Wokeism actually reminds me a lot of the Cult of Ashur, or the religion of the Assyrian Empire. Each city had it's own God. The Gods were literally real. They were literally statues held at the center of a city, at the top of a temple. I do not mean that they were metaphysical concepts. The statues were the Gods. The were the material manifestation of the metaphysical aspects of the city. We would call them "a mascot". But, in the bronze age, this was a much more serious cult around this manifestation of culture. The Assyrians once defeated an enemy city, and they took the enemy God from it's temple, put it in chains, tried it in court, convicted it, and then put it in a prison under guard. Literally, a golden statue under guard in a prison because it was a defeated enemy God. It was said that armies would do battle with Gods, and that the result of the battles even determined which God won which battle.
The Cult of Ashur shares a bit of interesting overlaps with Wokeism, as it is a luxury belief crafted by the metropolitans oligarchs to create a make-work scheme for the upper / upper-middle managerial class to be kept as obsessive loyalists. These "gods" are the basis of the cult that forms the cultural zeitgeist of society, and gives the elites something to rally around while also tyrannizing the poor and the rural with this same culture. The luxury belief itself becomes a cult, and seems to actually have a strange, obsessive, expansionist, violent magical effect on people. The dominant culture of the city that is most powerful, becomes the dominant culture of the empire, and the other cities and their Gods become vassals to the hegemon's God. The cultural force becomes a literal military force of conquest and domination as the cult expands and the upper-middle managerial priestly class expands their power, enshrining the power of the elites.
The Greeks didn't operate in this same way, but I would bet that the Gods were merely what the Greeks considered to be a manifestation of the unexplainable events around them. Who would be the kind of guy who is the God of Lighting? What would the God of the Home look like? Shouldn't it be the Goddess of the Home? it would be those questions that would bring these literal characters to life.
It's like watching brain washing in real time. "Hurr Durr, I really understand these characters now and don't like the original movie." No... no you don't understand these characters you're just consuming content and accepting the narrative and then have the audacity to call yourself a critical thinker.
It'd be fascinating if somebody wrote another play on the same topic but made the wicked witch evil from the start and Gilda and Oz the fighters of good and then watch these twits heads explode because they can't hold opposing concepts in their hands.
These people are so shallow and lack any introspection.
It's a story, and everyone fills their roles. The Wicked Witch is, well, wicked. It doesn't matter what lead her there, that's the role she plays, and has embraced.
Plenty of victimizers were also victims. You can feel bad for them, but it doesn't change their current role. Plenty of serial killers, rapists, and the like were abused as kids. Really fucked up stuff, and you should pity their past, sure. If the role you play though, is the Serial Killer, or the Rapist, you're a despicable person. Yeah, you had a rough childhood, and that definitely is sad...but you're out there killing and raping people, man! That is kind of the more important bit.
If you're the Wicked Witch, you're wicked. You don't get to be the good guy. You haven't tried to redeem yourself, you haven't reformed your ways...you're the Wicked Witch. If you haven't stopped the wickedness...I think it's fair for people to judge you as the Wicked Witch. You know, if you're out there being all wicked and stuff.
It really is so surface level. These people claim to be all smart and empathetic, but the actions and behavior of a character is what matters, not the backstory. You don't get to be the Good Guy, while being the Bad Guy, just because you have a backstory. A backstory adds depth, but doesn't change the role someone plays...again, up until the point they might actually decide to change and lay aside their past role.
I like the reverse subversion, or rather reclaiming territory that Ethan Van Sciver is doing with Reignbow the Brute. He is creating a comic book world, full of girls toys from the 1980's but making it hyper masculine. Guns, violence, competition, bros, honor, father & son themes. Great art on the pages he's revealed so far. Too bad it's taking so long.
It's fascinating and baffling how people accept retconning.
Like people will watch the original star wars and go "wow this scene has so much more meaning when you realize -insert something that happened in the prequels here-
No, that's a complete misunderstanding of how time works and shows an inability to think critically. This is one of the reasons why I hate every prequel.
The only prequel I like is Temple of Doom and that's because the only reason you'd even know it's a prequel is if you paid close attention to the date or read about it.
Better Call Saul does the same thing with Breaking Bad where people go "this scene really hits different knowing X from Better Call Saul".
Its like, no you moron, a retcon later that doesn't count. People treat fiction like whatever anybody does is canon, when I've always said the viewer determines canon and the viewers head canon is the only canon when it comes to fiction, not some top down dictation.
To me the only canon Star Wars is the OT without the retarded changes and some expanded universe stuff like Shadows of the Empire or thawn trilogy.
But it seems most people need top down dictation of canon like "well George Lucas says" or "Well those are now part of legends and are no longer canon"
Its like, no you moron, a retcon later that doesn't count. People treat fiction like whatever anybody does is canon, when I've always said the viewer determines canon and the viewers head canon is the only canon when it comes to fiction, not some top down dictation.
Couldn't agree more. So many fans have a 'quantity is quality' approach to lore and story, where the more irrelevant details you can cram in and tangentially link after the original telling, the better. The amount of times in game or cinema I see discussions along the lines of 'wow, this scene really takes on a different significance when you consider [random remember-berry from offshoot work made years later by different people]'... it drives me nuts.
I decide what's canon. If I choose to ignore an entire season of a show or the entire climax of a story, because it's trash and doesn't live up to the quality of what went before, that's up to me. The characters and world don't exist. What's most interesting in evaluating fiction is considering all the elements in light of their greatest potential for inspiration, not treating characters and stories as literally real by trying to remember all the tortured bullshit that franchise-milkers tack onto them.
"Wicked" was written by jewish authors and has nothing to do with the original Wizard of Oz. The OG author of the Wizard of Oz would spit on Wicked
That's what I'm pointing out. The article is pointing out the subversion, it's just not doing it on purpose.
What's more disturbing is that people talking about fictional stuff has started to take on the taste of theology.
Ever get the feeling that the Greek gods were the way they were because they were originally satirical characters making fun of real people?
Probably not.
Wokeism actually reminds me a lot of the Cult of Ashur, or the religion of the Assyrian Empire. Each city had it's own God. The Gods were literally real. They were literally statues held at the center of a city, at the top of a temple. I do not mean that they were metaphysical concepts. The statues were the Gods. The were the material manifestation of the metaphysical aspects of the city. We would call them "a mascot". But, in the bronze age, this was a much more serious cult around this manifestation of culture. The Assyrians once defeated an enemy city, and they took the enemy God from it's temple, put it in chains, tried it in court, convicted it, and then put it in a prison under guard. Literally, a golden statue under guard in a prison because it was a defeated enemy God. It was said that armies would do battle with Gods, and that the result of the battles even determined which God won which battle.
The Cult of Ashur shares a bit of interesting overlaps with Wokeism, as it is a luxury belief crafted by the metropolitans oligarchs to create a make-work scheme for the upper / upper-middle managerial class to be kept as obsessive loyalists. These "gods" are the basis of the cult that forms the cultural zeitgeist of society, and gives the elites something to rally around while also tyrannizing the poor and the rural with this same culture. The luxury belief itself becomes a cult, and seems to actually have a strange, obsessive, expansionist, violent magical effect on people. The dominant culture of the city that is most powerful, becomes the dominant culture of the empire, and the other cities and their Gods become vassals to the hegemon's God. The cultural force becomes a literal military force of conquest and domination as the cult expands and the upper-middle managerial priestly class expands their power, enshrining the power of the elites.
The Greeks didn't operate in this same way, but I would bet that the Gods were merely what the Greeks considered to be a manifestation of the unexplainable events around them. Who would be the kind of guy who is the God of Lighting? What would the God of the Home look like? Shouldn't it be the Goddess of the Home? it would be those questions that would bring these literal characters to life.
It's like watching brain washing in real time. "Hurr Durr, I really understand these characters now and don't like the original movie." No... no you don't understand these characters you're just consuming content and accepting the narrative and then have the audacity to call yourself a critical thinker.
It'd be fascinating if somebody wrote another play on the same topic but made the wicked witch evil from the start and Gilda and Oz the fighters of good and then watch these twits heads explode because they can't hold opposing concepts in their hands.
These people are so shallow and lack any introspection.
It's a story, and everyone fills their roles. The Wicked Witch is, well, wicked. It doesn't matter what lead her there, that's the role she plays, and has embraced.
Plenty of victimizers were also victims. You can feel bad for them, but it doesn't change their current role. Plenty of serial killers, rapists, and the like were abused as kids. Really fucked up stuff, and you should pity their past, sure. If the role you play though, is the Serial Killer, or the Rapist, you're a despicable person. Yeah, you had a rough childhood, and that definitely is sad...but you're out there killing and raping people, man! That is kind of the more important bit.
If you're the Wicked Witch, you're wicked. You don't get to be the good guy. You haven't tried to redeem yourself, you haven't reformed your ways...you're the Wicked Witch. If you haven't stopped the wickedness...I think it's fair for people to judge you as the Wicked Witch. You know, if you're out there being all wicked and stuff.
It really is so surface level. These people claim to be all smart and empathetic, but the actions and behavior of a character is what matters, not the backstory. You don't get to be the Good Guy, while being the Bad Guy, just because you have a backstory. A backstory adds depth, but doesn't change the role someone plays...again, up until the point they might actually decide to change and lay aside their past role.
I like the reverse subversion, or rather reclaiming territory that Ethan Van Sciver is doing with Reignbow the Brute. He is creating a comic book world, full of girls toys from the 1980's but making it hyper masculine. Guns, violence, competition, bros, honor, father & son themes. Great art on the pages he's revealed so far. Too bad it's taking so long.
That man is one of ours. I am glad he is still going strong.
It's almost like Wicked is fan fiction someone wrote as an Oz prequel, without giving much thought or care to the original characters.
Ariane Grande: They made that ho white again so she could be Glinda?
The Wickeder witch looks like She-Hulk.
It's fascinating and baffling how people accept retconning.
Like people will watch the original star wars and go "wow this scene has so much more meaning when you realize -insert something that happened in the prequels here-
No, that's a complete misunderstanding of how time works and shows an inability to think critically. This is one of the reasons why I hate every prequel.
The only prequel I like is Temple of Doom and that's because the only reason you'd even know it's a prequel is if you paid close attention to the date or read about it.
Better Call Saul does the same thing with Breaking Bad where people go "this scene really hits different knowing X from Better Call Saul".
Its like, no you moron, a retcon later that doesn't count. People treat fiction like whatever anybody does is canon, when I've always said the viewer determines canon and the viewers head canon is the only canon when it comes to fiction, not some top down dictation.
To me the only canon Star Wars is the OT without the retarded changes and some expanded universe stuff like Shadows of the Empire or thawn trilogy.
But it seems most people need top down dictation of canon like "well George Lucas says" or "Well those are now part of legends and are no longer canon"
Couldn't agree more. So many fans have a 'quantity is quality' approach to lore and story, where the more irrelevant details you can cram in and tangentially link after the original telling, the better. The amount of times in game or cinema I see discussions along the lines of 'wow, this scene really takes on a different significance when you consider [random remember-berry from offshoot work made years later by different people]'... it drives me nuts.
I decide what's canon. If I choose to ignore an entire season of a show or the entire climax of a story, because it's trash and doesn't live up to the quality of what went before, that's up to me. The characters and world don't exist. What's most interesting in evaluating fiction is considering all the elements in light of their greatest potential for inspiration, not treating characters and stories as literally real by trying to remember all the tortured bullshit that franchise-milkers tack onto them.
Bingo, you explained what I was trying to get across more precisely and eloquently than I did.