#I know we’re all inconsistent and biased etc etc I just.

[6ebe]

Not to sound up myself but why does fandom privilege the most unhinged media illiterate un self-aware individuals to become its mouthpieces

#the big blog / big acct paradox if you will #like I don’t think I like a single ‘big fandom blog’ on this entire website #especially in [redacted fandom] #I mean twitter is abysmal too but in different ways #it’s more cultish there so fandom leaders don’t so easily get away with admitting that they don’t even watch or know anything abt the sport #their blog is abt.. #wait sorry did I say something? #idk I’ve just always felt so alienated within fandoms and intellectually alienated is certainly one axis of that #this isn’t even abt academic stuff as such just like. common sense idk #I know we’re all inconsistent and biased etc etc I just. #I’m never as die hard and blindly in support of anything as fans are so I feel like I always #interact on a different plane to like. the majority of fandom #this is why I kept getting into scandals when I was a kpop fan 😭 #I also hate the mob mentality around big blogs like I think it gets to peoples heads #and then you have users who blindly defend other users from any valid criticism and it’s all just a wild cycle

[meowzahzzz]

since according to the q&a, dhmis has no real meaning or conspiracy/theory attached to it, here is my interpretation of the webseries since day 1 bc i feel so validated

dhmis has always felt like a critique of children’s media. it’s inspirations very clearly take after kids shows, typically those at very young children who need to learn concepts like time and creativity.

i would also say it’s a critique of the values we teach our children. in the first episode of the youtube series, the characters are taught about creativity and how it’s about expressing yourself. one would assume, correctly, that creativity and one’s expression is never “wrong”. but when yellow guy says he likes green, or something to that degree, the sketchbook (our teacher) says that green isn’t creative. there’s no rhyme or reason to it; it’s not creative just because they said so. they strip away that part of yellow guy’s creativity for no real reason, they invalidate the entire point of their lesson then and there.

it says something about what we teach to our children when we don’t uphold the values we’re giving them.

the same goes for the love episode. yellow guy is taught that love exists but there are rules and strictures, and everything has to be a certain way. only a man and a woman can be in love, you can only love if you have this or that. love, itself, is abstract and nuanced, but is portrayed strictly for the sake of a very obvious cishet agenda that much of the media uses to silence and hide the existence of gay people. this is something we see a lot of media in general, not just kid’s media, but there’s always been this hesitance to even imply gay people exist to children---some find it better to water down love and simplify it to the extreme than to acknowledge the vastness of the concept at all. that’s just what i feel this episode in particular is criticizing/acknowledging, and how toxic something like that can very easily become over time.

and again, we have the food/healthy eating episode. what the teachers say is healthy versus what isn’t is extremely inconsistent. we can, of course, see a correlation with this and a lot of research done with food and its health benefits and drawbacks. in the U.S. at least, many companies have villainized fat and made it the cause of being fat. however, actual research shows that it’s sugar, not fat. yet we’re constantly bombarded with so much information at once, that what we know about food and health is very inconsistent. and i could say the same about the needed calories one takes a day, how it’s hardly a bare minimum and much of the research done is extremely biased. and when that’s in the adult world, it leaks into the world of children as well. when adults are our teachers, we rely on them to teach us correctly. we’re told to eat this and not that, but suddenly it’s the other way around. we’re taught some food is even bad, that maybe even eating it makes you bad. if there’s ever been a question as to why so many kids are vulnerable to eating disorders, it’s the lack of consistency in food information, the way we teach kids about food, and our bias against anything that isn’t the beauty standard norm.

there’s also the family episode, the work episode, etc, etc. but i think you get my point by now. it’s a critique of not just what we teach children, but how we teach children. we are their teachers, and so much of what we teach them will impact them majorly. we cannot afford to teach them poorly, yet in so many cases, we do just that to reach our specific goals. whether it’s for money or for religion (cough cough christianity and its other siblings) or whatever else, children are just another means to an end. and when they’re just a means to an end, what we do to them doesn’t matter.

and when they don’t matter, we aren’t teaching them as much as we are enforcing a response.

sketchbook didn’t make the three characters more creative, did they? they simply did what sketchbook considered to be creative, or at the very least, what they thought being creative was. they didn’t learn anything about actual self-expression or what creativity means to them. yellow guy wasn’t actually taught about love, how to love others and himself, he was taught to sit and shut up and follow the “rules” of love, even when he didn’t like it. and again, yellow didn’t learn anything about nutrition in the food episode. he was told to eat whatever they gave him, and because they’re the teachers, the ones with power in this dynamic, he did it.

and when you fall out of line, and you don’t do exactly what you’re told (ie. red guy, duck guy), you’re punished. you’re isolated, you’re left out, whatever it is... that’s meant to teach you that when you’re not sitting down and taking whatever you’re given---you’re a bad student. you’re not learning at all. you’re dysfunctional.

all in all, i have always believed that dhmis, the webseries was a critique at children’s media, as well as the values we teach them and our hypocrisy regarding these values. we can directly see that these lessons are distressing to its students, and the teachers don’t care so long as they don’t fall out of line. the goal, it seems, is obedience: do it because i said so, not because of what it means. this is why red guy is gone and why when duck guy tries to fight back, he’s ultimately discarded. and of course it’s distressing, but the students were never the focus, so why should they (the teachers) even care? the goal is obedience. no matter the lesson, no matter how traumatizing it is, no matter how much is destroys us and each other.

#dhmis spoilers #i mentioned the q&a so i just wanna be safe lol #analysis

[sandorcleganeshornswagglingrack]

U remember that scene where Sansa has her period and Shea is trying to hide it and then leaves to stop the other girl and Sandor is suddenly there. Sandor wasn’t the one who told the queen was he? I feel like he wouldn’t

So there’s a lot of approaches to this. Some people say that Sandor heard the scuffle, and thought Shea and Sansa were in trouble and that’s why he was there. Some people say he was there under Cersei’s orders to guard (spy), suspected something was afoot, was nosy and told Cersei. Some people say he was being creepy and perving on Sansa, and may or may not have told Cersei. Some people think it’s a mix of two or more of those things. for the record, i haven’t gotten to that part in the books yet, so if my reasoning is off bear with me.

But we’re not talking ab why Sandor was in her room. At least that’s not why I’m here. i’m here to be insufferable

short answer: no ofc he fucking didnt sandors not a snitch

My objective opinion? He might’ve, he might not have. My biased, personal thirsty slavering fan opinion? I don’t think Sandor told on Sansa, it was the other hand maid after Shea threatened her.

(What did Shea expect to happen? Shea doesn’t have any prominent power, all the staff is manipulated to bow to the royals. Shea nor the maid did anything wrong, per se, but like. girl.)

The reason I think Sandor told Cersei: How the scene was shot. I think the scene was shot to tell the audience it was Sandor who told Cersei, bc “Shea can threaten the maid but she can’t threaten Sandor”. ok ig, kinda lame, but ok ig. Also, this is book stuff but he was Cersei’s bodyguard before Joffreys. If not loyalty, there is history there, if that’s something you think matters to Sandor. But we’re not here to take every scene as gospel, we’re here to be insufferable about introspection.

so,

~however~

Reasons why i think he didn’t: If Sandor wanted to get Sansa in trouble, he could’ve at multiple times (the name day lie, the almost push, etc) but instead did quite the opposite. Why would he start now?

It’s kind of his whole thing that he’s been quiet quitting at Kings Landing since the first ep. (good for him act ur wage king you do not get paid enough for this shit)

Since when does Sandor give a fuck about what the royals want? Joffrey wants to be bowed to and feared and not lied to and respected. But when Sansa lies to him, when Myrcella talks back to him (book stuff) who does Sandor support? Not Joffrey. Hell, Sandor gives joffrey more sass than any of the other guards and higher-ups. Joffrey and Cersei want people punished for insolence and treason, but when Sansa is literally caught in 4k trying to kill Joffrey, who interrupts her? Cersei wants to know when Sansa gets her period so she can marry Sansa to the abusive asshole she hates, and who sandor doesn’t like either. So why would Sandor suddenly be struck with this sense of loyalty to Cersei? “women get periods on weekends too? damn. i should really tell my boss ab this” hUh???? he gives advice to sansa abt laying low and doing just enough to get by, why would he suddenly be jonny-on-the-spot dropping the Glow calendar screenshots in the “work🙄” gc after all that? after ALL that???? somethings not adding up. especially not his paycheck he does not get paid enough for all that

Now. If Cersei asked him point blank “did sansa get her period yet 🤨🤨🤨” he wouldn’t lie to her if he knew, bc like it’s probably a trap he’s not gonna risk it.

regardless i think the reason why he didn’t tell cersei is entirely selfish: it was either to further fuck over the royals or bc he just genuinely cannot be bothered. eh, he also pities sansa, and knows this information essentially damns her further. he has a habit of trying to look out for her in tiny ways, ways that can’t get him in trouble. not telling cersei is another way he could do that, so it’s not like it would even be inconsistent with what we’ve seen.

“but kat, if the scene wasn’t there to tell you it was sandor who informed cersei, then why was the scene there at all?” bc his whole theme is “sandor could’ve but he didn’t”. he could’ve ratted out sansa multiple times, he could’ve helped joffrey and the royals more but he didn’t. he could’ve not helped arya, he could’ve not helped anyone, he could’ve stayed and been further traumatized at blackwater he could’ve done a LOT of things but he didn’t. I think this scene could be interpreted as another “he could’ve but he didn’t” scene. that would follow his trend, anyway.

or, yknow, an equally valid interpretation is sandor was being a nosy little fuck and was like “lmaoooo sansa HEY CERSEI girl guess what”

hhhhhh i’m so sorry this was so long. i’m a little insufferable abt things like this. thank you for the ask!!! YOU GET ME RAMBLING LIKE NOTHING ELSE UGH i’m so sorry 💌

@ everyone else: this is my opinion, it’s probably wrong, i’m probably misinterpreting. i am biased. i am not opposed and completely open to anyone who has a drastically different interpretation, let’s talk abt it in my dms if you wanna tell me! keep things friendly, i’ve noticed there’s some hostility revolving around this argument so omg my opinions are my dumb silly little opinions it’s all good here.

#stfu k8 #ask #princessknight my beloved coming in clutch w the real questions #i love you sm #sandor

[thegreatzombieartisan]

Hello,

I agree with most of what you wrote the Tolkien fandom. People dislike this or that. And trying to make shows into fan service.

I didn’t particularly agree was your take on the whole “touch the darkness” and how it’s “arrogant fan fiction.” Is it really bad for show runners to add their own creative input?

To be fair, PJ’s movies were far from perfect adaptations and did have some of his preferences. He sacrificed psychological and spiritual depth of the books for more action oriented films. I particularly disliked the addition of crass humour, e.g. reducing Merry and Pippin to comic relief. But that’s neither here nor there. Overall, great films.

When PJ’s films came out, readers understandably had a harder time excusing the changes and enjoying the movies for what they were, but their voices drowned in the joy of the new larger audience.

Now we have a situation where new adaptation has to somehow please book fans and movies fans.

One thing the Rings of Power dis better than PJ was diversity. Good People are white and “bad guys” are all dark skinned in LotR trilogy was just cringe. But of course that’s a problem too.

Bonjour / Hi!

Thanks for your patience. I went on vacation, had work stuff, and forgot to reply to my post. Also usually Anon Asks merely “passionately” disagree without offering arguing points. One of the last refuted the idea of Sauron masturbating. People have opinions.

On PJ trilogies. C’mon, without comedy duo!Merry and Pippin we’d never have “Fool of a Took!” Jk jk. I’m not recalling crass humor in the LotR films. TRoP definitely does. Yep, the films are less action-oriented. But if you recall, they were shot all together to save money. PJ was on a budget. It was crucial that Fellowship be successful because he needed to reshoot a lot of scenes but didn’t have the money. Action has a a bigger pay-out than spiritual depth.

On adaptations & diversity. Some decisions with PJ’s films weren’t great. To Tolkien, “black” symbolized corruption of the spirit. Orcs and Nazgûl are symbolic and described as “black” but not literally. Tolkien was openly anti-prejudice. That being said, White supremacists (hate groups) love LotR. Men of the West who are lighter vs. Sauron’s darker-skinned less advanced “Men of Midnight”? Well Tolkien had his blindspots. Gotta consider political/cultural climate. PJ tried more inclusion with The Hobbit but only as extras.

I assume your last sentence references people disliking the TRoP diversity. It’s expected. Many people have unconscious biases on what a hero or leader looks like. I’m a woman in tech, well I know. It’s often (but not exclusively) obfuscated behind lore or Elf hair disagreements, etc. Not a fandom thing. It’s a people thing. Pity that online is a poor medium to facilitate meaningful discourse that leads to changing views.

On fandom. What’s fandom but one step from the general population? In a true community, members have a shared understanding on definition of terms, engagement, rituals, and accountability, etc. Does a fandom have that? I wager fans whose ideologies, worldviews, cultural norms, beliefs, etc. are reflected in the mainstream are more likely to assume consensus. Fandom is like a nebulous city. A Tumblr space is like a neighborhood. A discord room can be a community since it’s contained and allows for moderation. Are you tracking? Adjust engagement expectations accordingly.

Must adaptions aim to please both book readers and film fans? Impossible! That goes for anything in life. Fans have opinions. Consider/incorporate, don’t consider/incorporate. We’re still showing up, sometimes even when it’s blah being served. Here’s the thing: Amazon marketed the show to a broad general audience. Many general viewers were legit confused with story points that relied on lore references. I point to Amazon execs for this inconsistency.

Understand that Amazon’s business model uses original productions in part to increase traffic to its storefront. Naturally there’s an incentive to target broader audiences. Also the culture relies heavily on cutthroat metrics for decision-making. It undoubtedly put writers in an untenable position.

In response to your “touching the darkness” question. To be clear, it’s not “bad” because it’s not a moral issue lol. It’s inevitable a creative’s beliefs will influence their work. As previously shared, I find the theme compelling. It’s merely inconsistent with devout Catholicism which is a a huge draw for me personally. But not everyone. Like if the manner (not the decision) Galadriel rejects Sauron is meant to be an act of empowerment, she’s not a Tolkienesque heroine. It is what it is. Still gonna keep watching because its nonetheless entertaining.

On “arrogant fan fiction.” It was an out of context reference to an interview TRoP show runners did where they claimed to have improved upon Tolkien. Look, when you say things like that, you gotta know what you’ve started lol. It’s great seeing lore fleshed-out. I’m glad Miriel is more than a beautiful prop. To me personally, that + Haladriel, and a few other things were better than canon. Otherwise, show runners need to take a stadium amount of seas lol

Happy to carry-on via Asks but feel free to DM. I don’t bite 😌

#the rings of power #doylist #meta #lord of the rings

[thegayhimbo]

Thank you for posting more information about the books, I never intended to read them because I had heard there was never a happy ending but I had not know how bad it was I may have read until the story got bad and then stopped.

No problem! I’m glad the posts are informative to you. If you want more information about them, @exitpursuedbyasloth and @stillhidden give more details in their posts about the SVM books, what went down in them, and the way Charlaine Harris behaved when she finished the series.

I know it’s common these days to bash the show and hold up the books as a paragon of virtue, but there are a lot of problems in the books that get glossed over by fans. 

I will warn you this will go into SPOILERS from the books, so brace yourself! 

For one thing, there’s the way Bill was handled in the books. If you thought he was bad on the show, you’re not going to like him in the books. The twist with Bill working to procure Sookie for Queen Sophie Anne is still in the books, but the big difference is that a.) The twist comes several books after Bill and Sookie have broken up, and b.) Unlike in the show, Bill straight up RAPES Sookie in the back of a truck. And yes, it is as horrifying as it sounds. It’s almost like that scene from season 3 when Bill attacks Sookie in the truck after they escape Russell’s mansion (although there are differences in plot details between the books and the show), except in the book he nearly drains her and then proceeds to rape her afterwards. We’re suppose to believe that Bill was out of control in that moment and didn’t know what he was doing, but the problem is that the way the scene is written makes it seem like Bill had a lot more control over his actions than he wants to admit to. I can provide a passage from the book if you want me to, but I will warn you that it’s both disturbing and triggering.

To make matters worse, even after Bill raped Sookie and it was revealed he was working for QSA, not only did Charlaine Harris still choose to keep Bill’s character around despite having no reason to be in the story anymore, but she also attempted to retcon/downplay the severity of what Bill did to Sookie. For instance, the later books tried to claim that what happened in the truck was “attempted rape,” as if to say that Bill was going to rape Sookie but didn’t go through with it. That is not what happened. HE RAPED HER. There’s no way to read that scene in book 3 and tell me that rape did not occur there. Then there’s a scene in a later book (Dead Reckoning I think) where she gets naked with Bill (long story) and proceeds to have a naked tickle fight with him in spite of the fact that he previously raped her. 🤢🤮 Then (for some inexplicable reason) Sookie continues to be friends with Bill after he raped her and betrayed her, and the later books try to portray Bill like he’s this great neighbor Sookie is lucky to have. 

In other words, it’s like what the show did with Bill in season 7 where they still tried to make him look like a decent person after all the awful stuff he did. Either way, it failed miserably. 

And then there’s a bunch of other problems the books had. For instance:

1.) Godric in the books is named Godfrey, he has no connection to Eric, and he’s a pedophile/child-rapist who handed himself over to the Fellowship of the Sun. The books try to make Godfrey sympathetic by painting him as a tragic figure who can’t control himself, and even Sookie feels bad for him. The problem though is that he still raped kids. There’s no way to make that sympathetic, and it’s hard to give a shit about whether or not Sookie saves him or if he lives and dies (Spoilers: He burns to death).

2.) There’s the questionable treatment of the LGBT+ characters in the books. Unlike in the show, Lafayette gets killed off in an orgy-fueled fuckfest offscreen. Pam has a relationship with a terminally ill lesbian cancer patient. There’s a werepanther named Mel who is gay and has this creepy stalker crush on Jason. Claude (Sookie’s faerie cousin) is gay in the books, and yet wants to rape Sookie because she’s not attracted to him. There’s also him not knowing what homophobia is despite being alive for hundreds of years, and having been on Earth for quite a while. What I’m saying is that all of Harris’s LGBT+ characters are either killed off, are barely given focus, or are portrayed in a problematic light.

3.) There’s also the convoluted nature of the faeries in the books. Claude is basically a one-dimensional cartoonish villain that wants to hurt Sookie and Eric because of poorly explained reasons. He’s not even a “love to hate” villain. He’s just obnoxious and pointless. Niall is in the books, and there’s this entire thing about him wanting to close the portal between the human world and faerie world, but he still keeps coming back for some reason. In one of Harris’s short stories Gift Wrap, Niall basically sends this faerie named Preston Pardloe as a gift for Sookie for Christmas, and said faerie proceeds to “magic her” (i.e. roofie her) into having sex with him and then makes her completely forget about it later. In other words, Niall sent someone who ends up raping his own granddaughter, but the story never treats it like it’s actually rape. Then, there are these two sadistic faeries who show up at one point. They crucify Crystal when she’s pregnant with Jason’s kid, and then proceed to torture Sookie for shits and giggles. And yes, it’s awful and unnecessary.

For all the bitching and moaning I’ve heard about the faeries on True Blood, the ones in the books were nothing to brag about. If anything, the moment they were introduced is the moment the books took a nosedive in quality. And since these weren’t well-written books to begin with, it didn’t bode well for the rest of the series. 

4.) There’s also how rape culture gets perpetrated in these books. Bill rapes Sookie, but Sookie still remains friends with him and even goes to him for relationship advice. Niall sends Preston to Sookie as a Christmas gift, and a rape scene takes place, but it’s not framed as rape for some reason. Tara gets raped by a vampire (it’s not Franklin like it is on the show, but a different vampire named Mickey), and she’s victim-blamed for it. Eric had a sadistic maker named Appius who raped him for years and actually manages to get the last laugh over Eric by the final book. There’s a vampire kid named Alexei who’s a rape victim that ends up going crazy and becomes a serial killer, and gets put down like a dog. Then there’s  Eric getting sold off as a sex slave in the final book (more on that in a second). 

Also, you remember that graveyard scene between Sookie and Bill in the first season? In the books, it’s much worse: Sookie has sex with Bill because he is so angry in that moment that she’s scared he’s going to hurt her and is afraid for her life. He basically rapes her in the graveyard. But again, FOR SOME REASON, it’s not referred to as a rape scene.

5.) Then there’s the last book: Eric gets sold off into sexual slavery by his maker to the Queen of Oklahoma, and is forbidden from ever seeing Sookie again. The books try to downplay the severity of this, but at the end of the day, Eric is expected to get into a relationship with the Queen, and he doesn’t get a choice in the matter. Sookie is surprisingly unsympathetic towards Eric over this, and they get into a huge fight about it, and Sookie contemplates having revenge sex with Bill to get back at Eric. There’s this stupid plot where Arlene is murdered and Sookie gets framed for it on flimsily evidence, and there’s this really cliché court room scene where everyone shows up to support Sookie as a way of propping her up. Bill gets his revenge on Eric for spilling the beans about his mission from QSA by revealing a secret to Sookie about Eric and Sam. Sookie gets kidnapped at a square dance by Claude, Steve Newlin, and some other guy (I can’t remember his name) and there’s this idiotic car chase scene where the bad guys are incompetent, and they’re being tailed by several other cars, and everything about this scenario is embarrassing. The last book does what the True Blood series finale did where everyone gets paired off and there’s a marriage ceremony and everyone starts having kids because that’s the only way to be happy apparently. Sookie gets into a relationship with Sam, and whatever relationship she had with Eric in the previous books is thrown out the window. The End.

If you want a review that’s both hilarious and points out other problems with the last book, look up the review Fangs For The Fantasy did on “Dead Ever After.” 

6.) There’s also Sookie herself. People talk about how she’s this great character in the books and so much better than the TV show version. While she certainly has cool moments in the books, I thought she was pretty unlikable. There are multiple instances in her narration where she comes off as judgmental, myopic, and nasty. The books never really challenge her on her biases, and she barely has any character development by the end of the series (no, getting raped and tortured does NOT count as character development 😒). There’s also some pretty questionable moments from Sookie where she comes off as cold instead of empathetic. Her interaction with Eric in the final book is an example of this: She basically victim-blames him for being sold off to the Queen of Oklahoma (even though he didn’t have a choice in the matter), and instead of being called out for this, the book tries to portray Eric as the asshole in this situation. 

7.) For all the complaining about the way the show handled new characters, people forget that Charlaine Harris introduced characters into the books that either weren’t fleshed out, were one-dimensional, or were only referenced by name with little development past that. 

There are other problems as well (plot-holes, inconsistencies, bad writing, etc), but I think I’ve covered the gist of it. Yes, True Blood had a lot of issues, but whenever I see people (mostly on Reddit) who try to act like the books were flawless, my eyes roll to the back of my head 🙄🙄🙄🙄. Many of the problems that plagued the TV show had their origins in the books, and chances are if they do go through with a reboot, those issues will resurface. 

As you can tell, I am not a fan of the books, and I do not recommend them. But that’s just my opinion. 

#true blood #the southern vampire mysteries #charlaine harris #tgh opinions #bill compton #sookie stackhouse #eric northman #tw rape #tw rape culture

[dangan-meme-palace]

Sometimes I think if Saihara had the guts to feel betrayed when his friends, well, betray him and instead of being sorry make him stand for their ideals they were not able to stand for themselfs he'd be more likeable, not sure if realistic applies too, but like, I would feel betrayed were I to take his place

Shuichi is so strange to me. He feels like 2-3 people in one body.

At times he adamantly believes that he must search for the truth no matter who the culprit is and no matter how painful it is, other times he's throughly convinced that he needs to blindly believe in people and that suspecting certain people –even if there is evidence– is wrong because Kaito told him so.

Notably, he only believes that he must find the truth when

The narrative needs to progress (EX: during trials where he can't get the wrong answer because the story/game isn't over yet or Chapter 1 where he needs to set up Kaede's plot for the story to progress)

It doesn't involve suspecting anyone he's actually close to (EX: he always vehemently denies to himself that Kaito could ever commit murder even if the evidence is pointing to Kaito and he doesn't have evidence to deny Kaito's plausible involvement)

It largely sounds like an inconsistency born from him being forced into the protagonist role. If he hadn't become the protagonist would he have been biased in all situations instead of just the convenient ones? It's something to think about.

Back on topic, I remember during Kirumi's trial everyone doesn't want to suspect Kirumi because she's their "mom" and has been taking care of everyone, and during that trial Shuichi has to force everyone to look at the facts instead of going by their emotions. He seemed pretty upset that people weren't listening to the truth he had found and stood his ground because he knew he was in the right for trying to listen to his head and not his heart in the dangerous situation they were all in.

However, when this scenario happens again in Chapter 4 Shuichi does a complete turn around and while he still forces himself to find the truth despite the others, he also seems to believe he was in the wrong for some reason? He didn't blame himself for finding the answer in Chapter 2 but he did in Chapter 4 and I can't tell if it's because Kaito's influence on Shuichi was stronger in the latter chapters or if Shuichi's writing and character were just that inconsistent.

Narratively, Shuichi couldn't blame Kaito for being biased for some reason and I'm suspecting it has something to do with the narrative's need to make Shuichi and the players glorify Kaito, but I'm not sure why it was so important to glorify him unless they wanted people to analyze the game and they put in some very obvious questionable moments to let us know that our protagonist and narrator is unreliable and that we have to find the truth for ourselves which is... if they were trying to do that then they failed, looking at the general views of the fandom's majority.

I don't really have much of an arguement for that being the case aside from the theme of Truth and Lies maybe extending to the story itself? Like how the cast believed that Gonta was manipulated twice but wasn't, or how Kokichi was evil and inconsiderate when he wasn't, etc. Maybe we're being challenged to find the truth for ourselves like in those cases and not rely on the cast or even Shuichi, who is flawed at points in the story? But this is just my crackhead conspiracy rather than an analysis I can back up.

I'm kind of stumped on why they would set the story up like this if my speculation is off (which it very well could be, I've always sucked at discerning Author's Purpose), but I know that Shuichi blaming himself and not the others seems to be important to whatever the writers were trying to do. It's... kind of unfortunate no matter what though. I was really upset when Shuichi didn't blame Kaito for acting like a toddler and backtracked on the mindset he had in Chapter 2 which seemed to be something like "facts over feelings so we don't fucking die" lol. Shuichi being written in this way makes him feel more like a doormat or a puppet of the narrative rather than an actual person, which in turn makes him more lackluster imo.

Anyway, if anyone has their own conspiracy theory I'm all ears. I can't quite make the puzzle pieces connect aside from connecting them with red string on a corkboard lmao

-tech

#asks #defective detective #my thoughts #i really hope this makes sense because i feel like the way i put it makes it harder to get

[elizabethrobertajones]

Comparing Season 6 and Season 10 - which one do you think makes more sense as a whole, which one better pulls of seeming like what happened/was revealed at the end of the season is what was supposed to happen/was planned all along?

I may be biased, but for me, season 6 by miles. And almost all of that is Edlund desperately cramming everything that had happened so far into something that either made sense or handwaved why it didn’t make sense in an effectively emotional enough episode that by the end of TMWWBK you sort of feel like you’ve actually got your answers and Cas has been completely honest and open with YOU at least, making it that much easier to handle what was going on. 

I think for me season 10 was poorly handled in ways that weren’t particularly well addressed and the only offered explanation ever was “oh it was Amara after all” which in the context of season 11 gives us some more characterisation to begin to pull things together, though without addressing everything. Still if we’re dealing with things as a whole, season 10 doesn’t have an episode that scrapes everything together in the post-Edlund era and what we get only within the confines of season 10 is extremely unsatisfactory, even if later canon eases it a little bit, along with just… not being actively in SPN season 10 as it airs :P 

Going off my memories of being in the fandom at the time, we had a lot of issues with things like 

Dean’s incomplete demon reversal (so far as in 10x02, written by Dabb who invented the cure repeating the correct steps, then in 10x03 Buckleming not following through with them)

“the river ends at the source” “never mind I was screwing with you”

Did Cain still have the Mark after 9x11? lasting drama until 10x14, and still debated afterwards especially by people who had thought he didn’t have the Mark and had passed it entirely to Dean now being very confused  

What the fuck was this about Lucifer having the Mark and how did that last minute addition affect everything? 

the Colette parallel being wildly mis-applied by fandom but also issues with the show’s fear to explore it leading to “we are all the colette” episodes with lasting drama until 10x22, where Charlie, Sam and Cas all variously and persistently seemed to be suggested to be capable of being a team effort to pull Dean out of the darkness. 10x22 also wasn’t enough to stop Dean, and the final confrontation was with Sam, I think a general consensus was - especially again with season 11′s help - that the memory of Mary drew him back/unleashed Amara metaphorically who unleashed Mary literally - it wasn’t a great note to end on without season 11 context (as a whole, so, like, a whole YEAR later) that Sam had “won” the battle to bring Dean back from himself where Cas had failed, and the subtext and show and fandom most of all had made SUCH a huge deal out of Colette, after 9x11 over-told her story instead of retelling Cain & Abel, that it was set up with the expectation that saving Dean was a romantic quest, not a brotherly one. 10x14 sort of helped set things to rights with the list, but the fighting about what it all meant at the time was AWFUL, and though I think I was right and the show bore that out and these days I type it all with confidence, I’m pretty sure there’s a ton of buried wank about it that could be dragged out if we want >.>

the fact there wasn’t really an overarcing Mark of Cain plot except “Dean is suffering” with the only 3 actual plot points they could do with it being demon!Dean, kill Cain, and remove Mark. Because of that, everything else is literally set-dressing to fill the time and add drama in between, but these were played with poorly and there wasn’t any subterfuge we weren’t in on (i.e. sam stealing the book) vs Cas betraying both the Winchesters and US. The only retcon offered in the end was Death’s exposition about the Darkness.

people literally forgetting which order episodes came out in and being very confused about why Amara wasn’t released when Dean was 14 in 10x12 even though he didn’t kill Cain for 2 more episodes (like, within weeks of 10x14 airing, I swear)

the understandable disappearance of Cole but bizarre application of that hunter called Rudy who popped up in his place and featured in 10x23 along with Cas for Dean’s guilt trip. Even if Cole and TAW sucked ass, it’s much easier to understand the emotional impact of what happened to Rudy if you assume he has the exact same backstory as Cole and the same nonsense happened to Dean twice in the same year :P 

Pre-season hype about Rowena made a huge deal out of the Grand Coven, and for a brief moment it seemed like there might be a witch plotline, including new lore dumps about different types of witches in 10x07, characters like Olivette the Hamster, etc, but they squandered her first season and 10x19 was as close as we got to any pay off to her actual storyline

Then Oskaar happened and that was like ??? Okay just introduce him in the second to last episode and throw us into that emotional situation 

the entire cure coming out of nowhere as a random last minute macguffin instead of having been anything they put together over the season - even though the book of the damned thing showed up in 10x11 it changed substantially from the clue Charlie left with (a less than 100 year old book with a library reference number found on an antique rare book website, based on a real book, which we all picked over and were left wondering if the plot was to be about some sort of occultism thing as a result) to a much different lore. Then there were a few episodes dealing with it and the codex, the actual spell had no real struggle, and Crowley delivered all the pieces while Cas stood around scowling and Rowena stood around in chains eye-rolling. Compare season 13′s pacing with Sam and Dean cobbling together what they needed from halfway through the season, and being on the mission to get to the AU from episode 9, with relatively little of the endless sitting around googling and being frustrated of past seasons but ESPECIALLY season 10 where Sam was futilely trawling the results of googling “mark of cain” from mid-late season 9 through to like, 10x18 when an actual brief plot appeared around it directly. 

I think all of it points to a problem of working forwards from where they were instead of backwards to tidy up what was left. In season 6 Edlund took as many loose plot threads, from how Sam lost his soul, what was up with Crowley and Cas, the angel war, explanations for Sam and Samuel working together, why eve happened, everything, and put it all together to explain the elements of the season so far in a new light. Despite how disastrous that season was, PRETENDING you knew like you meant to do it all along glosses over inconsistencies in Samuel’s story or Cas and Crowley’s 6x10 interactions, and makes them relatively inconsequential when most of the details add up. 

The same thing works with the Lucifer as Sam’s vessel storyline, in the sense that while Azazel’s plan is fucking ridiculous in its over-complex bizarre attempt to find a worthy true vessel that Heaven had fated, comparing season 1-2 to season 5 head on is bad, each season explains itself from the last in enough of a way and with enough knowledge of what already happened that really despite vast inconsistencies in the lore, by 5x22 we are pretty much all on board to accept the way it all played out because they use what was previously written to build up Sam’s arc, and little details thrown in towards the end like Brady and then Lucifer revealing ALL of Sam’s closer rando peeps had been demons, tidy up more and more loose ends and there’s left with plausible deniability about a lot of the issues.

In season 10 they kept on introducing elements instead of working with what they had already established, and also discarded what seemed like major plot hooks for Rowena and Cole, one annoyingly, one completely metatextually understandably and fuck TAW, I’m glad the show never brought Cole back as soon as rumours of him groping fans appeared, and it makes me genuinely trust that the SPN set is a safe place. But yeah. 

Things they set up and could have worked with, were the Cas’s grace arc, which was resolved to a small personal satisfaction to Cas without any major plot impact except we could stop worrying about when Cas would get sick and die from bad grace, or steal more. 

The demon!Dean issue was bad writing from Buckleming re: was he still a demon or not, but given Dean was supposed to be struggling with succumbing to darkness the season actually kept him almost completely level without any significant relapses, even after killing Cain. The sense of needing a functional Dean Winchester to keep hunting monsters and prop up the show as both the carrier of the mytharc, the emotional core, and the go-between between Sam and Cas even when the show was trying to figure out if Sam and Cas could function without Dean, it was all still so much about Dean that in 10x21 when they’re doing the cringeworthy “for Dean” thing and Rowena rolls her eyes like “I barely know the man”, I was actually applauding Buckleming snark thinking they maybe briefly had a handle on how ridiculous Dean’s position in the narrative was. (Listen, this was the last 10 minutes of my innocence about how awful Buckleming could be, leave past!me alone. She’s sweet and precious and not bitter :P) In any case, a more effective season would have utilised him more to slip and slide between light and dark and explore it in much deeper detail, but balancing that with a procedural formula doesn’t work as well and they were lacking enough philosophers on staff. I think the Dabb era writing team could handle it, because Yockey, Perez, and Glynn especially, who seems to have a psychology background based on her writing, all have a sharp attention to the exact things in emotional arcs that would have made it work better, even just as it was. Since this was a weaker writing team where Robbie, Bobo and Dabb episodes were little islands of excellence and the motw were fun but more shallow even with strong foreshadowing themes, it just didn’t pay off. 

I think the biggest waste of time was “the river ends at the source” which was either Buckleming trying to introduce a concept and hoping someone else dealt with it, or an agreed plot hook which never materialised, or Metatron literally spoke the truth, that the line had only ever been written to mess with us. However 10x23 could have actually included more of a “river ends at the source” sort of slant and had Death confirm it in so many words because Amara really did sort of seem to be the answer to the question. In 10x10 it seemed like they knew where the season was going, but by 10x17 it was obvious they DIDN’T, and it was during 10x18 that the plot actually got hashed out and Robbie was handed heavy revisions to make to change the Stynes to end of season villains and the Book of the Damned was going to be used how it was. I think this is really weak plotting, as someone who always puts in fun lines and then attempts like crazy to pay off on them. My first novel has the line “you can’t talk to me yet” and I play through that the whole book until they CAN talk and make it a major motif, goal and in the end try to explain it as best I can about how it’s all plot relevant and why using that for tension to put off the explanations and such was a valid thing to throw at my main character, and then the springboard to more adventure when she was ready for it. I literally do not understand putting a portentous line into your story, and not becoming desperately eager to answer it or twist something into revealing how it all fits at the end, if not basing your entire story off of it. Sam and Dean seemed wildly uncurious about how to apply that or what it means. 

In season 6 one of the more frustrating things is the “it’s all about the souls” line because Dean fails to investigate until someone or other rolls their eyes and makes it all clear to him. But we get a few more reminders in Cas’s presence, until we find out his plan, and Crowley repeats that line in 6x20 when making his sales pitch to Cas, if I’m remembering rightly (I hope so :/) and so despite Dean’s infuriating lack of investigation (not that he had a great deal of leads, but still - you could build a plot around it by GIVING him a lead, he’s the fictional character and you’re the writer :P) at the very least they repeat the motif in at least 6x17 and 6x20 to my memory, before the souls thing becomes a lot more obvious about Cas taking the purgatory souls and we’re allowed to actually discuss what he’s up to instead of the vague hints Atropos and Rachel give that they know his plans. 6x07 also hints early on that Purgatory is full of monster souls if you add it all up - the writers knew they were doing SOMETHING with this even if it took to the end of the season for it to all come together. (And that’s something that’s clearly and overarcing plot that Gamble oversaw because she wrote 6x11 and the line then appears in multiple episodes around the place, so that’s not just something Edlund tidied up but an actual effort to write the season well.)

Throwing aside the “river ends at the source” line is wildly frustrating because it wouldn’t have been too hard to apply it thematically and even keep Metatron being a douche while giving the viewer a pay off anyway for our own satisfaction, by showing it had been a theme all along anyway. You CAN squint at season 10 and analyse it through that lens but it’s exhausting when the show doesn’t give us the themes on a platter. It also shows that the plotting is careless and they’re experimenting, and rather than working with what they have, this is in a path of episodes where they’re discarding some plotlines, and we’re beginning to have end of season plotlines hastily pasted onto the end of the season, but they make very little of any of the work already done to build up the season as we’d seen it so far.

Add onto that Charlie being murdered for manpain to motivate some things into action and all the random elements being used, and the sense that Crowley, Cas and Rowena all abruptly ran out of a plotline that had been intended to utilise them and put on a side character duty away from Sam and Dean, the season is extremely messily and carelessly written, and without any real attention to detail to its own themes and characters and plotlines. Even if they’d gone into the season not particularly expecting where to go, they brought a lot to the table early on but then quickly wiped a lot of it off, and brought a lot more stuff to the table instead, which makes season 10 a really wonky, unfinished feeling product as a thing on its own, and the overall story is scrappy and carelessly plotted.

And that is speaking just about the easy plot stuff without getting into the absolute mess of speculation from the Destiel side of fandom wondering wtf was going on with the seeming build up to crypt scenes, colette, the grace cure, etc, that made up the bulk of the speculation but makes actually analysing expectations vs presented product completely impossible to evaluate on that side of things because as always Destiel speculation really overshoots what is expected and was really running wild at that point. I mean, not being judgemental because that was the year I was right in the thick of it. 3 years clear of it now, some of it seems really silly, but those 3 things all seemed clearly built up to our eyes, and we got the reverse crypt scene we’d been expecting since before the season started, and we got the Colette reference which slotted Cas firmly into place as a reminder of how Cain’s peeps lined up against Dean’s, as well as Cas asking Dean to stop, which satisfied the terms and conditions of Dean resisting walking in Cain’s footsteps with the overall set up of the scene. With the way Cas got his grace back and then some other rando cure popped up where Rowena of all people made the sacrifice, I really can’t help feeling like the conspiracy theorist who knows they were right but with the way it all shook out, only people who knew the conspiracy would understand how it didn’t happen and it’s very hard for me to look at that and say that some non-Cas-related cure was coming all along, given the conspicuous dropping of one plotline sort of day of picking up the next >.> But I’ll cede that from my position I might be a bit compromised on that one. 

Anyways. To me season 10 is a disaster that only season 11 really justifies, while season 6 has some truly low points but in the end the actual writing skill hauls it through so that it creates the illusion that there was consistency, if you ignore everything outside of the text suggesting it may have been as poorly planned as season 10. Planning isn’t everything - it’s what you do when confronted with the unplanned wire tangle in front of you that really marks how well they were written, and just shoving it under the table and putting a new wire tangle down vs actually unpicking it and making them as neat as possible? Gamble slam dunks Carver :P

#Asks #season 10 #we don't talk about season 6

[dalishious]

(Replying to this post)

@gangsterofoz I’m... not really sure... where to begin... I suppose by just saying I’m kind of stunned you wrote all this in response to me point out Cassandra was wrong about something and the writers’ reasons are ridiculously transparent?

Well it makes sense that Cass would try really hard to convince herself of the Chantry’s justified actions - it’s not that she’s purposely trying to condemn the elves, she just does not want to see the evils and mistakes of an institution she has pretty much built her adult life on. A life that allowed her to follow a path she felt was befitting of her skills and soul. And like many people with religion, they cannot seperate the institutional failures and serious misconducts from the faith.

I absolutely agree it is in character for Cassandra to be ignorant about this, given other things she has said expressing refusal to acknowledge elven point of views. But it’s not a good quality for her to have. And as @faerunner already said, the big problem isn’t that Cassandra has this point of view, it’s that this is the only point of view we hear. Dorian shares it too. But here is no argument. We’re just supposed to accept this comment, despite as I pointed out in that post, it is inaccurate.

Religions by their nature need to be deontological - meaning it can’t have flaws and inconsistencies. It needs to be by its nature always ‘true’ to its core messages and therefore exists philosophically in the realm of black in white. When in reality, it’s in the moral grey area as much as everything else. The people within it can be flawed, as Cass we know really prefers focusing on, but she manages to largely not see (at least historical actions not really the more recent ones) as the failures of people - individuals - not her faith, not the group. Which is fundamentally just inaccurate as no one can commit genocide or invasion without the willing consent and support of the group as a majority. Im so glad you pointed this out - it’s just more credit to brilliant character construction and intimate understanding of how people justify religious evils.

Hey maybe don’t paint every single belief system with the same Christian/Catholic brush because that’s not true?

I would argue that Cassandra is almost equally bad at recognizing the failures of people in recent times as well. 

It’s really like they researched the morality, psychology of Crusaders or Renaissance religious figures who maintained justification of the Crusades. I love Cass but she like everyone in the games (and like all brilliant series that study the flaws of politics and religions like Game of Thrones) is seriously flawed. Cass is not evil, she’s just reacting to an inherited childhood situation, she’s doing what she needs to to feel safe and valid.

LOL I think you are giving BioWare way to much credit, but yes, a comparison between Exalted Marches and the Crusades can definitely be made. It’s just a shame that, as the whole point of that post, they didn’t spend just as much time on how the victims felt.

Like Dorian and Varric opposing consistently undermine the traditionalism and omnipotence of institutions in an attempt to be independent from them and therefore safe because hierarchies and institutions have so consistently not only failed but seriously harmed them on such an intimate level (the Dwarven caste system/way of life and Tevinter as a society). Varric and Dorian still find admiration or use for aspects of their childhood societies but it’s their flaws that have made them view those institutions the way they do in the time of Inquisition.

You are comparing Dorian opposing tyranny to Cassandra defending it?

It’s so clever - because we don’t judge these figures as historical persons through a lens of fact but we get to know them so intimately. They become real persons for whom we see our actions make consequences directly. It puts us in the position of leaders of Catholicism during the Crusades - it perhaps says, “It is more difficult to condemn people you’ve come to know because they are real and thus it makes taking moral action much more difficult.”

HOLY FUCK.

No. No, I absolutely judge through facts, and you know, general morality. No, it absolutely does not make it more difficult to condemn a character saying something wrong when they are in fact, 100% wrong. 

It’s like when Tyrion kills Tywin - he basically plunges the entire political system of a really powerful nation/continent into chaos - like fuck you now everything’s going to go to shit and the White Walkers are going to so easily come and kill everybody ! But man who didn’t want Tyrion to kill to Tywin? We were all on his side when that happened. But through a historical lens, the boy did some serious damage to the citizens of the country. Not that Tywin was a brilliant moral leader but one could argue at least the country wasn’t plunged into political factionalism and thus unable to successfully defend itself against the ice boys.

I have no idea what you’re talking about because I stopped watching Game of Thrones after dragging myself through the second season; I found the story interesting enough, but the copious amount of gratuitous sex and also general shitty treatment of the few characters of colour and female characters was too much to continue. But I’m gonna go on a limb and guess this has nothing to do with anything in the post I made.

So yes Cass is super wrong but it also is 100% how she would manipulate herself to see that slice of history. I mean - how scary is that that a leader has that view sitting on the Sunburst Throne (if you pop her there)? You say, “well she’s got all these great qualities etc.” but then what are the ramifications of putting someone with some form of internalised racism in a position of power?

Oh gee, what a high-fantasy thought-provoking question that is. A person who gives zero shits about the people who’s land they settled on and now rule over. I wonder what the ramifications would be. It is so hard to wonder. I just don’t know. //Sarcasm

What if she in some years starts another Exalted March? Historically, we’d look at the Inquisitor and go, “What were you thinking!?”

Yeah I sure fucking would especially because my Inquisitor would never do that to her people.

But history doesn’t happen historically. People are biased and function through personal relationships, moving through the world within the framework of those dynamics. The moral of this section of the games is, you’re going to need to make decisions that will shape the world but you will struggle to make them unbiasedly. And the consequences of that can be cataclysmic. Anyway lol unintentional essay

This might be news to you, but sometimes making decisions using bias can be a good thing. It’s called having a moral conscious. So yes, as I have said a few times now, I will absolutely judge Cassandra for lacking one in this scene. And general history knowledge.

Anyway, this whole unintentional essay was almost entirely irrelevant to the point of my post, but whatever. Glad we could clear up that what Cassandra said here is a bad thing and bad things should be recognized as bad things, not unquestioned qualities.

#gangsterofoz #anti cassandra #anti chantry #fandom bs

[leo-culture-technology]

Hello again!

awww, that has completely made my day tbh🥺 it’s been rough the last few weeks and now my exams are just right around the corner….

First of all: thanks for answering all my questions in depth, that was really interesting, you sound like an awesome person! I just adore when people are talking about the things they love, it’s so cute 🥰

Second of all: You have immaculate TASTE! 😍 I also stan a good amount of the groups you listed there 🤝 I especially love Monsta X, NCT (OT23) and SKZ though. They have a special place in my heart. Based on your profile picture your bias in NCT might be Doyoung? (P.S. please teach me how to choose a bias, I just can’t decide on one I swear 🤡) And if you want: I’m curious who your biases are for the groups you’re stanning ^^

I’m trying to get into P1harmony, what are your favorite song(s) of them?

Wow, that’s really cool though to have both your mother and grandmother being into astrology! I’m happy you’re going to keep running this blog, I really enjoy your content ☺️do you have any recommendations when it comes to learning astrology? I’ve been looking for some reliable sources but most of the time I’ve been facing a loooot of inconsistencies in information so I’m a bit lost here. Ohhh and also I’ve been getting into reading about crystals and their properties lately. Do you have any interest in that field too? If yes, what’s your favourite crystal?

Nice! What languages are you currently speaking and are there any more languages you’d like to learn? I can only imagine! But keep going, persistence is key!!

You mentioned you’re also in university, what’s your major?

Hmm.. a random fact about me… A big pet peeve of mine would be: people eating with their mouths open and making sounds while eating. I just can’t deal with that 😅

Phew, I feel like I’ve been rambling a lot 😅 Sorry for the length of this ask 😬

I hope you’ll have a lovely day! - 🌻

mx and skz are some of my absolute ults too, I'm sat in my bed rn with posters and stuff stuck on my wall behind me kjhgfdfghjk I've seen both of them live and let me tell u if u Haven't seen either of them live it was Incredible-

my bias in 127 is doyoung, yes. in dream it's been chenle and jisung since they debuted, in wayv it's 200% yangyang, I'm painfully whipped for him tbh. Honestly I didn't have a bias in 127 for the Longest time, I moved between probably all of them at one point or another. I've been an nctzen since debut and back then my bias was taeyong, then around limitless time it moved to johnny for a while, and then I just kind of couldn't settle on anyone for the Longest time, and then idk in the last year or so doyoung rlly just came out of Nowhere??? and stole my whole entire soul??? I was like "oh I guess we're going through a doyoung phase now" and then it just kind of. hasn't passed. I'm still here. I adore him. I could write an entire essay on the subject. I'm whipped. I think it was very much an occasion of "I did not choose a bias, a bias chose me" lmaooooo. I couldn't pick an overall nct bias though, impossible, I love them all too much for that. I'm very bad at picking biases truthfully, I usually either move around members for ages before finally settling, or I end up with like 2-3 biases kjhgfghjk other groups I stan tho:

ateez: hongjoong

skz: minho

mx: kihyun

txt: yeonjun

p1h: jiung

vixx: hakyeon

oneus: hwanwoong

onewe: dongmyeon

tbz: kevin/chanhee/sunwoo

seventeen: hoshi/jeonghan

victon: subin

a.c.e: beyongkwan

ab6ix: daehwi

dreamcatcher: gahyeon/siyeon

stayc: j

as for p1harmony songs, my favourites are: ayaya, that's it, end it, if you call me, scared

Honestly in terms of learning about astrology, the majority of what I've learned has been via running this blog kjhgfdfghjk I'm a very hands-on learner who learns best by actually doing things, so what's worked best for me has honestly been receiving questions, going away and researching them and then coming back with a cohesive answer using the various sources I've consulted. I will say that for a beginner, I think cafe-astrology presents things in a very simple way that's easy to understand, but now that I know more I like astro-seek a lot more for how it actually lays out the information, because I find it a lot easier these days to see things visualised in the chart the way they do rather than in a list of placements like on cafe-astrology, but I've been doing this on and off for like a year and a half at least now so jhgfdsfghjkl honestly I do things very intuitively, I like to get a vague sense of the traits of each sign, then just kind of extrapolate from that, like I understand the traits of the moon because I understand that it's ruled by cancer, and vice versa. Same goes for houses, I understand 8th bc it's ruled by scorpio/pluto, I understand 6th bc it's ruled by virgo/mercury, etc. etc. Definitely take it slow and don't try to pile on too much info at once, start with signs, work your way up and honestly don't worry about houses at all until u understand signs/placements bc they add a whole other layer of complexity to everything that I'm truthfully still wrapping my head around.

I don't know much about crystals and gemstones and the like, but I have some favourites for purely aesthetic reasons if that counts kjhgfdsdfghjk I love rubies, obsidian, labradorite, hematite, to name a few

as for languages, currently I'm sadly only fluent in english, I used to be conversational in german and italian but I've not used them in so many years that I really don't remember much of anything anymore. I really want to learn russian, mandarin, norwegian, dutch, and hebrew. I lowkey want to speak all languages but these are some of my favourites jhgfdfghjk

and I'm a psychology student! going into my final year in october <3

my answer is equally as long it's okay jhgfdfghjk I don't mind the long asks! really, I think it's kinda nice <3

#answered #🌻anon #personal #about aris

[blu-b]

Trying again to post my Ragnarok blabbering....

Let’s try and see if tumblr still thinks it has too many paragraphs. If so, I shall split it into two. Reminder that this is just me spewing out everything that bothers me because I actually have so desperately few Thor(ki) pals on tumblr that I'm basically jumping on any opportunity to actually talk to someone about it. Which is why you precious few who commented are now getting the full broadside of my entire jumbled misery. I apologize in advance. You really don't have to read all of it. I’m also not looking for a grand discussion or anything. I just need to get it out of my system.  

​I respect that there are people who liked the movie, and I don't mean to spoil it for anyone else, so what I'm going to say here is all just a very personal, subjective impression that is by no means anything else but an opinion. Also I feel kind of stupid because the film has been out for a year and...yeah well.

On we go.

upstartpoodle replied to your post “I’ve finally seen Thor: Ragnarok (yes yes, I’m late to the party, I...”

I haven't seen it since I knew from the various spoilers I've seen that it wasn't really my cup of tea, so I can't really comment about the film as a whole, but I've seen a lot of complaints from other people about inconsistent characterisation, too many jokes, dropping the ball on plot points established in the previous films, etc. There's an increasingly long post that keeps cropping up on my dash about it. 

calicoskatts replied to your post

I enjoyed it but for me it was jsut another entertaining movie from Marvel but nothing particularly interesting. I thought I was watching Guardians of the Asgardians personally. I’ve been put off from Marvel over the last bit tbh, so maybe that’s why? Like I said, I enjoyed it but I wasn’t wowed or anything.

nelioe replied to your post

*raises hand* I agree, I too thought the movie was awful

miusmius replied to your post

I honestly loved it!

hiko73 replied to your post

What? The movie was amazing from beginning to end, imho....I feel at a loss why you hated it so much.

So, before I say anything, I need to explain that I basically knew the film's plot from gifs and Youtube clips before I watched the DVD, although I didn't know all of it. I already thought some of the scenes sucked big time from the snippets I had seen (Get help, the obedience disk), but actually there were a few that I thought were bad and that turned out rather good in the movie. I’ll come to those in a minute.

So, I think seeing the movie in its entirety for the first time was what did me in. Really, my brain hurt after the end credits rolled off the screen, and I felt like brainwashed. I mean, I knew it was different, and loud, and colourful, and that’s not what I’m having a problem with. It’s rather…a conglomerate of things that just rub me the wrong way.

I’m not mentioning the inconsistent characterisation and the many loose threads that never get cleared up sufficiently (an entire fandom has been waiting for an explanation of how Loki survived Svartalfheim! I had expected it to be a major plot point early in Ragnarok, but it wasn’t even mentioned apart from ‘I thought you were dead’. Well yes, thanks Thor, me too. I’d like to know how he managed not to be dead!).

I’ll also not mention obvious plotholes because well, it’s Marvel we’re talking about, so things like that are expected, and I’ll neither mention obvious flaws on the technical side (too many rapid cuts, weird camera angles or frames) because artistic liberty and all. What does get on my nerves is how almost any serious scene is broken up by something ‘funny’. No two characters can have a quiet talk for two seconds before some joke is cracked that does or does not fit the situation. It’s…tiresome. Especially since most of the jokes aren’t really funny.

​Here's a thing: a have a weird humour, I Hate comedy with a capital H, and I despise nothing more than random comedic slapstick elements in an otherwise serious film. Why for heaven's sake can no one make a serious movie anymore? Argh. This film is literally titled "The end of the world" and yet there's a joke at every corner, and no it isn't a black-humoured jab at fate, it's the kind of knee-slapper that's only funny for half the time it takes, and not again afterwards. It makes me angry. Comedy has to be precise and on-point to work. There's a lot of well-placed comedy in the previous Thors and the Avengers; comedic elements that are funny even when you watch the scene a second and a third time. Now, Taika Waititi takes comedy to an entirely new level that isn't necessarily one I like. I also need to say that although I don't know him personally, he comes across as a very taxing person, taxing in a sense that his constant good spirits and giddiness and sort of bouncy energy would definitely wear out my social batteries if I had to be around him all the time. It wore out Tom Hiddleston's, as we can see in several behind the scenes footages where Taika takes to fooling around in front of the camera while poor Tom would just like to get on with his work.

​Anyway, back to the movie. Of the major things that rub me wrong is that it does have a very problematic attitude towards violence.

​It is rated for a viewing age 12 and up in my country, but I sure as hell would not let my children watch it. There are scenes that come down to nothing but random violence for…well, not even the sake of anything. Hela just skewering Fandral and Volstagg like that? What for? If it’s meant to establish an emotional connection and show just how dangerous Hela is, it fails spectacularly, because it is not given enough time, or enough emotional room. It’s just ZAP and they’re dead; if you don’t look closely you don’t even realise it’s them because they've never had a moment to being reintroduced. Half of the audience has probably already forgotten who they were.The scene with Hogun is gruesome as is the slaughtering of an entire army, and it does nothing whatsoever in terms of significance. Later on, we see many other characters just resorting to brainless mass shootings and seemingly enjoying the heck out of it. Valkyrie, Skurge, you name them. There's a very problematic message in having a character stumble off an enormous spaceship, having them fall off the gangway drunk because it looks cool, and then proceed to mow down a bunch of innocent and mostly unarmed scrappers on a trash planet.

​Now, I don’t have a problem with violence in general. I just don’t like the way it is presented here.

There were a few scenes that were actually good. 

Thor and Dr. Strange for example, even though the plot could easily have done without that sideline, and Benedict Cumberbatch is also only pouring 50% of his effort into his performance - still, it’s solid, classy acting. ​

​The scenes between Thor and Loki on Midgard in the very beginning stand out because both Hemsworth and Hiddleston are given enough time to actually act out their characters' emotions without being interrupted by a joke. I really liked the dynamics here and I wish the film would have picked up on that course.

Some of Hela’s scenes where a little background on her character is revealed were good as well, but overall I thought Cate Blanchett was alternating between gross overacting and doing minimal duty as per contract. It would have been nice to have her on screen some more, and learn a bit more about her past and her motivation. Revenge for being imprisoned by Odin? Sounds familiar. Hela, darling, how about a little talk about that with Loki over tea and biscuits? I'm sure the two of you could have shared some experience. (Also major kudos to Loki for NOT tearing into Odin like "Aha, so throwing your kids into a cell seems to be your standard educational measure, dad.")

​Anthony Hopkins was awful. He has never been good in any of the previous films, one of my main reasons for my major dislike of Odin, and I don't know if he's getting senile or what, he just was really really bad in this one. It only adds to the awful characterisation of Odin altogether. The last straw was his dealing with the Hela situation: "There's this threat that is coming for Asgard, born of one of my own mistakes, there's nothing you can do about it and I don't give a shit so bye and good luck, I guess." Good thing he disappeared, or I would personally have crawled into the TV and shoved the old man off the cliff.

​So, what little else I liked was actually any scenes with Heimdall - I wasn’t a big fan of Heimdall, ever, but he seriously kicks ass here, not only because of superb acting on Idris Elba's part but also because his scenes aren’t interrupted by hectic cuts or off the mark jokes.

​Surprisingly, Skurge’s story arc was interesting as well. Now, I don’t like Karl Urban - you've probably figured out by now that there isn't an awful lot of people that I like. Basically I think his character is rather unnecessary - why not use one of the established characters? Why not let Fandral or Hogun be torn between right and wrong? Anyway, Karl does play him well and I see why a character like that would be in there (his death though? More random, unnecessary violence).

​Bruce Banner / The Hulk really went on my nerves the entire time. The fight between he and Thor is well choreographed, but the entire sequence is too long *yawns* Some of the stuff with Thor in Hulk’s room is actually funny, but that was that. 

​And then Loki. Please prepare yourself for a rant of epic proportions.

Now, I do admit I'm biased because I love Loki; I've loved him in Norse mythology ever since I was a child. I went to study Old Norse for a bit mainly because of the Edda and Loki, and I love what Hiddleston has done with the character in these films. I also get that this is Thor: Ragnarok and not Loki: Ragnarok and that he is a supporting character just like all the others.

​That said, in the few scenes that he actually has - you don't really need Loki for what he does. Any random side character could have stolen the ship's codes, or placed Surtur's crown in the flame. That last bit was a bow to the original myth (and the comics, I suppose) where it's really Loki who releases Surtur and causes Ragnarök (which is why I -love- the 'saviour' scene because it's a reference to Loki arriving at the scene of the final battle at the helm of the ship of the dead, called Naglfar, in Norse myth). But - in the film, all in all, you don't really need Loki for all that. Valkyrie could have done it, or Heimdall, or Skurge for that matter (what a heroic plot that would have made for him!).

​And there's more to it than just lamentably little of Loki in this film. The entire film, to me, seems like a deliberate attempt to ban Loki to the background, give him as little screentime as possible, and make him look ridiculous altogether. Not only is his character basically replaceable in what he does, no - 

(I've seen quite a lot of the BTS stuff in advance, so this plays into it as well.)

Let's start with the small things:

- There's hardly any close-ups of Loki in the entire film, Norway being the one great exception (consequently, he rocks the scene).You can always see him do something in the background, but the camera is never close enough to pick up clearly on any emotions or anything. Best example is the sofa scene at the Grandmasters'. If that was shown correctly, you would be able to read the entire course of the fight from Loki's face - there's glee, there's worry, there's schadenfreude, there's hope and admiration and anger and frustration and everything you can possibly imagine he goes through, but we are shown only mushed images of it. The entire dragging long battle between Hulk and Thor would have been way more interesting if more of Loki's facial expressions had been cut into it.

- Basically all he's good for is delivering cues for Thor and being there as a projection screen for Thor's heroism.

- The camera always seems slightly out of focus; Loki is there but he's not, somewhere at the back or to the side. Even when he's meant to be in the picture, the camera frame is just this little bit out of focus or he's being filmed at a weird angle.

- Weird angles. It's a signature thing for Loki in this film. He's being filmed from behind, above, below - now don't get me wrong, it's a very interesting artistic device - and the scene where he appears before the grandmaster, filmed through the transparent floor is a masterpiece in terms of camera angle - but when it's 80% of these frames and the rest is 15% hovering in the background and 5% good, clear close-ups, it conveys a message about the filmmaker's attitude towards this character - and in Loki's case, this message is not doing him any favours. 

​- More weird stuff: time frames. As I said above, you only ever see Loki doing unimportant stuff. Sitting around talking to the Grandmaster's cronies, getting "captured" on purpose, trying to get through to Thor. We don't see him doing any kind of stiff like Thor does, nothing "heroic", we don't even see him do any significant amount of magic. The only heroic moment he has, at the very end, is again botched by off-kilter dialogue ("I'm not doing get help" just sounds soooo out of place at this moment) and weird framing. Like, Thor gets all these super-cool, physical fighting scenes, full-on frontal, kicking and punching the shit out of everyone. Again, I get that this is Thor: Ragnarok, and we also have the Hulk and Valkyrie who need their hero moments. But we do know that Loki is just as good a fighter as everyone else, he fights differently, but he's very capable of defending himself and others, as seen in Dark World. In Ragnarok, he's right there in the middle of the fight, but you never see him do anything. You see him close in on someone, cut, then you see him pull out a knife of a body or juggle his helmet or whatever, but never any real action that proves how capable he is as a fighter, not like Thor gets them all the time. You see him jump, and roll, and fall on his ass, or doing a pirouette and tossing his hair back afterwards. The focus is not on him doing his share of defending Asgard, but on how he's a weak and pathetic fighter (this post explains it with great visuals). The thing is, somewhat heroic  moments  have been filmed, but have been left out in favour of more ‘funny’ sequences.

- Talking about ridiculousness: There's a total of seven scenes where Loki falls on his ass, his face, or is somehow on the ground for some reason when it's totally not necessary. In comparison, in Dark World and Avengers, he was only ever on the ground when either defeated, or due to battle  action, not just for shit and giggles.

The one at Dr Strange actually makes me wince from the sheer impact with which he hits the floor, bouncing back two feet high in the air (can’t find the gif right now, but he does), and everyone in the cinema laughs. Actually laughs, like this is some funny one-liner. Someone's dropping from the sky and hitting the floor real hard and y'all laugh? Like no, this ain't funny at all, not to me.

​- What are these scenes actually good for? Why did the previous films set him up as a master magician who - as even Dr Strange says - is a force to be reckoned with, when everyone can just shove him to the ground like that? Why is nearly everyone suddenly more powerful than him?

- Shitty lines/shitty scenes: 'Safe passage through the anus'. Boy, it makes me cringe for poor Tom who actually had to say this shit out loud, or play stuff like the (thankfully deleted) portaloo sequence. Like, wow. I mean, I know I have a different type of humour from nearly everybody else, but this shit is just so not funny, and I really hate Taika Waititi for even including such lines and scenes in the script. I mean, I get that he favours Thor over Loki, but was that really necessary? It's so cringeworthy it makes my teeth hurt.

- (On a minor sidenote, can we talk about how it also speaks volumes that Hiddleston was given a costume that he can barely move in and that makes him visibly uncomfortable, yet no one gives a shit?)

To sum it up, I don't like how Ragnarok treats the character of Loki and ignores all of his potential in favour of cheap jokes. It says a lot if a script needs to make fun of one character in order to let its main character appear in a better light. Taika talks about how Thor's and Loki's relationship is at the focus of the film and how they finally get to resolve their problems. I'm sorry, but I don't see any of that. I don't see any brotherly moments or reconciliation or at least an attempt to make things right. And that brings me to the one character that I have the biggest problem with: Thor.

​Now, the general consensus was that Thor grows, he learns, he takes up responsibility, he has this great character development that makes him into a better man. I don't see that. What I see is a man who uses and abuses everyone in his path to achieve his own ends. He thinks he can command Valkyrie by repeatedly reminding her of her oath to the throne (the throne being a very prominent motivation for Thor, as we shall see) even when she's made clear that she gives a shit. When that doesn't work, he keeps trying to guilt-trip her, and when that doesn't work either, he fakes concern to get her attention, and once he has it, he cruelly pushes all the buttons that he knows will make her yield (basically telling her: you can either forget everything and rot on this planet, or you can do something about it and help me).

​He manipulates Banner in the same way because he needs the Hulk for his Asgard mission. I mean, telling Bruce he prefers him over Hulk, and telling Hulk he prefers him over Bruce - I get that it's meant to be funny, but when you think about it, it isn't. It's manipulative as heck and it's exactly the kind of shit he always accused Loki of: lying to get his way.

And when it comes to Thor's interactions with Loki,  he has not learned a single thing. He still treats Loki the way he always did: a scapegoat at worst, a convenience at best. In Norway, after Odin departs, Thor doesn’t hesitate to immediately accuse Loki of both Odin’s death and bringing about Hela as a consequence - as if Loki had any inkling that this was gonna happen. He wouldn’t be so stupid as to bring destruction to Asgard on purpose, remember it’s the only home he ever truly knew, so even if he did let things slip while posing as Odin, he surely never meant for Hela and Ragnarok to happen. He was just as surprised about the Hela revelation that Thor was, and as for Odin’s death - I doubt that this was intended. Especially since we still don’t know xactly how Loki got rid of Odin, but if he’d wanted to kill him, he could certainly have done so while Odin was weak and defenseless, but he didn’t - he just wanted him out of the way, not dead. Yet Thor completely assumes Loki is to blame for all of it, and as a consequence he falls back into his abusive treatment of his brother.

Yes, all I see is an abusive sibling who purposefully manipulates his mentally unstable younger brother. He knows what Loki has been through in the past; moreover, he has heard from Odin himself just how everyone in this family was played and lied to. He has seen what that did to Loki in the past. Thor knows exactly what's at the core of his brother's mind: the ambition to gain his family's approval, a fear of being abandoned, a deep-rooted sense of worthlessness and the ever-prominent desire to impress his older brother. Of course Loki sucks at saying all this out loud, and Thor probably doesn't know the full extent of the damage, but after the events of Avengers and Dark World he must at least have an inkling of what's going on inside that mind. 

​And yet he goes ahead and uses all of Loki's greatest fears against him:

"Our paths diverged a long time ago" - no they didn't, he just never let Loki catch up to him.

"It's what you always wanted" (never seeing each other again) - have you even paid attention to your brother, you big fool?

"But you, you stay the same", "you could be so much more" etc. - and being what, exactly? Thor's thrall, tagging along behind him, helping out when shit hits the fan, and otherwise keeping his mouth shut? To Thor, Loki is only acceptable when he behaves like Thor wants him to. He fails to see that it's Loki who's forced to change more than anyone else. He was forced to change almost first thing after being born, from a Jötun baby to an Aesir one just to please his new father. He's constantly forced to change to adapt to everyone's expectations: Odin's, Frigga's, Thor's own. And when he refuses to play along, he's the one at fault.

​There are two scenes in Ragnarok in particular that I find hard to watch in respect of Thor's abusive qualities. First, the elevator scene /Get Help.

​Loki tells Thor no three times, he even gives him a reason why he doesn't want to do Get Help (which, considering Loki and his difficulties to express emotion, to Thor no less, is a big deal). I don’t know about y’all, but if my sibling told me they found something humiliating, which is several steps up the uncomfortable scale from "I just don't like it", I would never force them into it. Thor has to respect his brother's feelings and stop right there. A no is a no, even from Loki, even in this situation, especially considering how the entire move is nonsense after all - but Thor doesn't stop. He disrespects his brother's wishes, he ignores Loki's feelings, and what's worse, he even belittles him for it and laughs it off: No, for me it's not.

​Yes, well, Thor baby, guess what? It's not always about you.

Even worse is the taser/obedience disk scene. It makes me physically cringe. And I will happily fist-punch everyone who tries to tell me it's just "a joke" or "friendly sibling barter" or wasn't "meant to hurt Loki" or that Thor "didn't know". I'm sorry, but nope.

​Thor knows exactly what the obedience disc does, how it hurts. He has absolutely NO reason to use it on Loki. Loki has been playing along to his plans, he has even tried to offer Thor an explanation and a possible way out, but at that time Thor decided to throw a tantrum and sulk. Did he really think Loki would go through with that half-arsed attempt of collecting the 'reward' for Thor's capture from the Grandmaster, when just some hours before Loki has told Thor that he Grandmaster is a lunatic and that he basically wants to leave Sakaar just as bad as Thor does? Did Thor even listen??? Not to mention that there never was a 'reward' promised by the Grandmaster; instead a threat of public execution looms over Loki if he fails, so the reward he speaks of is possibly, once again, getting away with his life (while using the time this buys him to come up with a means of escape).

​There was no reason at all to place the taser disc on Loki and leave him there - besides, Thor must have planned to use the disk even before he could be sure Loki was going to betray him, so it was Thor's plan all along to leave his brother there for whatever sick reason. How could he be so sure Loki would find a way to free himself? How could he be sure the rebels would be the ones to find Loki, and not the Grandmaster, or Topaz, or any of the hundreds of guards that swarm the place? Not to mention that time passes differently on Sakaar, so who knows how long Loki lay there writhing in agony. Thor walking off telling him "Good luck, I guess" while his brother is in obvious physical pain, and at the mercy of a crazy dictator, is the ultimate cruelty. But the throne is always more important, eh?

​How could Thor be sure Loki would follow him to Asgard and come to his aid? Seriously, Loki could just have taken that ship and flown to the other end of the universe for all he cared. He's the only Asgardian on a ship full of refugees, he has no reason at all to help Thor, not after the taser disc and the general way Thor treated him, and YET he comes after his big brother because he desperately seeks Thor's approval, and Thor knew that and manipulated his brother into exactly this behaviour back there in the elevator.

​And does Loki get a thank you? Not even! All he gets is a flippant "You're late" (everyone who tells me that's 'friendly sibling banter' again must have a truly fucked up relationship with their sibling), and then he's being ordered off to the vault to basically perform an act that could cost his life, without Thor even wasting a second thought to it. Well, we've already seen in Dark World how little Thor cares for Loki, as he just leaves his dead little brother behind to rot on a foreign planet. Doesn't even send anyone to come and collect the body or something. Doesn't even seem to care in Ragnarok whether Loki has made it out of Asgard alive or not (does he check frantically if his brother is aboard as they float off into space? No...but hey look, there's a throne, and people call him majesty, so all is grand).

​Not even the "I'm here" scene does anything for their relationship. How often does Loki have to prove that he will sacrifice himself for Thor, and how often does he get nothing in return but accusations ("You faked your death!", "You killed our father!"), dubious compliments ("Maybe there's some good left in you") or at the most Thor throwing him a bone of approval: "Maybe you're not so bad after all" instead of "Thanks for saving our arses".

​So, is this 'growing'? Is this 'mature'? Has Thor learned one single thing that makes him a better character? I don't think so. He takes up right where his father left, caring only for his throne, and manipulating his brother just the way Odin has always done. Yes, he became a little less uptight, and yes there's the new Thor who's sassy, nonchalant, doesn't give a fuck, doesn't let himself be played by his brother's schemes. I love the way Chris Hemsworth is playing this new Thor as opposed to the previous films. It's fun to watch him finally fill this role with a bit of spice. I really really like this new Thor. The problem is, I like how the new Thor is, but not what he does.

​All in all, I think what happened was that Taika and Chris Hemsworth decided it was time to put the focus on Thor and make his character the center of the plot - which is fine, with it being Thor: Ragnarok and all, but why does it have to be at the expense of another great character that could have been used in so many other, different, better ways for the plot? I think they tried deliberately to shift a bit of Loki's coolness and cunning to Thor who, let's face it, has been a rather one-dimensional character in the previous films.

​What I'm going to say now is unpopular, and probably mean, but it's the vibe I'm getting from day one since I started watching any Thor movies and BTS and interviews: All of this ties in nicely with Chris Hemsworth coming across as borderline jealous of Hiddleston and the success he gained for his portrayal of the Loki character, who was never supposed to steal Thor's spotlight. It's a shame Taika Waititi rolled with it in Ragnarok and actively added to this fiasco by way of bad filmmaking.

​On a final personal note: Just yesterday before watching the film I wrote a little scene post-Ragnarok where Thor finally gets to understand everything that bothers Loki, and finds a way to comfort his brother in a very gentle, caring way, because that was what I understood Thor had finally learned: true compassion, the ability to understand, the motivation to go and make up for every time he was a shitty sibling in the past. I can't see that now, not anymore after watching this film, not after what Thor has been made into and how he treats Loki :(

I'm sorry this got so long. I'll disappear for a while now and see if I can manage to un-watch this movie. Thanks for reading/listening.

#upstartpoodle #calicoskatts #nelioe #miusmius #hiko73 #warning: long post #loki meta #thor meta #my thoughts on ragnarok #I'm blabbering #I just love Loki too much ok #probably because I can relate to him on so many levels #it's not even funny anymore #sorry

[multsicorn]

i just really love this play alot ;) okay

Working on the theory that I Deserve To Have Fun (said theory has not been validated and is not ready for prime time discussion), I started watching the bootleg file I have of the OBC of Hamilton this afternoon.  (I downloaded it way back when I was in Hamilton fandom, before I went to go to see the play, and held off on watching it until I'd seen the play for Real, and then didn't particularly feel like it afterwards).

Some thoughts & observations:

[these got long and rambling.  lots of lams-shippiness and multi-shippiness, and gen stuff too]

* This play is really fuckin great.  Like, I've loved fandoms based around deeply mediocre and/or inconsistent canons, (looking at you, Check Please for the first, Glee for the second), and sure the hype around Ham was too big for anything to bear, but… yeah, I just really LOVE this canon, whatever its flaws, with so much heart, on so many levels.

* The staging!!!  I think means a lot here specificially cause I've heard all these songs dozens of times, mostly well over a year ago now, but - once in a while recently again, but in any case, I've done all my analysis picking over the songs, and they're inside me to a large extent.  Whereas much of the staging I only saw once, live.

* (And I had a close-up seat, then, which I paid lots of money for and felt Worth It, but I was so focused on the actors' faces, and so didn't read as much of the overall blocking as maybe I could have).

… anyway ….

"Alexander Hamilton"

* Alex taking off his white coat and putting on the brown coat Eliza gives him feels to me, this time, like he's leaving the world of the dead and coming to life.  Standing out from the crowd - of course - from the ensemble that's all wearing all-white - so he's Setting Out, etc., but also - they're back in all-white at the end, like ghosts.  So.  A sort of leaving the world outside time.

(Speaking of Eliza, there, I still always love the Eliza-Angelica-Laurens sequence in which they give Alex the coat, the book, and the bag.  MY SHIPSSS.  Such parallel!)

(And the bit where Washington's the one who's telling Alex he has to make something of himself! - I know I thought about and maybe posted about these things  back when the Grammy performance happened, but, Anyway.)

ALSO, also, 'you could never learn to take your time' being sung over Alex walking at a deliberately restrained pace to match the choreography on the bridge at the back of the stage so he comes down the stairs on the other side at the right time, is… funny.  Ha.  But the line's still true!  - And I just love how much the ensembles' dancing itself works as scenery.

"Aaron Burr, Sir"

* Alex is SO FUCKING EAGER it's RIDICULOUS he's like a PUPPY all like I CAN FRIEND!?!?

Burr may try to pretend he's not having it but he IS a BIT or he wouldn't invite Alex to have a drink etc. and… I love.

And then, every single time I hear the little line not-actually-exchange:

Burr: Fools who run their mouths off wind up dead

Laurens, in his first line in real time: What time is it?  (Showtime!)

Burr: Like I said…

I say, RUDE.

Although honestly - Burr is totally into Alex's ridiculous eagerness, like I said, he's coming closer, he admits something personal, he invites Alex out for a drink, it's not as obvious as Alex (cause he's just not) - and it's pretty RUDE ;), too of the revolutionary trio, from Burr's POV, to by their loudness and brashness and total lack of caution get in the middle of what was just shaping up to be possibly a Great Friendship.  So he can be forgiven for Harbinger of Dooming ;).

“My Shot” & "The Story of Tonight”

* As in most of Alex's interactions with the Gay Trio (Quartet!), I keep switching back and forth between LAMS IS REALLLL (it was, historically) (I wouldn't see it, though, I think, if I didn't know), and just ALEX IS A BI HUMAN DISASTER CUDDLING UP TO EVERY FRIEND HE MAKES.  Like, there's considerably More random arm-and-shoulder touching between Laurens and Alex than everyone else?  "You and I, do or die," (I do die!), and then they split up to each touch another dude, and in a slightly later verse Laurens is back again… oh, no, that 'back again' is "raise a glass to the four of us," BOTH TIMES, cause it has to be, ha.  You can say 'to the two of us,' Laurens, it's okay!  … But, like, otoh, "hard rock like Lancelot, I think your pants look hot, Laurens I like you a lot," is totally Alex flirting with these three dudes he just met all in the space of three lines.  It's great is what I'm saying.  Also Alex could use a positive setting towards people that's not 'will you be my friend and also get in my pants.'

The narrative of the song here, with the rest of the Revolutionary Quartet listening to Alex sceptically for his first few verses till they're impressed - I love the way that Laurens is his first and loudest and most consistent cheerleader ("shout it to the rooftops!"), hey, listen to this guy speak, the way that Alex LOOKS LIKE he's on a soapbox when he literally is, how that evokes the physicality of speaking to the crowd, and how his mind shoots three steps ahead of the present, and, yeah, okay, I just love the Alex/Laurens dynamic most of all, (cause I'm biased ;)), the way that Lauren's idealistic speaking ('raise a glass to freedom,' and, um, what was the start of his verse in My Shot?  whatever it was) makes Alex ~Look at him, and the way he's kinda just looking at Alex all the time.  Walking off arm-in-arm is SO they are together, okay.

(…. there are ten thousand more things in these songs, of course, but this is a post about My FEELINGS.)

“The Schuyler Sisters”

* The sibling back-and-forth dynamic here is just so freaking delightful to watch, it's so complicated, I can FEEL it.  Like, it feels like my sister and me (despite me only having the one)… Eliza going back and forth between Peggy and Angelica, how she's not just the middle sister in age, but she's trying to get Peggy to go along with Angelica's scheme, asking questions of and playing backup to Angelica, just - and the whole "mind at work" thing is perfect and Meaningful too, of course.  But what's harder to talk about here is the sibling dynamics, leading and restraining and following and conciliating, and it's displayed so well in the blocking and acting - and also, I can see how this Eliza falls for and enchants Alex.

Angelica has center stage for most of it, but I love the way Eliza takes center stage for a little bit - and when she does it's not about "work" anymore, but about HOW LUCKY WE ARE TO BE ALIVE RIGHT NOW, which feels kinda painfully and naively optimistic nowadays but… I do believe it's still true, in exactly the same way that I always did, in the same way that line works in the play, recurring even in the worst times.  We're lucky to be alive at any time - there's still so much good in the world, people to love, and work to do.  ("Joy is deliberate.")  And Eliza's pulling focus for a sec to be HEY GUYS ISN"T THIS SO MUCH FUN, before ceding it (joyfully, too, imo!) to Angelica's Things To Do!

Also the particular choreography of the way they three of them spin almost-in-place but trading places?  I can't even figure out what it is, but I'm obsessed with it permanently.

“Farmer Refuted"

* The way that Laurens, Mulligan, and Lafayette all cheer Alex on, and maybe try to restrain him a little, but mostly just cheer him on, is both super fun to watch, and even more fun if you have shipping goggles, so it turns into LOOK HOW GREAT OUR BOYFRIEND IS.  Fun!  I'm just saying.  Come for the story about ambition, stay for the compersion.

Also I would like to note with appreciation Laurens' arm around Aaron Burr at the start of this song, as well as his approach to Burr at the start of "My Shot" - like, dude, he totally had a thing for Burr before he met Alex, but Burr was Not Having it, too hotheaded!  Idk it just amuses me that's all.

And notice how Alex waits to jump in till he has his reply READY~, he's mile-a-minute, yes, but he takes the time he needs to PREPARE for that.

“You’ll Be Back”

* J. Groff is the one original cast member I didn't see, when I went to see the play live, and he is Really Delightful here.  Great play of the madness, the pouting, the playfulness that's actually danger, etc.  Only thing is that I always feel like those "da da da da" choruses sound like they ought to have a classic chorus line kick!  But you couldn't do that with a single person, it would just look ridiculous, and the single-ness vs. ensemble-ness of King George works so well for thematic reasons… but is it still ridiculous to say they have a chorus line kick SOUND in my head?  Because they do.

“Right Hand Man”

* I just love so much how they create an action scene in a song!!!  You might think it wouldn't work, but it DOES, all you need is a few lines describing the back-and-forth progress of a battle.  Just enough.

Why does Washington send Burr away?  You really can't tell!  And I think that works, that ambiguity, no one knows - Burr certainly doesn't know, so that feeling of unfairness festers.  But sometimes you're just not what someone wants, and I think history backs that up too…

That whole little sequence of "how come no one can get you on their staff" (it's one of those lines where the double entendre does really good work, cause WHAT IF he was saying that, right), from Hamilton asking "have I done something wrong, Sir," to making that Decision, with the chorus rising shouting in the background, "I am not throwing away my shot," but would taking the pen be taking the shot or throwing it away - it's the most fraught thing in the musical so far!  And that's a huge part of why I love this musical SO DAMN MUCH, in addition to the way it creates its own vernacular, the complex personal relationships, etc., is how the story of ambition and Doing The Work, is put above everything else.  A promotion with ambiguous risks and rewards Is the most fraught thing in life… the hardest decision to make… I love.  And how Alex wants to fight, and also he's wary of being under command in this particular way, but the moment, the very moment he takes the pen he's charging ahead nonstop again.  "Write to Congress, tell 'em we need supplies," of course all the work he does here is over-simplified, it'd have to be to fit in any way, but… getting support out of Congress was actually one of the more challenging aspects of the war, and something Alex worked on a lot!

Also I love the random shoulder-clasp between Alex and Laurens right before Washington announces Alex as his right-hand man, precisely because it's so seemingly purposeless, like… it's a congrats, man?  Sure.  But also we just have to touch each other at least once a song, it's like, required.  Thank <3.

And overall this whole number, Washington's entrance, etc., and… really just the whole play!  Yeah it's genuinely Quality, it's layered, you can talk about technical or literary aspects, but watching for the first time in A While and just being carried along by the spectacle as much as the story?  It's so Drama, so Extra, it's great.

... and this is only the first third or so of the first act, ha.  To be continued in another post.  Perhaps.

#hamilton stuff #a: my meta

[ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is]

Why you should be careful when mixing MBTI and Socionics

I say “Don’t mix MBTI and Socionics” a lot, as do other people. I’m also guilty of jacking a couple socionics concepts (PoLR in particular) into MBTI at times and making snarky jokes, but I think it’s worth writing about this honestly for once.

MBTI and Socionics undeniably share DNA. Socionics was based off of Jungian theory as was MBTI (and both differ from Jung’s original models).

They were developed in rather different societies (Cold War era U.S. and USSR respectively), and Socionics attempts to explain a lot more about intertype relationships whereas MBTI, while born out of an effort to understand very different people, was more individually focused (which, at least on a very surface level which is all the treatment I’m giving it here, makes sense).

The cognitive function names (Te, Ni, etc) are from MBTI and were adopted by socionics, which originally used the tetris-looking symbols you sometimes see and which you can find on socionics.com or sociotype.com. Socionics calls feeling “ethics” and thinking “logic”, and the types are referred to usually with three letters, or sometimes using MBTI-like notation except the last letter is lower-case.

So: similar but not the same. Here are the things that give me pause with socionics/MBTI being used interchangeably, without discussion of why a theory is applicable to both.

Differences in correlating functions.

This is the big one. I find that socionics Extroverted Logic (aka Pragmatism, the Te analog) and Extroverted Sensing (aka Force, analog of Se) both have elements of MBTI Te and Se. Te still has the efficiency/practicality focus but I think empiricism is played up more than it is in MBTI. As an aside I wonder if that’s because socionics lacks some of the intense bias of MBTI and descriptions of Te aren’t so dominated the “visionary” ENTJ/INTJ narrative but  Idon’t know for sure. Meanwhile Se is described more as a competition within the environment and less as the merging with the environment. I’ve also seen it described as detached from internal sensation, which is usually associated with Si but not divorced from Se in MBTI usually.

There are some others - socionics ethics, ironically, does cover emotional response more than MBTI feeling does, and socionics extroverted ethics is about authentic emotional communication (among other things) whereas introverted ethics is a lot about perception of social dynamics and hierarchy, which isn’t what most of us think about when we think about Fe vs. Fi.

I think socionics is an interesting system, but the functions do not transfer perfectly and unless someone’s typed themselves in both systems I do not think it is wise to assume someone’s MBTI type and socionics type are the same functions (using traditional analogs) in the same order. I doubt they’ll be wildly different (an intuitive feeler in MBTI being a sensing logic type in socionics seems very unlikely) but an ESTJ in MBTI, for example, could be an ESTp (SLE) in socionics. 

Differences in theory of the functional stack

MBTI doesn’t have functions 5-8. There are four functions in your stack in traditional MBTI.  Socionics does go deeply into functions 5-8. I’m a little more comfortable with mixing here because this covers territory MBTI doesn’t, and because the structure of function stacking for 1-4 matches up consistently across both systems even if the function descriptions don’t.

Which is to say - here’s where I’m okay with people mixing theories but I need evidence and discussion that ties into the theory they’re mixing into, not just a straight “well this is how it is in socionics” when we’re discussion about MBTI or vice versa.

Admittedly some personal biases and similar

I find some of the visual typing in socionics, especially face shape stuff, super unsupported and medieval-ish and off-putting, which I know isn’t the core of the theory or even widely accepted (I don’t think?) but it’s still really a block for me.

In conclusion

I prefer to work in MBTI with a few elements of socionics that I feel flesh out some things in MBTI and are not inconsistent with it, especially when it comes to intertype relationships or functional structure theories for functions not in your top 4, because that’s a gap in MBTI that socionics explicitly covers (see again: PoLR; also duality and quadras). 

So: mixing isn’t inherently bad, but if you’re coming at it from one perspective (either MBTI or socionics) then it better be consistent with the other system you’re using, and it requires a clear explanation of how you are working the theories together and why beyond “socionics (or MBTI) says so”.

#mbti #also: it should actually add something to your argument - like a thoughtful discussion of duality in an MBTI compatibility ask #but that's another post #socionics

[betterbemeta]

The Obligatory Seasonal “I’m a USA citizen recap” post

I know yesterday was kind of an awkward US Independence Day for us all, but the context of this nationalist holiday and even jokes about it kind of point out to me a weird inconsistency in it.

We are living through a political administration that got in on the slogan, ‘make america great again’ by which was meant like, make america ‘american’ again, make it white-normative again, which is wild because it’s never really *not* been that. But our whole oft-ribbed-on tradition of like, hot dog cook out, fireworks displays, no markers of any culture but white culture still is that thing that lots of racist people unironically yearned for. That ‘American Dream’ style image that they feel is at risk by... brown people and economic instability they attribute to the people they’re already biased against I guess.

Not really as a protest, but just as per their principles my family decided to host a lawn party/cook-out thing where they didn’t serve any hot dogs, hamburgers-- maybe the most ‘americana’ thing they did was serve beer and wine for those who wanted it. On some level, yeah, it’s my dad being Extra(tm) but on another level, my family is mixed race and mixed cultures, and mixed religion and it’s just chafing for the 4th to be that day where everyone comes together to default on a white norm. They cracked out all the cook books and ethnic recipes friends had taught, etc. and yeah. probably not perfect or as good as if we’d gone to someone else’s house and had been served their family’s ancestral foods. But you just can’t stand to participate in the iconography sometimes, of what is expected of an ‘american’ gathering.

Celebrating the USA sucks and is difficult because while like, the ‘best’ version of this country certainly could be a land of opportunity and equality, it’s not there yet by any means. One would think that if celebrating our Independence Day means celebrating freedom from an Empire’s expectations, we might want to hush it down with the nationalist and kinda imperialist overtones ourselves. If we’re celebrating the birth of a country where people are free to worship and express culture how they wish, you’d think that there’d be tons of cultural exchange, brotherhood stuff, festivals of diverse traditional foods and art, around the 4th of July.

But there’s really not, at least not where I live. It’s just one day off from work where it’s expected that we entrench further into the ‘melting pot’ idea where diverse people merely have access to celebrate a holiday of norms. It seems like such a tone-deaf way to handle a tricky holiday, especially when the trappings of ‘american-ness’ were certainly not invented until later in our history, slavery was a major motivator in the independence of our country, and that the American Dream has not been accessible to a vast swath of our population since its inception. 

If there are forces that want Americans to “be more American” that threaten american citizens, we certainly shouldn’t do anything that they like to see. We should actively avoid doing those things, make it visible that we’re avoiding those things, and actively try new things or even things that actively piss those evil people off. That that’s the ‘freedom’ we ought to celebrate and promote in the future. Not the freedom to say and do shit things to minority demographics who ought to benefit the most from ideals of liberty.

#long post #american hegemony and holidays #if the 4th truly was a celebration of american freedom #we wouldn't be able to stereotype it as White Cookout Dad Holiday 5 or whatever #while there certainly is regional by-state diversity in how people celebrate and what they cook or whatever #it is telling that the 'white people' version is considered the most typical nationally

[worddonor]

Ventilation

Every waking moment there's a part of me that wishes I were dead. If not at the fore then somewhere at the back of my mind..I cant seem to shake the feeling of wanting my existence to disintegrate into nothing as if it never was to begin with.

I long to experience what it is to be and feel confident for more than a few minutes at a time. What must it be like to genuinely feel like you can accomplish something even despite lingering doubt. To believe the lie long enough to get something done and continue believing even beyond that - focusing on the win and not the errors or imperfections.

What is it to believe from the depths of your soul the promises of God and his supposed Love for me. What must it be like to live as if I know I am fearfully and wonderfully made, like it's in my DNA and not a fairytale I'm trying to convince myself is the truth because it seems so...silly...so unnatural.

My gut tells me this is who I am and will be forever. Am I delusional to believe I'm destined for more or am I delusional for believing that mediocrity is the pinnacle of all my past and future endeavours?

Is it just plainly a mindset? A perspective that's perhaps solidified, like Medusa's victims?

Is it just that I was never wired for self-belief and others somehow were? Or is it just that I was never motivated enough to consistently strive without dropping the ball once to achieve whatever small whiff of purpose I might've thought I had discovered lurking beneath the deep waters of my miserable soul?

I know I'm not alone in my pit.

Google has led me to comments from around the globe of people who feel the exact same way, even down to the use of the same language to describe their thoughts and feelings.

So what do I do with this information? How do I help myself out of this hole? If I find a way, how do I help others out of their holes too? Jesus has told me through the Word that he is the way, the truth and the life, but for people like me who can't even concentrate for more than 5 minutes without feeling hopeless again, what good is sporadic prayer, piecemeal reading of scripture or inconsistent visits to group meetings? It all seems impossible, though God says nothing is impossible for Him (which I do believe and also through Him), but He relies on our faith in Him for Him to release abundant blessings and power and healing etc. in our lives. Who even knows what that looks like or at what point it would happen? Even then, would change even be worthwhile considering the value a positive, never-say-die-type person adds to life and the huge difference they have already made, what shoorie-type (non-firing firecracker) difference can sods like me truly make?

If I believe and apply my mind so much, also, where does that leave room for God to do anything? If I manage the effort of fighting my demons on my own and somehow mustering up some faith, why did I need to believe in God to save me? What would be the point of that?

It's all exhausting, how do we know anything is truly real? I mean I believe God is working in my life somewhere in the background, but it seems it doesn't mean anything because the brain is so amazing it can create biases and connect any dots together to confirm whatever theory you already believe to be true. You can look at life from any angle and convince yourself that your angle is the 'right' one or the only one.

If you choose that religion over one you were brought up in because the people who became your closest friends, the only people who understood you, the people you connected on the deepest level with happened to be committed to a different way of life. Or the role model who stepped into your life and showed you what it is to be unconditionally loved and to love others unconditionally in a way you never imagined possible...when at the other end the path you were born into was 'practiced' by the people in your life who disappointed you, the people who abused you or the people who abandoned you. How could you not choose the path you eventually do when those who mistreated you subscribed to the way you've given up on?

As long as you know there is something greater than you giving you life and taking care of you, what does it matter what we call it?

How can we truly know where we stand until we're on the other side? It's all a bit confusing, again though I digress.

All I am certain of is uncertainty and that to me is disconcerting and exhausting. Others can live in it or they live deeply believing their way and for the most part (whatever way that might be) usually it's their attitude, belief and faith in the positive and their commitment that determines their 'altitude' (cheese-ball-cringe-choke-on-a-hairball of positive-thinking marshmallows, please pass me some water there kanallah to wash down the itch).

Fudge-it, maybe I am just a lazy doos. I just want to sleep till I vrek, frankly. Everything in-between is just feels, untrustworthy, blerrie feels see-sawing between insanity and calm, giddy joy and crushing sadness, complete confidence and crippling anxiety, flipping between inner peace and seething...up and down, back and forth: I'm spent.

Peace ghost internets.

To quote a certain over-enthusiatic security guard from a 90's South African sitcom, "Over-and-out!"

#ventilation frustration questions why ZA musing LBHJ