#every other relationship is unique and specific but this is the one consistency | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bogkeep · 6 months

Text

being in aroace education mode has me all fired up...... one thing i talk about a lot when given the opportunity is Deconstructing How We Think About Relationships - in short, if we put all of our relationships with other people into a pie chart the 'romantic partner' slice is likely to be a very small slice but gets a disproportionate amount of Relationship Infrastructure compared to other categories, such as vocabulary, rituals, attention and narrative scaffolding - entire systems such as dating / finding "the one" / break-ups / the relationship escalator, etc. on the flipside, 'friend' is such a vast category consisting of a plethora of different relationship, all ranging from Friendly Acquantaince to Extremely Close Childhood Friend You Share Everything With, but we have a lot less language and structure for how we think about these relationships even though many of them can be deeply important and intense to us.

the line between romance and friendship is really blurry, maybe even non-existent, but it feels like the way we think about these categories is that Romantic Partner is this one very specific, formalised box of a category, while Friend is a vast and vague landscape where anything can happen - and it's on this free real estate we have built structures like Queerplatonic Partner. the concept has probably existed since forever, along with many other different types of relationships throughout time and cultures, but it's our current attempt at having a Word for it.

are you with me so far? i want to write a blog post about Deconstructing Intimacy.

just putting a CW here that i'm going to say the word sex a lot and touch on the topic of sexual trauma.

one of the very thorny things about This Whole Topic is that sex and sexuality is extremely political. we just do not live in a world where there's any neutral ground to stand on regarding sex. every demographic comes with a lot of assumptions and expectations and moral judgement tied to sexuality. some demographics are desexualised, some are hypersexualised, some are Both At Once, and in addition to that there's lots of stigma, moralizing, pathologizing, and lawmaking. just a whole mess.

so all of That makes it kind of impossible to fully Dethrone Sex. and by dethroning sex i mean stripping it of the baggage it's accumulated in our cultures. Sex Is A Thing You Can Do With Your Body (And Your Mind?). this does not have to make it any less or more meaningful to you than what it already is. what each person considers intimate is very individual. many people find hugging completely inconsequential and will hug anyone at any time, and for some people a hug is A Lot. For some people, sex is a very fun and casual activity, and for others it's Sacred and carries a lot of meaning and a very close bond. sex is intimate - it requires trust and vulnerability.

it is not the only way to achieve trust and closeness, nor the only thing that requires it.

whenever i take the bus somewhere, i trust the bus driver to take me there safely. i put my literal life in a stranger's hands, but it's a very casual affair i don't think about too much. it's not an act of intimacy, just someone doing their job.

i think the way we talk about sexual assault as the evillest most horribly irredeemably worse-than-death thing, and sexual trauma as a unique kind of trauma amongst traumas, is... indicative. and please do not get me wrong, SA is a horrible thing in every way. it's a violation of trust, vulnerability and personal space. it's an abuse of power. those are the things that make it so horrific - but it's not unique.

an abuse of power, a violation of trust and vulnerability, can happen in so many different forms. emotional abuse, non-sexual violence, medical abuse, et cetera - i don't think it's possible to place trauma into a hierarchy from least to most bad. trauma can be incredibly complex and it's different for everyone. if one day the bus driver on a whim decided to drive off a cliff, i think that would severely fuck up my ability to trust other people to drive me around. if i trusted someone with my innermost thoughts that i have never shared with anyone else, and they used them to be cruel to me, that would severely impede my ability to connect with others.

i just... don't think it does anyone any favours to separate sexual trauma from all other trauma - making it seem like sexual trauma is The Worst Trauma Possible You Can Never Heal From, and on the flipside, make it seem like Well Your Non-Sexual Trauma Cannot Possibly Be That Bad.

TRAUMA TOPIC ASIDE, i think the concept of intimacy has a tendency to get flattened into just the one kind. there are many, Many ways for people to be intimate, many activities that require some form of mutual vulnerability or physical contact, but it seems like we're just very used to placing Acts of Intimacy into the Sexual category. kind of like a venn diagram where the two circles are Sexual Intimacy and Non-sexual Intimacy that are largely overlapping. but what if, instead, it's more that Intimacy is a really big circle, and sex is just one of the circles within it?

the way i think this slots into the whole Relationship Infrastructure thing is that We Like To Categorize Things. if we see two people being very intimate in a way that's not explicitly sexual, it's tempting to think ah yes they are in love AND they're having sex, OBVIOUSLY, because they are clearly capable of having that level of trust and vulnerability together. but what if they're not? does that devalue their relationship? does it make them any less close? these are very chewy questions to ask even without bringing shipping discourse into it, and i would prefer Not To because sexuality is political and there is no right answer.

another way this flattening can be frustrating is all the times non-sexual intimacy is treated as Sexual By Proxy. let's say, for example, you're telling a story, and all forms of intimacy within that story get read as metaphors for sex, despite your actual intentions. there's nothing wrong with using metaphors for sex, especially since Sex Is Political and sometimes we gotta be clever about the storytelling - but it can get very messy if people read sexuality between characters who don't have that, especially characters between which it would be very problematic to portray that. we gotta be able to tell stories about all kinds of close relationships, and surely it should be possible without bringing freud into it at every turn.

intimacy is context-dependent, i would say. a moment of vulnerability can be platonic or romantic or sexual or maybe something else depending on a situation and all the factors involved. human connection is an boundless spectrum, not just a couple boxes.

did any of this make sense? they're just my Thoughts, i'm not a scholar on this i just

#too long for twitter #aro ace tag #asexuality #aromantic #and look. i too am a proponent of calling things gay (complimentary) without it being Explicitly Gay in a sexuality sense.

466 notes · View notes

physalian · 15 days

Text

10 More Character Types the World Needs More of

Part 1 was specifically character dynamics, but I’m considering this a sequel anyway.

1. Fiercely independent character’s lesson isn’t to “trust people”

I’m not projecting. You’re projecting. There is a divide wide enough to fit the Grand Canyon between “trusting that someone isn’t lying” and “trusting someone to follow through on a promise”. Most dumpster fire attempts at these characters (almost exclusively women) rely solely on mocking them for the former because “not all men” or something.

Being consistently let down in life makes you hesitant to a) gain friends, b) pursue romantic interests, c) maintain familial relationships, d) get excited about any event that demands participation from someone who isn’t you. None of this is simply a bad attitude—it’s a trauma response. There is no lesson to be learned, and not even exposure therapy can help because it’s a real, legitimate, and common stunt people pull, whether they mean it or not.

So write one of these characters and legitimize their fears, give them someone who proves the exception to the rule, but do not let the lesson be “well they just haven’t found the right person yet”. Even the “right person” can let them down. It's about not becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy by sabotaging a good thing to prove it will inevitably go bad.

2. Conventionally attractive men who aren’t horndogs

I’m going to find every way I can to tell you to write more aces. This is to fight the stigma that attractive people must be attracted to people. Give me gorgeous aces and demi’s, men, women, enbys and everyone in between, who put a crap ton of effort into looking their best, and yet happen to not have a very loud libido. They look good for themselves, and not to impress anyone else.

Give me someone who could have anyone they wanted, gender regardless, and just simply has no interest. Or, they do actually have a significant other, but sex, how hot their partner is, or how horny they are, isn’t their internal monologue. I don’t even care if it’s unrealistic, it’s annoying to read.

And, you know, giving men male characters who aren’t thinking about sex all the time can be good, right? Right?

3. Manly warrior men who also write poetry

A.K.A Aragorn, Son of Arathorn. Just give me more Aragorns, period. This dude is either covered in filth, blood, guts, and the last 30 miles of rugged terrain, or singing in Elvish at his own coronation while pink flower petals fall. A man can be both, and still be straight.

A man can also drink Respect Women juice, you know? He ticks off all the boxes—he’s gentle when he needs to be, not afraid to hide his emotions, kind to those who are vulnerable and afraid and need a strong figure to look up to, resolute in his beliefs, skilled and knowledgeable in his abilities without being arrogant or smug, and the first boots on the battlefield, leading from the front.

4. Characters who are characters when no one is watching

This is less a specific type and more a scene that doesn’t get written enough. This whole point comes from Pixar’s Cars. I. Love. This. Movie. It’s not Pixar’s best, for sure, but this is my comfort movie. The best scene, one that’s so unique, is when Doc (aged living legend) thinks he’s alone when he rolls out onto the dirt race track and comes alive tearing around the oval.

This character’s unbridled, unabashed glee and euphoria at proving to himself that he’s still got it, when he’s completely unaware of his audience, is perfection. Not enough credence is given to characters to just… enjoy being themselves. He’s not doing it to prepare for the climactic race, he’s not doing it for the plot, he’s doing it just to do it, not even to prove Lightning wrong—just for himself.

Give your characters a “Doc Racing” scene. Whatever their skill is. Maybe they’re a dancer, a skater, a swimmer, a painter, sprinter. Just let your character love being alive.

5. Characters whose neurodivergence isn't “cute”

A.K.A. Lilo Pelekai from Lilo and Stitch. Really, her relationship with Nani is peak sibling writing. But Lilo herself is just so realistic with how she interacts with the world, how she interprets her relationships with her so-called friends, how she organizes her thoughts and rationalizes what she can’t quite understand, and how friggen smart she is for an… 11-year-old?

But she’s not “cute”. As in, she wasn’t written by generic Suits who were trying to cash in on the ND crowd by writing what they think will sell, but also making her juuust neurotypical enough to still be palatable by the rest of the audience. Lilo’s earnestness is what endears her to everybody. But also, she doesn’t get a free pass for her behavior, either. Her “friends” aren’t forced to accommodate her and Nani isn’t written as the cold-hearted villain for trying to discipline her.

6. Straight male characters with female friends

Am I double-dipping a bit here? Yes. While I completely understand how tempting it can be, this type of character is in dire need of exposure and representation to prove it’s possible. No weird tense moments, no double-glances when she isn’t looking, no contemplations about cheating on his girlfriend (and no insecure jealous girlfriend either). Just two characters who enjoy each other’s company and are able to coexist in a space and be in each other’s spaces without hormones getting in the way. Peak example? Po and Tigress from Kung Fu Panda.

Let these two rely on each other for emotional strength in times of need, let them share inside jokes, let them have a night alone together at a bar, at home, cooking dinner, getting takeout, talking on the patio in a porch swing… with zero “will they/won’t they.”

7. The likable bigot

I’m actually on the fence with this one but it’s something I also don’t see done often enough and I’m adding it for one reason: Bigots aren’t always obvious mustache-twirling villains and the little things they do might seem inconsequential to them, but are still hurtful. So showing these characters is like plopping a mirror down in front of these people and, I don’t know, maybe something will click. They don’t have to be MAGAs to be dangerous, and only writing the extremes convinces the moderates that they aren’t also the problem.

Example: I have a “friend” who recently said something along the lines of “I have lots of gay friends” followed up shortly by “I don’t think this country should keep gay marriage because it’s a slippery slope to legalizing pedophilia.” You know. The quiet part being that she *actually* thinks being gay is as morally abhorrent as being a pedo. But she totally has lots of gay friends. Including one who was driving her during that conversation. (It’s me. Hi. I’m apparently the problem, it’s me.)

She’s absolutely homophobic, but the second she stops announcing it, she’s a very bubbly person. She’s a ~likable~ bigot and thus thinks she can distance herself from the more violent ones.

8. The motherly single father

I say “motherly” merely as shorthand for the vibe I’m going for here. “Motherly” as in dads who aren’t scandalized by the growing pains of their daughters, and who don’t just parent their sons by saying “man up boys don’t cry”. Dads who play Barbie with their kids of either gender. Dads who go to the PTA meetings with all the other Karens and know as much if not more than they do about the school and their kids’ education.

Dads who comfort their crying kids, especially their sons. Dads that take interest in “feminine” activities like learning how to braid their daughter’s hair, learning different makeup brands, going on nail salon trips together. Dads who do not pull out the rifle on their daughter’s new boyfriend and treat her like property. Dads who have guy friends that don’t mock him and call him gay. Dad who does all this stuff anyway and is *actually* gay, too, but the emphasis is on overly sensitive straight men’s masculinity here.

Wholesome dads: a shocking amount of single-parents to female anime protagonists.

9. The parent isn’t dead, they’re just gone

Treasure Planet is an awesome movie in its own right, but what’s even better? This is a Disney movie where the parent isn’t dead, he’s just a deadbeat who abandoned his son and isn’t at all relevant to the plot beyond the hole he left behind for Jim to fill. The only deadbeat dads Disney allows are villains and those guys are very vigorously chasing an aspiration, that aspiration just doesn’t include quality fatherhood. Or motherhood. Disney has yet to write a deadbeat mom, I’m almost certain.

I just wrote a post about the necessity of the “dead parent” cliche, but what is perhaps more relatable because it’s more common, and what earns even more sympathy and underdog points for the protagonist? The hero with the parent who left. Then there’s a whole extra layer of angst and trauma available when your hero can now plague themselves with the question of if the parent leaving is their fault. Death is usually an accident. Choosing to abandon your kid is on purpose.

10. Victim who isn’t victim-blamed or told by their friends (and the narrative) to forgive their abuser

Izuku Midoriya lost so much support from me the moment he told his friend, bearing the consequences of domestic violence across half his face, that Midoriya thinks he’ll be ready soon to forgive his abomination of a father. I am firmly in the “Endeavor is a despicable human and hero” camp and no I’m not taking criticism. I audibly gasped when I heard this line and realized Deku was serious. Todoroki needs friends like the Gaang to remind him that he's allowed to hate the man who's actions caused the burn scar across his f*cking face.

I understand that the mangaka apparently didn’t anticipate the vitriolic backlash toward Endeavor during his debut and reveal of his parenting tactics but the tone-deafness of telling a fifteen year old with crippling emotional management issues and a horrible home life that his abusive dad in any way deserves and is entitled to forgiveness on the grounds of being related is disgusting.

Take it back further to a more famous Tumblr dad: John Winchester. Another despicable human who got retroactively forgiven by his sons after his death in a “he wasn’t so bad, he really did try” campaign. It’s one thing if the character believes it, it’s a whole different matter if the narrative is also pushing this message.

Katara is a perfect example: She lets go of her grudge for her own peace of mind and stops blaming Zuko for something he had no hand in, stops blaming him simply because he’s a firebender and he’s around to be her punching bag. She doesn’t forgive the man who killed her mother, because that man doesn’t deserve her forgiveness. Katara heals in spite of him, not because of him, and had she let him off the hook, she would have gotten an apology for getting caught, not for what he did (which is exactly what happened).

#writing advice #writing resources #writing tips #writing tools #writing a book #writing #writeblr #character design #character development #aragorn #pixar cars #kung fu panda #lilo and stitch #treasure planet #atla #katara #my hero academia

108 notes · View notes

2deadkat · 25 days

Note

i'd love to hear ur complaints abt modern geronimo! If u'd like to share that is

Thank you for asking anon, I’d love to share and you have inadvertently entered the dragon’s den/lh

But fr tho, it’s a lot. It’s mostly pertaining to the writing.

The reason why I hate modern Geronimo is in the biggest nutshell possible, they screwed up the original dynamic for the Stiltons, a majority of the books is just one big game of Geronimo torture porn between the other characters, and overall a lot of wasted potential for unique interactions between the wider cast and the rest of the Stiltons as its limited to just Geronimo himself. Hell a lot of the plots could have the input from the other Stiltons if they were brave enough. And there seems to be a new character every few books and there’s no rhyme or substance to it anymore. Since when did trap reproduce???

And you’re telling me von Volt has another relative???? Yk at some point you just stop reading the books. Oh and do not get me started on the Thea problem…

Let me start with the Stiltons real quick, somehow they got worse by watering down their personalities to a bunch of cheap jokes.

What made the classic (or early) books work was that the whole point of Geronimo’s character is that yes he’s a wimp, but that’s because he’s a tired boss who gets dragged into his family’s shenanigans, and by extension his friends and allies around him. Everyone has some eccentric personality that shocks or baffle him in some way, and that’s where the comedy comes from. He’s able to stand on his own because of his duties and eagerness to stay in his comfort zone is where the meat of the interactions come from.

His family especially Trap and Thea were meant to be respective foils to him. Trap consistently bullies him and Thea is meant to be the direct opposite of him, she’s the driving force in the group and has more pants to cover up what Gerry doesn’t have. She’s the one behind a lot of their adventures or scoops, hell she’s also the one who keeps finding them in the first place and drags her family and connections into them which makes sense because that’s her job and also where a lot of the plots start from. She fills out the spots that Gerry doesn’t have. Trap is just pure comic relief and is basically that outside force to the group. Hell the two even have a dynamic of their own where’d they just fight over the most trivial things and that makes us side with Geronimo more because of the ridiculousness of his family, that’s what made it click (to me). Highly recommend you read the early books, it shows the strongest character imo (#1-20).

Now Geronimo has all his autonomy stripped away and he’s been reduced to a nothing but a punching bag for everyone around him. I hope I’m not kidding here but try reading a classic book (let’s say #7 or #26) and compare it to the writing in a modern book (let’s say #46 or #74) it’s very jarring. They put more emphasis on different ways his day is ruined and give him no room to breathe or stand on his own. There’s just no charm to that anymore. There’s no fine line with his relationship with the other characters (Run for the Hills Geronimo is probably the worse one and represents everything I don’t like about the new dynamic)

Now over time that initial draw to action is also done by Trap, which I thought was cool because it still plays into the idea of Geronimo’s family dragging him into their shenanigans and the motives make sense to him specifically. It’s like he keeps getting calls from his relatives on schemes which is fun. But the more you keep reading the modern books the dynamic gets skewed over time and here’s the part I’ve been waiting for…Thea gets shelved completely. And now it’s somehow the GOD DAMN GINGER BROS SHOW?????

Now I think about it, Trap used to be a lot more clever in the classic books as well, he’s essentially a bumbling fool who keeps falling into the wrong situations to make a quick buck which slowly backfires on him. If you know me that well you know I’d call him a less scummier Grunkle Stan. The fact that there’s no Thea to balance it out or at least ground the dynamic to some level feels really annoying now.

You don’t really see much of her anymore as she’s either smiling at the back or doesn’t say more than five lines anymore, which is baffling because she’s the one who can pick up the pace the most. I really wished they showed more of her involvement again…They’re a trio, not a duo…and the books are suspiciously phasing her out to make room for the ginger bros fail routine and it ultimately feels very empty…there’s not much acknowledgement or involvement from her really like they could say she’s busy at mouseford or something but nope! Shelved completely without an explanation or a missed opportunity for a tie-in mention.

So far the only redemption I see is the Mayan Mystery one and the Soccer one where she had a more integral role which are way more recent but it still bothers me that they just shelved her for a majority of the modern run.

Listen if the modern books weren’t cowards she would SOLO all these people

she’d probably have an interesting dynamic knowing that she gets along with everyone well and is technically an adventurer. It’d be such a good parallel to her brother to play off of.

hell it’s even worse in the comics. Like there’s legit no acknowledgment of her at all, when trap is absent that gets an explanation but she’s just suspiciously…gone and the only time she does have a major role is when she’s used as a fake mask for a psyche-out to the villains (I’m sorry but if the comics are gonna pull that shit then I’m baited to believe that Thea and (cat lady) would have a homerotic switcheroo fight akin to Ms.Bellum and Sedusa. SHES THE TOUGHEST AND SMARTEST RODENT, USE HER GODDAMIT)

Idk man I tried reading some of the comics and it never worked out that much, again the dynamic feels suspiciously empty with zero acknowledgment. It’s not the Stiltons it’s just the fucking ginger bros for some reason. It doesn’t feel solid like it used to. I really can’t get into them which is a shame, and tbf why would I want to read a comic where Geronimo goes back in time and helps a colonist do his thing 💀

I’d be very happy if someone here can give me one good reason to get into them somehow, I want to like modern Geronimo, please/s

Look if there’s one character I don’t mind them putting in complete absence it’s probably the unaccompanied minors/s…Or Petunia which makes much more sense since she’s a family friend!

Look I actually like Ben and Bugsy as a duo, I think their whole concept is really wholesome, but the books don’t really push their parts that much, like there’s no meaningful interaction they have with the adults which is a lot of missed potential that or it’s just limited to Geronimo. Like listen I get that the whole point of the books was that it was from Geronimo’s perspective, but it’s not like everyone else was just “present”. They had more active roles and Gerry would just write all his observations down. You want a good example? The Mona Mousa Code.

Still…Benjamin had more charm and a bigger role in the classic books…that boy can hyper fixate and master niche skills in anything and was the emotional rock for Geronimo. But now he just goes along with his uncle being a punching bag routine :/ and I KNOW they could do a lot more for Bugsy here, especially since the paws are practically family friends.

—-

But you know…I’ll do give it credit here this era has one of my favorite art styles in the series and notably the one I grew up with the most (classic books illustrations still hold more charm imo) but the way action and expression is illustrated is just *chefs kiss* there’s a certain bounce to it that makes it so memorable.

And I’ll do admit all those geography facts (even if it’s just basic facts I mean it’s a kids book) and long detailed lists or charts about a characters detail is really cool and somehow makes it more immersive.

And it’s really nice to see the universe get expanded.

But overall, the writing is not the same anymore, the original dynamic is screwed up, and lots of missed opportunity to round up the cast together. It’s either empty or I’m just getting too old…Maybe I’m just nostalgia-biased in different areas who knows. But that’s pretty all my thoughts I can pull out.

#I now understand how it feels to be a Simpsons or a SpongeBob fan #I would not be suprised if the modern books are written by ghost writers #I could use this in a four hour long video essay #I would if tempted hard enough #thinking about what a friend said I wonder if this would expose the way I characterize the stiltons #been holding this out for a while and also I’ve been busy #trying my best not to fume at the mouth #hope you like me rambling Anon #Keith answers #mouseposting #geronimo stilton #thea stilton

52 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 11 months

Note

ted's, "it's not about me. it never was"

and all I felt from trent was, "oh, but it was"

I thought trent was going to stick to his word and tell ted why he was wrong...

but I guess ted just summed up his outlook and something trent so loves him for, so trent couldn't deny ted's wish. but there's got to be a future out there where, while still published as "the richmond way," trent still goes on and tells ted why, for trent, ted was entirely wrong about that.

I feel like in the show I want Ted Lasso to be -- and, crucially, the show I thought it was; the show it arguably should have been based on every other episode that came before this -- Trent would have corrected him. Because this is not an acknowledgement that Richmond doesn't belong to Ted, or even Rebecca, which is a reminder that I like. Ted allowing the fans to sit in on the practices and Rebecca selling portions of the club to people like Mae highlights the heart of the team, that this club "means something" to the community, to quote Trent. However, the book is explicitly, specifically about this particular season of football and how Richmond came to have their Cinderella moment... which is all due to Ted. I get why "Believe" is framed as the fourth factor in Total Football (and frankly I think it would have been a better title for Trent's book if he had to reject The Lasso Way), but belief is only the end result of the work Ted has done. Anyone could have waltzed into Richmond and said, "Believe in yourself!" but it wouldn't have done a damn thing because it was the unique approach of The Lasso Way that taught everyone what belief really means. Ted is the fourth aspect because it is only through his methods that generic concepts like Belief, Friendship, Trust, Compassion, etc. become understood well enough to be implemented despite the obstacles.

So yes, I think Ted is wrong. Trent isn't arguing that Richmond belongs to him, he's arguing that Ted irrevocably changed Richmond for the better... which is true. But the finale doesn't commit to that argument because, frankly, the finale commits to VERY little that the rest of the show lays out.

Ted Lasso spent its whole runtime arguing for Roy/Keeley and then dodged it at the last moment.

The finale argues strongly that Rebecca is already a metaphorical mom to the team and the fans, but then throws in a literal, blonde-haired blue-eyed daughter in at the last second.

The show has consistently framed Beard/Jane as an abusive relationship -- from Higgins intervention to Beard talking to God about his addiction to "pain" -- but the finale irrevocably fames this as true love instead.

Our wonderful queer plot-line made it clear that Colin was too scared to kiss his fellow after a game because that would out him as the only pro, queer footballer... and then he just does it anyway. Which I'm not upset about on its own, to be clear, rather I'm upset that there was no setup for why Colin's feelings changed; why he's suddenly willing to shoulder an understandable, HUGE downside.

The finale argues VERY strongly that Ted should not go back to Kansas. In fact, I plan to write a whole damn essay on that. He's clearly not himself, Rebecca is begging him to stay, Beard is staying and is in tears over the idea of betraying him, they haven't won the whole thing yet which provides a practical reason for him to stick around, Ted literally questions whether he's making a foolish, horrible choice as he's sitting on the plane... and then he does it anyway.

This finale is chock-full of choices that don't match up with what the rest of Ted Lasso has written, or even something from earlier in the finale itself. When Trent says that he's going to push back against any criticisms and explain why they're wrong, outside of the jokey "I'm a passionate writer, an ~artist, who is a little on the arrogant side," it sets up a moment for Trent to indeed correct one of them about their view of the book. After all, he's been the observer all season and arguably has a more objective understanding of what's been happening around him than they do. We've already seen it! Trent stops Ted and (accurately) explains how no, he hasn't changed tactics. You've been doing this for three years. I can see that even when you can't.

The show sets up the moment where Trent will explain that Ted is the foundation of Richmond's success and, presumably, helping him come to terms with staying here.

... and then we never got that.

There were honestly so many parts of the finale that I loved, but most of them were details like the Sound of Music farewell, or putting the "Believe" sign back together. Structurally, one of the few things I really bought into was the team winning the West Ham match and losing the league... which was unfortunately soured after the fact because that now reads as the PERFECT excuse for Ted to stay another season, yet he doesn't. I'm trying so hard not to read the whole thing pessimistically given how many of those details I loved, but when the core plot of the episode has so many problems, damn is it difficult. Other than Rebecca, it felt like the whole cast, Trent included, just gave up on Ted and given my very strong feelings about Kansas I wanted to shake the episode by the shoulders and go, "Stop acting as if this is a good thing just because this is what the writers originally planned! Did you learn nothing from HIMYM??" There are these moments, like with the book note, where you get this sense that everyone is respecting Ted's wishes, but that they thoroughly disagree with them, and the show never hits the point where Ted's viewpoint is appropriately challenged in a way that would make him reconsider. Despite the fact that Ted is a character who frequently needs to be challenged due to limited, inaccurate perspectives brought on by his anxiety (this season gave us "Find out before you freak out" as a big example). I legit had hope for a moment when Sharon showed up, thinking that Ted's therapist of all people would be able to articulate why giving up his family/support system to play his mother's approved version of fatherhood might not be the best decision... but, like so many other aspects, her return didn't amount to anything other than a wholesome callback.

It's a tragedy, frankly. As in, the genre definition. Everyone in the Ted Lasso cast is living the Rom-Com ending of found family, new romantic relationships, and bright, happy, humorous moments... except for Ted himself, staring pensively into the camera as he comes full circle, back to where he began. Back in Kansas. Back (non-romantically) with a woman who doesn't like him very much. Back trying to be a perfect father because that's what's expected of him + that's what his trauma demands of him. And now he's dealing with Jack, no Beard, no American football, no professional soccer, no visits as the rest of his family undergoes major life changes. Just Henry and the reminders from Season One that you're allowed to be a goldfish. After all that growth Ted has gone backwards.

I said before that obviously they were setting up the Kansas ending -- I'm not saying it came out of nowhere, not at all -- but I really don't understand how anyone can watch that and not feel depressed as hell about it. Ted Lasso is a show that consistently left me feeling good and hopeful and nearly giddy with pleasure. It says something that after finishing yesterday I mostly just felt hollow.

#Ted Lasso #Ted Lasso spoilers #mymetas #Trent Crimm

287 notes · View notes

raayllum · 7 months

Text

The Coin / Moon Fam plotline: a Structural Analysis

There's been some stuff in the tags recently about people being bummed over how long the Moon Fam / coin plot line has taken, and while it's an understandable perspective (particularly with how long hiatuses can feel between seasons), when looking at TDP as one complete story... the Coin / Moon Fam plot line hasn't actually taken that long, and is one of the most consistently developed plot threads / relationships in the show - and here's why.

This meta is broken down into three subheadings labelled, "Series Layout," "Plot Relevancy," and "The Trio('s emotional arcs)".

Series Layout

First things first, the fact of the matter is that the only season that didn't continue the coin plotline at all has been S2. Every other season has had something. This is pretty unique as outside character journeys or relationship development, not much besides overarching plot carries between season to season. Callum's arc is a mage and Ezran as king is ongoing, but the coin plotline has developed more consistently per season than emphasis on Ezran and Rayla getting one-on-one scenes together (which they haven't since S2). So the official breakdown is this:

1x01-1x03: Runaan and his relationship with Rayla are developed. He is taken prisoner while she goes on the mission with the boys.

1x05: Rayla shares the backstory of her parents failing to protect the egg. This is the first and last time she talks directly about her family until S3.

1x08: The coins are introduced in relation to Aaravos and the mirror, specifically. Runaan knows something of what the mirror is. He is coined.

3x03: While Runaan is believed to be dead, it is shown to the audience that he is stuck between life and death in the Lotus pond.

3x08: We see Lain and Tiadrin. It is implied they are coined.

3x09: Viren has the coins, taunting Rayla about them. This likewise teases that her parents were coined and reminds us that Runaan is too.

4x07: We learn about the quasar diamonds, which is set up for S5. Rayla also mentions how Runaan used moon opals to create illusion spells.

4x08: Rayla offers to sacrifice her blades and explains their connection to Runaan and Ethari, and how she believes she won't ever see them again. This is pretty blatant setup for the next episode in which

4x09: Rayla tries to save and then receives the coins from Claudia. This is also when it is finally confirmed that Lain and Tiadrin were coined as well. She and Stella escape Umber Tor (this is also how Rayla learns about Stella's portal powers).

5x01: Rayla investigates the dungeons to find out what happened to Runaan / how the coins work. She finds a 'mystery human' in a 4th coin. She determines that while she wants to help her family, she can't bring herself to prioritize it while the world is still in danger and that Callum and Ezran need her.

5x02: We meet the mystery human and find out that he is Kpp'Ar, Viren's old mentor. Rayla uses Runaan's bow and Ethari's arrows (thanking the latter) to defend herself against a corrupted banther.

5x04: Rayla tells Callum the truth about the coins and her pain concerning them. He immediately wants to help her and finds a potential solution concerning the coins: quasar diamonds at the Starscraper. Callum intends to personally free them himself and risks all of their present lives to get the information.

5x05: Karim summons the Bloodmoon Huntress, Kim'Dael, to do his bidding. As we know thanks to the graphic novel of the same name, she has history with Rayla, Runaan, and Ethari.

TDP loves to set things up, add to it a little for a season, and then make it a major focus.

Think of how Claudia and Soren didn't see their dad again after 1x06 until 3x03 - that's about 14 episodes, roughly half of Arc 1! Or how nothing that Viren does in S1 or S2 affects the trio at all until his kids catch up with Callum, Ezran, and Rayla in 2x02, or his own actions until close to 3x04 and 3x08 - once again, seasons apart.

Thus, the breaks in between the Moon Fam development makes sense, even if as laid out before, Rayla's relationship with them and the coins are developed 4/5 seasons. In particular, Rayla's relationship with Runaan and Ethari are more developed and emphasized, additionally, than her relationship with her biological parents. And what's more, thanks to both the Nova Blade and the Quasar Diamonds being rumoured to be at the Starscraper, let's talk about

Plot Relevancy

As soon as we'd learned there was a fourth coin, I assumed that Kpp'Ar was imprisoned inside it, simply because 1) he's close to Viren, 2) he 'mysteriously disappears,' and 3) his name sounds like fucking copper. It is implied in the Book Two: Sky novelization that Kpp'Ar has Plot Relevant Information about Aaravos (and possibly the relic staff) as well as whatever Viren did to save Soren (and his own dark magic misdeeds).

The novelization confirms that Kpp'Ar had a box that perfectly matched the one Aaravos uses inside the mirror for the bug pal spell. Kpp'Ar is also a master of puzzles and could very well be the descendant of the Jailer, who created the now infamous puzzle of the prison, in addition to having a wide berth of magical knowledge.

This implied connection to the prison would make the most sense if Kpp'Ar gets out before Aaravos is freed, and Aaravos will have to be freed in season six. And if Kpp'Ar is getting out of his coin, then the Moon fam are also getting out of theirs before the season finale.

There's also the Kim'Dael plotline to consider. While she is a menace in S5, Janai implies that she is not at her full powers, claiming, "This is a monster you do not want unleashed." Given that Karim has the sun seed and an army, he will likely become King of Lux Aurea and able to free Kim'Dael in S6 as well. This sets up the Moon fam all working together with Rayla to defeat her in S7.

So thanks to Kpp'Ar and Kim'Dael, the Moon fam is tied to two ongoing plotlines that have to get underway sooner rather than later. They are also three of the few characters to have presumably known what the mirror was. Runaan seems to outright know something ("That mirror? You have found something worse than death") and for Lain and Tiadrin, it is implied, as it seems they stayed behind ultimately to guard the mirror > Zym's egg (given that they tried to have Hendryr take the egg with him) because they knew it falling into the wrong hands could be dangerous. This means that when the three of them do come sprawling out of the coins, they will immediately understand the stakes of Aaravos' imminent or potential release.

The "two relevant plotlines" is under the assumption as well that Callum's pursuit of Star magic in order to free them is not what ultimately leads to him 1) him being possessed (with Rayla being called upon to kill him again, generating a potential interesting conflict with Runaan) or 2) snowballs into being what releases Aaravos. In which case they'd be tethered to Three Plotlines. But in some ways, they already are, because of how Runaan in particular is going to impact each of

The Trio

or why the "Ezran short story indicating Ezran is going to have lots of big nasty feelings about Runaan's rescue and survival is the best thing that could've ever happened, thank you" section. You can read the short story here if you haven't already (and I highly recommend it).

Okay, but why is this a good thing? Well...

We know next season that Callum and Rayla are heading to the Starscraper, likely now that things with Aaravos have resolved enough and/or to get the Nova Blade because things have escalated very quickly. However, as previously discussed, while Callum might do some plot relevant snowball shit to get them out of the coins, from an emotional arc standpoint, he's more likely to struggle with Runaan once the assassin is out. As of now, Callum is wholly dedicated to helping Rayla get her parents out of the coins (as he states and reaffirms in 5x04). The fact the Starscraper also has the Nova Blade is a nice preventative bonus. But this current lack of 'big feelings' means that Rayla was our main emotional tether to how people are Feeling about the coin plotline, from a character standpoint.

Enter Ezran and his anger. Not only does it expand his character, it gives the audience another piece of emotional investment and complication in the coin plotline, even if we're still inclined to be more for freeing Runaan than not (which is where Ez may fall). And it also introduces that complication for Callum.

Rayla and Ezran, and Ezran and Callum, rarely argue. Now Ezran is going to be presumably pitted against something Callum wants to do for Rayla, being torn between the two people he loves the most, with Ezran possibly feeling betrayed by the two people he loves the most.

So now there's an emotional investment with all three of the main characters - for Ezran, his anger in contrast with his hopes for peace; for Callum, devotion to Rayla and more importantly in this vein at least, disagreement with his brother; and of course, Rayla being caught up in magic that may have a steep price to pay in order to free her family (and what Runaan may encourage her to do once he is freed, re: killing Callum).

The brothers have to resolve their conflict; Rayla has to get her family back; Runaan's responses to each of these things, and indeed being freed, opens up a lot more avenues. TDP has never taken the easy way out when it comes to character development and complicated emotion. Viren was saved from a similar fate to his former prisoner so that he could develop further - otherwise why keep a character alive? Runaan (and the others) are going to be freed by the end of S6 if not earlier than the finale by a decent margin, and have enough time to change, stumble, and grow alongside their daughter and her friends - while defeating Kim'Dael together as a family, I think. #Justformerassassinthings

Conclusion

S6 is go time and it's gonna be great, Runaan and Ethari are gonna get a good chunk of screentime together, Runaan is one of the most important driving forces within S6's setup, and they all still have places to go as characters. Thank you goodnight

#tdp #the dragon prince #tdp meta #the english major strikes again #bc that's my tag for structural stuff #moon fam #analysis series #analysis #tdp runaan #like does soren mention claudia at all till they reunite in s4? no. he mentions her once in s5. she doesn't mention him at all #the show trusts early season development to carry us forward as we explore characters in different areas/dynamics #but they always circle back to what's most important

64 notes · View notes

yamayuandadu · 1 year

Text

In my opinion, instead of constant clamoring for Greek mythology retellings where largely or entirely villainous or monstrous female figures are reinvented as heroic, what we need is more media which acknowledges any goddesses from outside the conventional groupings of “main” Olympians (which is something variable, the version of the dodecatheon from Olympia had the personified river Alpheios and the Charites in it , but that’s beside the point). Multiple of them actually have well defined, more or less consistent characters in myths and it’s mind-boggling that they are losing the quest for popcultural relevance with “what if Medusa was the central protagonist of Greek mythology” text posts. Off the top of my head, some good examples of such goddesses would be:

Hecate, who despite being portrayed firmly positively in her two main mythical roles, in the Homeric Hymn Demeter (where she helps Demeter look for Persephone and is later tasked with escorting her on her annual journey) and in the Theogony (where she aids Zeus and co. during the titanomachy), only ever appears as a villain in modern media, often with the point of reference being godawful new age literature or worse. The only two works of media which actually try to do something broadly accurate to her character in myths would be Theia Mania and, of all things, Touhou.

Selene, who basically doesn’t exist as a separate character in modern media because her gimmick has been reassigned to Artemis. To be fair, it’s been this way for centuries, but she actually has a plenty to offer if treated as separate. She has a very distinct iconography (lunar crescent behind the shoulders looks so cool), and at least according to Seneca a very warm relationship with her brother (in his Phaedra he fills in for her every now and then so that she can spend time with Endymion). There’s also a bonkers addition to the Labors of Heracles where she’s credited with raising Nemean Lion from the moon.

Iris, who acts as a messenger of the gods (or specifically Hera) pretty often, including during the titanomachy. She also has a unique genealogy, and an “evil twin”, Arke, who acted as the messenger for the titans and to my knowledge plays no other role anywhere otherwise. One of the only references to offerings made to Iris mentions cheesecake which one surely could turn into a personality quirk if the actual literary texts are not enough, too.

Eos, dawn, the OTHER sister of Helios, who persistently appears in myths indicating she was the one female deity sort of trying to keep up with male gods in the “romancing mortals” department. One of her lovers turned into a cicada because she forgot to ask for eternal youth when asking for eternal life for him which feels like it came out of a modern parody.

Styx, who I think basically is entirely forgotten as a personified deity in modern fiction, despite being portrayed as one of Zeus’ key allies in the Theogony, and as the mother of his various minor courtiers. You’d think a character as edgy as the personification of the arguably most famous location in the underworld would not be entirely absent from mythology adaptations but alas, she basically is.

I would also like Thetis to not be portrayed as antagonistic in media, both of her highest profile adaptations in recent years essentially are. Thetis is the best character in the Iliad and I’d like to see an adaptation which actually keeps the scene where she brings Briareus to Olympus, but it feels like Iliad adaptations are often ashamed of having gods in there.

If you want to dig deeper, there are oddities like Malis/Maliya, a craftsmanship(?) goddess from Lydia and Lycia treated as analogous to Athena back at home, but seemingly as a river nymph in Greece (I worked on her wiki page recently).

#greek mythology

261 notes · View notes

mickeys-malarkey · 1 year

Text

I can't hold my Bendy theories in anymore!!

I've only got a few people to infodump to about Bendy IRL, I'm just so excited after watching the BATDR trailer and reading all the new theories that I can barely sleep or get any work done, and now that we have an official release date they can't chicken out if my theories are correct rofl. So, here I go!

Fair Warning: There's no way to avoid it, this is gonna have so many spoilers for all the current Bendy games and books (well, except BINR. But there's also not really a story in that one) that I'm just gonna have to assume that if you're still reading past this point, you've either already played/read the entire series (obviously minus BATDR) or you don't care about spoilers!

Pt. 1/3: Expanding (Mostly) On My TIOL Thoughts

As I said in my thought summaries here and on Twitter, I hate Nathan Arch. Dude literally sets off every single alarm bell I have, I don't understand why nobody else seems freaked the heck out by him… *shudders* I'm convinced that he's the answer to theMeatly's question.

To start off, I'd like to point out that… Nathan says his notes exist to “provide context for the contemporary reader,” which sounds like he's just gonna be stating general historical facts every reader would've known when the book was originally published but might not know when it was republished and are necessary to understanding what Joey's saying. But that's not what the notes are like at all? They actually consist of very personal information that readers at the time of original publication couldn't possibly have known and definitely aren't necessary to understanding what Joey's saying; and the vast majority seem to specifically be either 1: flip-flopping between singing Joey's praises and making remarks he really shouldn't be making if he were actually trying to dispel the negative rumors around the man as he claims, or 2: confirming or denying descriptions of himself?? 🚨

It feels like he's trying to manipulate us into seeing Joey as a genius and saint whose inventions we should accept with open arms whilst simultaneously positioning the guy as a scapegoat to take all blame in case we don't, and into seeing Nathan himself as an intelligent and kind man who definitely respected and admired Joey and, of course, would never, ever mistreat him, preemptively discrediting any rumors about him being an abusive friend that might crop up. Even when Joey makes comments that in no way cast him in a bad light— Joey be like “oh Nathan loved creative people and even though he would never understand us wanted to be us” and Nathan be like “actually no I like myself fine, and also no I dislike creatives in general, they're boring and too self-indulgent. It's specifically Joey that I admired, and therefore I admired his creativity specifically by extension. Isn't it just like Joey not to see the compliment—?” Um, no?? No, Nathan, that sounds absolutely nothing like Joey; he's literally been enraptured by every statement or action that could possibly be construed as complimenting him in this book. Did you just indirectly end your relationships with every other creative you've ever met so that nobody would believe anyone who claims that you looked down upon Joey? 🚨🚨

Let me get into some of the more unique notes from Nathan.

“The first time I read this [Elves and the Shoemaker] story it meant a great deal to me. Joey, as he said in his introduction, was never one to talk about his past. He never spoke about his parents. I certainly never met them. I don't even remember how I learned his father made shoes. So to get a glimpse back at this part of his life, for an old friend, it was very special. I remember telling Joey all this after I read the manuscript back in ‘41. He just smiled.” ~ Nathan Arch, The Illusion of Living, pg. 23

With the way this note happens right before Joey practically spells out that he trusts nobody and denies everyone even the most innocuous information out of self-preservation in the very next story, it does not feel like Nathan's sharing a heartwarming moment between friends. It feels like he's bragging about his position and accomplishments in their predator-and-prey relationship; like he's proud of himself for slowly breaking Joey down and eventually getting him to divulge info he'd been denying him. If your parents lived nearby and were perfectly lovely people, why do you think that you would neither talk about them with nor introduce them to someone who was supposedly one of your closest friends? I'll get into why I think he finally gave the info up in a bit.

In the Lottie story, if Nathan had only said that he wasn't sure the letter exchange had actually happened, I would've been like “yeah sure, we all know Joey's a liar. 🤷🏻‍♀️” But no, he specifically eases us from confirmation of Eckhart and Donaldson's existences even though he claims to have only briefly met them, to claiming Joey was such a good storyteller he could make you think you personally met someone who never existed even if he'd literally just told you that they were imaginary, to casting doubt on the very existence of a girl he was described as having been known by name to outside of the letter exchange.

“I met Joey the following year at the lab and only briefly had the chance to meet [Private Donaldson and Private Eckhart]. They were every bit the characters Joey describes them to be.” ~ Nathan Arch, The Illusion of Living, pg. 27

“When I first read this I forgot, despite Joey saying as much, that this was fiction, and spent far too much time racking my brain over who this James [who Joey says he told Lottie he met when he came by the lab to say hi to me] was. Joey is so good with his storytelling that even when he tells you it's not real, you can forget a moment later.” ~ Nathan Arch, The Illusion of Living, pg. 37 (emphasis added)

“I have gone through every piece of correspondence Joey ever saved as part of my work preserving his memory and documenting his life, and I must confess I was looking forward to reading Lottie's letters in person, having been moved to tears reading this part of the manuscript thirty years ago. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find them. It is possible they were lost to time, and I do deep down hope that to be true. However, even if this story is revealed to be one of Joey's excellent fictions, I think it doesn't really matter. Joey would, of course, call it another example of his illusion. I think the message in the story is meaningful regardless whether it really happened or not. And regardless if Lottie actually herself existed or not, she is a fine embodiment of the brave women who served our country in war.” ~ Nathan Arch, The Illusion of Living, pg. 41 (emphasis added)

I absolutely do not think this is a reality check, I think Nathan's trying to erase Lottie's existence – even gaslighting anyone who knew her in real life into thinking they'd imagined her – to throw us off the “Joey's Illusion of Living ‘philosophy’ is literally just the coping mechanism of an extremely traumatized man” scent; I wonder if Lottie actually fell victim to suicide shortly after writing to Joey that she was spiraling into a deep, dark depression, and Joey made up everything that happened after that specific letter in order to cope with the loss – pretend that “my dear friend isn't dead despite being sent somewhere there was no actual fighting where I thought she'd be safe; I saved her life and she's living a Happily Ever After overseas, married to a handsome young British soldier” – rather than just the goodbye letter to wrap her story up in a neat bow… Maybe Nathan even helped him pretend she was still alive in order to endear himself to this literal kid who was destroyed with grief?

Speaking of which, does nobody find the circumstances under which Nathan and Joey met… concerning? Nathan says “we knew each other since we were teenagers,” which sounds fine until you realize they met because Joey lied about his age and joined the army while still a minor, where he was bullied and pressured into things like underage drinking by grown-@$$ legal adults, multiple of which were also of higher rank. And not only was Nathan one of those grown-@$$ legal adults of higher rank and definitely bullying him just like the others (“I swear I definitely didn't join the other guys in giving him that Real Man™ complex of his like he says—” yeah, sure, Nathan, I totally believe you /s. 🙄), but clearly his horrifying apparent hobby that I'll explain next was already established at the time, seeing as Joey saw the photo of Ivan Newsome dying in agony with his own eyeballs when Nathan introduced him to Walter Richmond… 😬🚩

I'm convinced that Walter, Arthur, and Isabel were three of Nathan's previous victims, and they mirror the relationships he has with Joey, Allison, and Susie.

Walter looking at Nathan “as if asking permission to speak” before engaging Joey in conversation (Nathan nudges us towards believing they had no prior relationship by stating that he was flattered by Joey's observation that he had a way of introducing anyone so that it felt like they were his guest even if he'd just met them… but technically neither confirms nor denies anything 👀) has creepily similar vibes to how Joey “just smiled” in response to Nathan's gushing over the info on his parents; I feel like Joey gave up the info because he had to jump through hoops in order for Nathan to give him permission to publish his book— to be able to get the thing out the door without tripping any of Nathan's “Joey's disobeying and must be punished” alarms. Also, notice how Walter mysteriously had “a lot of people who knew him, but nobody who wanted to claim the title of ‘Walter's friend…’” and how the only people Joey's apparently still in contact with in BATIM are A: one of Nathan's (confirmed) employees, B: a janitor who didn't even realize Joey would remember him so definitely doesn't have enough of a relationship with Joey for Nathan to consider him a threat, and C: a shady veterinarian (wouldn't be surprised if he works for Nathan, as well). It's a classic abuser's tactic to isolate and villainize their victim so that they have no choice but to rely on the abuser; I'll get into more reasons I think that was happening in a bit.

I find it suspicious how Arthur not only personally delivers Ivan's effects to his sister Isabel, just tells her what happened which you'd expect someone with such fresh and debilitatingly severe PTSD to be very reluctant to do, and sticks around to befriend her, but also attends her art show showcasing Walter's war photos— it feels like someone was forcing Arthur to do all of this behind-the-scenes, and maybe the firecracker scene wasn't just about Isabel punishing the rich people for their morbid fascinations, but also Nathan punishing Arthur for being difficult about the situation behind-the-scenes. Meanwhile, Joey just happens to hire this random voice actress to replace Susie who we know just happens to be working for Nathan by the time BATIM happens, the memo that she had been hired specifically marked “don't deliver to Susie” just happens to make it into Susie's possession (seeing as she paraphrases it to Henry), Allison seems to know full well that Joey can't fire her when he tries to in DCTL, and then, by TLO, something has apparently happened to where Tom's been rehired which neither he nor Joey had any choice in and he doesn't wanna talk to anyone about (I doubt it was just all the deaths in DCTL, especially considering Joey went from his furious “I never want to see you again” attitude to begging Tom to come back. We've only heard him beg once before, which I'll get into later), and Tom and Allison have bizarrely switched opinions on the situation and machine (Allison changing from “your invention is amazing, Tom! Why are you stuck on the bad parts of the situation?” in DCTL to “I don't understand why you accepted this job back” in TLO, and Tom changing from “horrible things happened because of my machine, I wish I'd never been ensnared by this place” in DCTL to “why doesn't Ally understand? You don't just abandon a miracle” in TLO)—? It seems to me like Allison was never truly Joey's employee, she was Nathan's employee the whole time (which puts Joey's refusal to attend her and Tom's wedding in a whole new light), and Joey wasn't the only one punished for his failures and attempts to override the steel tycoon's authority.

To reiterate, since I saw some people being confused about the massive change: even with the memory loss issue, Allison's opinion in BATDR is just a natural progression from when the something happened between DCTL and TLO. 😛😬

Anyways, I get the distinct impression that creating situations like these to turn people into murder puppets without anyone being the wiser he was even involved is a hobby of Nathan's.

“…I am glad that he wrote [the murder mystery story] down this one time. It helps me to remember Joey at his most charming and sharp. Later years he became too fixated on things he might have gotten wrong, there was too much guilt and worry, too much fear. It didn't feel like the same man at the end, that's for sure.” ~ Nathan Arch, The Illusion of Living, pg. 98

You can't tell me that doesn't sound like he gets off on seeing how absolutely ruthless he can make his victims whilst still having them believe they're in the right and he's bitter as heck that one of his favorite pet projects came to his senses and was haunted by his conscience later in life— he literally just admitted he preferred a Joey who admired a murderer and thought that allowing people to die and getting murdered himself must've been worth it for Walter because now he has the immortality of being in a fascinating story instead of having lived in mediocrity over a Joey who felt guilt.

On that note, I absolutely do not believe Nathan's note on Henry's story was him trying to get the truth out about Henry being a despicable person. This is actually the chapter that first clued me in on Nathan's creepiness when I did my ADHD “skim the whole book except reading all the way through anything that looks especially interesting before properly reading” thing I do.

“Joey has always been a professional person, far more so in many ways than me. That is why this section of the book is so forgiving of the man who abandoned the studio he helped create. Joey can't help but see the good in people. That being said, as a good friend of Joey's, I know that Henry's departure was a great upheaval for him and a great personal betrayal. Joey never truly forgave Henry, and I don't think he should have felt obligated to. The fact that Joey is so gracious in this part of the book is a reflection of his incredible generosity in allowing Henry Stein to be stainless in the eyes of history. I think, had he lived longer, Joey might have in later years called it his greatest illusion.” ~ Nathan Arch, The Illusion Of Living, pg. 155

At first I found his saltiness funny, but then I read Joey's actual descriptions and… he's very clearly trying and failing to put down an amazing person, not build up a horrible one. I wondered why Nathan would be claiming the opposite and I realized— it sounds like he's admitting to being Dead Sea Level salty that Joey got terminally ill specifically because he's certain that, if he hadn't, he would've eventually been able to fully convince Joey that Henry was the villain rather than himself and therefore Joey wouldn't have reached out to the animator towards the end of his life in BATIM. Which leads me to my next observation:

I think Joey's play, “The Angel and The Devil,” was about Henry and Nathan.

I don't care that the Shoulder Angel is played by Abby and the Shoulder Devil is played by Joey, lol; that doesn't matter when you look at the actual content. I want you to read this excerpt:

Angel: [Empathy] is a wonderful talent that also leads [humans] down dark paths. Devil: Thank goodness for dark paths, they lead all great artists to their greatest creations. Angel: Empathy is your provenance then? Devil: We share it— for you it leads men to reach out and help, build hospitals, begin charities… Angel: For you it allows men to achieve their greatness through manipulation and fear. Devil: Is it not wonderful?

Going back to the murder mystery story, Walter and Isabel's thought processes perfectly match what the Shoulder Devil in Joey's play is described as using empathy to inspire humanity to do:

Walter was inspired to let Ivan die so that his photo – his art – would have a more compelling story that tugs at the heartstrings.

Isabel was inspired to kill Walter for the crime of letting Ivan die, masterfully manipulating her confession so that it technically wasn't a confession, instilling fear of herself in everyone present with the fact that if she did do it then she was untouchable legally thanks to her money, and finally, she was fully convinced that she would also be untouchable socially— even be better off, because people would see her as a hero for delivering justice to a monster like Walter.

Going back to BATIM, Joey literally says this to our faces:

“The truth is, you were always so good at pushing, Henry… Pushing me to do the right thing. You should've pushed a little harder.” ~ Joey Drew, Bendy and the Ink Machine, ch. 5

Does that not sound like Henry was good at using empathy to inspire kindness/etc. the way the Shoulder Angel is described as doing (Joey's actually very right that empathy is a morally neutral phenomenon that can be used for good or evil! *Spoken with hyper-empathetic autistic/low-to-no-empathy autistic solidarity*)?

The Angel and Devil also say that whichever of them the man they were assigned to doesn't choose will have to leave. This tells me that the ending of Joey's play – where it's implied the man the angel and devil were assigned to chose the angel – was read rather than acted out (with the excuse that they for some reason couldn't pick a random person to play him out of the crowd like they did for the Hatcheck Girl) in order to symbolize how Joey wanted to choose his true friend and make the toxic one leave, but he had that choice taken away from him when Henry was driven away despite his best efforts. In other words, I think both his version of the friend breakup story and Henry's version have elements of truth and deception to them.

Anybody notice that it seems like Wally and Tom seemed to have been being pitted against and told lies about each other as well as having their work sabotaged by an unknown third party?

“So here's my beef with this whole Gent thing. I went to school, yeah that's right— me! Star Student at Brickmore High. I know my potatoes! So where's this ‘Mr. Connor’ fella get off telling me what to do? These college boys. They can tell ya what's wrong but if you try to fix it on ‘em. They're outta here!” ~ Wally Franks, Boris and the Dark Survival

“Not all of us are well connected, son. Not all of us have chances. Especially to get a job as an engineer when I ain't had no proper education and training.” ~ Thomas Connor, Dreams Come to Life, pg. 252

“If there's one loose bolt around here we're gonna have a whole mess of trouble. And wouldn't you know it, that Wally guy is one loose bolt! He keeps the floors clean he says, he didn't sign on for no science project. All I know is someone needs to keep these pipes maintained. And he can't be a slacker.” ~ Thomas Connor, Boris and the Dark Survival

Wally thinks he's being looked down upon for not having gone to college like Tom (who didn't go to college) and his efforts to help out are not just unappreciated but met with unreasonable emotional response. Meanwhile, Tom thinks Wally's being selfish and lazy and leaving all the work to be done by him. Sound familiar?

“…Henry left for his own reasons, and the correspondence between us became less and less. To be honest, it almost felt like a weight off when he left. He had grown more sensitive as the studio became more successful and giving him pep talks had become exhausting for me. All the good qualities he brought, the hard work and diligence, were being undermined by a restless need for something different. Something that wasn't Bendy. I'll never understand that drive. Bendy was and is perfection.” ~ Joey Drew, The Illusion of Living, pg. 176-177

“Only two weeks into this project and already it's gotten interesting. Joey is a man of ideas… And only ideas. When I agreed to start this whole thing with him I thought there would be a little more give and take. Instead I give, and he takes. I haven't seen Linda for days now. Still, someone has to make this happen. When in doubt, just keep drawing Henry. On the plus side, I've got a new character I think people are gonna love.” ~ Henry Stein, Bendy and the Ink Machine, ch. 3

Joey thinks that Henry was being unreasonably emotional and looking down upon Bendy as not good enough (when he obviously loved the character/cartoons), and that his efforts to help were unappreciated. Meanwhile, Henry thinks Joey was being a selfish, lazy leech and leaving all the work to be done by him.

Is it really a stretch at all to wonder if Henry and Joey were similarly being pitted against and told lies about each other as well as having their work sabotaged by an unknown third party? Maybe the exact same third party?

This makes me very suspicious about who was really behind the worrying newspaper in Joey's apartment; something tells me that Joey's Shoulder Devil successfully pushed his Shoulder Angel off that right shoulder. Twice. I can see Nathan thinking “fine, if you won't give up on this stupid animator, I'll use this opportunity to remove him from the picture permanently and poetically…”

Is Joey's being so touched by the memory of Isabel “angelically” helping Arthur during his war flashbacks an “I wish my Shoulder Angel would come save me?” And is his horror at the descriptions of Shell Shock (PTSD) as basically a time loop foreshadowing that he ends up trapped in a real time loop, himself, by Nathan's sadistic design? I think it's likely, especially after reading @dreamfisher-nux's posts speculating on Wilson's identity. If he's the Gent worker who stole Shaun's tool belt in BATDS and “somebody” who stole Tom's invention in Allison's BATIM Chapter 5 letter, and that invention was the seeing tool, so Wilson's the one that's been tampering with Henry's invisible messages, and he potentially murdered Henry and Joey when Henry returned at Joey's request… How much of this and how much more might he have been doing under Nathan's influence? Is he another one of Nathan's Murder Puppets? 👀

I think all the Henry stuff also explains why Joey claims that Sammy, Jack, and Norman were hired after Mr. Animator left despite the evidence in BATIM and DCTL that Sammy and Norman knew him personally. The only two versions of events he's being allowed to hear are “Henry leaving is your fault and your feelings about the situation are unreasonable” and “Henry was an awful person, you should be glad he's gone.” Nathan would never allow him to hear “it's Nathan's fault and your feelings about the situation are valid,” so he's gotta choose between believing two very painful other options; why wouldn't he try to discredit the most painful one?

While we're adding to the list of people who Nathan seems to have made disappear Mafia Boss-style, it sure seems awfully convenient that the two main Crack-Up Comics artists’ names “appear to have been lost to time” after they wrote a comic where Bendy (Joey) was literally sweating over how Boswell (Nathan) was the richest cat in the world and could crush him like a bug if he didn't perform his job to satisfaction…

…Sounds to me like Nathan did something to shut these two people up so that word of the true nature of his and Joey's relationship wouldn't get out.

Also, interesting how the disappearances of not only a reporter-in-training and the sister of two well-known entertainers but also the only son of the richest, most influential and most dangerous man in Atlantic City didn't get Mr. Joey “Bankrupt From Impulsive Spending Who Apparently Doesn't Even Have The Power To Fire His Own Employees (and ‘Employees’) Nor The Respect Of Enough People To Not Be Giggled At And Whispered About During His Own Speech At His Own Party” Drew and all of his employees arrested or worse… In fact, from the new teaser and archive images that came out, we now know the studio survived for almost two years afterwards before filing bankruptcy and closing forever…

…at which point Joey was mysteriously missing for a while. This is pretty much pure speculation, but I wonder if it could be that Joey's need for a wheelchair stems from an injury sustained in this time? Mr. Mafia Boss decided he needed his kneecaps busted or something?? At any rate, it sounds to me like Joey had someone richer, more influential, and more dangerous than Mr. Chambers “on his side…” until he failed too many times, and needed to be punished more severely? 👀

“Again I shook my head. Didn't [Constance] understand that this was not how it worked? She hadn't lived in my world. Any company that could afford such a machine, that could hide it, that had such dark huge secrets, they had to be protected by something huge as well.” ~ Bill Chambers, Bendy: The Lost Ones, pg. 191

Then, ink machine things continued at Gent… until the year Allison and Tom got married.

Sounds to me like Gent might've been condemned in order to punish Allison and Tom either for the very fact that they got married (making them more-difficult-to-control puppets) or because they failed to get Joey to come to their wedding where Nathan could access him in-person again…

This archive entry sounds as if Joey had to go into hiding, perhaps to escape Nathan and/or people like Bill's dad who were waiting for Nathan to rescind his protection? Also, as an animation history nerd, it sounds to me like the Bendy cartoons were picked up by other studios besides Archgate in attempt to reboot them after JDS kicked the bucket (as has happened to countless cartoons whose original studios kicked the bucket in real life, e.g., the Fleischer cartoons, the Hanna-Barbera cartoons, the Veggie Tales cartoons, etc.), and it wouldn't surprise me if these “minor attempts to rekindle the magic” were Joey's feeble attempts at keeping what was left of Bendy out of Nathan's claws. Remember, Nathan didn't say in Crack-Up Comics that he “inherited” the Bendy IP from Joey's estate, he said he bought it, as further confirmed in the final archive entry.

This means Joey did not leave Bendy to Nathan in his will. In fact, it sounds like he either didn't have a will at all or it was destroyed when he died… Anyone notice that Joey's secret BATDS recording, where he asks Nathan for money, is the only time we've heard him sound audibly nervous?

Strange how, in DCTL, Joey calls Bertrum “Bertrum” when introducing him to the most uncomfortable person at his party, who respects him as his boss; it's not until the people who hold financial power over him start whispering and giggling that he introduces him as “Bertie,” as if he wasn't specifically trying to slight Bertrum as the man in question assumed, but instead was trying to assert to all the hungry cats in the room that he was also a cat, rather than a tasty lil mouse for them to devour… Nathan is worse than them? He's able to break Joey's facade of confidence that this crowd of investors could only make him reinforce? What's worse, the investors he tries to persuade like he does everyone else, convince that they should give him money because everything's great… but Nathan, who's supposedly his friend, he begs for money, saying that the one-and-only reason he's asking this is because the situation is dire (implying he has no choice). That's… worrisome.

Funny how, across DCTL, TIOL, and TLO, Joey consistently pulls or feels the urge to pull his cruel pranks on people anytime a new person seems to be hiding things from him or trying to take advantage of him. Buddy after being caught stealing art supplies? Bill after being caught lying about not having knowledge of the ink machine? Sammy when he suspected his deadpan-&-monotone-ness was an act and that he didn't respect him? Almost seems like the pranks are actually the survival mechanism of someone who's had a whole lotta really bad experiences with betrayal, having things hidden from him, getting taken advantage of, etc. rather than just the product of a twisted sense of humor, hm…?

“…inside I was feeling a little angry now. I don't do well when people are disloyal, and this was something I'd expected to be kept between me and Abby. Then I stopped and controlled myself (I have excellent control over my emotions) and realized I had never actually told her there was anything secret about this. I'd have to be more careful in the future. Believe you me, I have been since. A contract is a fine thing to have between colleagues, even finer at times between friends.” ~ Joey Drew, The Illusion of Living, pg. 170-171

“[Sammy] leaned back on both elbows on the stone wall. Beneath him Fifth Avenue roared and certain death would come to anyone who toppled over the edge down onto it. The man definitely had confidence in that wall. I had a sudden urge to give him a shove. Not push him over, but just to see his reaction. This might sound strange, but I needed to see a human moment from him, I needed to see the man he was hiding from me. That's the trouble when you're interested in recreating the illusion of the world. You want to see the truth of it as much as possible.” ~ Joey Drew, The Illusion of Living, pg. 188-189 (emphasis added)

Also, it's weird that, when talking about reuniting with Nathan at the Sparkling Unicorn, Joey claims not to have known Nathan very well in the army but to always have liked his personality… after having claimed to be close enough friends with him that he helped him write fake letters from a fictional character to Lottie, just a few pages earlier. Either Joey's not nearly as good a liar as he's supposed to be… or this discrepancy was created on purpose in an attempt to tell us that Joey only liked Nathan's personality back when they were in the army because he didn't actually know him as well as he thought he did. 👀

This all together…

…really makes one wonder if Joey's little intro to TIOL wasn't him humble-bragging, but genuinely explaining that the reason he took so long to write it was because A: he's been being gaslit to heck and back for decades and genuinely doesn't know what reality is as a result, and B: refusing to write this book was one of the few ways he was able to assert real control over his own life for a very long time…

“Looking back is awkward. Looking back, you can trip yourself up. I've never been a fan of it. Which is why I never had a desire to tell my story. No matter how many book deals were offered, no matter how many dinners were thrown for me. I am a man who makes up my own mind. You can't buy me. No one buys Joey Drew.” ~ Joey Drew, The Illusion of Living, pg. 3

Speaking of the intro, interesting how, as much as Joey tries to claim that his surprise at Simmons remembering his “philosophy” is because Simmons isn't the brightest bulb in the factory, he still gets noticeably hung up on the fact that his words had stuck with someone; it's almost as if the vast majority of people he knew either openly viewed him as a talentless idiot or genuinely were trying to manipulate him as he was so seemingly paranoid about, and he was beyond desperate for any scrap of genuine praise anyone would give him, no…? *Stares at basically every audio log, literally every Nathan note, and every scene where Joey reacted unsubtly ecstatically to compliments and/or irate at any hint someone was looking down on him*

Anyone notice how, throughout his whole memoir, Joey sings the praises of anyone he clearly wants to be like and drags anyone who resembles what he's actually like through the mud? “Omigosh, Sammy is just so talented and powerful and automatically respected and praised by everyone! He's so awesome! 🤩” “Yuck, Detective Sinclair wears a persona to hide how useless and powerless he is and is just so desperate for validation! I hate him! 😤 Btw, this stuff is not what my philosophy is about, I'm actually changing reality here (whatever makes you feel better, Joey /hj).” I guess this leads me into the next section…

Continued in Part Two: Expanding (Mostly) On My DCTL & TLO Thoughts

217 notes · View notes

hamliet · 7 months

Note

Hello, Hamliet.... is it true that the Bible said homosexuals should be punish in new testament? If I'm not wrong remembered (yes, I'm from christian household) is it not that king david have 'special feelings' for jonathan?

My mother has really strong belief in religion (christianity) and she is an anti-LGBTQ+. But do you believe that her brother (my uncle) who is definitely a queer (wear make up, dresses really feminely, and sometimes called himself as she, never married until he's in sixties), my mother said he is normal ?????

That's why I want to know more about LGBTQ+ (eventhough in my country it is still a taboo topic).

Do you think it's weird Hamliet, if I prefer to read mlm & wlw instead of het romance? I just felt fed up with reading or watching het romance (wlm)....

Thanks to you Hamliet, I know more about myself, eventhough there are still a bit if feeling guilty every time I read or watch LGBTQ+ contents....

No, it doesn't say it should be punished in the New Testament.

It does get mentioned once, arguably three times, but really for certain once, and that context has nothing to do with punishment.

I'm going to give a very bare bones explanation of my understanding of it below! There are also lots of theology papers on it and I'm like, skimming the surface here.

The arguable ones lists a word that is often translated as "homosexuality" in a list of sins that "won't inherit the kingdom of God." However, the two words that get translated as such need more looking at.

One is always translated literally as "softness," but is always used in reference to prostitution. Most likely (given the letters it appears to and the communities they were a part of and the prevalence of temple prostitution there) temple prostitution (which should not be thought of as largely consensual in this context, either). There are also some fair arguments based on the words used and the known history of these cities that it's referring to ritual p*do abuse of children.

The other of the Greek words that gets translated as such is extremely unusual. So unusual that it's never seen elsewhere.

Yeah. It's a made-up word.

Now, the word arsenokoitēs certainly had meaning to the specific community to which the letter it appears in is addressed, but it's not like a word that can be translated with 100% certainty. What we do know for certain is that parts of the word are taken from words that refer to "men" and "bed/sex." So I see why people translate it that way. The thing is, though, it occurs in two lists, and these lists consist of issues concerning idolatry and slave dealers. Hence, the context strongly indicates that it's condemning some form of exploitation involving men who have sex with males.

The larger historical/cultural context also indicates this. If you read ancient Greek texts, like, say, Plato's Symposium, you'll get a very distinct view of exactly which same-sex relationships were normalized in those days, and you'll also be somewhat horrified. Basically the idea was that mentors (adult men) would mentor teenager boys, and the teen boys would be receptive to the adult man having sex with them. Does it sound creepy and exploitative? Because it is!

Yes, even for the time period. It isn't unique. Julius Caesar--yes, THE Julius Caesar--had to deal with rumors that he was one of those boys to an older mentee (Nicomedes). Because clearly, being on the receiving end of male-male sex means that you're actually a woman, which as everyone knows is the WORST thing you could possibly be (sarcastic). Anyways, this type of exploitative bs was extremely common, and even back in those days, it was known to be somewhat, y'know, f*cked up.

The other time it's talked about in the NT is in Romans 1, during which the main theme of the passage is that giving yourself over to lust is a bad thing. Paul cites women having sex with women and men with men as examples of overabundance of lust. I think most Christians, even sex-positive ones like myself, would agree that being consumed with lust (or with anything) to where it controls you and you start losing control of your life is unhealthy.

Now, that said, you can make an argument that Paul's view seems to be that homosexual tendencies stem from over abundance. But we know that's not true nowadays. And that gets into how you read the Bible as a whole.

I love the Bible. I see it as God's word to humanity, divinely inspired. I also think that to truly see it as God's word, you have to acknowledge what it is.

It's literature.

That doesn't mean it's fiction or whatever. It just means that God chose literature as a means to communicate with human beings, and that means that God knew that the whole point of literature is that people wrestle with the concepts and debate the themes. It enhances my respect of Scripture and my love of God to do precisely this, to dig into the text and its historical context and discover the timeless themes. To call it "inerrant" where every word can be taken out of context and seen as a command does a disservice to the writers God used to craft poetry, histories, stories, measurements, and letters to friends. To view the Bible as God when the Bible itself says that Jesus is the Word of God personified misses the forest for the trees, the spirit of the law for the letter.

The other really cool thing that genuinely excites me about Christianity is that God works with human beings. Individuals, yes, but also communities. He works within cultures, too. Despite modern evangelicals claiming "No Compromise!" Scripture is FULL of God compromising with humans, bargaining with them, accepting that they are flawed and working with us. He worked within human limits so much he became one to save us from death; it's kinda the premise!

So, God working to deliver his very message to us through human writers of literature is kind of amazing to me, awe-inspiring. But that also means human beings are limited by what we know and our own time periods, our own cultures. And, that's okay. Yes, keep working to do better, but it means that we can have grace for ourselves and one another. Even now, when we know a lot more about the world as a whole, we are still very limited by our own experiences, cultures, and time period. There's this attitude that modernity has reached the stage of ultimate enlightenment and boy have we not.

Hence, yeah, Paul's writing in Romans 1 especially might be kinda homophobic by today's standards. The ultimate premise--don't let yourself be under anything else's control--is a good one, but him using homosexuality as an example as if potentially all of it emerges from lust is not exactly woke, but also not necessarily abnormal for his time period and his culture. He's a flawed human being, after all, but God himself still worked with him to do some pretty great stuff, and to write some pretty cool letters that still have beautiful resonance today (the love passage in Corinthians? That's him!)

(Also, funnily enough, people--even the strictest evangelicals--actually do accept this about Paul and culture when he's writing about slavery. Because Paul doesn't endorse slavery and instructs masters to be kind to their slaves and treat them well, but he doesn't outright say "you're sinning by owning slaves" whereas today we'd definitely think that. Funny how that doesn't apply to gay people though.)

Lastly, your mom sounds like my mom. She claims she thinks it's a sin because she believes the Bible says so, but she genuinely is happy for friends who are gay and happily married and wishes them well. It's like she feels she has to believe it, not that she actually does in her core. And of course that's not an excuse, and I would never tell a gay person they should not be upset with her. Even within our modern cultures, it can be hard to unlearn things too especially if you grew up in such environments.

But reading mlm or wlw stories is actually a great tool for helping people empathize with others. Fiction absolutely helped me leave the cult I was raised in. I don't think it's inherently weird at all; curiosity exists, empathy exists, good stories exist, and also there's something to be said about people who exist in cultures that are very non-accepting seeing themselves in stories where a relationship that might often be condemned is accepted. Even if the person is straight and cis, they might have parts of themselves they see as something society would hate, and so they see themselves in the characters.

Oh actually, the real last lastly. Jonathan and David. Er... yeah. I mean, yes, people do have extremely close, extremely intimate, brotherly platonic friendships, even between men. But their relationship is certainly up for interpretation considering they literally refer to each other as having love for them that is "better than that of women." The words and phrasing used mirror those used in like, the Iliad to describe Achilles and Patroclus, and Gilgamesh between Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

David also married Jonathan's sister and didn't treat her very well, but did go out of his way to protect Jonathan's own children. Also, there are several other passages where the ancient Hebrew used could contain sexual nuances, although it doesn't necessarily have to. You can't definitively state either way what it is--the writers clearly wrote in plausible deniability. Still, there's enough to raise eyebrows even within that old ancient context that, whether or not it was ever physical, Jonathan and David were not platonic.

(Personally? David invented the Disaster Bisexual archetype.)

#ask hamliet #christianity #lgbt #tw #just in case #lgbt christians

24 notes · View notes

shamandrummer · 2 months

Text

The Power of Ritual and Ceremony

A ceremony is a unified ritualistic event with a purpose, usually consisting of a number of artistic components, performed on a special occasion. Ritual and ceremony are an essential and basic means for human beings to convey to themselves and to others the necessary messages which enable them to maintain their humanity. They communicate acceptance, love, esteem, a sense of identity and purpose, shared values and beliefs, and shared memorable events. Every ritual contains tender and numinous moments. And in those moments of transcendence we are taken out of the normal flow of life, and out of our routines. We are then in an event that is unique, irreplaceable and sacred. In ritual we participate in something deep and significant. They are moments which move our heart and touch our soul.

Ritual and ceremony are essential for a healthy and balanced personal and communal life. Many persistent personal and social problems can be linked to the lack of ritual and ceremony. The late Joseph Campbell, one of the great mythologists of the twentieth century, asserted that the level of civilized behavior in a society is directly linked to the practice of ceremonies and rites of passage. Rituals and ceremonies reduce tension, anxiety and stress, produce deeper self-awareness, and connect us to our community. They are a vehicle for belonging--to a family, to a people, and to the land. Both reconnect us with our deepest core values and our highest vision of who we are and why we are here.

Ritual and ceremony nourish our spirits and our psyches. They heal the deep wounds in us that are unseen and unspoken. Ceremonials offer us a deeper healing solution to complex dilemmas that plague modern life, those problems that lie beneath the surface, waiting to erupt. When the soul is in a state of discontent, conflict and discord, these conditions manifest in our daily life's events as dissonance, confusion, ill health and misfortune. Conversely, when our soul is in a state of peace and harmony, these qualities manifest in our life as ease and acceptance, caring and accord with the world around us. From an shamanic perspective, the restoration of one's soul contributes to the restoration of the collective soul of humanity.

Ritual vs Ceremony

Ritual and ceremony are two distinct practices used to engage the powers of the unseen world to effect specific changes in the visible world. Ceremony is a formal act or set of acts designed to celebrate, honor or acknowledge what is. Ceremony is used to strengthen or restore the status quo, grounding people in the natural order of things and/or deepening communal relationships. Ritual is a formal act or set of acts designed to cause a change in what is--to change or transform the status quo.

Ritual and ceremony are a universal way to address the spirit world and provide some kind of fundamental change in an individual's consciousness or in the ambience of a gathering. They may involve prayers, chanting, drumming, dancing, anointing, as well as rites of passage. Both are designed to engage the spirit world in helping us to do what we are unable to do for ourselves. The power of ritual and ceremony is they marry the mundane to the sacred. Without the connection to the powers of the spirit world, neither is an effective tool for initiating change. By creating effective ritual and ceremony, we can skillfully engage Spirit in the processes we are involved in like healing, therapy or actualizing our goals.

#shamanism #shamanic practice #spirituality #ceremony #ritual #consciousness #rites of passage

16 notes · View notes

wheelercore · 10 months

Text

The Wheeler family, "normalcy", what that means in stranger things, how that possibly explains subtext behind the shifting dynamics of the family- particularly Ted's favoritism of Holly over Mike and definitely Nancy, and how this all connects to the Wheeler family show of opulence- more specifically, toys. Just a stream of consciousness honestly.

This one is for the rosegate girlies ***crowd boos***

Now, the Wheeler family has been one of the two main families of the show since the very beginning. However, in my opinion, what's been going on with them behind the scenes have been kept pretty subtle. And by subtle, I mean hidden behind so many layers of symbolism its crazy. From objects in the Wheeler home being reminiscent of things that could be found in the Creel attic (the white wedding dress, the wheel chair, the piano) + the grandfather clock chimes to Mike being able to sense the void, it's kind of obvious at least to me that the Wheelers are plot relevant, its just obvious as to what it is about them.

Over all, they are defined as being the "normal" nuclear family. Their opulence is shown consistently in the show, from Mike's basement full of toys and games, to Karen and Nancy having new outfits/hair-dos almost every season, to Holly's new lite brite (and god we will be getting to this one), and to Jonathan pointing out to Nancy that his father doesn't make 6-figures. The funny thing being that the Wheelers aren't even the richest family in the show. We don't know how much the Sinclair's make- however it seems like Lucas' parents can also afford to get him the walkie talkies and toys also. The Harringtons are by far the richest family we know of. But yet, the Wheelers are the ones the most emphasized to have more than enough.

Now, season 4 was the season where the writers, via Dustin and Steve, proclaimed they were going to have to spell it out for us. And spell it out they did (mostly in Henry's monologue). There are several quotes I want to point out that specifically describe what Stranger Thing's message on "conformity" and "normalcy" is. To summarize? It doesn't exist. Normalcy isn't real, it's a set of arbitrary standards used to keep the average person afraid of being different.

"Humans are a unique type of pest, multiplying and poisoning our world, all while enforcing a structure of their own- a deeply unnatural structure..." - Henry

(cont.) "Where others saw order, I saw a straightjacket- an oppressive, cruel world dictated by made-up rules. Minutes, days, months, years, decades, every life faded, lesser copy of the one before. Wake up- work- eat- sleep-reproduce- die-" - Henry

(cont.) "Everyone is just waiting- waiting for it to all be over, distracting themselves while performing in a silly, terrible play, day after day... I couldn't pretend." - Henry

(Henry describing his parents) "I saw my parents as they truly were. To the world they presented themselves as normal people, good people. But like everything else in this world, it was all a lie- a terrible lie. They had done things- such awful things-"

"I thought I wanted to be like you. Popular. Normal. But it turns out, normal’s just a raging psychopath." - Lucas at Jason

"A lie designed to conceal the truth"- Jason, shot focusing on the Wheelers for a moment

So what does this mean when the Wheelers are considered to be the façade of an average "normal" main family of the show? We see Mike, Nancy, and Karen struggle with conformity and their unhappiness with their "place" in life, but how does this connect to the overall plot? Why are the Wheelers subtlety connected to the supernatural? What is going on "behind the curtain" and what truth is this "lie" concealing?

Well, we already see from Mike, Nancy, and Karen's POV, so lets talk about Ted's relationship with his children aka why I believe the answer can be partially found there.

Honestly you could ask anyone and they would probably give you a different interpretation of this. And to be honest I think they're all very wrong [*boos and hisses from the crowd*].

What I personally think is that Ted lets his children go when they stop "performing" in the lie, the "silly, terrible play" that is the Wheeler family. And that happens to be when they get older, when they start to become individuals (and children should). We see Ted's relationship with this children get worse and worse the older they are. He seems to dote on Holly, at least speaks to Mike, and just completely ignores Nancy's existence.

Hopper has a quote about this that perfectly explains it:

"I think it must be hardwired into us to reject our fathers. So we can grow and move on. Become something of our own."

This quote happens after Enzo talks about his son "Mikhail" (which is literally just "Michael" in Russian kill me the curtains are so fucking blue guys).

Hopper: I bet Mikhail (Michael) will be proud of his pops, at least. Enzo: Mikhail (Michael)? Mmm. No. I can't do nothing right with him anymore, it seems.

The writers of Stranger Things intentionally associated growing up, becoming your own person, with rejecting your father. As in, at some point you just don't need them anymore. Don't need them to support you financially, to protect you. Two things that are seen as the fathers traditional responsibilities: to be the breadwinner and to be the protector of the household. Thanks for spelling it out for us, Duffers.

An intentional parallel also related to fatherhood in the show is letting your children go when they eventually begin to reject you. In the first Wheeler dinner scene in S1, Ted tells Karen to "let [Mike] go" when he storms away from the dinner table, distraught by Will's disappearance. In S4 we see Karen hug Mike, joking promising not even to let him go to college, not letting him go. In the same s1 dinner scene, in contrast with Mike, whom Ted at least attempts to talk calmly to, Ted repeatedly shuts down Nancy ("Language!"). He's already "let her go" by S1, refusing to even listen to her. Ted pushes his children away the moment he feels that they are beginning to "reject" him, and this is symbolized by their toys (which in my opinion is a symbol of Ted attempted to "buy" his children's love and we see that with Holly) and I will get to that in a second.

However, that phase was used similarly in the context of Brenner and Henry. El telling Brenner that he "could not let [Henry] go".

El at "Papa": So many dead. And all because of you. Because you could not stop. You could not let him go.

However as we're shown, both letting your kids go prematurely (Ted) or holding onto them too tightly in a controlling sense (Brenner) both are damaging to your children.

Let's start looking at some photos:

When I talk about Ted's relationship with his children it's subtly portrayed in the Wheeler family photos we get. Notice how Ted stands in between Karen and Mike, Nancy out to the side- not within his arms. Ted holds Nancy at arms length, Mike has not yet been given the full cold shoulder by Ted. This looks to have been taken around S1. And what looks like roses on Nancy's shirt.

They do a similar thing with the Creels, where we see Victor, Virginia, and Alice as a Unit, with Victors arms around Alice and Virginia- Henry is only held by Virginia's hand. Visual storytelling and all that. Henry is being held at arms length in his family, he is the "odd one out". You can even tell by the colors, Henry is the only one not in blue.

Then we see a completely different arrangement here. Now they are in a line. Ted has his arm around Karen (who is holding Holly), while Nancy and Mike are out the furthest away from him, Nancy being the farthest- as usual. Mike is also no longer within Ted's arm length. Notice Holly has one solitary red flower on her dress? Nancy no longer has roses on her shirt? This photo seems to either be taken before or after S2 (I'm not sure? Lol)

As we can see, by S1, Nancy has already been iced out and Mike is on his way by S2. This has a negative effect on the Wheeler siblings, as we see that they struggle with understanding close relationships, especially romantic relationships. Insecure attachments can become transgenerational, as a parent perpetuates it on their child in the same way it was perpetuated onto them:

Just like any other form of trauma or distress, an insecure attachment style can be passed down through generations.

Consequently, as children typically learn by example, a child picks up on this detachment from emotions and mirrors how their caregiver deals with unpleasant feelings ...

We see hints of this in Mike, who expressed his insecurity in his relationship with El:

Mike: Yeah, I know. I… I know she is. But… But what if after all this is over, she- sh- she doesn't need me anymore? Will: No, o- of course she'll still need you. She'll always need you, Mike. Mike: I keep telling myself that, but I… I don't believe it. I mean, she's special. She was born special. Maybe I was one of the first people to realize that. But the truth is, when I stumbled on her in the woods, she just needed someone. It's not fate. It's… It's not destiny. It's just simple dumb luck. And one day she's gonna realize I'm just some random nerd that got lucky that Superman landed on his doorstep. I mean, at least Lois Lane is an ace reporter for the Daily Planet, right? But…

We also see how Ted treats Karen mirrored in their children also.

We see Karen feel neglected by Ted in S2 and her restlessness/unhappiness leading her to fantasize via middle aged woman erotica. However, she is convinced not to cheat when she sees Ted cuddling with Holly on his la z boy. The song of choice of these scene, (I Just) Died In Your Arms, is very telling because its clearly from Karen's perspective about Ted. A few lyrics of note:

I keep lookin' for somethin' I can't get Broken hearts lie all around me And I don't see an easy way to get out of this Her diary, it sits by the bedside table The curtains are closed, the cats in the cradle Who would've thought that a boy like me could come to this Is there any just cause for feelin' like this? On the surface, I'm a name on a list I try to be discreet, but then blow it again I've lost and found, it's my final mistake She's loving by proxy, no give and all take 'Cause I've been thrilled to fantasy one too many times

While the song itself is about a one night stand with an ex, fundamentally its about someone who feels used by a partner but can't stop going back to them. Karen feels like "just a name on a list" and that her experience with Ted is "no give and all take" and love by "proxy" (ie not being loved by someone as they really are, but as who they pretend to be). Which, as we will get into, is a reoccurring thing with Ted and not just Karen but Nancy, Mike, and Holly too. Being used and then pushed out- like as I explained before is portrayed with Mike and Nancy, not only directly, but indirectly with their struggles with romantic relationships- ie not really knowing what love is or just generally not being very good romantic partners.

Now lets talk about Holly because this is fascinating to me at least. I see people say that Ted dotes on Holly, which is true in s3 & s4, but in s1 & s2 we hardly ever see him interact with her. In fact, Holly, in proximity, is more often associated with/near Karen than ever Ted in the first two season. At the dinner/breakfast table the arrangement is usually Ted -> Karen -> Holly. I don't think Ted pays any mind to Holly in the first two seasons in all honesty, unless I'm missing something.

However in s3 something shifts. Whereas before it was Karen and Holly, now its Karen, Holly, and Ted as the new family unit (to the exclusion of Mike and Nancy- who are being pushed out).

Holly is now associated with Ted. We see her cuddling with him on his lay z boy, they all go together at to the fair and Ted adjusts her shirt on the ferris wheel (and at some point Ted hands her the blue teddy bear), and in s4 Holly is constantly playing with her new lite brite in the wheeler den (which is the area of the home most associated with Ted) in pink/white. And as I mentioned before, in the second Wheeler family photo she has one solitary red flower on her dress.

And now we get a new seating arrangement in the church scene, Ted now in between Holly and Karen, again this new unit but with Ted in the middle now ("a lie designed to conceal the truth").

But what about toys? Well, as I mentioned before, its all about the Wheeler's show of opulence, which is directly associated with Ted- as Jonathan points out to Nancy, his father doesn't make 6 figures. When Ted begins to dote on Holly we see immediately in the next season she's got a new toy that she's constantly with. I mean constantly. Building her white rabbit, which in the theme surrounding predator and prey in ST, is a prey animal. Which makes it so much more interesting that the lite brite is used to connect to the UD, the representation of the "shadows" aka someone's fears/guilt/secrets/etc that they refuse to acknowledge. At least to me the toys in the Wheeler home that keep on getting brought up have thematic significance.

Compared to Nancy in the end of S4, who donates her rabbit toy, mentioning that she doesn't need it anymore. In fact all throughout S4 we have moments where Nancy mentioned having grown out of things: when they visit her room frozen in time in the UD and also when she mentions her room poster after Robin brings attention to it.

We also see Holly in pink-white color scheme, a color scheme that Nancy was often associated with in S1 & S2:

Stole these images from @/boysdontcryboycry. you know. like a thief

(also notice her ballerina necklace early on? It's all a "performance".)

Also comparing this to Mikes basement, which is filled to the brim with toys and games. Mike is absolutely spoiled in this aspect from his very introduction in S1E1. And again, the Wheelers are not the richest family in ST, but yet its their status of having more than enough that we see over and over again. Where is Lucas' basement full of toys? It's not like his family seems to be short on money either. But with the Wheelers it's the classic contrast between riches and lack of intimacy, usually signified by the misconception that love can be bought with gifts rather than genuine emotional intimacy. And as we see when the Wheeler children grow up and start requiring that emotional intimacy rather than just being satisfied with toys, like say a child Holly's age, they are pushed out and forced to "grow up" too quickly (as symbolized by Mike being pressured to donate his toys).

When Ted calls Mike's toys "husks of junk" (or something to that effect I don't remember the exact quote), its not just him being rude, its subtextual. Ted is devaluing the affection he gave Mike previously when Mike got those toys to begin with, just as 6 year old Holly got her lite brite when Ted began to dote on her sometime between S2 and S3. Except now Mike is older, and according to Hopper, every child is destined to "reject" their father as they grow, so now those toys are meaningless to Ted who's gearing up to "let him go"- but Mike doesn't want to let go of them. He is only twelve, not yet ready to grow up.

Regardless, this is all to say that Ted prematurely lets go of his children when they start to develop as individuals, not just stuck in a state of being children who are only satisfied with receiving toys. He refuses to engage with his children in an emotional level as they grow, letting them go when they stop being cute, quiet, and easy to extract emotional validation and comfort from. And there is where we see an underlying emotional immaturity to Ted's behavior. While other fathers in the show (like Hopper and Enzo) express their feelings about their children growing up, they are still able to acknowledge that its normal, that they had done the same when they were young. Hopper himself behaved... unpleasantly when El had Mike over constantly in S3 but understands El is growing up and he was just too afraid to lose her. Ted however, seems insistent on rejecting his children before they can reject him- which reveals an inability to handle rejection/abandonment or a sensitivity to it. He would rather hold his own children at arms length and just move onto the next child.

The second part of this post would be to explain why he is like this, and that would require going back all the way to the quotes from earlier in this post. Particularly what The Duffers' mouthpiece Henry's monologue has to say about conformity being a distraction.

"Where others saw order, I saw a straightjacket- an oppressive, cruel world dictated by made-up rules. Minutes, days, months, years, decades, every life faded, lesser copy of the one before. Wake up- work- eat- sleep-reproduce- die- Everyone is just waiting- waiting for it to all be over, distracting themselves while performing in a silly, terrible play, day after day... I couldn't pretend."

Literally what have we seen Ted do throughout the show that isn't waking up, working, eating, sleeping, and reproducing. Its intentional. And these actions are not characterized as things that are healthy, but as distractions. Playing pretend. Distractions one takes while performing in a "silly, terrible play" i.e. the Wheeler family.

The thing is though, the play gets disrupted when Mike and Nancy act out. When they don't play their part, which is only natural as they grow up and become individuals. Then this "silly, terrible play" becomes Karen, Holly, and Ted- that is, up until Holly grows up. The Wheeler family is a "lie designed to conceal a truth" because it isn't a family born out of commitment and love (Nancy saying she doesn't believe her parents ever loved each other), but out of the need for a distraction- for Ted specifically. Which is why while we don't get his POV, we see the horrible effects it has on the rest of the family. Karen's disillusionment and unhappiness with her place in life (getting married young to an older man) and Mike and Nancy being unable to discern what love and commitment actually looks like. They've lived their whole lives in something entirely fake built to serve someone else's need for normalcy, which is partially why we see Nancy end up in an unhappy loveless relationship with Steve, or why Mike struggles in a ""normal"" relationship with El afraid that she won't need him anymore.

Its all neatly symbolized in this one shot from the end of S4:

One source of distraction paired with another- Ted's TV and the Wheeler family photo right under it, the earliest one where Nancy is still prim and proper, Mike is smiling widely, and Karen is still a brunette. With Karen and Holly right there next to it.

(and then Ted turns off the TV. Bad or good omen? You decide :D)

But the "truth" can be found with Holly. The red flower that can be seen on Holly's dress in the second Wheeler family photo and the white-pink color scheme she is in for the majority of S4 is associated with other characters.

The red flower (rose) in particular is repeatedly associated with mothers, for example Billy's mom who also had one clearly stamped onto the front of her shirt.

Or just in general roses all over the Creel home, including the glass door, Karen at many points, all the fake urns all over the Wheeler home, the real urn (which has pink flowers on it and straight up changes during the earthquake dont ask why oooh its just a production error), the Byers wallpaper- particularly the one Will was stuck behind, etc etc man just check out my rosegate masterpost.

The pink and white (and sometimes blue) color scheme also being often seen not only with Nancy but also with other characters, particularly mothers but not limited to that. Karen being one, Mrs. Cunningham, Tammy Thompson (described as a muppet), Virginia, El, and most importantly to me "Rose Weaver" Robin (whos hairstyle is literally just a mix of Karen's S2/S3 bangs and Virginias bob).

Holly... Holly is the last "distraction" left. And she'd dressed like Rosemary for a good portion of s4 and she's also the only blonde Wheeler sibling. Just a symbolistic representation of creating a family and using your kids to soothe and distract yourself. Holly is dressed like Rosemary because Ted seeks the emotional validation he never received (to what extent? We do not know) from this "silly, little play", in which now Holly is the only sibling left because Nancy and Mike have been "pushed out" due to well... being individuals that don't solely exist to provide a "distraction" and Ted's seeming sensitivity to his kids growing up and rejecting him (because Rosemary totally didn't reject him right? right? That can't be what this is all about lol. lmao even.)

And to see that Holly's lite brite was used as the connection between the RSU and the UD- the "light"/the good and the darkness that people don't want to acknowledge about themselves.

On the bright side (pun intended) I'm pretty sure this means that they are Ted's "light". However still fucked up. 1000 years in therapy for you. Your family arent solely just your "light" they are real human beings.

Anyways the lesson here is that people who shouldn't have kids shouldn't be expected to conform and forced to start a family lmao.

TDLR:

Wheeler s5 sweep

#brother I am still holding onto that wheeler happy ending white knuckles n all #rosegate #anyways this is my nuclear ted take. take it or leave it. rosegate be upon ye! Delusion be upon ye!

43 notes · View notes

sonorousabyss · 1 year

Note

Sup! I was wondering if I could request a Star Wars matchup :]

Alrighty so, I’m a 5’5 Biromantic (masc leaning) asexual guy. I have medium long black and purple hair with raccoon tails. I’m really into punk and metal culture, and I love picking up scrap and making it into clothes and accessories. I’m also autistic and I have adhd, so I differ a lot between how social and talkative I am. I play guitar, play board games, sew and draw in my spare time

Have a good day 🫶

A/N: Sorry this took so long Anon, I just couldn't decide how I wanted to do the banner for this one! I hope that this is to your tastes!

I am thoroughly convinced that you both would get along disturbingly well.

Your style and your unique hobbies are certainly what drew him to you. It isn't often that you encounter someone with long black and purple hair- let alone with that and raccoon tails. And turning scrap into accessories? Well, that was just icing on the cake.

Don't get me wrong- Anakin has been around the likes of Padme during her queen and senator days, so he's no stranger to unique and unorthodox hairdos, but the color and length certainly intrigued him, forgoing the style.

Given how frequently he's out in the field? Unless you went out on missions with him regularly, your initial interactions with him would have been once every blue moon or so. Of course, this meant that there were some occasions where he attempted to hang with you on your less social days- something I don't imagine going too well.

The differences in how social you were may have bewildered him at first, but it's more than likely if you didn't tell him about your social battery? Kenobi, Ahsoka, or Rex would have caught on to some degree and let him know that it probably wasn't because he'd done something wrong.

Even though it's known to be against regulations to nab keepsakes from the battlefield (or at the very least it is for clones), I get the feeling he's made a habit of grabbing you scrap metal from the battlefield on missions where he's had time.

More often than not this metal consists of severed droid parts that almost certainly have lightsaber cuts and blaster residue all over them, but hey- it's the thought that counts right?

He'd keep his eye out the following days, weeks, etc. after giving you one of his unique "gifts" to see if he could spot something you may have crafted it into.

He and the 501st make a game of guessing what you might turn his scrap into, and they absolutely keep score of who's gotten it right the most times.

As you got closer and your relationship developed further he 100% would step up his game in the scrap department. And by that I mean he somehow finds stranger and stranger shit to bring back for you.

A motivator, the head of a B1, droid fingers, paneling from destroyed droid carriers- hell, even random pieces of downed starships. His goal is to make sure you never know what he's gonna bring back next, if only so he can see the delighted (or perplexed) look you'll end up giving him as a result.

Of course, if you needed something specific and let him know about it, he'd see to it that he gets it if possible.

It's also a game between his padawan, himself, and the clones to see who can get the desired part first. Because what's a good battle without some friendly competition amirite?

On quiet days while you don't feel like talking so much, he'll hang out with you and listen to your favorite music with you. Furthermore, if you want to show him any drawings or clothes you've made, or even play him a song on your guitar he's absolutely game. Most of the time neither of you will even have to talk, just bask in each other's presence.

On days where you feel more like listening than talking, he'll tell elaborate tales of his self-proclaimed "best moments" on the battlefield and catch you up on what he's been doing while you've been separated. He's also got a stash of amusing tales at Obi-wan, Ahsoka, and the 501st's expense to cheer you up whenever you're feeling down.

Somehow he always finds a way to boost his own ego in the process, but something tells me that you're more than enough to keep Anakin balanced in that regard.

If you make him something you bet he's bragging to his padawan and his men that his significant other made a gift specifically for him and no one else.

Anakin is 100% guilty of messing up your hair or lifting things just out of reach to tease you as you are shorter than him, but he's made up for it in some regards by fetching things for you as well. Namely stuff way too high for you to get without putting yourself in a precarious position.

Talk to him about anything you're interested in and he's over the moon- even if he doesn't quite understand it. You trust him enough to share it with him and that makes it all the more precious.

Anything too out of pocket and you might catch him and Kenobi having a hushed conversation just out of earshot where he's checking with his master to see if he at least knows what you're talking about.

If you call him out on this he'll deny it, and if you catch him in the act he'll try to play it off... and fail spectacularly. Meanwhile, Obi-wan is watching him trip over himself in amusement as he tries to find a half-truth you'll buy to spare him the embarrassment.

He sticks to holovids after that. Can't trust his jedi master as far as he can throw him, apparently.

Ahsoka teases him relentlessly over this.

Anakin doesn't really seem the type to get bent out of shape over anyone being asexual, adhd, or autistic. He's a really chill guy, and to be honest he just takes it all in stride and embraces it as much as physically possible. You're his boyfriend after all, why wouldn't he?

Learns about any and/or all of the above to figure out how to better support you and makes sure your boundaries are laid out and respected.

If you want a funny sight to commit to memory? Have him help you with your hair maintenance. He'd somehow find a way to make dying, bleaching, trimming it, etc. absolutely hilarious. Just him in the bathroom with you on a chair in front of a mirror, desperately trying to figure out what toner is, why certain hair products can and cannot be used shortly after dying, etc. It's fucking brilliant.

He's absolutely tried to con you into dying at least a strand of your hair blue to match him and his squad at least once.

....Okay. More than once. But can you blame him? That'd be bloody adorable.

Just don't dye it orange in response to mess with him, he might cry.

AN: Ah yes, the image of Anakin fumbling with hair dye will forever be ingrained in my brain. For those who got this far, I hope you enjoyed! May the force be with you, and may your day be as pleasant as the ocean's abyss is deep! For those who are new here, I take requests. You can find my rules here.

63 notes · View notes

yellowocaballero · 1 year

Text

Character Work

Got an ask the other day that asked me how I developed a character, and there was no room to go into it on that ask at all, but I did want to note something. As a fic writer I feel pretty unqualified to write on how to create a character, but I do have something specific I want to say that I've been thinking for a while. I'll keep it just to that. I'll also say that I'm talking exclusively about writing, and not how you engage with fandom. It is, in fact, extremely fun to make an endless series of meaningless headcanons for random dudes. I'm just talking about in terms of how you approach the character from a writing perspective. Which is...

Your OC makes a bad character.

I mean your Dungeons and Dragons character. I mean the character you have a character sheet for, the character you've thought about for years, the one that you are extremely fond of and who feels like a real person to you. The character that is the character, and to change them would feel like changing a person.

Characters should feel like real people to the reader, but as the writer you cannot think of them as people. They are plot devices and a function of the story. They don't need to be fleshed out before you start writing. The actual creation of the character should take place in the outlining and drafting process.

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to stop and think about their favorite grilled cheeses or their sign. There's a few lists of good questions to ask yourself about your characters before you start writing them, such as their desires and their home lives, but the list of actual questions you need to answer are short. And you should try to stop there, because otherwise you're going to over-develop your character and it's going to get in the way of the story.

Assuming you're writing a character focused story, the character's journey is the plot's journey. But the character and the plot exist in relationship to each other. I think of them as two interlocking gears - some things in the plot just can't happen because Character A wouldn't do that, but some things need to happen for the plot to work, so Character A needs to be the kind of person who would do that. Both the character and the plot are in service of what the story is about (Theme, moral, message, etc). These three things have to line up, and they can't overpower each other. You shouldn't try and make round pegs fit in square holes. If a character doesn't fit in with what you want the story to be about (if the story's about vanity and your character doesn't care about vanity) then you need to change one of those things. You can bend the entire plot and meaning of the story around the character, but damn you better have a character who makes a really fantastic story.

You need a character that makes a good story. Some characters don't make good stories, and you need to work super hard to create a story that fits them. That's fine - that can create a unique and great story. Your character has to be consistent and work along their own internal logic. That is shit you absolutely have to stop and work out in the outlining process. Your character needs to make decisions that feel right to the reader - really good stories have the character making the worst possible decision, but in a way that makes the reader understand that they couldn't have done anything else and still been that character. And, like, obviously, give your characters faults and have them make mistakes. A character who does not do that cannot carry a plot.

Fic writers struggle with this. Of course you...shouldn't...be me and completely disregard every characterization, but I do think you can run into the same problem with your blorbo as your D&D character.

Your blorbos aren't actual guys.

This feels kind of obvious, but sometimes I think people don't feel that way. We write fanfic because we like the characters, and we'd rather use these characters and this setting than use our own. I see people projecting on these characters a lot. Like, a lot a lot. It gets to the point where an attack on the character feels like a personal attack - where people defend the character as if they're a real person because they ID so much w/the character. We all know this is dumb, but it also makes for some really shitty fic. The writer becomes completely unwilling to bend the character at all. And they don't try to make the character good for a story, because that kind of involves a lot of faults and mistakes that they don't like seeing their blorbos make. I sound dismissive but it's pervasive. The character becomes a character who makes them feel good instead of a well-written function of the story. The story suffers. Which is alright for some stories, but if you're writing a heavily character focused story like a lot of fic, then nothing is really propping up this story or making it engaging.

None of that is how I develop a character but that is what I wanted to say about characters lol (fwiw, how an OC is created for me is: "I need a character in this spot or representing this thing. Yoink!"). Of course I spoke hyperbolically and took a hard stance on all of that, haha, and of course all of this is rule of thumb. I'm sure your OC is wonderful. Just don't get caught up in them, okay? Go write. The best possible OC is an OC who is born from a good story. That's how you get rich and real characters.

#this is also true for worldbuilding.#my writing #my asks #writing #writing advice #kinda obvious if u follow me that I can go ON and ON and ON about what the fuck is up with some of my characters #and I can kinda promise that for every single one none of that was decided ahead of time #long time readers can see my understanding of the character grow and develop and change the more i write them #so you end up with someone super fleshed out and rich #and sometimes you keep on making so many swerves fifteen degrees to the left that you end up with f101 jon #that being said keep the silly HC coming i fucking love that shit #if no chip sw was an Actual Thing at this point i would go back and rewrite all of it #with what i now know of cody #and thats how the story would be decent lol #but I had to write ALLA THAT to actually get cody you know?#and I could NOT have figured that out just by thinking about him #i promise the advice was solicited this time jalksdf

92 notes · View notes

rw-ethology · 1 year

Note

Do you have theories on why lizards and how relatively open are they to being befriended by slugcat? Them continuing to be a threat to slugpups makes sense, as well as possibility of the lizard accidentally biting the slugcat during a careless attempt at feeding (which is why I now only give them snacks by tossing and running the moment I am sure the Lizard is locked on it). But usually it seems predators take longer to form such mutualistic (suppose?) approach, especially to prey. Cycles maybe?

Looks like kind of a mixture of both generally recognising when it benefits them to stick around, and resource-guarding behaviour directed towards a creature that has made itself look very valuable.

There's two main ways a slugcat can go about taming a lizard- by establishing itself as either a source of food, or a source of protection (saving one from a vulture causes your reputation with it to go way up). Either way, you've convinced it that eating you or letting you die would be counterproductive at this point, so as long as it remains convinced it'll follow you around and protect you from its rivals and other threats so it doesn't lose out. There's probably a number of things that factor into why they'll act in this way so readily, but if you look at it as an alternate expression of other traits and behaviours they already show off, you can kind of see where it might stem from.

Lizards are incredibly food-motivated- they'll go for pretty much anything they can fit in their mouth (that's large enough to be worth the effort), and will ignore almost everything else to run and cache it in their dens, presumably to store for later instead of wasting time that they could be spending finding more. Especially considering the state of the world and limited time pressure placed on every creature by the rain, in general it's probably kind of difficult for a large carnivore to consistently find enough to eat every single cycle. A successful catch whenever you need it isn't at all a guarantee; with that in mind, them having developed some degree of stockpiling behaviour would make sense, and suggests at least a rudimentary understanding that being careful with your food supply hugely bolsters your survival odds in the long run. Likely as a direct consequence of this, many lizards are highly territorial and/or competitive to varying degrees, and will chase rivals down and fight viciously to steal each others' prey or protect their resources under threat. It's also important to note lizards have a global reputation system- if you're nice enough across the board they'll become passive and if you harm enough they'll start to fear you, a behaviour unique amongst predators that suggests as a species they're just about intelligent enough to learn from experience and observation when it's better to just leave something alone.

It's most likely these specific characteristics that allow a lizard to become "tamed" so quickly. All you're really doing is taking advantage of their ability to recognise a valuable benefit, and redirecting their drive to defend one onto you, by teaching them to associate you with good things. No matter how tasty a slugcat looks, if it's proven time and time again that it will provide more food and support (that you desperately need) while alive than it could ever be worth dead, then why on earth would you want to let it die, or allow some other creature to take advantage instead?

However, this relationship only lasts as long as you put the effort into maintaining it. If you fail to let them into your shelter or feed them enough in subsequent cycles, or throw weapons at or around them (even by accident), they'll decide you're no longer worth the effort and quickly go from warning-bites to straight up turning on you as your reputation drops. Additionally, considering they by and large don't seem to recognise the slugcat's other companions- be it other tamed lizards or pups or friendly scavengers- as anything other than a rival or something else to eat, it's pretty clear that to their understanding they really are just guarding a resource and not joining a pack; lizards are not social creatures by nature with very little need to have developed emotional intelligence (even yellows I suspect aren't very close with each other beyond their advanced hunting formations and sharing prey), and any cooperation is strictly down to improving their odds of survival, not any form of attachment or gratitude as we would recognise it. It's still considered mutualistic, as both parties benefit from the relationship, but while a slugcat might become emotionally attached to their companion, the lizard isn't really capable of reciprocating in the same way.

With all that in mind, it's likely not the case that they're any more open to being "befriended" on an emotional level than any other predator in-game- they're just the only ones you can successfully lead to believe that you might actually be more useful alive than you would be as a few extra food pips, and for that to work out in your favour. Other major threats to the slugcat like vultures, miros birds and most large invertebrates most likely either lack the intelligence to discern one prey item from another, or they're so high on the food chain there's simply no meaningful benefit they could get out of collaboration (or both). It just so happens that lizards manage to be in the perfect position on the food chain with ideal behaviour to take advantage of that it's made possible to convince them being your friend is worth it, however temporarily.

-----

BONUS: the first lizard i ever tamed. was a little bit pathetic and utterly failed to protect me from anything before falling off a building in sky islands trying to wrestle a white lizard and losing, but the several painful minutes I spent being mediocre at squidcada hunting were worth it anyway. I miss him every day. godspeed you blue idiot

#rw-ethology #main post #asks #anonymous #my screencaps #rain world #rainworld #slugcats #lizards #really good question i love mutualism.. had a lot of fun coming up with this stuff #*taming* a wild animal is absolutely not the same as *befriending* it in a way that we/social animals would consider a friendship #or like.... domestication (that is a WHOLE other beast and i Highly doubt that's where lizards are heading)#like ofc it can be friendship To You! but believing an animal feels exactly the same is assuming a lot. can be dangerous at worst #though it can also be argued that to a creature where that's the closest it can Get to caring- like reptiles- it's still really meaningful #its just a matter of perspective. even if its not Affection based you can still have a strong bond with them/be important to them #so imo of course rw lizards can still be your friend :) they think you're important enough to protect after all. thats a high honor #perhaps the highest a lizard can give #just be nice to them!!!#downpour spoilers #< nearly forgot. for slugpups ment

33 notes · View notes