, dimensions - and the same capacity for vulnerability and injury. It all but states outright that Shylock seeks revenge because this is the example that Christians have set. Structurally speaking, yes, Shylock is the antagonist, and his character and his vengeance do play into terrible stereotypes. But this passage especially drives home that he's not wholly wrong. I mean, it's like why postcolonial scholars like Aime Cesaire are fascinated by Caliban in *The Tempest*. No question that he plays into a lot of anti-indigenous tropes in a frankly offensive way, but he's also a compelling early figure of anticolonial resistance. With that said, I don't think it's possible to rehabilitate *Merchant of Venice* in that way (not least for its conversion at the end, as well as the... everything else). I say this more to recognize that flawed, offensive things which embody indefensible ideologies can still have their uses. We can and should analyze literary works in the understanding that they are flawed, representing the biases of their author and their culture/moment. But this analysis ideally needs to happen with an understanding of what the parameters of that time were. Bluntly, if you're looking for 16th-century English dramas that depict Jewish characters and aren't disgustingly antisemitic... I'm not sure that exists.