There was a poem I read a while back and it reminded me of monument valley. It’s called “the princess” by Alfred Tennyson. So I drew this.
“The princess” Tears idle tears I know not what they mean Tears from the depth of some divine despair Rise in the heart and gather to the eyes In looking on the happy autumn-fields And thinking of the days that are no more.
Fresh as the first beam glittering on a sail That brings our friends up from the underworld Sad as the last which reddens over one That sinks with all we love below the verge So sad, so fresh, the days that are no more.
Ah, sad and strange as in dark summer dawns The earliest pipe of half awakened birds To dieing ears, when unto dieing eyes The casement slowly grows a glimmering square So sad, so strange, the days that are no more
Dear as renember’d kisses after death And sweet as those by hopeless fancy feigned On lips that are for others; deep as love Deep as first love and wild with all regret; O death in life the days that are no more!
I love contemporary figurative art in general, but his paintings just have something more to them that resonates so much with how I feel. In his series inspired by the events of the russo-ukrainian war, he documents this dramatic event through youth’s dreamy eyes, as if it was almost a dream, something that could never truly happen.
<< When I think of the focus that I am dedicating to the theme of my painting (documenting the new world that has ben emerging from the last 10 years and especially the feeling of the new post-pandemic generations) I focused on the issues such as the new sensitivity to the planet. A new awareness on gender identity but above all a new awareness of our generation which is that of interconnection: I think this is the key word of the future. But I never thought that the new generations would clash with the old ones on the vision of the world. There is a generation that feels solidarity and part of the same world, and one that wants to define the world by drawing boundaries with prevarication to keep glories of the past… the result is that the world is not yet free from conflict of power, from factions, repression, fake news… I never thought that the word war (in all its forms) could knock on the door and become part of the heredity of ukrainian and european children. I never thought I’d wonder what senseless pain means. This is not the time to be silent out of protest or indifference, it is time to show what it means to testify that we are above all this! And it is great to see that the world is responding. each with his hands is responsible for a slice of peace. >>
“Noble spectators from all over Europe contemplated the French Revolution from a distance and interpreted it according to their own indignations and enthusiasms for so long, and so passionately, that the text finally disappeared under the interpretation.”
—F. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, §38 (edited excerpt).
If we describe a Cartesian ordered triad by x,y,z we can describe an analogous 6-dimensional ordered sextuplet or 6-tuple by xa,ya,za,xb,yb,zb
The definitions that translate a 6-dimensional ordered sextuplet (hexagram in Taoist terminology) into a 3-dimensional ordered triad (trigram in Taoist terminology) are:[1]
(xa + xb) / 2 = x
(ya + yb) / 2 = y
(za + zb) / 2 = z
I think the methodology will work for all scalar quantities. But as currently formulated, mandalic geometry (MG) is a discrete geometry based entirely on unit vectors. We are talking about the line segments between -1 and +1 in the various dimensions and only points -1, 0, and +1 in each line segment in Cartesian terms.
In essence we are not yet particularly concerned with scalars here but only with vectors : -, +, and neutral (0).
Mathematically √−1 is important because by adding it to the real number field, as we have done, we create the algebraically complete field of complex numbers. In mathematics, a complete field is a field equipped with a metric and complete with respect to that metric. The real numbers and complex numbers are both complete fields. Cartesian coordinates- - - ordered pairs and ordered triads- - - although based on real numbers, do not form a field. This has important implications, implications which can be ignored only at peril to the particular conceptual system involved..
The definitions above all give three possible results in Cartesian terms: -1, 0, +1. Remember though MG hybridizes six dimensions with three dimensions and represents them superimposed. Wherever one or more zeros occurs in Cartesian coordinates we have also corresponding 6-dimensional forms, composed of just +1s and -1s, of which there are always two for each Cartesian zero. A Cartesian ordered triad with one zero is associated with two such 6-dimensional forms; an ordered triad with two zeros, with four; an ordered triad with three zeros (the origin), with eight. An ordered triad without zeros will have only one associated 6-dimensional form. This constitutes the mandalic pattern, which is an essential feature of the 6D/3D formulation of this geometric system and isomorphism naturally comes into play here as well.
Andthat is how and why all numbers in this coordinate system based on higher-dimensional extensions of the real numbers “square” to numbers which can be either positive or negative and then reduce or "collapse" to corresponding Cartesian forms that preserve the same sign. This is a necessary result of the fact that a primary “zero form” in 6-dimensional terms is lacking, only +1s and -1s exist. These can then interfere constructively and destructively as number waves, to produce a "secondary zero" by destructive interference whenever linked forms differ in sign in one or more paired dimensions. Since the two linked 6-dimensional numbers are always inverse to one another, any Cartesian zero then can be substituted with two such 6-dimensional forms. This is the process that makes imaginary numbers unnecessary, replacing them with two inversely related probable numbers which behave in most ways like real numbers and are distributed throughout the entire geometric system.
“Hybridization” is probably not the best term here but will be used until I can think of a better descriptor. What I intend is not actual joining and unification, but rather a superposition and conceptual commingling in three-dimensional terms. Such a representational mapping substitutes for all Cartesian forms "equivalent" forms containing only 1s and -1s, no zeros. In so doing, it effectively converts the Cartesian coordinate system from just a ring to a field as well, properly interpreted. Basically then, the probable numbers do for the real numbers much the same as the complex numbers do, but with even greater and more utilitarian results which are also more easily managed.
In operational terms, complex numbers perform two rather simple binary operations: a scaling and a rotation. Scaling capability is clearly inherited through its real number lineage; rotational capacity, from its imaginary number lineage. Together, scaling and rotation combine to augment or diminish an axis of growth and produce vector ambulation in a circular path about a central origin point of reference. The scaling factor could be said to detemine the radius of revolution; the rotation factor, the angle of revolution. And that’s pretty much all there is to the “great mystery” of complex numbers. Their importance resides in the great number of fields of endeavor where the combination of these two superpowers is necessary and/or convenient.
Nature uses this combination of scaling and rotation in many of its processes. Atomic and subatomic proceedings are probably not among these. How then did it come about that quantum mechanics arrived at the notion that rotation and scaling could be applicable to modeling of discontinuos states of being? Both refer to changes through continuous space. I think it was an accident of history. In 1925, Erwin Schrödinger, in his search for a way to explain certain mysteries then perplexing the greatest physicists of the day, hit upon his eponymous equation which appeared to do the trick. So well, in fact, that quantum mechanics has been justly considered the single most successful description of reality ever devised. And the equation that basically accomplished this success involves the imaginary number i and complex numbers.[2]
An important aspect of the operation of rotation, one which may have bearing on the Schrödinger equation and its huge success, has been largely overlooked. The result of a rotation can often mimic the result of inversion (reflection through a point), making the two indistinguishable by measurement alone. To someone wearing a blindfold there is no way to tell whether i has by the operations of squaring and rotation changed itself into -1 or -1, the inversion element of multiplication, has simply reflected +1, the identity element of multiplication, through the origin point to -1. Explaining away a 90° rotation with a right angle reflection will no doubt prove more difficult but let’s not just yet deny that it might be doable.
Could there be a way to reformulate the Schrödinger equation then so it contains no imaginary or complex numbers? Many have tried to do that very thing and failed. No one has succeeded in nearly a century. Still, we might wonder if the time is ripe now to remove the blindfold. Perhaps we might do well to inquire whether quantum physics is, in some manner we don’t quite understand, a victim of its own success.
In theory, circumventing use of complex numbers in a defining equation of quantum mechanics should be possible. On what basis do I say this? The equation we have now relies on complex numbers. These in turn derive an ability to produce rotation from the imaginary number √−1 . But there are other mathematical means to accomplish the same. Trigonometry comes most immediately to mind. The circle and cyclicity it models have a very long and distinguished history. Complex numbers as we’ve noted can also produce scaling. But so can real numbers. And close examination reveals that complex numbers inherit their ability to scale from the two real numbers they contain. The hard truth ultimately is there is nothing all that special about complex numbers or complex plane. Possibly it is their utilitarian ease of use that positions them as an attractive methodology. Other routes to ease of use exist as well. There is always more than one way to skin the proverbial cat (even a cat residing only in the mind of a physicist named Schrödinger.)
Consider also, how great is the actual need for scaling in quantum mechanics? The distance from centermost part of the atom to the outer reaches of electron orbital space is in fact quite small. Furthermore, the elements of this universe of discourse are quantized, so actual distances involved are moot. In the extreme, the question persists as to whether “distance” is a concept even applicable in this context of quantum logic. Quantum numbers themselves range between 0 and 2. I can count the allowed values on the fingers of one hand.
Regarding rotation, where exactly does that come into play in the quantum realm? Electrons do not orbit the nucleus of the atom. They jump from orbital to orbital by discretized changes in energy involving photon exchange. In the nucleus it seems such discretized instanteous changes take place as well, obviating any need for rotation. Obviously physics misguided here by labeling one of the quantum numbers “spin”. Sometimes a rose is best referred to as a rose. The problem here is that we don’t really know what it is that “spin” refers to.
The quintessential equation of quantum mechanics was formulated by a physicist, not a mathematician. It is not a simple algebraic equation, but in general a linear partial differential equation, describing the time-evolution of the system’s wave function (“state function”). “Derivations” of the Schrödinger equation do generally demonstrate its mathematical plausibility for describing wave-particle duality. To date, however, there are no universally accepted derivations of Schrödinger’s equation from appropriate axioms. Nor is there any general agreement as to what the equation actually signifies. Moreover, some authors have demonstrated that certain properties emerging from Schrödinger’s equation can even be deduced from symmetry principles alone. This would appear to be a worthwhile direction of investigation to pursue. Quantum mechanics is most fundamentally about symmetry. Let’s make Emmy Noether proud by giving her the recognition she deserves.
Finally, it was not without considerabledifficulty that Schrödinger developed his equation. In the end, it almost seems he pulled it out of a hat, as a magician might a rabbit.[3] Part of the Zeitgeist of the physics community in the early 1920s revolved around the peculiar notion that particles behaved as waves. Schrödinger decided to follow this direction of thought and find an appropriate 3-dimensional wave equation for the electron. His equation succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Adopted in the canon of the new physics, it became the cornerstone of that radically different physics, changed forever. Physics has never looked back since.
Still, one startling and haunting fact persists: nowhere else in all of physics has it ever been found necessary to invoke complex numbers.
Once, quite a long time ago, I believed imaginary numbers were wrong. I was the one that was wrong. Later, having grown a little more clever, I came to think that √−1 was a necessary evil- - -correct but not validly applicable to quantum physics. Wrong again. Currently it is my belief that imaginary numbers are guilty of an even worse offense: both true from the mathematical standpoint and partly applicable to physics. The worst of both worlds. Yielding results that are in large part correct, imaginary and complex numbers have managed to lead us all down the garden path for the better part of a century. Have we then gone past the point of no return? My contention is that it is possible to complete the ring that Cartesian coordinates present and transform it to a field over the real numbers, with appeal only to higher-dimensional analogues of the reals and no need for imaginary or complex numbers, an approach which, if actually possible, would offer certain undeniable advantages.[4]
Essentially the method of composite dimension does away with i and complex numbers by distributing an operation analogous to that of i throughout six dimensions or three in Cartesian terms and then working with same by means of reflections (inversions) only. So an algebra based on the system necessitates use of only the real numbers and their higher dimension extensions that I have called probable numbers. Only simple addition and multiplication are required. For those in the audience who are "sufficiently mad”, there is the added bonus that a kind of division by zero becomes possible. We’ll find out soon enough whether you qualify.
A few additional explanatory remarks are in order here:
Depending on the variant, Cartesian geometry (CG), represents space in two or three dimensions. Points in the former are referenced to two pairwise perpendicular axes; in the latter, to three.
Because Descartes assumes as axiomatic a 1:1 correspondence of number to spatial location each of his three axes becomes a facsimile of the number line, only in different dimensions.
Mandalic geometry (MG) approaches representation of space differently, using a hybrid coordinate system which relates a higher dimension space to a lower dimension space with a 2:1 correlation.
Itcan be represented entirely commensurate with CG, but in so doing a “glass slipper effect” occurs. Just as Cinderella’s stepsisters can manage to force a too fat foot into her glass slipper, the results leave something to be desired. In our context here, the "something to be desired" is a clear and full understanding of six-dimensional reality in its own right. We end up interpreting it in time-sharing terms of probabilities and randomness.
What Descartes refers to as an ordered pair requires two higher dimension ordered pairs to represent in MG; a Cartesian ordered triad requires three higher dimension ordered pairs to represent in MG.
In Taoist terminology the notational equivalent of a Cartesian ordered pair is a "bigram", a two-line symbol, each line of which can take one of two values. As a result there are four types of bigram. Two bigrams make up a tetragram; three, a hexagram.
Descartes views a point as having only two essential characteristics:
It is dimensionless.
It is just a location in space which can be uniquely represented by a single ordered pairorordered triad.
Mandalic geometry rejects both of these axioms. It regards a point, or a particle so represented, as an evanescent entity emerging from interaction of two higher dimensions expressed in our world of three dimensions in such limited manner.
Thiscan be represented in context of Cartesian space but in making mandalic coordinates commensurate with Cartesian coordinates it is no longer possible to represent every “point” in space uniquely with a single mapping of number to location. What results instead is the probabilistic distribution pattern of the mandala, which we, from our limited vantage in spacetime, misinterpret as something it is not.
MG is a discrete geometry. The result of the mapping formula used is a mandalic configuration in which the 3-dimensional cube composed of unit vectors in Cartesian space becomes a "probability distribution" in combined mandalic space.
I have placed the quotation marksaroundprobability distribution because this is a perspective that arises from our inability to see all that is involved accurately. I suspect this has repercussions pertinent to a full comprehension or grokking of quantum mechanics and possibly of string theory as well.
Since the 64 discrete “points” of the unit vector hypercube of six dimensions represented by the hexagrams cannot “fit” simultaneously in the 27 discrete points of the 3-dimensional unit vector cube by any representational method available to our inherited bio-psychocultural mechanism, a sort of time-sharing process occurs in observations and measurements of reality which we interpret in terms of probability.
What has been described here occurs at enormous velocities close to that of light, and likely refers only to processes in the subatomic quantum realm. For MG, which is also a hybridization of mathematics and physics, context is always of the essence.
There is much more to be said in explanation of mandalic geometry. I see, though, this post has already run rather long, so we will end it here. Enough has already been said in way of introduction of basic material.
Notes
[1] Since the coordinate system is describing a cube with an n-hypercube superimposed, there is an additional constraint placed on all coordinates in the 6-tuples. All scalar values must be identical for x, y and z values. That constraint assures that all vectors though they may differ in sign (direction) maintain equal magnitudes.
When the 6-tuples are dimensionally reduced to 3-tuples by the method I’ve called “compositing of dimension” the resulting geometric figure consists of four different dimensional amplitudes of 6-tuples collapsed. The amplitudes of dimension correspond in spatial terms to the vertices, edge centers, face centers and cube center. The pattern that emerges is that of a mandala. This is a highly symmetric pattern though all symmetries aren’t necessarily apparent immediately, even using Taoist notation. The probability distribution of the 6-tuples allots the hexagrams in the following manner: one to each vertex; two to each edge center; four to each face center; one to the cube center. The result is placement of 64 6-tuples in 27 positions of discrete 3-tuples in the specific mandalic distribution pattern described.
Think here of the analogy of a hydrogen atom confined within a cubic space of specified side length determined by the nuclear and atomic force fields. The single electron, existing in such quantized energy levels that are possible, can assume various different locations in different orbital shells, but every location in a given orbital must be equidistant from the nuclear proton. Once reduced by dimensional compositing the 6-tuples described here fill four distinct shells that have different radii or distances from the center. From center to periphery these distances can be described as zero; one (or square root one); square root 2; and square root 3. (Pythagorean theorem)
[2] Schrödinger was not entirely comfortable with the implications of quantum theory. About the probability interpretation of quantum mechanics that came out of Solvay ‘27 he wrote: "I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.“ ["A Quantum Sampler”. The New York Times. 26 December 2005.]
[3] In later years another great physicist, Richard Feynman, would remark, “Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger.”
[4] A different approach to avoiding the need for complex numbers from the one I am suggesting is described here. To my mind it offers little of value other than an interesting alternative explanation of what complex numbers are and do. A similar conclusion seems to have been reached by the author.
Please note: The content and/or format of this post may not be in finalized form. Reblog as a TEXT post will contain this caveat alerting readers to refer to the current version in the source blog. A LINK post will itself do the same. :)
Scroll to bottom for links to Previous / Next pages (if existent). This blog builds on what came before so the best way to follow it is chronologically. Tumblr doesn’t make that easy to do. Since the most recent page is reckoned as Page 1 the number of the actual Page 1 continually changes as new posts are added. To determine the number currently needed to locate Page 1 go to the most recent post which is here. The current total number of pages in the blog will be found at the bottom. The true Page 1 can be reached by changing the web address mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com to mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/x, exchanging my current page number for x and entering. To find a different true page(p) subtract p from x+1 to get the number(n) to use. Place n in the URL instead of x (mandalicgeometry.tumblr.com/page/n) where n = x + 1 - p. :)
Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel: A sci-fi film where three friends discover a rift in time and manage to travel through it, unable to control where they go, but still seeing twisted versions of their own future.
Genre: Comedy/Sci-Fi
Available on: Amazon Prime, Hulu, iTunes, HBO Now, HBO Go
Length: 1h 23m
My Rating: 4.5/5: strange start, ultimately leaves you questioning the events which unfolded. At least watch just past when Pete goes to the loo.
Brazil: One word: Kafkaesque. I actually cannot even describe this one. Not that it’s indescribably good or bad, I simply have no words for it. A gold mine for interpretation.
Genre: Drama/Sci-Fi
Available on: Amazon Prime, Hulu, iTunes
Length: 2h 23m
My Rating: 5/5: Carve out 2h 23m in your schedule and get some movie snacks… MUST be watched in one sitting, no pausing, no breaks
Ripping Yarns: Comedy/parody of pre-war stories, subtle humour, rich with interpretation.
One thing about fandom culture is that it sort of trains you to interact with and analyze media in a very specific way. Not a BAD way, just a SPECIFIC way.
And the kind of media that attracts fandoms lends itself well (normally) to those kinds of analysis. Mainly, you’re supposed to LIKE and AGREE with the main characters. Themes are built around agreeing with the protagonists and condemning the antagonists, and taking the protagonists at their word.
Which is fine if you’re looking at, like, 99% of popular anime and YA fiction and Marvel movies.
But it can completely fall apart with certain kinds of media. If someone who has only ever analyzed media this way is all of a sudden handed Lolita or 1984 or Gatsby, which deal in shitty unreliable narrators; or even books like Beloved or Catcher in the Rye (VERY different books) that have narrators dealing with and reacting to challenging situations- well… that’s how you get some hilariously bad literary analysis.
I dont know what my point here is, really, except…like…I find it very funny when people are like “ugh. I hate Gatsby and Catcher because all the characters are shitty” which like….isnt….the point. Lololol you arent supposed to kin Gatsby.
I would definitely argue that it’s specifically a bad way….a very bad way.
Depending on the piece of media, it could be the intended way to interpret it and thus very effective. When I watch Sailor Moon, I know at the end of the day that Usagi is a hero. She is right, and her choices are good. She and the Sailor Scouts may make mistakes, and those mistakes can have consequences, but by presuming the goodness of the protagonists, I can accurately describe what actions and values the story is presenting as good. (Fighting evil by moonlight. Winning love by daylight. Never running from a real fight. Etc etc)
If I sit around and hem and haw about whether or not Usagi is actually the villain because she is destined to reinstate a magical absolute monarchy on Earth in the future, then I’m not interpreting it correctly. I can write a cool fanfic about it, but it wont be a successful analysis of the original work.
But like I said, that doesnt work for all pieces of media, and being able to assess how a piece of media should be analyzed is a skill in itself.
I was an English major. One of our required classes was Theory & Criticism, and I ended up hating it specifically because of the teacher and the way she taught it, but the actual T&C part of it was interesting. And one of the things we learned about was all the different ways of reading/interpreting/criticizing media - not just books, ANY form of media.
Specifically, I remember when we read The Turn of the Screw, by Henry James. We had special editions of the book where the first half of it was the novel itself, and the last half was like five or six different critical analyses of the book from different schools of theory. The two I remember specifically were a Marxist interpretation and a feminist interpretation. I remember reading both of those and thinking “wow, these people are really reaching for some of this”, but the more I read into the analysis and the history of those schools of thought, the more I got it. So for my final paper for that class, I wrote an essay that basically had the thesis of “when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”. If you have trained yourself to view every piece of media through a single specific critical lens - well, you’re going to be only viewing it through that lens, and that means you’re going to read or watch it in such a way that you’re looking for the themes you’ve trained yourself to look for.
My teacher didn’t like that, by the way; she’d wanted each of us to pick one of these schools of thought we’d been learning about and make it “our” school of thought. She wanted us to grab the a hammer, or a screwdriver, or a spanner, and carry that with us for the rest of our lives. She somehow didn’t expect me to pack a toolbox.
My point is: Like OP said, sometimes the tool you need is a hammer. Sometimes you need a screwdriver. Sometimes you can make a hammer work where what you need is a screwdriver, but you’re going to end up stripping the screw; sometimes you can use a screwdriver in place of a hammer, but it’s going to take a lot more effort and brute force and you risk breaking the screwdriver. Sometimes you need a wrench and trying to use a hammer or screwdriver is going to make you declare that the bolt is problematic and should never be used by anyone. Sometimes what you really need is a hand saw, and trying to use any of the others…well, you can, but it’s going to make a mess and you might not be able to salvage the pieces left over.
These skills aren’t being taught in school anymore and you can see it in the way high school aged kids act about media and stuff.
They wouldn’t survive something like Lolita because I swear they’re being taught to turn their brains OFF and be spoon fed all their thoughts by someone else.
It’s really creepy.
I promise these skills are taught in school. I’m an English teacher. In a school. Who teaches them.
Now, Lolita is generally reserved for college classes. But a lot of the rationale behind continuing to teach the “classics” in high school (beyond the belief that a shared literary foundation promotes a better understanding of allusions and references) is that a lot of the classics are built on these kinds of complex readings and unreliable narrators and using historical and cultural context helps in their analysis. (I do think that we should be incorporating more diverse and modern lit into these classes, please understand)
Do all schools or individual teachers do this *well*? No, of course not. Do all students always really apply themselves to the development of deep critical thinking skills when their teacher pulls out A Tale of Two Cities? Also no.
But this isnt a “public school is failing / evil ” problem. Being able to engage in multiple forms and styles of analysis is a really high level skill, and my post was just about how a very common one doesnt always work well with different kinds of stories.
OP, why do you describe analyzing Sailor Moon in a different way than (you assume) the author intended as “hemming and hawing?” I would argue there’s a lot of value in approaching texts at a different angle.
Because ignoring context, tone, and intent when analyzing media is going to lead to conclusions are aren’t consistently supported by the text you are looking at.
“Usagi is a villain because she’s a queen and I think absolute monarchy is bad” ignores the way that Usagi, the moon kingdom, and basically all aspects of the lore are actually framed within the story. None of the characters’ actions or motivations make consistent sense if we start from the assumptions that “Usagi = monarchist=evil” and it would cause you to over look all the themes and interpretations that DO make consistent sense.
At some point you have to take a work at face value and see what it is trying to say.
Is the breakdown of monarchy actually relevant to the themes and messages presented in Sailor Moon? No, not really.
So focusing on the Moon Kingdom monarchy and the ethics there of is sort of… besides the point. The Moon Kingdom is a fairy tale, not a reflection of reality.
I’m not actually interested in the tax policy of the Moon Kingdom, you know?
Now, is it *cool* to look at works in various ways? Sure! Are some people interested in the tax policy of the Moon Kingdom and want to explore what that would look like? Sure! And honestly if you want to explore the ramifications of idyllic fairy tale monarchies on the real world, then that’s really cool too!
But if you are looking at a work to understand what it is trying to say with the text itself, then you need to take some of its premises at face value. Usagi and the Sailor Scouts being the Good Guys is one of those premises.
And really the “Usagi is secretly a princess from the moon” is just a part of the escapist fantasy for most little kids watching more than it has anything to do with actual themes of monarchy.
There is a lot of value in being able to look at a text from various angles. And it’s perfectly okay to use a text and concept as a jumping off point for other explorations.
But the problem comes when people say that Usagi was definitively a villain in Sailor Moon, or that say Steven Universe with themes of family and conflict resolution is excusing genocide by not destroying the Diamonds. It misses the point of the fantasy. It misses the important themes, the lessons and point of the show to look at it like that.
Basically: reinterpretations are cool, but you gotta know how to take a work on its own premises too.
Exactly. Like, magical princess that shows how monarchies (or the idea of princesses in general) is broken or toxic? Utena and Star vs The Forces of Evil are right there.
The idea of a cute talking cat granting girls magical powers to turn them into warriors against evil and getting them killed being evil? Not a good take on Luna, but Kyuubei in Madoka? Exactly this. That’s like, the point of Kyuubei- to riff on the trope that Luna, and Kero, and Mokona represent.
Media can raise all sorts of interesting conversations and discussions and ideas. But there’s a very real difference between trying to awkwardly force those readings on a work where the tone and framing and context don’t support it and acting like the media is actually supporting those messages, and using those ideas to explore it in a different work or to analyze the trope across the genre more broadly.
Moral and pure does not a protagonist make, and fandom is rife with that exclusive interpretation of storytelling. OP makes really good points; this thread is one of the best analyses I’ve read about lit crit on this site lately.
Stories aren’t made in a vacuum– every trope/theme/character archetype comes from somewhere and (general) you do yourself a disservice by viewing everything as whether it’s morally uncorrupted or not.
Are you a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two-Spirit, Trans, or Gender Non-Conforming Immigrant who’s fluent in English and another language? Are you an LGBTSTGNC Person of Color who’s fluent in English and another language and wants to support immigrant rights work? Interested in gaining interpretation skills AND learning about interpreting for social justice?
Pay using PayPal or an E transfer from your bank directly.
Please reblog to spread this around, $1.00 off if you reblog and send proof you did ! ( dollar off OFFER ONLY VALID: 15/07/2020-15/08/2020) I will be recording everyone I’ve given the offer to. Meaning it can only be used once.
By: wxtches-energies
My only rule:
Obviously you must pay me first before I can give you an interpretation. I know there’s conflict with trust and that’s why my pricing is as low as I can offer so you won’t lose too much if my services aren’t up to your expectations. However I doubt any problems will arise :)
Costs:
$ 5 for a basic inerpretation: I will conduct a small interview about you and your Dream and then I’ll interpret it at a basic level
$ 10 for an in depth interpretation: I will conduct a more in depth interview about you and your Dream then I will give you a longer, more in depth interpretation
How to contact me & how to pay
Message me directly through tumblr (Do not send anything via an ask) or message me through Snapchat at: boy.andthebeast or discord at: orange-juice221#1595
Tell me if you’d like the basic interpretation or the in depth interpretation.
Then I will send you the link to my pay pal or offer you my pay pal email, OR I will offer my email linked to my bank account so you can send me an E transfer.
Once I have gotten the money I will begin the interview process and then I will interpret your dream for you !
I am naturally an extrovert. I thrive around people, being social, being active, interacting and engaging with my surroundings and all that surrounds me!
I love to host, I love to bring people out of their shells, I love to be the first one on the dance floor, sharing my creativity and inspiring others to do the same. I love to hear what other people are passionate about –…
“LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Trusova’s SP! People say she’s robotic and not lyrical, but Alexandra does what she wants, as she should. The costume, the music, the choreography, the elements: PERFECTION. Waiting for her to skate it cleanly! <3”
