Tag: conversations

@mrsgabrieltrickster replied to your post:
I was tagged forever and a half ago by…

God I wanted Xena ares and Callisto….. seriously the only reason I even pretended to be straight was the asswhipping I got when I said I wanted to kiss xena

That’s horrifying! I’m sorry 😦
When I was little I asked my mom if Xena and Gabrielle were together like her and my dad were together. She told me they were just really close friends….
I was a really young kid though. I didn’t understand that I had a kind of crush on Xena, just that I wanted to be Gabrielle and I knew there was /something/ different about those two.

@onthebanksoftheriverstupid
I’m hoping I’ll like it. Hopefully I can see a whole trial through. Most of the people I know either weren’t needed or had their trials ended before deliberation. The only person I know who’s tried to get out of it for non-reasonable reasons was my grandma.

@unforth-ninawaters
You’re welcome! A big part of the reason I asked was to make sure everyone was on the same or similar pages when it comes to what the tags mean. Obviously, a warning or rating doesn’t mean much if there isn’t a broader understanding of what qualifies.

There are some scenes I can’t watch and tbe garbage disposal scene is definitely of them. *shudders* That’s literally one of my biggest fears.

But the violence thing is always so weird to me. I personally think, even a mild “and he beheaded a vampire” warrants a Teen rating at the very least. It’s like horror movie ratings imo. Teen is PG 13, Mature is R, Explicit is NC 17. But that’s just me.

nealcassatiel:

rosemoonweaver:

nealcassatiel:

rosemoonweaver:

trisscar368:

@ijudgeusohard replied to your post

I feel like post modernism was thought up by people who can’t create anything but still want to own it.

I am so sorry that your encounters with art, literature, philosophy, music, and world history classes has left you with this impression.

Western civilization goes through phases.  Ideas and concepts are sparked and they spread through everything in the creative spectrum, from typography to architecture.  The Enlightenment gave birth to Modernism, and Postmodernism sprouted off as a reaction and counter; that is, an era that praised logic and man’s intelligence and potential and looked for potential utopia ran smack dab into the Industiral Revolution, shortly followed by World War I and World War II.

Postmodernism isn’t just “I get to interpret things however I like” in fandom and literature.  It’s a philosophy of skepticism and subjectivity, born from an era where suddenly nothing was as certain as it seemed.

Excuse me, what? Postmodernism was thoughy up by people who can’t create anything? Well fuck, I guess someone needs to dig up Heller and Vonnegut tell them they’re uncreative hacks.

A large portion of everything written post WW2 is postmodern. Supernatural with its Man v Fate, Man v God (literally textually The Author), Humanism Wins message IS postmodern.

Postmodernism wasn’t created on tumblr. Postmodernism is old.

*giggling uncontrollably* @rosemoonweaver @trisscar368 amazing. 

Also, I feel like if there’s a fandom to be in if you don’t like post-modernism it’s SPN. I mean, when they encounter the Supernatural books, then go to the Supernatural conventions, then The French Mistake…. I mean, ffs that is like prime post-modernism meta. I mean, Chuck literally references Kilgore Trout. Wait…. maybe the commenter was channelling Chuck, looking at his meta characters coming to see him and crying out into the postmodernist void that maybe he didn’t in fact create them and the whole of ‘post modernism was thought up by people who can’t create anything but still want to own it’, before watching his own characters walk out the door realising that he didn’t create anything in the end…. 

lol. That is endlessly amusing to me and is going to stick with me for a long time. Just God lamenting that he himself is a hack and his creation is untamable. 

Regardless, I do think there are a million and one conversations we could have about modern v postmodern interpretations of something postmodern. I think there could also be a good case for discussing genre flipping and the first few seasons of SPN as Gothic horror and capital-R Romanticism followed by the idea of a Humanist Apocalypse and how the world reacts (and Man reacts) to a world without active gods. We could have discussions about how SPN may have started out not in a postmodern frame work but became that way. We can have discussions about whether or not the author is dead while the story is still being written. We can have so many neat conversations that all deal with a basic understanding of what the words we’re using mean. Like, so many of the themes and ideas SPN plays with are postmodern and you almost can’t talk about them without mentioning authors like Vonnegut and philosophers like Foucault. Hell, they bring up the question of “what gives a story meaning” with Metatron. It’s not like this shit isn’t brought up in the show, either in the text or in the themes. 

But before we can have discussions about meaning in the text, regardless of what our focus is, we need to agree on terms. We cannot have good faith arguements without some semblance of understanding. But when the start of the discussion is “postmodernism is bullshit” there is no way to have those discussions.

God is a true post-modern icon.

And yes I agree that I wish in fandoms we could have a true understanding of the terms, although I understand that it’s truly difficult to get everyone on board with terms or go even further to discuss genre use and critical frameworks when of course not everyone is versed in literary analysis (as of course I don’t expect them to be). 

I think maybe there needs to be more groundwork in meta where people state the definitions of terms perhaps within their posts? And whilst i completely agree that everyone needs to understand all the terms, I sometimes fear that discourses can get too bogged down with words and suddenly discussions become just a construction and deconstruction of semantics without even getting past that to the broader discussions of meaning. In one of the universities I studied at, language and semantics formed the basis of all discussions, whereas at the university before it was about meaning and concepts because my peers liked to move on from semiotics quite quickly. Personally I tend to dislike discussions which centre on terms and language, although I understand this is necessary as you said.

I loved your musing on the genres in Supernatural. One of my main research focuses has always been Romanticism, Transcendentalism, Rugged Individualism and Road Narratives in American fiction and visual culture which the early seasons of SPN definitely play with! (btw, i appreciate very much that you said you liked my blog name 🙂 ) And then as you said, the show incorporates genres that are way way before the 20th century like folklore, classic myths, the epic, drawing on Dante, in the earlier seasons there was way more Southern Gothic styles, and good god… just so so many different genres and tropes they play with! And then there’s the whole discussions of religion within it from varying cultures! The whole pastiche of the show is postmodern within itself. 

But to return to the point as I’m flailing in my love for the show now – unless someone is claiming post-modernism is bullshit in a post-modern absurdist manner, it truly is a ridiculous assertion to start a discussion with.

*heart eyes intensify* 

I could go on forever about the many ways in which SPN pulls from myth, Dante, Milton, the Bible and so on. Or about how it might reflect some aspects of the crisis of Individualism and traditional American ideals in the 21st century. That’s definitely up my alley. 

At this point, I think it’s almost useless to start a discussion on terms. Part of the issue with tumblr is that anyone can come in at any point on a discussion and run with it, whether that be after terms have been established and agreed upon or during a discussion where all parties involved know what they mean. It’s also a pain to have to define every term you use every single time you want to start a discussion. It’s almost not worth it at this point, which is a real shame because there are so many things to talk about. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to do it, just that maybe it needs to be controlled or at least have rules so that people like me don’t spend three hours yelling about postmodernism on the internet to little effect. 

@unforth-ninawaters replied to your post

I mean we’re historian types of course it’s meaningful to us. (I actually gave up pursuing my masters in history because the department I was in insisted that we had to use exclusively post modern approaches, like, “political history is dead long live social history!” And since I’m primarily a military historian…fuck that…but the intersection of the “old” way of doing history and the “new” way is producing really fascinating reexaminations. I wouldn’t want to take a

Post modern approach but that’s a choice. Before condemning
it one still has to know what it is.

My thought on people who unilaterally condemn things like
post modernism and “author is dead” kind of lit critique is that
these are not their fields and they’re in fields that are filled with
meaningless jargon. Since they’re used to that they assume every other field is
filled with meaningless jargon, and that if you spew that jargon you’re just
part of a brain washed mass.

I think it has truly never crossed their minds that some
fields, even non-science fields, have specialized terminology that actually
means shit.

Like, I’ve worked in education. There’s so much bullshit
jargon in ed, and people who work in that field learn to not only tune it out
but also to think less of the people who use it, because they tend to be
self-promoters who want to disrupt shit to make themselves look better and then
leave the regular teachers to clean up the mess. (This is a gross
oversimplification but it’s what I’m familiar with, so). So if you go to
someone in a field like that and start throwing

Around technical social science or liberal arts language,
they think you’re full of it. They just here, “here’s an over educated
asshole with no real world experience who thinks they know better than me and
I’m going to have to pick up the pieces and repair the damage they do.”
Whether they’re right or wrong is incidental; it makes then disinclined to
trust terminology they don’t know coming from ANY field, especially a non
science field (were all conditioned at this poi

Point to accept big mystery words in the sciences so I
haven’t found it provokes quite the same negative reaction.) But when we say,
“post modernism” they hear “blah blah blah leverage the
coefficiences to increase student performance blah blah.” It means
nothing. That’s the kind of background I’d guess a lot of these folks come
from. And they can’t be bothered to learn the nuances of the fields to find out
what DOES mean something.

(…sorry that got long, I’m done now. 😉 )

No, but you hit it on the head here. There’s this weird strain going on (mostly on the internet) where if you discuss things that are mostly theory to explain real world events, you’re told to “prove it” with hard sciences or completely dismissed as an elitist moron. Like, hell, you can’t talk about feminism on the internet without some asshole spouting shit like “rape culture isn’t a thing… blah blah blah reasons”. Like, no, asshole, rape culture is a thing it’s a shorthand to discuss the ways in which society regards rapists and rape victims and doesn’t mean that society says “it’s okay” just that there is a systemic way in which perpetrators and victims are treated. Same with Patriarchy Theory and Gender Theory.  It’s the same with words like “social construct” which drives me fuckin’ crazy because debt and money are a social construct but no one argues that debt doesn’t exist because that would be asinine.

Like, I get it, not everyone is educated to the degree that some of us are. I haven’t finished college at this point and while I would very much like to, my lack of completed education doesn’t mean I have no idea what the fuck I’m talking about. It also doesn’t mean I’m too “elitist” because I know about and enjoy literary theories, feminist theories, and historical perspectives.

But I think a huge part of this, too, is that people don’t know what the words they’re using actually mean. Like, okay, if we’re talking about postmodernism, “the author is dead” doesn’t mean “I can do whatever the hell I want”, it means authorial intent doesn’t matter. That is absolutely useful for examining some texts and using other literary and critical theories to discuss them. I always think of Fahrenheit 451 in that respect, because Bradbury was pretty adamant that his book was about mass media reducing interest in literature and NOT the Red Scare or McCarthyism. So does that mean the interpretation that Fahrenheit 451 is about McCarthyism is valueless and should be discounted because the author told us not to look at it that way? Hell no! What Bradbury meant doesn’t matter because if I can make a well thought out argument based on the text and possibly the historical context of his novel, I’m right. He’s also right. There are multiple interpretations of a text across time. What Bradbury says about what he intended does not matter and neither do Orwell’s real-world thoughts on Communism if I’m reading Animal Farm or 1984. That’s postmodernism (well, one aspect at least). It’s not about “right” or “wrong” it’s about finding meaning. But that’s just how it’s applied to literature. There are other aspects applied to history and social theory.

But by the same token, there are schools of thought that argue we should take into account what the author means. There are people who argue that authorial intent and historical context matter so when discussing Fahrenheit 451 we should only discuss the rise of mass media. That’s okay, though. That is useful as well, and knowing historical context and literary tradition is important, too. Modernism is just as interesting and important as postmodernism is.

(Now, as you said, postmodernism doesn’t always work. I had a class a few years ago about World War One in which the professor focused on social history in lecture and all of our readings were military history. It was jarring as hell and hard to keep up with, but it did provide a lot of interesting insight into the technical aspects of the war and the personal aspects. It was really interesting but also hard to follow. I don’t think postmodernism works with some history, especially from a military perspective. I also don’t think it works for analyzing certain texts, like religious doctrines, either.)

But the outright dismissal of jargon is ridiculous. I do think there is an issue in some people who discuss things on the internet are not experts and don’t completely know what they’re discussing (hell, I’m not an expert, either) so terms get muddied and arguments become “this is what I understand of postmodernism based off what so-and-so said so it’s all bullshit” but that’s not helping anyone either. Just… I dunno. I don’t know how to fix it or how to make it all make sense but then again, I don’t know if it’s worth it. I will continue to go on my rants and scream into the void while everyone else circles the drain.

nealcassatiel:

rosemoonweaver:

trisscar368:

@ijudgeusohard replied to your post

I feel like post modernism was thought up by people who can’t create anything but still want to own it.

I am so sorry that your encounters with art, literature, philosophy, music, and world history classes has left you with this impression.

Western civilization goes through phases.  Ideas and concepts are sparked and they spread through everything in the creative spectrum, from typography to architecture.  The Enlightenment gave birth to Modernism, and Postmodernism sprouted off as a reaction and counter; that is, an era that praised logic and man’s intelligence and potential and looked for potential utopia ran smack dab into the Industiral Revolution, shortly followed by World War I and World War II.

Postmodernism isn’t just “I get to interpret things however I like” in fandom and literature.  It’s a philosophy of skepticism and subjectivity, born from an era where suddenly nothing was as certain as it seemed.

Excuse me, what? Postmodernism was thoughy up by people who can’t create anything? Well fuck, I guess someone needs to dig up Heller and Vonnegut tell them they’re uncreative hacks.

A large portion of everything written post WW2 is postmodern. Supernatural with its Man v Fate, Man v God (literally textually The Author), Humanism Wins message IS postmodern.

Postmodernism wasn’t created on tumblr. Postmodernism is old.

*giggling uncontrollably* @rosemoonweaver @trisscar368 amazing. 

Also, I feel like if there’s a fandom to be in if you don’t like post-modernism it’s SPN. I mean, when they encounter the Supernatural books, then go to the Supernatural conventions, then The French Mistake…. I mean, ffs that is like prime post-modernism meta. I mean, Chuck literally references Kilgore Trout. Wait…. maybe the commenter was channelling Chuck, looking at his meta characters coming to see him and crying out into the postmodernist void that maybe he didn’t in fact create them and the whole of ‘post modernism was thought up by people who can’t create anything but still want to own it’, before watching his own characters walk out the door realising that he didn’t create anything in the end…. 

lol. That is endlessly amusing to me and is going to stick with me for a long time. Just God lamenting that he himself is a hack and his creation is untamable. 

Regardless, I do think there are a million and one conversations we could have about modern v postmodern interpretations of something postmodern. I think there could also be a good case for discussing genre flipping and the first few seasons of SPN as Gothic horror and capital-R Romanticism followed by the idea of a Humanist Apocalypse and how the world reacts (and Man reacts) to a world without active gods. We could have discussions about how SPN may have started out not in a postmodern frame work but became that way. We can have discussions about whether or not the author is dead while the story is still being written. We can have so many neat conversations that all deal with a basic understanding of what the words we’re using mean. Like, so many of the themes and ideas SPN plays with are postmodern and you almost can’t talk about them without mentioning authors like Vonnegut and philosophers like Foucault. Hell, they bring up the question of “what gives a story meaning” with Metatron. It’s not like this shit isn’t brought up in the show, either in the text or in the themes. 

But before we can have discussions about meaning in the text, regardless of what our focus is, we need to agree on terms. We cannot have good faith arguements without some semblance of understanding. But when the start of the discussion is “postmodernism is bullshit” there is no way to have those discussions.