#They way I analyze characters is in two layers - the first is how these characters act as literary devices

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Hi! I hope this is okay but I would love to hear more of ur thoughts about the Yunmeng siblings because they are important to me and your tummy hurt comic hasn't left my brain as just,,, such good immediate characterization! ^^ Thanks!

I have too many thoughts on the Yunmeng siblings to fit into a succinct post, but I can offer you a Jiang Yanli addendum to the tummy hurt alignment.

#ask #poorly drawn mdzs #mdzs #jiang yanli #They way I analyze characters is in two layers - the first is how these characters act as literary devices #(i.e. their relationship to the protagonist and themes of the story) #And the second is who they are as independent characters. #Which means I have extensive thoughts on JC and JYL on a scene to scene basis as well as overall thoughts. #The tummy hurt comic was always about the different ways we process grief #and Jiang Yanli's role as the 'comforting older sister figure' despite the hurt she carries in her heart truly fascinates me. #I can relate in the sense I find it easier to care for others than care for my own grief. #But that grief caught me eventually. And it was ugly and raw. #JYL is grief in rose tinted glasses (minimized). JC is the messy chaos of grief when raw and exposed. Clever move to make them siblings!

[blondephenobarbitol]

I actually fucking hate Mr. Jägerman here's why

Mr. Jägerman is a character in the Hatchetfield universe who is never onstage and only mentioned in 1 (one) line. This was enough to ignite my rage.

It's because in this one line, so much is revealed about Max's character. So let's dissect that.

Max is mean. We know this. The very first thing established about him is how threatening he is. But I think his character often gets lost in the 'bully' identity, because just like every other Hatchetfield character, he is layered and complex.

We also find out two other things about him pretty much immediately: He has a crush on Grace (we'll come back to that) and he needs to feel in control.

There's a lot of evidence to support this. He repeatedly refers to himself as the 'god' of Hatchetfield High. He creates arbitrary rules around who his friends can date. He creates arbitrary rules around where the nerds are 'allowed' to go. And the moment someone implies he is not as powerful as he thinks he is, he retaliates violently.

This isn't just Max being a jerk. These are all signs of someone who is almost certainly deprived of control in their home life, which forces them to find it elsewhere. Max likely has little to no say in what happens to him at home. He's clinging to a sense of control wherever he can find it. And that line basically confirms that his home isn't a safe place for him.

Back to the crush on Grace, when you look objectively at the actions Max takes in the show, you'll find that he's not really a bad person, he's a mean person. He's a little shit that processes his need for control in the entirely wrong way, but people are shaped by their surroundings. The actions that come from him are different.

His crush on Grace only supports this. Every other bully in every piece of media sees the girl they like and whistle and say "yo lemme hit that." And if the girl rejects them, they resort to "tease bitch." Not Max. The first thing he does is start a conversation with her, laughs at (what he thinks is) a joke, then offers to carry her books. Like, I wish my highschool bullies were that nice to their own girlfriends.

When she rejects him, it's true that he continues to pursue her and calls her "dirty girl," but that once again comes back to his need to feel in control. But he doesn't get aggressive, he doesn't do anything that screams 'bully.'

We don't get a lot of scenes with pre-ghost Max. But when we do, they're interesting to analyze. Like, have you ever noticed that when he finds Steph in the Waylon Place, his very first instinct is to tell her, "Get behind me, I'll protect you" from, as far as he knows, actual ghosts? He feels like his life is in danger, but he's still putting Steph's safety first, despite having no interest in her romantically. That's huge.

There's even some evidence to support that Max terrorizing the nerds is, from his perspective, not so one-sided. When he finds out they were the ones who pulled the pranks, he says "I thought you guys hated me."

And he's open to change. He's not stubborn, he's not brutal. He doesn't continue hating the nerds just because it is what it is. Moments before his death, he is showing signs of opening up to them, and actually seems like he's coming around.

And none of this is meant as trying to defend Max's actions. I know he's the antagonist. I know he treats people unfairly. But all of this has to come from somewhere. I'm trying to say that there was clearly a foundation of a good person underneath all that cruelty. So what toughened his shell?

Mr. Jägerman. Max reveals in that one line that if he were to go back home from the 'party', his dad would call him a 'little cuck.' "can't even fight off one lousy skele'uhn." In this, he reveals his dad is demeaning to him. He's the kind of man who would hear that his son was in a life-or-death situation, and instead of comforting him, he would have made fun of him.

What must that do to a person? As someone who grew up in a home where Dad wasn't always a safe person to be around, I know that when I was younger, a lot of my bad bad behaviours were something I learned from him.

The prank meant to scare Max was the nicest thing anyone's ever done for him.

I think a lot of what happens in NPMD is indirectly Mr. Jägerman's fault. "Knowledge is knowing Frankenstein is the doctor, wisdom is knowing Frankenstein is the monster" type of shit. It is directly because of his actions and the way he treated his own child that any of this happened.

or maybe I'm reading too much into this. But I fucking hate Max's dad so much.

#sincerely #nerdy prudes spoilers #npmd #nerdy prudes must die #max jagerman #max jägerman #hatchetfield #hatchetverse #tgwdlm #black friday starkid #pete spankoffski #ruth fleming #richie lipschitz #grace chasity #steph lauter #character analysis

[tubborucho]

I think there’s a big misconception between red and blue viewers about the nature of feeling defeated.

I can’t speak for red, because I don’t watch them, but I see people using red’s first day as a counterargument to what’s happening with blue practically every day. As I understand, their first day was hell, because they were in a severe disadvantage as a team. They’re lore-heads and ‘dumb lucky’ (i am NOT calling them dumb, they are actually all really smart, i am just saying that they are stupidly lucky sometimes), this is not what can give you a win when you are thrown in that game. On the first day. They did get killed a lot and they were going insane. And they were having fun! Listen, I’ve read SO many posts about how funny and cool red’s first day was and hoe people absolutely enjoyed it. And it’s cool.

But it’s COMPLETELY different to blue. Blue are not in the ‘fuck it we ball’ defeat mood. Because they are never given a chance to just enjoy their wins.

1st day – they got SO much backlash for everything that it was genuinely horrible

2nd day – red found the global task strat. Which is fine. But blue had the whole day of just struggling to understand how FOUR PEOPLE TRYING AND TRYING cant overtake one Etoiles on a leaderboard.

3rd day – they’ve been leading the score all day. Did everything they could pretty much. And again, last minute strat. Which was fair, but it’s a big hit on their morale.

4th day – they win, using the same strat. they specifically did it the way they did just to show how broken it is. they get layers and layers of hate from twitter.

5th day – both red and blue give win to green. this day was neutral.

6th day – the egg preparations. blue decided to just give this day away as well. but bad and pac were hunted for hours just two of them.

7th day – the Egg Wars. we all know what happened :D

8th day – elimination. blue won. blue could’ve easily win without even trying to tie with green, but they did. they almost succeeded. it didn’t feel as a victory when they won, because everyone just blamed them. that wouldn’t happen if green won, everyone would cheer, and it’s a fact.

9th day – that’s today. bad and bagi were constantly hunted for about 3 hours. they couldn’t get into the base for like 4,5 hours (they can now because tubbo is guarding the bounty npc).

Each day when they lose – they lose without sympathy and any kindness from others. Each day they win – this victory is bitter, clawed out and they are hated.

Yes, red and blue both know this feeling of not being able to do anything. But Red have so much support on their side. Both in-game and in-fandom. They are praised for everything they do. They got so much less troubles from blue and green because they kept walking away to not ‘punch down’ from this whole underdog narrative. Meanwhile blue just keep being screwed by everything around them. I think arguably the only thing they have over red is the favor of Lil Buddies, because they are constantly hanging out with them. That’s all. All material stuff they have will be easily matched like tomorrow. They’ve never really had a PVP advantage in the first place because Green’s skills and Red’s players count.

It’s genuinely demotivating to even watch their stream. Like I think I would genuinely cry in their place. All their efforts are either useless, because they immediately get nerfed, or get hated on by literally everyone and everything. It’s such a deep-rooted feeling of loosing before you could even play, that it transfers over the screen.

Red burned in that fire on the first day. And it powered them (in a cursed but fun way). Blue keeps being drowned by everything around them like unwanted kittens, and they are fighting for their life.

So no, I do not think it’s fair to compare Red’s first day to anything that happens to Blue. It’s not the same. I do understand however that it defied them as characters, so it’s a fair point to analyze. But in meta-arguments? Yeah, no. [insert a poll ‘Who suffered more? Blue Team Jesus]

And yet they try. And yet they have nice moments. And yet they are friends. Love prevails.

#this is NOT a red neg #i just wanted to explain to some of my red mutuals and maybe other red mains who don’t watch blue #what’s going on here #i may be wrong and you are welcome to disagree #but i genuinely do not think red and blue are on the same level of feeling hopeless #liss writes posts #qsmp #team soulfire #team bolas #qsmp blue team #qsmp red team

[linkspooky]

BSD VS LITERATURE: NO LONGER HUMAN

The second entry in my long running series to analyze every single book referenced in Bungou Stray Dogs, to try piece together the author’s intended meaning in referencing the work. 

Osamu Dazai’s ability name comes from the author’s final novel “No Longer Human”, you may have heard of it. The novel contains several events from the author’s real life, but is considered semi-autobiographical because it depicts the life of a fictional character “Yozo” who much like the real life author attempted suicide a total of five times in his life before utlimately succeeding. Many believe the book to be his will as Dazai killed himself shortly after the last part of the book was published. As for the connection to the fictional character, more under the cut. 

1. Disqualified from Being Human

Dazai as a character borrows several traits from Yozo the protagonist of the novel. He has the same habit of clowning and engaging others in a false persona, while it happens mostly offscreen the audience and Dazai’s coworkers are aware of the fact he regularly indulges himself in vices like drinking, having illicit relationships with women (its often referenced he has a long line of exes and women he’s left upset over him) and that he’s also constantly in debt. 

Deeper than those surface level traits though, Dazai shares the same motivation as Yozo for his antics. They are both people who feel utterly alienated from the people around them, unable to connect with their thoughts and feelings and because of that they resort to always engaging them in a false, and comedic facade. They are fundamentally uncomfortable with ever presenting their true selves around others. 

As a child I had absolutely no notion of what others, even members of my own family, might be suffering from or what they were thinking. I was aware of my own unspeakable fears and embarrassments. Before anyone realized it, I had become an accomplished clown, a child who never spoke a single word. No Longer Human. 

Dazai is described as a child in the same way by Oda, who is arguably the character who knows him best. Even with Oda though, and the rest of the Buraiha trio as a whole though they were friends it carries the tragedy that they never were truly honest with one another, Oda never overstepped the clear boundaries between him and Dazai, Ango never let either of them into the secret that he was a government spy all along. Even that friendship which Dazai found comfortable, and was so significant to him he changed his entire life’s past around Oda’s dying words, he still placed an uncilimbable wall between the two of them. 

“I thought you were similiar to Dazai at first, rushing into battle and wishing for death without even considering the value of your own life. But he’s different. He’s sharp witted, with a mind like a steel trap. And he’s just a child - a sobbing child abandoned in the darkness of a world far emptier than the one we’re seeing.”

He was too smart for his own good. That was why he was always alone. The reason why Ango and I were unable to be by his side was that we understood the solitude that surrounded him, and we never stepped inside no matter how close we stood. 

But in that moment I kind of regretted not stepping in and invading that solitude. Bungo Stray Dogs, Volume 2. 

There’s a supposed difference in Yozo, who is a drunken layabout constantly in debt who fails out of college and Dazai the super genius who is apparently one of the smartest members of the cast, but honestly if you peel back the layers of Dazai’s “Superhuman / Godlike Genius” status his and Yozo’s behaviors and treatment of other people is actually pretty similar. 

Here is the secret of No Longer Human that a lot of readers miss in their interpretation. While Yozo can be a sympathetic character, because he’s genuinely miserable in his life, and the way he tells his story is highly relatable to the unhappiness of many readers, Yozo sucks. 

If you look at his actions outside of his self-pitying narration, Yozo is a serial manipulator of people, especially those with a status weaker than him in society (women, and even chidlren) he strings them along often taking money from them until he abandons them. Yozo is considered to be so pretty and likable, people often relate to his misery and give him what he wants without him giving anything in return.

There’s four major women he interacts with in the novel. A married women he gets to pay for his drinks a couple of times, doesn’t see for months, and then commits suicide with her. His reaction to her death is very minimal and he doesn’t even seem to mourn her. Then, he becomes a kept man for a woman with a child for awhile gets her to pay for his drinking habit, has multiple affairs on her while living at their house (or at least it’s implied).He also comes to view the child as an enemy of his. 

“I would like my real Daddy back.”  I felt dizzy with shock. An enemy. Was I Shigeko’s enemy, or was she mine?

No Longer Human.

He abandons them. (Surprise, surprise). Then moves on to marry a seventeen year old girl, specifically because she is a virgin. I probably don’t have to mention the predatory subtext there. 

Yoshiko’s pale face was smiling as she sat there inside the dimly lit shop. What a holy thing uncorrupted virginity is, I thought. I had never slept with a virgin, a girl younger than myself. I’d marry her. [...] I made up my mind on the spot: it was a then-and-there decision, and I did not hesitate to steal the flower. No Longer Human. 

That wife then gets raped and not only does Yozo feel little to no sympathy for her whatsoever, he then proceeds to just leave and abandon her because his image of her as a perfect image is ruined. He even refers to her as a possession he lost far earlier on in the novel. 

Once in a while, it is true I have experienced a vague sense of regret at losing something, but never strongly enough to affirm positively, or to contest with others my rights of possession. This was so true of me that some years later, I even watched in silence when my own wife was violated. No Longer Human.

The last woman he gets involved with only because he has a morphine addiction and he wants to string her along so she can keep supplying him with morphine. If you strip away the thin veneer of Dazai as a master manipulator and superhuman genius, you are just left with his actions which include his constant manipulation of other people (children younger and more vulnerable than him) and even his own allies. He is a user, much in the same way Yozo is. This is just named characters, it’s implied offscreen that Dazai has Yozo’s same habit of burning through relationships and women like jet fuel. 

Of course, there is a tragic reason for Yozo’s behavior it is implied he was violated by a female servant as a child, but that further adds onto the underlying point of the novel that Yozo’s genuinely miserable but he’s also the architect of his own misery. He is a victim who basically continues the cycle of abuse. His two primary methods of interacting with people is either manipulating them / stringing them along, or abandoning them. Even the Dazai who works at the agency keeps Akutagawa his biggest victim wearing the coat that Mori Gave him that represents the cycle of abuse just... wrapped around his little finger because it’s more convenient to use and dispose of him that way. 

Akutagawa’s so insanely devoted to Dazai that he believes being abandoned was just a secret little test and if he performs well than he’ll finally get the carrot that Dazai has been dangling in front of his head for a long time. Dazai’s treatment of Akutagawa as someone to just conveniently use and then dispose of is something that leads to Akutagawa getting himself killed trying to earn that praise. 

Dazai and Yozo have a similiar problem where they are pitiable in the fact they are victims themselves, they have been used in the past and it’s left them feeling alienated and unable to connect with others, but then they jump right into treating others as less than human too. Dazai has this strange paradox where he scolds Dostoevsky for believing in god and seeing himself as an agent of god or some kind of omniscient manipulator and that the real people who make a difference in the world are the people living in the world and struggling in it but Dazai... still doesn’t see himself as one of those people. Dazai’s like “You shouldn’t manipulate people like pieces on a gameboard...” but Dazai still views himself as one of the players sitting and watching things from on high rather than one of the pieces. 

Dazai and Yozo are incapable of seeing themselves as human beings and eternally feel like outsiders when they try to be around others. However, at the same time they give no respect to the humanity or the feelings of other people. They don’t treat others like humans. Which is why they are essentially the architects of their own misery, they are alone because they choose continually over and over to either only engage in other people with lives, or treat relationships as transactional. These flaws of Dazai’s have been toned down since the dark age, but even Detective Agency Dazai still has this habit of looking down on other people. He has good intentions he tries to live by, but also in crisis situations tends to fall back on old habits. 

2. Lover’s Suicide

Finally, there’s two relationships in the book that parallels Dazai’s two most significant relationships in the story. The tragedy of Oda in the dark era, actually mirrors what was Yozo’s most significant suicide attempt in the book. Yozo runs out of money and on a whim attempts to commit suicide with a married woman who had been more or less a longtime but distant acquiantance. 

We threw ourselves into the sea at Kamakura that night. She untied her sash saying she had borrowed it from a friend at the cafe, and left it folded neatly on a rock. I removed my coat and put it in the same spot. We entered the water together. 

She died. I was saved. No Longer Human. 

This event mirrors the defining tragedy of Dazai’s backstory as depicted in the second light novel, and his reason for leaving the mafia. Essentially, Dazai finally becomes close to someone his longtime acquaintance Oda, who unlike him has a reason to live in raising children and dreaming of one day becoming an author. However, by the end of the novel it’s Oda who commits suicide and Dazai who lives. 

“You’re such an idiot, Odasaku. The biggest idiot I know.”  “Yeah.” “You didn’t have to do this. You didn’t have to die.” “I know.” 

Bungo Stray Dogs, Vol. 2

If you want to sprinkle in an additional homosexual subtext what Oda basically does is commit a lover’s suicide with someone else, by choosing to die with Gide. Which means that not only does Dazai survive while Oda dies, but Oda chose to commit a lover’s suicide with someone other than him. 

Then there is Yozo’s acquiantance to longtime friend Horiki. HOriki is his only real significant friend in the novel, but Yozo absolutely despises him. Nothing healthy ever comes from their relationship, he gets Yozo addicted on cigarettes and alcohol, he drags him to secret communist meetings, however Yozo who frequently just abandons people never really gets rid of him. 

Horiki and myself. Despising each other as we did, we were constantly together, thereby degrading ourselves. If that is what the world calls friendship, the relationships between Horiki and myself were undoutably those of friendship. No Longer Human. 

The reason being that Yozo despite loathing Horiki senses that the two of them are alike in nature. There’s also something to be said about Yozo getting along more naturally with someone he hates, rather than the people in his life who constantly attempt to love him. 

Horiki and myself. Though outwardly he appeared to be a human being like the rest, I sometimes felt he was exactly like myself. No Longer Human. 

His relationship with Horiki reflects both the partnership of the double black duo, two individuals who loathe each other but had near perfect cooperation in their teamwork but also the foiling between Chuuya and Dazai. They are both people who do not view themselves as human, Chuuya because of the mystery of his origins as the host of Arahabaki and Dazai because his intelligence leaves him feelings isolated from the world. 

He looked up in the direction of the sudden voice. It was a familiar voice, one that belonged to the person he hated most in this world. 

Your birth itself was a mistake. We’re the same. Is there a really a point to suffering through all that pain for a life that isn’t real?” 

The voice was taunting him. 

[...]

“Screw you Dazi.”

Chuuya wanted nothing more than to slice off the ear the voice was whispering right into. He could see Dazai’s wavering shadow by his side, and he wanted to gauge out his eyes. 

“That’s just proof that you at least somewhat believe what I’m saying. Because deep down inside you’re the same as me.”

Like, they hate each other, but they hate each other for the real person they are deep down on the inside. Which results in him and Chuuya having an entirely antagonistic relationship and yet at the same time Chuuya is the one person that Dazai can’t really bullshit or lie to, because sharing so much in common gives Chuuya some insight into Dazai’s darker tendencies. 

Which results in a relationship where neither of them like each other, and yet both of them are just a little bit obsessed with each other. Despising each other and constantly together. 

So in summary, No Longer Human is a work about a character’s difficulty to form relationships with others because not only do they not see themselves as human they also treat the others around them as lesser than humans. Yozo is a character clearly stuck in that cycle of abuse, whereas Dazai Osamu himself is someone struggling in the story to break that cycle and curb his own manipulative tendencies inside of himself, ironically because of the close relatonship he had formed with the one person he was ever even a little bit honest with Odasaku. 

#dazai osamu #bsd meta #bungou stray dogs #no longer human #bungou stray dogs meta #bsd dazai #chuuya nakahara #Oda Sakunosuke #japanese literature #dazai meta

[thydungeongal]

Thinking some more about the gameplay similarities between PbtA and old-school D&D: there are obviously differences in the approach to gameplay and story generation, but the shape of the rules is oddly similar. There are lots of empty spots in the rules written within both mediums. Those are obviously flaws, right? A robust RPG written for modern sensibilities should have at least some resolution mechanic for when the game system itself isn't particularly motivated?

While that is one way to look at it and has been in vogue since at least Rolemaster (it was obviously not the first but one of the first games that supported using any stat for generic maneuvers with skill bonuses as an optional layer on top), there is value in looking at the very first experiments within the medium and thinking about whether a generic resolution system would've been beneficial or meaningful in them. I've often talked about how D&D 5e has the spot in its rules for an Animal Handling system implied by the existence of the Animal Handling skill, when in fact no actual system exists for it. The game gives off the vibes of being opinionated about animal handling, but it actually isn't.

A lot of people do want to add fortune into situations where the game system doesn't actually have a lot to say. Whereas old-school D&D and PbtA both reject that by saying "No, if there aren't specific rules for it, it can be handled through free play." The difference in approach is more that the OSR style of free play assumes an expert referee to adjudicate the situation based on what makes sense, while the PbtA style explicitly hands off a lot of narrative power to players. But both are still a conversation of "My character does this" "this happens" "okay then my character does this."

This also touches on my friend @vixensdungeon's hierarchy of "doing things" and "doing stuff" games. The distinction, as I understand it, is that "doing things" games are more hands-on about driving the action towards a certain type of action: the rules are specifically opinionated about a certain type of action in order to act as a trail of breadcrumbs for players to follow in order to get them to do things. PbtA games are very much in that category. Old-school D&D is more of a "doing stuff" type of game. While the game system is only specifically opinionated about a certain type of action, there still exists a whole fictional world outside of that action where players can, if they wish, to do stuff. That I feel is very congruent when it comes to analyzing the difference between the two styles.

But the similarity is still marked: when it comes to things that lie outside of the purview of the rules both games give out an emphatic "Who cares." Which is in stark contrast to the Rolemaster-pilled WotCel design where every situation, even if it doesn't result in gameplay that the game system models meaningfully, can have fortune inserted into it.

Anyway all of this is to say can we please get back into the dungeon already as much as I like it when hot elves smooch each other we've been doing nothing but rolling meaningless Charisma checks for two hours, the gameplay is there, in the dungeon!!!

#long post

[ineffable-sideburns]

In this post, I'm going to tie numerous observations on screen together to make a single season 3 prediction

it relies on this premise, which i'm about to build a case for:

the way the characters interact with the story is informed by the mythical/historical figures they are directly and indirectly coded as, but it’s not always in the way you’d expect, and some characters are coded in more than one way. we can still use these relationships as Clues to postulate where the story might go and how the characters will interact with one another.

this is by no means exhaustive, obviously. i’ve seen people say that Crowley is coded as Jesus, Aziraphale as Mary, and numerous other figures. i’m just pointing out some things i’ve noticed that I haven’t seen brought up as often.

we’ll start with Crowley, then go on to Sandalphon and Saraqael, then Gabriel, then Aziraphale. yes, it'll all lead up to something and i chose these characters in this order for a reason.

Crowley

so we obviously know he’s coded as Ashtoreth when he dresses up as Nanny Ashtoreth in season 1. yes, we will note that in the book, it’s very vaguely implied that Crowley and Aziraphale both hired Ashtoreth and Francis

in season 2, when trying to get the deets on bae, Beelzebub offers Crowley a “hefty” promotion and then later tells him “you could be a duke of hell".

in researching Beelzebub, at some point I found out about Milton's Unholy Trinity in Paradise Lost, which includes Lucifer, Beelzebub, and Astaroth as the first heirarchy in Hell, and which has (seemingly) lent that idea to demonology in general.

Astaroth is often referred to as the "Great Duke of Hell."

so now with season 2, Crowley has been coded in the show as both the feminine and masculine demons derived from the eastern goddess Astarte.

note: coded != Crowley is literally Astaroth/Ashtoreth. it means we can infer things about the story through the coding

the obvious would be him becoming a duke of Hell somehow in season 3. i personally am not convinced the story will take that route, and it would be sad to see him end up back in hell. this coding is the least compelling for me. it could just be a Milton reference, or maybe, since at this point in season 2, we don’t know why Beelzebub wants Gabriel, this could be a Clue that Beelzebub was sincere. maybe it just shows how powerful Crowley could have been if he’d accepted the deal. or maybe it just adds weight to parallel the decision Aziraphale makes later when offered his own position of power. people have analyzed Crowley and Ashtoreth/Astarte before, and the book/show discrepancy is always brought up, so i'm ignoring that and just addressing the added layer of Astaroth coding. anyway, let's move on to the more interesting observations.

Sandalphon and Saraqael

i’m doing these two together because i’ve found what i believe to be a major connection between them based on Neil’s answer to this ask, a shared trait their mythical figures have, and Saraqael’s actions in the show.

when Sandalphon is introduced in season 1, we learn that he was smiting and turning people into salt during Sodom and Gomorrah. then we see the direct connection Saraqael has with Sandalphon at the end of season 2, when Michael asks her to turn Maggie and Nina into salt pillars and her hand flys up.

but that’s not secret, is it?

you know what is, though?

the fact that she immediately recognizes Metatron in his human form, looks scared shitless for multiple shots, and then proceeds to act like it never happened when he starts addressing all the angels. she doesn’t let anyone know that she recognized him.

do check out this post by @most-normal-eccles-cake-ignorer with more shots and analysis of her reaction to Metatron.

still don’t believe me and think that reaction is nothing?

well, let me tell you something both the mythical figures Sandalphon and Saraqael have in common.

they both saw Metatron in his human form.

according to one source, Sandalphon was Metatron’s twin brother, and Sandalphon, like Metatron, was originally human.

in the book of 2 Enoch, Sariel/Saraqael was one of the angels who brought Enoch (human!Metatron) to Heaven.

if Sandalphon had been in that room at that moment, he’d also be secretly recognizing Metatron.

obligatory: remember what I said at the beginning of this post? we are using this coding to analyze the story and how the characters interact with it and eachother. you don’t believe that Sandalphon or Metatron were literally human at one point in GO? that’s fine. i’m just giving a reason why the author may have chosen Saraqael and Sandalphon to serve the same purpose in this scene

it isn’t crazy to think that a lot of the historical lore was used to inform the characters, and if you think it is, at least read about Gabriel first.

Gabriel

Gabriel is being coded…as the actual archangel (fucking) Gabriel. (and as Lord Jim from the novel of the same name by Joseph Conrad - the book Aziraphale glances at before choosing to call Gabriel Jim. but you can google the plot of Lord Jim and how it relates to Gabriel on your own time. it’s too much to get into right now.)

Gabriel is an archangel with the power to announce God’s will to mankind. He is associated with messages, vision, telecommunications, and revelation…

…and in the Bible he announces the birth of John the Baptist, and later, Jesus.

30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS

Luke 1:30-31

"hey Sithis dude you will not believe this… God now grants that you may conceive seven more children…yippe!!”

let’s get back to that thing about him delivering messages and revelation though.

Gabriel starts off season 2 carrying a box to the book shop (that we think was empty but later find out had a fly in it as well as a message scrawled on the bottom about where his memory is)

he also tells Aziraphale that something terrible was going to happen to him so he had to give him something. you can take that as being the fly, and consciously it probably was, but throughout season 2 Gabriel is unconsciously and unintentionally giving other people messages.

ex.

technically, a message “delivered” (dropped) by Gabriel, found by Muriel

after Crowley not-so-nicely commands Gabriel to remember, Jimbriel says, in a voice that shifts to sound like God’s voice, “I remember when the morning stars sang together and all the angels of God shouted for joy." Crowley recognizes this as what God said to Job, and then another flashback of Job begins.

later, during another vision caused by Crowley mentioning the word tempest: "There will come a tempest then darkness and great storms and the dead will leave their graves and walk the earth once more, and there will be great lamentations... every day it's getting closer."

in the Hebrew Bible, Gabriel appears to the prophet Daniel, and explains his prophetic visions. in Good Omens though, Jim IS the prophet having prophetic visions through Gabriel.

when in the book shop with Aziraphale, Jimbriel starts to hum every day, which is what causes Aziraphale to search down the pub with the jukebox playing that song on repeat. we know from what Terry and Neil have said about every day that it’s the song of the apocalypse, but none of the characters know that, Gabriel included.

what does a song do?

each message the archangel of (fucking) messages delivers is unconscious. not how you’d expect him to live up to his name, right? of course, if they are actually God’s messages, it makes sense that they’re useless, vauge, and well, ineffable. one last thing: spiritually, Gabriel’s messages and prophecies are often believed to be delivered through dreams (or in other words, the unconscious)

edit: this post by @noneorother actually inspired me to look at the mythology of archangel Gabriel, so it’s crucial you check it out. i’ve also seen a post somewhere that posits Gabriel shouldn’t even have some of the memories that go by really quickly before the flashbacks of him and Beelzebub, but i lost the link to it.

edit II: just wanted to add this post by @drconstellation, which analyzes the symbols coded into Jimbriel's clothing.

Aziraphale

it’s hard to ignore the fact that Aziraphale’s name is similar to Raphael, and that we’re missing an archangel Raphael. i’ll link some analysis on the meaning of Aziraphale’s name and share a quote from Terry, but this has all been said before. i want to look at who Raphael is mythologically to see if there’s similarities in Aziraphale’s character, and i also want to see if we can find out the relationship between Gabriel and Aziraphale, and why the latter was a suitable replacement.

Terry said about the name's origin:

"It was made up but... er... from real ingredients. [The name] Aziraphale could be shoved in a list of 'real' angels and would fit right in..."

For instance, Islam recognizes the Archangels Jibril, Mikhail, Azrael (see also the annotation for p. 9 of Reaper Man ), and Israfel (the subject of Edgar Allan Poe's well-known poem of the same name), whereas from Christianity we get such names as Raphael, Gabriel, Michael, and Uriel.

the excerpt above was taken from here

NOW that that’s out of the way, who is archangel Raphael, the mythical figure?

Raphael’s name means “god heals.” it’s believed he helps people heal and overcome their struggles spiritually, physically, and mentally, and that he protects people on their journeys. he’s also considered to be the angel of joy, love, marriage, matchmaking, and travels.

as an example, in the Book of Tobit, God sends Raphael on a journey with a man named Tobias so that he can meet and woo his future wife. Raphael is also sent to heal her and Tobias’s blind, ageing father.

all the people and things i can count just off the top of my head that Aziraphale has healed or protected:

Anathema (healed)

Anathema’s bike (healed)

the dove he accidentally killed (technically healed by Crowley in the book)

Jimbriel (literally tells Jim he promised he would protect him)

Maggie and Nina when the demons enter the bookshop (tells them he will protect them)

bonus: in a scene cut from season 1, he stops a baby’s stroller from crashing

…and one he couldn’t:

collection of gifs of Aziraphale being full of joy:

you just have to look at Aziraphale smiling, especially at Crowley...

...to know that he represents joy and lo--

oh, but wait, he’s known for hooking people up, right? in case you forgot: Maggie and Nina va voom? originally his idea

similarly to the book of Tobit story I mentioned earlier, who did Aziraphale protect on his journey to meeting his beloved?

remember: the characters don't know they're being coded as anything and they don't know what kind of story they're in, so while Aziraphale didn't know he was going to be reuniting two lovers when he protected Jim, he played the role Neil made for him. it doesn't matter that he didn't know in the same way that it doesn't matter that Crowley could have (potentially) been powerful, or in the same way that it doesn't matter that Gabriel's messages were delivered unconsciously.

one more thing. Raphael heals people spiritually, physically, and mentally, right?

so is it any surprise that Aziraphale thinks he can heal the *ahem* spiritual corruption in Heaven?

we're going to tinfoil hat theory-land now ya'll, but I swear all of these observations are leading up to something cohesive...

Why did Aziraphale replace Gabriel?

i'll spare you all the long theories about Metatron's reasons, although i quite like the idea that Metatron was listening in ever since Aziraphale opened the portal to discorporate the demons attacking the bookshop, and he saw Aziraphale use his halo to declare war in order to protect Maggie and Nina. this shows Metatron that when pushed into a corner, or when it means protecting someone, he can force Aziraphale's hand...even to war.

But can we find a link between Gabriel and Raphael mythically to explain it instead?

if you've made it this far, you know i've got an answer for you. i withheld one detail about Gabriel earlier. in Christianity, he is often associated with blowing the trumpet at the end times to announce Judgment Day.

"okay, so?"

well, do you remember the quote from Terry and the excerpt from lspace I mentioned earlier? when mentioning the origins of Aziraphale's name, the excerpt mentions both angels in Islam and Christianity. the counterpart to Raphael in Islam, is Israfil/Israfel...

who blows the trumpet to signal the Day of Judgment.

"but Aziraphale wouldn't do that!"

he wouldn't intentionally do it. he's not a villain.

you remember who didn't intend to start the apocalypse in season 1, but who was there and given a role to play, regardless of whether he wanted to?

…the one who said no to heaven and hell and refused to be their pawn this time around when offered powerful positions by both?

Aziraphale, after nuking some demons with his halo, with painful foreshadowing: "I think I may have just started a war."

obligatory reiteration: the way the character-coding manifests is not literal, and it isn't always in the way you'd expect. there may be no literal trumpet. but i'm just pointing out the potential symmetry with season 1 in it being Aziraphale who "starts" apocalypse II.

one last thing: Raphael protects people on journeys, and helps them overcome their struggles — but now Aziraphale is on his own journey, and he will have to overcome his own moral struggles (ironically what Crowley helped him with)…alone.

#good omens theory #good omens season 3 #good omens speculation #good omens 3 #good omens analysis #good omens meta #good omens sequel #good omens spoilers #good omens #good omens clues #gabriel #aziraphale #anthony j crowley #crowley #sandalphon #saraqael #raphael

[prismatic-bell]

Anti-Racism In Glass Onion: It's A Whole Thing, Part One

So I wasn't going to write this, because I'm white and it felt like veering very far out of my lane. But I also haven't seen anyone else talking about it, and finally I decided I'd rather make an ass of myself by doing something well-meaning than I would to uphold a status quo that zips right by one of the most important things in this film (that doesn't get explored enough in media or fandom), so here we are. Please keep in mind this is going to be FULL of spoilers so if you're not about that life, you'll want to give this a pass for now. (I also expected it to be much shorter than it is. It’s, uh, nine pages long. So it will be multiple posts long. Sorry.)

I don't think I've yet seen anyone really touch in-depth on the fact that this is a movie with a pretty strong theme calling out antiblack racism and the overturning thereof. Indeed, I’ve only seen one post mentioning it at all.

So let’s analyze, yes?

First, let's look at "the disrupters." They include:

--an alt-right streamer who's openly mentioned as being just about every -ism in the book

--his blonde-haired, blue-eyed girlfriend who's with him for status

--a white politician who objects to Klear not on the basis that it could cost lives, but that it will lose her the progressive vote

--an absolute idiot of a white supermodel who's had two serious antiblack race-based scandals, and is about to have another that's just generally racist

--a Black scientist who repeatedly tries to speak up and gets shot down

--a Black woman, the actual brains of this entire outfit, who created the original business plan and a multibillion-dollar company and got first fired, then financially ousted, then murdered

Now let's look at some other Black characters and Black imagery in the story. These include:

--a mural of Kanye West depicted as a messiah

--Serena Williams, as Miles' personal trainer

--the phrase "sucking on his titties," spoken by a Black woman

--a cameo by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, as one of Benoit Blanc's friends

—a Beatles song (yes, really)

--the lower-middle-class sister of the Black woman who was the actual brains, etc.

Before we move on, I want to address the Kanye thing, because Glass Onion was filmed in 2021, probably written in 2020, and the point where Kanye went absolutely batshit deep-end off-the-fucking-rails was in 2022. I do not believe Rian Johnson was making any kind of "go Kanye" statement here--I think it was an unfortunate confluence of timing. As I discuss Kanye further, I want it to be clear we're discussing already-gross-but-not-yet-gone-full-Nazi Kanye.

So let's go ahead and get him out of the way first, because he's an incredibly important figure in Black music but as a Jew I just. Really do not want to be discussing Kanye West longer than I have to, I'm sorry. West is the kind of figure Miles Bron would absolutely want to have in his life as a status symbol. First, if we look at Bron's definition of being "a disrupter" (first you break a small thing, then very quickly you break the system itself), Kanye absolutely qualifies. He started out as a small artist mostly producing beats for other musicians, then did some work for Jay-Z that led to an album Rolling Stone considered one of the best hip-hop albums of all time, and then he dropped The College Dropout. I knew his work was considered influential before I started looking into this imagery deeper, but I had no idea how influential--this was his debut album and it hit #2 on the charts, produced a single that debuted at #1, included a song called "Jesus Walks" that hit the top 20 even though it was predicted a Christian song would never land in hip-hop, and the album is still considered one of "the greats" by other artists--twenty years later. I'd say that pretty neatly fits Miles' definition of "disruption." He did, indeed, first break something small and then turn the hip-hop world on its head.

Where there's a second layer to this that I think would also speak to Miles is that in 2018, Kanye declared the chattel slavery of West African people in the Americas was "a choice"--as in, they chose to be enslaved. He later claimed he was referring to "mental enslavement," but no matter how you cut it, regardless of his own race, that's a pretty fucking racist antiblack statement (in addition to being wildly historically revisionist). While I doubt Miles would be like “hell yeah, racism!,” he’d absolutely buy 100% into the idea of choosing to be in hellish circumstances, because He Got Out All On His Own (even though he didn’t), So You Can Too.

Moving on, we have Serena Williams. She's another person who'd fit Miles' description of "a disrupter," but where Kanye would probably revel in that idea, I honestly don't think she'd like it very much, and her attitude in the movie really underlines that. Yes, she's taking his money to be his "personal trainer," but really, he's frittering her life away. She's sitting there reading a book waiting for him to decide he wants to get off his ass and work out today. She's not a slave, but she has been explicitly put in a role as a paid servant. I don't think it's out of the question to say Miles specifically picked her over, say, Jillian Michaels, because she is Black. Do I think he sat down and went "who's a Black athlete I can subjugate?" No. I think if you asked Miles he'd be the kind of person who'd unironically say "I'm not racist! The head scientist at Alpha is Black!" What I think happened--or to be more accurate, what I think the kind of train of thought Rian Johnson would attribute to him would have caused to happen--is that he picked someone he'd be comfortable ignoring. Did he consciously decide he'd be more comfortable ignoring a Black woman and telling her to put up or shut up if she complained he was wasting her time? No. But do I think we should attribute unconscious biases and prejudices to him that aided him in the decision that he'd be comfortable ignoring her? Yes.

Incidentally, while we’re here, let’s discuss how the two of them stack up to Miles’ other “status symbol” name-drops. First, let’s discard Banksy. He’s a special case here and we’ll discuss him later. But now let’s look at the others. We’ve got Jeremy Renner, whose personal I-make-this-for-my-inner-circle food Miles proudly eats and hands out; Jared Leto, whose personal I-make-this-for-my-inner-circle drink Miles proudly offers to friends (although if memory serves me, he himself is drinking beer); Gillian Flynn, who he’s hired to write a mystery game for his own inner circle; Philip Glass, who he hired to write the music for the Glass Onion’s clock, which is there to impress guests; and Anderson Cooper, whose party he supposedly attended. Notice something about all the celebrities whose products he actively engages with? Yeah. They’re all white. Serena is relegated to a private room and not interacted with, while Kanye doesn’t even get a mention—and as I noted above, this movie would have gone through post far too late for Rian Johnson to have been able to say “let’s…remove praising the dude who’s declared himself a Nazi, please,” which means if Kanye was ever mentioned at all, it was cut long before real!Kanye’s final downward spiral. The Black “status symbols” have literally been relegated to being Miles’ props and “the help.”

Now let's talk about Helen's turn of phrase when she's reading "the disrupters" for absolute filth. She tells all of them what they want is Miles' (and, by extension, Andi's) money, and that they're "sucking on his titties." Putting the line in the mouth of a Black woman puts me instantly in mind of the "mammy" stereotype, where the Black woman is expected to nurture and nourish and care for all of the (implied or outright stated to be white) children and have no personality outside this. Technically it's Miles' money, but it's Miles' money specifically because of the shit he pulled with Andi--he sucked her dry and now is being fed upon in turn. The thing is, the way Black women are further treated throughout the narrative doesn't make this a faux-cutesy little image like those godawful racist vintage ads; it's horrifying. It is horrifying and it should be horrifying; it’s disgusting and the narrative wants you to be disgusted at this.

To continue, we have that cameo by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. It's really only noteworthy because he's the one who's giving Blanc shit for failing at Among Us and refusing to get out of the bathtub. This is important for reasons I'll come back to (put a pin in this), but for now suffice it to say it's important because Blanc is white and Southern and we'll get back to that.

Next up, it’s “Blackbird,” the song Miles was playing on guitar when the ship lands. Other posts have noted that for all Blackbird sounds very pretty and impressive, it’s actually very simple to play, and that this reflects Miles’ relationship with the world in general—pretending he’s bigger, better, smarter, more, than he actually is. This is probably true. I’ve also seen it mentioned that it, like Glass Onion, is a Beatles song from the White Album, and this is also true. What you may not know if you’re not a Beatles nerd is that “Blackbird” isn’t about a bird at all. Paul McCartney has stated several times over the years that the song had a dual inspiration—the sound of blackbirds, but also news reports about the American Black civil rights movement, and that when he says “blackbird” you should be thinking “black girl.” Birdie is excited and immediately declares it’s “her song,” which in her mind probably has to do with her name, but I strongly suspect that for Rian Johnson, this was another way to tie in how absolutely wildly Birdie is willing to appropriate Black experiences and culture. This is particularly true because of the exact part of Black history the song references—Birdie tells us she’s done blackface to dress as Beyoncé (a modern Black feminist who strongly pushes for empowerment) and has compared herself to Harriet Tubman (an escaped slave who proceeded, during Reconstruction, to become part of the women’s suffrage movement). Blackbird links these two together, with our nameless 1960s Black civil rights protestor falling squarely between the two named women. Also worth noting here is that “Blackbird” was released in 1968; while the Black Power movement was getting underway and “Black” or “African-American” would become the accepted terms over the next decade, “Negro” and “colored” were still the polite ways to refer to a Black person in the US. McCartney has since gone on the record apologizing for some pretty serious racism during his time with the Beatles, and I’m choosing for simplicity’s sake here to assume he was sincere, but this makes the song itself another example of appropropriation—“Black” wasn’t really a word McCartney, as a white man, had the right to use when the song came out. That makes “Blackbird” an even more apt double-metaphor—Birdie the appropriator of Black culture calling it “her” song, and Miles “I steal everything not nailed down and say I did it” Bron using it to look like he’s more than he is.

The second half of this (admittedly extremely messy) essay is here.

#glass onion #racism #media analysis

[heraldofcrow]

Oh I forgot but what about 11 for Sephiroth? 👀

Hhhhdfdgfghgdhj

*bars the door* *locks the window* *closes the curtains after nervously glancing around to make sure Katy isn’t nearby*

Buckle in, girl. This is….complicated. And long.

11. How did you “fall in love” with this character?

It all started in June. June of last year. It was a BAD time for me personally. Not even joking. I narrowly escaped death that month dghsj.

And then this happened when I was talking with Katy…WORST FUCKING TIMING. I can’t discover a new character when I’m in the depths of despair. I will just collapse into them and let the feels consume me.

I jokingly credit this convo as being the reason why I adopted this character, but in truth, I very much could have just chosen to ignore Sephiroth again for the millionth time like I had over the years. I could have just simped for those first two weeks and then moved on with my life, happy that I resisted the charms of yet another cool white-haired katana villain.

However, this time it was different because of my mental state, and also, I stumbled across Crisis Core. My interest went well beyond just “Oh this design is so cool and what a badass villain.”

You know me. I’m drawn to FEELS. I am drawn to tragedy, to drama. I was passionately writing all that Bloodborne angst at the time too, so my head was already in the right place.

Seph in Crisis Core was just…perfect.

I mean, let’s face it—he’s not THAT deep in Remake. He’s enigmatic and a troll for Cloud, sure. He’s playing 4D chess and has some fun lines, and the final boss battle with him definitely sent me spiraling into “Oh I love him,” but he didn’t tug at my heartstrings. I watched Advent Children too and felt the same way. I was enamored with all of his exterior details like everyone else.

He was crazy and deadly and fun to watch. His theme was incredible. Masamune was shiny. He had great hair. His voice was intimidating. He was powerful and stabby. His wing was beautiful. He could cut buildings in half and shit…

But the depth! I was looking for his deeper motivations, his real personality, etc., and it was so damn subtle that I was ready to give up. If a character doesn’t have layers, I either have to resign myself to only loving them a certain amount, or else I’ll write them into a more complex character myself. But I was sure Seph had to be deeper than that?? There was no way this Japanese video game villain that had been around since the 90s was only two-dimensional at best.

So, then I delved into OG and got some answers. I was definitely pulled in then, but also more confused. I felt like I was left to analyze Sephiroth like he was a Dark Souls NPC. I was given a lot of contextual clues about who he was, but no direct answers. The Nibelheim flashback was so brief that I didn’t even know how to define his pre-insanity personality.

I actually started to get desperate and went to YouTube lmao, but all the video essays felt so…surface level. I almost suspected the lore-nerds were as clueless as me. They were just guessing stuff.

And don’t get me wrong, I was already in love by this point, but I felt like I was teetering on the edge of fully embracing the character and hadn’t quite reached nirvana. I remember this was the point when I was trying to explain in our group chat how I tended to “psychoanalyze” characters that I was drawn to in order to crack open their minds and unravel the threads. I was doing this with Seph, but I kept hitting brick walls.

Then I played Crisis Core and…something clicked. That game has some really rough writing and pacing issues. The dialogue is also a struggle to take in sometimes, but I could forgive it. It had so much heart and emotion and humor. It had a good soul. It quickly became my favorite <3

And Sephiroth? In Crisis Core?

Dude, suddenly I understood him. No, he WASN’T always an edgelord villain. No, he wasn’t the classic brooding antihero. He wasn’t messy and sadistic and “foreboding” as if it was inevitable he would become the villain. He didn’t fit any of the tropes I was expecting.

Bro was lowkey wholesome af.

He was just…a person. Better yet, a not-normal person trying to be normal. He was really happy to just have friends and didn’t want them to get hurt. He goofed around with them like they were a bunch of fucking kids, sneaking into an off-limits training room just to sword fight lol.

He literally stops randomly in the game and starts telling this to Zack all cheerfully like “Me and my buddies used to do this thing…it was TOTALLY secret but it was fun :D” and shares the whole story about him with Gen and Angeal. The way he talked reminded me of a young person who had begun to experience the thrills of life for the first time.

It was the little details like this that got me. There are so many more that I could go on for days about. I was thinking…”Yo this guy is actually a dork (affectionate).”

That’s why I always joke that he is “the homeschooled goth,” because of how he dresses edgy but speaks innocently.

He wasn’t an arrogant snob about his strength either. He was more the depressed loner that took his work seriously, but also was conflicted. He somehow did his both his job and quietly committed treason to make sure his friends survived.

Then they fucking died and backstabbed him, which is something that I think we can relate to the misery of as humans. Losing people to death or relational conflict is hard enough for anyone, but watching it happen to a character who was…ultimately isolated from normal life and society, who was so “other” and separate that he didn’t even fit into the part of having a real family thanks to being an experiment created by a corrupt company was…difficult, to say the least. It was like watching someone be given some hope and then seeing it get ruthlessly crushed.

This was hard for me as a player too, because I had loved Genesis and Angeal right away. The whole trio seemed like a group of loveable dorks with really…funny quirks? They felt so distinct and characterized? But they all broke down horribly because of their origins and the complexes that came with them.

Then the Nibelheim sequence happened. All of the drama went down. Everything fell into place, and I had essentially, a) fallen in love with a character who was genuinely good despite horrible circumstances, and b) watched that character lose his mind and become painfully cruel. It really hurt.

I felt Zack’s pain as he lost a friend he trusted, I felt Cloud and Tifa’s pain as they lost their homes and families, and I still felt Sephiroth’s pain as he just boiled over with rage and took it out on the world. It felt like everyone was suffering so much, and that’s when Crisis Core became much darker and honestly, beautiful? A perfect tragedy.

That’s when Seph became my set-in-stone favorite. I remember being much younger and adoring Darth Vader/Anakin because of the grand tragedy of his downfall and the impact he left as the villain. Watching Seph, I kinda felt like that little kid again—in love with the villain’s story. Always in love with the angel both before and after the fall, because why not enjoy all of the emotions? Nothing hits me harder than “losing” a character to their darker egos, but I can also have fun watching them go wild and commit arson, yeah? Heh.

Seph also has the added complexity of how his mother plays into the story beyond just dying or being forgotten. “She” is very present and also not present. It’s such a strong complex that it even shapes his villainhood, which is perfect for my love of mother-son tragedy.

Anyway since Crisis Core, my infatuation has only gotten worse, ahaha…and now I see that I really only needed OG to understand this character, but I’m not ashamed to admit that CC gave me the boost I wanted.

The new games are still doing this too.

Ever Crisis: The First Soldier, which is a lil story about Seph’s first mission as a kid, made things SO much more agonizing fgdhjsk. The writers really just want you to cry, I swear. It’s hard enough when young Seph in the official artwork looks like THIS:

LIKE SQUARE ENIX WHAT THE FUCK. I FEEL BAD JUST LOOKING AT HIM. STOP.

I did also do way more research and uncover all the little tidbits I could gather to add to the full picture, and now Rebirth gave me yet another boost.

(I need to mention the first bit of fan-fiction I read about Seph too, which was basically a novel about his life written by the brilliant @altocat called “A Monster’s Threads.” It essentially fleshed out almost all of the lore we know about Seph and made it into a genius story. Alto’s writing is….literally some of the best I’ve seen and that fic ruined my life lol. I seriously don’t think I’ve ever cried that hard reading something. I have been Alto’s loyal devotee and buddy ever since lol. Good writing does that to me <3).

It was all of this that led me from being annoyed that I was interested in another silver katana lad to….

….whatever this was in our group chat when I was defending him from Katy on 9/11 apparently….

That’s love, baby!

(I may need therapy).

In conclusion, I can’t wait to continue letting this character affect my life way too much. Thanks for listening to my rant 💀

—

Favorite Character Asks

#fghsjkdg girl this was a LOADED question to ask lmaooo #but thank you #i appreciate it! #i hold back a lot on talking deeply about this bastard #ask game #sephiroth #ff7 #asks #mutuals

[microraptorreactor]

Spire analyzes actual ultrakill canon.

So this is a rant post, but I feel like getting my thoughts about the actual canon story of Ultrakill out.

So lets start with V1's character ark, or lack of one. V1 isn't really a character, V1 is a literal camera with a gun. We have a total of two (maybe three, if you count the Earthmover book) lines of dialogue from V1, mostly just serving to point the player in the right direction. But what's fascinating about V1 is that it is a narrative tool, despite being a non-character.

V1 represents violence. It is the embodiment of the war that made it, and it serves as the stand-in for the never-ending cycle of bloodshed that is caused by war. It is made to destroy, and it knows no other purpose. That is the roll V1 plays in the story of Ultrakill. I think, as a metaphor for war, V1's 'character ark' has probably ended in 7-4. It finally found its purpose, and the circle has closed.

But this game isn't about V1. Its about Gabriel. Or Gabriel is the closest to a main character that this game has. People have talked about his first defeat a million times and done it better then I could, but the main point there is his loss to V1 shook his worldview, but didn't actually change him in any significant way. In 6-2 he's defeated, but he likes it. He sees this little blue ball of malice and violence and (let's be honest here) it turns him on. He doesn't know what to do with the fact that he's attracted to something he thought (and was repeatedly told) was horrid. That shakes him. So what does he do?

Gabriel joins it. He murders the council and returns to hell. He finally realizes that through all the hurt he caused (to Sisiphus, Minos, ect) he's no better then the machine. So he marches right back down, to lay side-by-side with the enemy in the casket he built himself. He knows he will die. We know he will die.

And V1? Also going to die! Because what happens when hell is empty? The robots have wiped out the top layers, we can't go back. And unless machines suddenly take up sustainable hunting practices the rest of hell is going to be soon to follow. Think about the enemies we see in the later levels, there's been fewer and fewer husks as the game goes on. Most enemies are demons or machines. Sure it's because of game design, but machines wiping out the weaker sinners is a great explanation for it. Either V1 is going to starve down there or something else is going to kill it. To be honest, I think V1 is going to curl up and die in a corner like a wounded animal. I don't think its going to get a big showy death, this world is far to cruel for that.

There's also the tragedy of V2, but that's a whole other rant + I have an entire fucking fanfiction series about that. Basically I think poor guy was never going to get far. It's just another victim of V1's random violence, murdered without a second thought and looted for parts. V2 dying horribly and never being brought up again was kind of the point of its character, to establish how little this world cares. To V1, V2 wasn't anything special. It was just another source of blood.

#ultrakill #rambles

[jalebi-weds-bluetooth]

Hello dear. Hope you are well. I am not sure how best to articulate my thoughts but here we go. It's very very long but you inspired me today. You've been a beacon of change in questioning and challenging ITV. I wanted to quip in. Hope you don't mind. Arnav anger is often excused as coming from trauma and his 'grey/anti-hero' character is often glamorized. He is without a doubt compelling and attractive. Plus, he has his strengths such as honesty and forthrightness.

Ok, so this is a LONG question with a lot of your own analysis and I wouldn't touch that at all cause analyzing is a beautiful thing and I wouldn't want to add/remove from your lovely analysis. I'll just be adding some of my thoughts here and there :D

(rest of the ask below)

His greyness amplifies a lot of the hypermasculine stereotypical traits such as aggression, strength, power etc. In the narrative like in Kabir Singh this makes us discount the wrongs when perhaps his treatment of Khushi in many ways in similar. Rather we swoon over his charm when in reality most 'charming' men have similar shades and unfortunately, never change. The sense of entitlement and the joy of wielding power over others is observed in abusive men.

Tbh though, Arnav doesn't have any charm. Shyam has all the charm in the world and that's interesting considering he's a villain.

Often we excuse this behavior by comparing them to worse portrayals when again abuse usually escalates with time. For example, at least Arnav didn't violate Khushi's consent. How different were Shyam and Arnav? Weren't they both ultimately two sides of the same coin? Isn't this afterall a way to build tolerance towards worse behavior? Shyam is the 'bad' guy because he plans things deliberately, but aren't Arnav's actions also not something he is accountable for?

Fun fact, Arnav and Shyam were written to mirror each other in multiple situations. It was very intentional of the creators to draw a thin line between the anti-hero and villain and to be honest, at one point we all simply believed Arnav is the hero of the story only because he is Khushi's choice.

I wish Arnav's actions were far more accountable for - hence the guesthouse and resignation scenes are some of my favorites.

We don't talk much about Arnav and Anjali here. They are incredibly close, but the co-dependency is discernible. He is obligated to her for being the 'mother' but she is his first and Khushi the second. It does perhaps from trauma but Anjali has a lot of control over Arnav and he is guilt-ridden if she is hurt. We blame Khushi for her mistakes but do we ever consider that it is her desparation to receive unconditional love which is missing.

Arnav and Anjali have developed codependency over their trauma -which is what Shyam exploits.

Coming to Khushi, she is often criticized for her world revolving around Arnav, being infantilized, that she should 'stand up' etc. However, it's not a new fact that abusive relationships can be incredibly difficult to leave and can have a huge physical and emptional impact on a person's self-esteem. Is this not victim blaming? We also dismiss the impact Arnav's family has on Khushi. Anjali,Akash,Dadi -all had a role to play as their support was conditional or inadequate.

Hmm interesting. To share my opinion and take on this - my gripe with Khushi rarely comes from considering her and Arnav as real people and assessing their relationship as such. My gripe is with the writing in the show coming to Khushi. Khushi recessing to childlike behavior is a signal of trauma that @honeybellexox had once brilliantly discussed.

But the show is not portraying the delicate pained layers of emotions you described. The rest of the family is left out to hype TRP forced romance or family politics (not plot) and Khushi's weight of being in an abusive relationship is seriously traded for terrible writing which things suicide is funny, pissing off an abusive husband is hilarious.

We do not SEE Khushi's behavior as a response to a terrible marriage. We are made to see this is how Khushi is 'one upping' against Arnav by irritating him the way she poured juice in his shoes. And wow how intelligent.

There's no depth, no gravity, nothing in Khushi. She becomes hollow - not because of the pain you aptly put above - but due to a very Star Plus enforced 'bahu' trope.

Victim blaming would be wondering why Khushi didn't shove Shyam off the terrace scene and froze when Shyam hugged her - no, any reaction she had at that point is absolutely justified!

But wondering why Khushi acts around Arnav post revelation that she is having an affair of Shyam instead of providing facts or actual reasonings is a flaw in the show. Why? Because the intention of the show at that point was to ensure that Arnav's misunderstanding does not break and he is 'justified' in the audience's eye to mistreat Khushi. Now that is a problem.

The complication of Payal being married into the same family, lack of societal, financial and family support almost meant that Khushi had no choice but to humor situations and find happiness in meaningless trivalities. He child-like behavior and adherence to patriarchal traditions/rituals was her only resort to be accepted. That is so ingrained in her mind, that any attempt to tilt the balance might cause her more problems. Perhaps Khushi's character arc was realistic.

I absolutely wish the show showed the nuance you are writing. Her dancing to Nani for Holi was beautiful - it conveys everything you're saying. Her force-feeding Arnav mid meeting, forbidding anyone to give him food, then eating up food that can feed upto five people and still tasting the food before she gives him to eat is... ridiculous and demeaning as a character.

I do disagree with you on Khushi's arc because her arc, after a moment, is stunted to serve Arnav as a character. An excellent character that displays everything you wrote is Gauri from Ishqbaaz. They lend her the grace and gravity that one can only dream of in Khushi.

(I'll show it to you!!! You'll absolutely love it - it's a solid recommend from @aye-masakalii)

It wasn't the lack of strength or that she had certain traits. Her reality and worth had been controlled, toyed with and manipulated that she no longer could see things clearly which made her sink deeper into the marriage. Should the IPK writers be criticized for mirroring the reality many women still live in or is it an eye-opener which makes us very uncomfortable in acknowleding the sad reality that many women meet the same fate?

Our innate optimism makes us favor the idealized world that Arnav and Khushi were a fairytale. Perhaps they do end up being together but is that the only yardstick to measure marriage? More questions than answers, but isn't is critical to shift the repsonisbility towards Arnav rather than victim-blame Khushi? Love, RDX

I loved your analysis, and if the writing hadn't been so flat and actually conveyed everything you wrote - I would've never wanted Arnav and Khushi together.

Lol, maybe that's why my edits and fanfics exist.

Arnav needed to be held more accountable and Khushi needed to be written further as an independent character - these are perhaps some of my main grievances against the show only because they proved they could do it.

Best,

Soapy

#ipkknd #ask #dropsofserenity

[shakesqueers13]

Do you think there is any possible heterosexual explanation for Aufidius’s lines in Act IV, scene V of Coriolanus?

Coriolanus, IV.v.112-139:

O Martius, Martius,

Each word thou hast spoke hath weeded from my heart

A root of ancient envy. If Jupiter

Should from yond cloud speak divine things

And say ’tis true, I’d not believe them more

Than thee, all-noble Martius. Let me twine

Mine arms about that body, whereagainst

My grainèd ash an hundred times hath broke

And scarred the moon with splinters.

⌜They embrace.⌝

Here I clip

The anvil of my sword and do contest

As hotly and as nobly with thy love

As ever in ambitious strength I did

Contend against thy valor. Know thou first,

I loved the maid I married; never man

Sighed truer breath. But that I see thee here,

Thou noble thing, more dances my rapt heart

Than when I first my wedded mistress saw

Bestride my threshold. Why, thou Mars, I tell thee

We have a power on foot, and I had purpose

Once more to hew thy target from thy brawn

Or lose mine arm for ’t. Thou hast beat me out

Twelve several times, and I have nightly since

Dreamt of encounters ’twixt thyself and me;

We have been down together in my sleep,

Unbuckling helms, fisting each other’s throat,

And waked half dead with nothing.

Hi!

Short answer: No, I do not think there is.

Long answer:

There are a ton of great scholarly papers and articles about the queer subtext (I mean, it's not really subtext, it's so overt, but I'll use the term anyway) in Coriolanus. I'll link some below so you can check them out if you're interested! But when Shakespeare writes about real people (Coriolanus isn't technically a history because Shakespearean histories must focus on the English crown, but you know what I mean) he tends to focus on emotions rather than historical events. Since at the time of him doing these productions, most people would've known the history he was recounting, his aim is not simply to tell the story, but to tell it in a way that is both emotionally impactful and narratively compelling.

We see this in Julius Caesar as well; Shakespeare takes a well known historical story and makes it into something really human and beautiful.

Along with humanizing the characters, Shakespeare's use of homoerotic subtext in this play also drives the plot forward. If the characters don't want to be with each other, the story doesn't really work. And in this case, as is the case with many gay Shakespeare pairs, it may be attributable to misogyny. Shakespeare would not have been able to, and may not have even considered the fact that he could, write a female character that moves the plot forward in the way Aufidius does. This is often the case. In Caesar, Brutus confides in Cassius because he cannot talk to Portia; in Hamlet, Horatio serves the role of a partner and confidant because Ophelia cannot. Of course, Shakespeare has some fantastic female characters, but that's not the point here. The point is that if Shakespeare wanted to write an equal partnership free from the constraints of society's expectations for women, he had to write two men. But just as he couldn't write female characters to be right-hand-men, so to speak, he couldn't write male characters to be other male character's lovers, so it's a very fine line. Which is why we get so, so much subtext.

Also, this is set in Rome so there's a bit of distance between Shakespeare and the subject matter; it isn't as familiar as a story set in the midst of England.

When analyzing classic literature for gay subtext, or any other kind of subtext, especially anti-establishment/anti-government or anti-religion messages, one of my biggest recommendations would be to start by noticing how the author has distanced themselves from the work. Oftentimes authors will tell stories that express their personal beliefs through many layers of distance so they can't be implicated. If they were flagged by censors for including forbidden messages, they would be able to craft a defense by claiming that the story didn't represent their personal beliefs. In this case, Shakespeare might've claimed that it was just Roman culture he was depicting, and that it didn't represent his personal beliefs.

The essay I'll link below has a really great breakdown of this speech and you should definitely check it out if you're interested in reading more and breaking this scene down line by line. I would do it myself, but I feel like this essay does a wonderful job and I don't want to just rehash everything it says and take credit. So take a look!

Thanks for the ask :) !! Feel free to comment if you want to discuss further!

#shakespeare #william shakespeare #dark academia #ask #academia

[paperlovesadness]

Ah... I feel a bit strange doing this. Might just stay in the drafts forever. We'll see. But my hands itch to do it every single time I listen to the song so... So here's a lyric analysis of "Star Treatment" and how... it might?... be? A song... About... Miles Kane?? Maybe??? 🫣 (no executions please. I'm really not trying to push this narrative. These things just kind of jumped out at me & I felt an urge to write it down somewhere. And perhaps see if anyone agrees? Comments encouraged! If anyone ever stumbles upon this silly thing) This will get long... Cause that's who I am. And also it references other songs.

Disclaimer 1: I did see someone attempt this on reddit. It was a bit out there though... And maybe ironic? I do share a thought or two with them though.

Disclaimer 2, an Important one: this does rely on an implication that there was something more between the two sometime around/ between 2015-2017ish? I don't want to put any labels and try to stay away from any too specific guesses. But well, I suppose I do kind of personally believe there was something there. If you're not a fan of theories about private lives of real people... I'm sorry. This one's not for you. I really do try to do it as respectfully as possible though. At the end of the day - it's just a theory. And not a mean one. I understand it's all just something that fits together in my head and may be very far from any truth. Disclaimer 3: I know this album is a concept album centered around characters. But I'm analyzing the second, potential autobiogrophical hidden layer beneath the obvious first meaning

Okay, let us have a whack at it now:

I just wanted to be one of The Strokes Now look at the mess you made me make Hitchhiking with a monogrammed suitcase Miles away from any half-useful imaginary highway

This one is very on the nose. But quite literally sneaking in his name in the lyrics -- maybe? we know Alex loves playing with many meanings/hidden messages & double entendres. + the being away from any half-useful imaginary highway makes me think of when he spoke about the fact that he couldn't write any more love-related matarial after EYCTE. And someone encouraged him to just go a different route. That's how TBHC was born. But also implies some trouble in the love-related ascpects of his life around the time. Could've just been trouble around Taylor - who he broke up with soon after the album's release. There's theories about how that happened [current girlfriend invloved] - but maybe there was even more confusion & heartbreak in the mix (ending a tour with someone with whom the lovey-dovey jokes may have gone a bit too far/serious?)

I'm a big name in deep space, ask your mates But golden boy's in bad shape

this is just implying any sort of broken-heartedness.

I found out the hard way that Here ain't no place for dolls like you and me Everybody's on a barge Floating down the endless stream of great TV 1984, 2019

dolls = puppets. And how the industry / society isn't a good place for relationships like this. (People wouldn't understand the type of bond they share?)

Maybe I was a little too wild in the '70s Rocket-ship grease down the cracks of my knuckles Karate bandana, warp speed chic Hair down to there, impressive moustache

Miles and Alex have spoken many times about how their first album was heavily 60s inspired - Scott Walker, The Beatles, 60s Morricone.

What may be less obvious and spoken about is how EYCTE was sort of meant to take their work into the 70s. He spoke about it in an interview when asked about the album cover. It's a 1969 photo of Tina Turner - which Alex commented on by saying: "The idea was to move the artwork on from the ’60s feel of the first Last Shadow Puppets album artwork, so here is Tina on the very cusp of the 1970s" (They also chose to sing covers like Moonage Daydream and Is This What You Wanted during that tour. Both 70s songs from artists that defined the era). So this could be him reflecting on the EYCTE era and how things may have gotten a bit too far during the time. Going in to deep, crossing some boundries and definitions?

Love came in a bottle with a twist-off cap Let's all have a swig and do a hot lap

alcohol? pills? alcohol & or drugs clouding some judgement/helping loosen up and causing the crossing of certain [friendship] boundries?

So who you gonna call? The Martini Police Baby, that isn't how they look tonight, oh no It took the light forever to get to your eyes

It's not a particularly meaningful line in terms of this narrative - but I wanted to talk about it because I find it so beautiful but also so fuck*ng sad. Like - one of he saddest lines I've read. It just hit me in the heart straight away when I heard it. I feel like my personal interpretation is dead wrong. But still choose to see it that way. I also know of the story of how it's inspired by Alex's dad telling him about how we see the light of the stars the way it was in the past bc of how long it takes to reach us. The way I hear this line though is: seeing the bottomless sadness in the eyes of someone who had their heart broken. Someone whose eyes used to be full of happiness - and now it takes forever for any touch of happiness to show up in their gaze. Now a possible interpratation for a second meaning to this whole section could be: calling the martini police = grabbing a drink to help with hearbreak, when there's no other solutions left. Miles has sang in his breakup album Coup de Grace about how he drowned the sadness after hearbreak in alcohol and pills. Mixing stuff together like a mad scientist etc. (Also if you ever saw the interview he did with [the one and only] Martin on his CDG album... Oof... Yeah. There was no light in that man's eyes. Even Martin saw that pain and commented on it. It's a tough one to watch)

I just wanted to be one of those ghosts You thought that you could forget And then I haunt you via the rear view mirror On a long drive from the back seat

This is one of these sections that hits me the most. Cause to me it can be seens as: Alex being aware of how much pain he caused - all he could wish is that he was just another lover whom the hearbroken person [Miles?] could forget. But alas - he still haunts him. Here it gets interesting (or batshit crazy. Cause I might be). Beacause the use of "ghost" just absolutely sends me to Miles' song "Shavambacu" - where he describes the eyes/thoughts of an ex lover still being focused on him after the breakup (this song though could have a whole seperate post of it's own) While "haunting via a rear view mirror" made me jump up and recall lyrics from Miles' song "Dont let it get you down". I saw your reflection, in The backseat of a Chevrolet from Hollywood to East LA NOW - don't shout at me. I know timelines are important. Because Shavambacu and Star Treatment came out around a similar time period. But Shavambacu came out a little bit later. While DLIGYD came out completely after all of hits - this year. So first off - I'm considering the fact that Miles and Alex are clearly still friends and in contact. So could have shown each other songs earlier. But more plausible theory: if these songs are perhaps maybe inspired by one another - they clearly are gonna recall events and/or inside lingo and jokes they both used. Possible situation: post Miles-Alex hearbreak Miles stumbled upon Alex going somewhere in a car. They spotted each other. this also makes me recall the whole:

Swear I saw you smile You try to hide it well 3:15 on the wrong side Columbia Street line from "Killing the Joke". Which many think references the area that Alex lives in. They lived a few minutes away from each other around 2016-2017. So would obviously run into one another often. Even if they were going through something and taking a break/trying not to.

But it's alright, 'cause you love me And you recognise that it ain't how it should be Your eyes are heavy and the weather's getting ugly

This one is also way to sad if you place it in a relationshippy context. There's a few ways I see it: 1) it's alright - no matter what happens, because A. knows M. loves him and will understand why things ended like they did. It shouldn't be this way - but it has to be, because there's things standing in the way. He believes he'll understand despite the grief. 2) dramatic, sad version - the "it ain't how it should be" actually references the "love me part". So M. should understand that things ended because they shouldn't love each other this way. It's just now how it should be and A. believes M. recognises that.

So pull over, I know the place Don't you know an apparition is a cheap date? What exactly is it you've been drinking these days?

once again referencing bumping into each other randomly? And going with it - going some place; talking. Maybe about how Miles' is doing, the heartbreak, how he deals with it - the alcohol (once again - just referencing what he himself sang about in lyrics on his breakup album)

Jukebox in the corner, "Long Hot Summer" They've got a film up on the wall and it's dark enough to dance

"Long Hot Summer" - by The Style Council is actually a song Alex cited to be one of the main references/inspirations used when working on the EYCTE album. So is definitely a nostalgic/meaninful song between the two. They go to a place after bumping into one another - there's a jukebox with a nostalgic song. They can dance together - because it's an incognito, dark place.

What do you mean you've never seen Blade Runner?

Now the Blade Runner line is so clearly Taylor Bagley (the woman is a huge, huge fan of it, apparently) it did have me stumped for a while. But then - maybe it's a clarifying line? Like - if this were about Taylor he would definitely not say that to her. It's obvious she's seen it a million times. Maybe this is here to sort of clarify this?

Oh, maybe I was a little too wild in the '70s Back down to earth with a lounge singer shimmer Elevator down to my make-believe residency From the honeymoon suite Two shows a day, four nights a week Easy money

70s again - EYCTE era But after the tour ended it was time to go back to earth, back to being non-TLSP Alex. Running away from reality into writing music - writing about a make-believe residency (Tranquility Base) Time to leave the honeymoon era = the tour and shows TLSP had together. (also AM may be easy money? Their reputation [very well deserved] makes it so that it's easy - bc anything they come out with will be bought)

So who you gonna call? The Martini Police So who you gonna call? The Martini Police Oh, baby, that isn't how they look tonight It took the light absolutely forever to get to your eyes

...

And as we gaze skyward, ain't it dark early?It's the star treatment Yeah, and as we gaze skyward, ain't it dark early? It's the star treatment It's the star treatment The star treatment

a sad ending. It got dark. A bit too early. It's sad that it all ended. But that's how it has to be - in show buisness, in the industry. They're well known people and it could hurt their careers - also it would just get out easily, so there's no room for self-discovery and just trying it out. That's the star treatment. (This is also a theme I am seeing in Mr. Schwartz lyrics. But that's for another time) Am I crazy? Probably! Is this just accidental elaborate fan fiction? Maybe! But still...I don't know. Song theories are fun. I get that morally it's a gray / or maybe even red area - talking out loud, publicly about theories invloving specific names and relationships. But like... Sue me! Let's call it a guilty pleasure. If anyone ever reads through this wall of text... Hi! Thanks and sorry. And please share some thoughts! (Eh. May just delete this soon anyway) Peace and love

#artic monkeys song theory #arctic monkeys lyric analysis #star treatment lyric analysis #arctic monkeys #tranquility base hotel and casino #alex turner miles kane #everything that you've come to expect #the last shadow puppets #miles kane and alex turner #alex turner and miles kane #song analysis #i may be batshit crazy i'm sorry #but it's harmless #milex #? #i suppose #my posts

[your-favourite-plague]

Could you potentially explain why you ship Kalluto and Feitan? Is it more of a crack ship or like legitimate? You don’t have to answer if you don’t feel comfortable

Hi, thanks for the ask!

Around 4 years ago, when I was watching HxH for the first time (the 2011 version) and Kalluto said the line about "toying with his prey" I thought "lmao is he a sadist like Feitan?" and my brain decided to never shut up about it since then, so it very much can be considered a crack ship, especially that they had mere one inconsequential interaction in canon.

But I like to overthink stuff, so here comes the essay:

Ok before the essay, I think I have to clarify that "shipping" doesn't mean I want them to be canon, or I perceive their relationship as a peak of romance.

Sometimes I just like to daydream about fake scenarios, sometimes it's a great mean to analyze characters too. Authors don't usually give full psychological profiles and as the characters are not real people, we have no idea how they would react to everything, but it's fun to think about. Putting two characters together can create some interesting dynamics that can also serve to further explore their individual personalities.

🕸

1. The most superficial layer — they're both my favorite HxH characters, and thinking about my two favorites at the same time is double the fun. Plus, they just look cool. The high school edgelord inside me is a sucker for dark aesthetics.

🕸

2. The differences between them

I like when there is a ground for conflicts in ships. Even in my ships that are most agreed on in fandom, there are some clashes (e.g. AkiAngel is the most popular ship in CSM and I like their fluff content, but I also very much enjoy how they began with hating each other's guts). I just find it interesting.

Their origins (Zoldycks' wealth vs everything about Meteor City) and their upbringings (the calculated torture-training program to become an assassin vs the chaos and uncertainty of living in the junkyard, when the rest of the world barely sees you as a human) had to heavily influence them, shape their worldviews and values.

Although both work as a part of a group, but the groups themselves have completely different attitudes toward their members.

Serving the group, as the Zoldycks teach it, means sacrificing one's individuality for the sake of it, a duty before personal needs (which probably shouldn't exist in the first place). We can see how devoted Kalluto is to his family, basically anything he does is in the context of it and its well-being.

The Phantom Troupe, on the other hand, is very individualistic. Of course, there are rules and hierarchy, but beyond that the members are free to do whatever they want. We know that not every meeting is obligatory, between missions they can spend the time separately if they want, they can use their skills in a way they themselves find fitting (e.g. Kortopi isn't forced to fight).

One offers stability but requires extreme conformity, the other gives freedom in exchange for volatility of living day by day.

How these approaches may be challenged by each other?

Can they find golden mean, or will one overpower the other?

And the other subject I like to think about:

The self-control

Considering Illumi's words to Killua, Kalluto probably strives to be emotionless and passionless as a good assassin should be, which is showing in having a blank expression 90% of time and the most "dialogue" lines being only the thoughts. The only times Kalluto showed more emotions was a) an angry glare he gave Gon and friends; in my opinion, with limited information he had, the rightful hatred toward people who want to take Killua away and are a cause of recent family problems. b) smiling after killing the ant (immediately followed by self-scolding for the "bad habit", even though he clearly found it enjoyable). c) everything that happened during the Feitan vs Zazan fight, which, again, is mostly shown by his thoughts, so I assume his reaction are a little bit exaggerated. Additionally, he was already distressed by the Troupe's power and his own misjudgement.

Meanwhile Feitan. Oh boy. He seems cold and calculated at first, because of his more stand-offish nature, but I don't believe he's good at self-control. A few times canon points it out:

Another extremes. Another clash.

What if Kalluto would loosen his restraints?

What if Feitan would be forced to hold himself back?

What if both would happen at the same time?

🕸

3. The similarities

So. Many. Traumas. Feitan as a child, had to learn a concept of death very early. Other children disappearing, people from the outside having no regard for the lives of Meteor City habitants – it left a scar on all the founding members. Kalluto was born in the family of the assassins. We know only trainings Killua had to endure, and he's a special heir case, but judging from Kalluto's abilities at his age, he didn't have a fun time either. Both Feitan and Kalluto have to have a screwed view of human life, which isn't really shared by the majority of the population, even in the quite desensitized world HxH is placed in.

Despite what I wrote before about the Spiders, Feitan is shown to be very loyal to both the Troupe and Chrollo. He demands apologies when, in his opinion, Nobunaga insults Chrollo. He doesn't hesitate a second to obey Chrollo's order and sacrifice him for the Troupe's sake. So despite his "Family? What's that?" comment, he seems to be capable of understanding the devotion to the group, and by extent, the Zoldycks' dynamics.

And the first thing I mentioned in this post — the sadistic tendencies. Although, I think they can have different sources (it's already long, (I'm sorry!) I won't write another essay about unhealthy ways to regain a feeling of control over one's life now), it's a peculiar connection. I don't think I have to elaborate on Feitan, as he's rightfully assigned as "the sadistic one" by the fandom. But Kalluto's case is weird. The only scene when he smiles is when he just slowly torn someone apart. Something that in some sense goes against his family. And then it's never mentioned again. I think it has a great potential in revealing his very very very hidden character, and Feitan can be used as a tool to prompt it.

🕸

4. More morbidly, because shifting away from purely emotionally-psychological stuff — would Feitan care about age?

The whole world isn't really concerned about children that much, letting them take the extremely dangerous Hunter exam or compete in the Heaven's Arena. The Phantom Troupe was founded when they were teens. It feels like the old times philosophy of a child being just a weaker adult, and no Spider struck me as a human rights activist to defy that view, especially Feitan.

Adding that he was seen with bdsm loli art book... uhhh. In other situations, I'd take it as Togashi's Easter egg, but the fact that he does it right after torturing someone is quite... concerning. And with the amount of vile acts the Phantom Troupe has committed, I don't hold them to any moral standards and honestly expect the worst of them.

🕸

5. It's kinda me bashing of Zoldycks in disguise... Or rather exploring the consequences of their abuse. In canon we saw Killua's healing story (still not fully finished, I'd say), but as the heir he was a special case. I want to delve into the sadder side of life. It's not unheard of that the neglected child is looking for their place in the world? Comfort? Sense of belonging? Love? In places they definitely shouldn't.

But I could ramble about it for the next few thousands words, so I'll just stop.

🕸

I don't believe someone would read that far, but if you're still here... uh, thanks? Please, don't think of me as a total weirdo for writing all this, I'm just killing insomnia time. Have a good day!

#asks #feikallu #feikaru #meta

[a-student-out-of-time]

Mod, I'm always so impressed with how vast your knowledge is when it comes to Fangans. I feel like so many have been discussed here and you've had clear thought out opinions of almost all of them, sans maybe one or two you hadn't seen when first asked. Idk I think it's just commendable that you're so engrossed and vocally support all these cool fan projects the fandom makes.

//Thank you so much!

//Having gone through enough fangans to have a Killing Game of them all, I like to be thorough in my opinions and perspectives on them, because each one is unique. Each one has different interpretations of the DR style and story, and different end goals for how to approach them.

//As a writer and artist myself, I have a good sense of how much work goes into making these stories work, and it's why I tend to lean more on the analytical and storytelling perspective. Fangans are, at their core, story-driven narratives and I think a lot of people might end up overlooking the gritty details in favor of the more animated and heavily centered character moments.

//This is why I don't agree with any views that you could say any DR character is flat or uninteresting, because all of them have layers. It's their presentation that often proves divisive for a lot of people, and a lot of people focus very strictly on the parts of these characters that don't work for them. I try to approach it in a way that shows why the characters act the way they do and how it works for the story.

//Sometimes my opinions will sour and sometimes they'll improve as I learn more, but my core of wanting to be critical and wanting to analyze these details and how they work within their narratives is that there's a lot of rich character and storytelling potential with them. There's so much we can talk about beyond memes and beyond sticking points.

//And above all, I want fangan writers and writers in general to understand that being critical of something they love and enjoy is often more important and more rewarding to improving your writing than just bashing things you hate. You sift through things you like and see how it works for you as well as how you think they can be improved.

//I look forward to every new update that comes from the fangans I've been following, because it always gives us something new to explore ^^

#mod talks #a student out of time

[yonce6496]

Ryan Defense Squad

This is just gonna be a rant about how dirty the writers did Ryan and I feel like his audience reception really suffered for it. I feel obligated to mention that I already went into the quarry biased towards liking Ryan because I had seen the leaks of him being in a queer relationship and I already liked Justice Smith as an actor. 

With that said one of the biggest issues I’ve noticed is how poorly his relationship with the Hackett’s especially Chris was fleshed out. This wouldn’t be a particularly huge issue if they didn’t make Ryan defend Chris CONSTANTLY when its super obvious to the viewer that Chris and the Hackett’s are in the wrong. The writers consistently give him this uphill battle without, in my opinion adequately establishing how much of a father figure Chris was to Ryan. 

Two big aspects of Ryan’s personality are his love of the supernatural and his loyalty. But a key part of his growth as a character throughout the story (if you go for the good ending) gets overlooked and that’s him realizing that his loyalty in this situation is not only undeserved but putting himself and the other councilors in danger.

We know Ryan is super into the supernatural world and that its not just a casual hobby for him, Ryan feels like Kaitlyn is mocking him when she makes the “Hog of Hackett’s Quarry” joke, he tells his stories to the kids regularly enough that Chris gets word about it from multiple parents and never tries to correct or downplay his interest in it whenever Dylan chooses an “Interested” interaction in regards to Ryan’s emotional investment in the supernatural.

With that said it speaks to how deeply Ryan is connected to Chris that when shit starts going bump in the night, he’d rather blame everything on bears or ridiculous coincidences than place blame on Chris. Throughout most of the night these two parts of himself are in conflict with each other, but I feel like this layer of his character is lost on most people unless they go through a second time and hang onto every word analyzing it.

This had the effect of a lot of people either not trusting Ryan on a first playthrough and thinking he was in on the whole thing, or being super frustrated and confused with his actions. I know I was definitely in the latter group my first playthrough but I’ve seen multiple playthroughs where because Ryan’s character is so poorly expressed that once he starts up with his defense of Chris people naturally question his motives and I can’t blame them.

Frankly this would have been an easy fix, throw in a line for him to say about how “I’ve known Chris for x years and I’ve never seen him act like that” after Chris freaks about the van being busted. Or have Ryan say to Dylan “Thanks for being cool about the whole Hag of Hackett’s quarry thing back there, I appreciate it” after Dylan defends Ryan’s ghost stories in front of the rest of the group. Ryan’s story doesn’t need a major overhaul to fix this just a few insightful lines of dialogue to convey who he is as a person and his values. 

This leads me to my other huge gripe about the writer’s portrayal of Ryan is how they utterly failed to convey his inner thoughts and feelings to the audience. But what makes this even more frustrating is they succeeded in doing this with the other introverted character Abi. Its important to have introverted characters in a story with a large interactive cast, but the challenge that comes with that is how do I showcase what this introverted character is thinking/feeling while still keeping their quiet, reserved nature. 

With Abi they did this by wisely choosing who she spent most of her screen time paired with. When Abi is with Emma, Emma is an extrovert and encourages Abi to come out of her shell and open up, giving us the viewer a chance to get to know her. When Abi is with Nick, he’s actually more introverted than even she is so that leaves it up to Abi to lead most of their interactions. They found a clever way to have an introverted character that never suddenly stops being introverted for convenience’s sake and managed to create situations for us to see what she’s thinking/feeling. 

Ryan did not get that treatment, most of his dialogue is with Dylan and Laura, similarly to Abi and Emma they paired and introvert and an extrovert but where Emma pushes Abi to be bold, Dylan is the type of Extrovert who just speaks to fill the silence while not always getting very much of a response from Ryan. 

When Ryan is paired with Laura, they spend most of their time bickering/strategizing with the exception of the little nuggets of personal info Laura manages to pry out of him by directly asking Ryan questions. 

Which leads me to the next choice the writers made that spawned a legion of sleepless fanfic writers into action “Maybe neither….” Why? Just why? It is literally so baffling that they’d choose to have Ryan end his opinion on whether he likes Dylan or Kaitlyn with “Maybe neither”. It’s another glaring reminder that more than any other character in this game I feel like I have absolutely no idea what I’m intended to think is going on in Ryan’s head. Does he really like Dylan, is he worried about Laura’s judgment, is he uncomfortable, unsure about the idea of liking Dylan, was he not trying to flirt at all, is the game genuinely trying to convince me Ryan and Laura have chemistry? 

It’s a whirlwind of wtf and Ryan’s inner thoughts are so vague and poorly portrayed to me I feel like it’s hard to say with any certainty what he means by it. But once again in this regard where they failed Ryan’s character, they succeeded with another, and that’s Dylan. 

Now I actually don’t mind that Ryan went off with Laura and split from Dylan, I think it made sense since they had the most personal investment in the Hackett’s and it was really fun how they both were going to the Hackett house for the same reason of ending the werewolf curse but with opposing intentions and experiences with the Hackett’s. 

Because Ryan and Dylan split halfway through, they tried to give their relationship some type of closure with the almost mirror scene of Ryan and Dylan talking to Laura and Kaitlyn respectively. But where they let you directly choose how Dylan feels about the way they left things between them Ryan will always end his answer to Laura’s question with “Maybe neither” even if you choose every option pushing the two together. 

One last nitpick I have to tack onto this little spiel is that I feel for the amount of screen time Ryan has he never really got like his big moment, and spent too much time playing second fiddle to someone. When Ryan was with Dylan it felt like Dylan was so extra that he’d dominate the scene even when Ryan was technically steering the conversation (Not that that’s any hate on Dylan, I love him and he has the best lines in the game). 

When Ryan is paired up with Kaitlyn, they both possessed good leadership qualities but because Kaitlyn is so outspoken it felt as though she was in charge and Ryan was second in command. 

And then finally with Laura she was clearly meant to be more badass and physically capable than Ryan since she’s all geared up, part werewolf and running around cutting down the Hackett’s left and right while Ryan spends the whole chapter running from Bobby with a knife in his lung. 

The only moment that felt uniquely his was shooting Chris and it was so short in comparison. And then if he goes with Laura and Travis to hunt Silas, he’s kind of a third wheel. Maybe Eliza should have factored more substantially in the fight with Silas just so Ryan could have a cool interaction with the ghost he’s done so much research on. 

I don’t know, anyway TLDR Ryan deserved so much more and I blame a good portion of the hate he gets on the writers who just fell asleep at the wheel when it came to writing him.

#ryan ezrahler #The Quarry #the quarry ryan #the quarry #radioheads

[anncanta]

***

I remember well the first time I watched season 3 of Sherlock. Like many fans, I had a lot of ideas about what would happen next. I remember analyzing the season and thinking about what is the main thing in it. The best or the worst. I didn't like season 3 and didn't watch it for several years. And then I watched it again and fell in love.

There are a lot of beautiful things there. Bright. Warm. The real things, which, due to high expectations and some obsession with a certain form of storytelling, none of us fans saw then. This season has many references and layers – philosophical, alchemical, and religious. But perhaps the most beautiful thing in it is this woman.

Mary Morstan. I remember how, after the first viewing of the season, I was angry with the writers and thought, how could they make a killer so similar to a housewife? The plot twist with Mary the Killer didn't bother me. And now I understand.

To a large extent, this story is about her. About this woman who lived a terrible life and did terrible things. Made choices that even special agents don't like to make. She fought there and with those means that many representatives of the very criminal world that Sherlock is fighting against would openly disdain. She knew all this about herself. She never deceived herself for a single moment. She never considered herself not only right but even normal.

She hated herself. But at some point in time, she decided to try to live differently. Seize the chance that came to her. Live another life, no matter how long this other life lasts. Because she knew for sure that Mary Morstan's life could not last long.

When I rewatched season 3, I realized that I saw everything correctly. I just didn't look there. Mary does look strange, inharmonious, and ‘wrong’. But not because she is the ‘wrong’ killer, but because she is the ‘wrong’ housewife.

In episode 2, you can see how unusual, inorganic, and uncomfortable she is in an ordinary, normal life. She doesn't seem to fit into the role. You have to understand that being a super agent, Mary played dozens, hundreds of roles.

But you see, that's the point. She played them. And now she needs to live like this. She needs to become Mary Watson, to be in this ordinary world, in an ordinary house, with this seemingly completely ordinary person. And Mary shakes, she shudders. It can be seen, it is ‘felt’ in her words, mannerisms, and gestures, in the way she rushes between John and Sherlock, trying to save each of them either from boredom or from fear of being abandoned. In fact, she is trying to save herself.

At the end of episode 2, however, we will understand – or Mary will – that she is unlikely to be able to save herself. I think that's when she made that video that Sherlock and John watch the entire season 4. It wasn't Magnussen and his blackmail that made her do it. Her own reflection in the mirror was. As another Moffat character says, ‘mirrors have their own magic, special and dangerous’. Mirrors tell the truth, that's the trouble. The story with Magnussen became just a trigger that ‘pushed’ those processes that had been going on for a long time without him. Mary looked at herself and realized – or decided – that she could not live like this. They won't let her. She is cursed and there is no turning back.

The most amazing thing is that Moffat who as we know at that time was working on two large projects at the same time and literally running from one set to another intuitively chose the right actress for the role of Mary. Amanda Abbington never looks like a killer, her type is more like a housewife, while she is smart and charming. And she has this: when suddenly, for no reason at all, on this charming woman's face in her cheerful eyes such anguish and pain open up that you want to scream.

Somehow, the entire season 3 – also thanks to her – becomes the story of this woman. The story of how she desperately fights for another day. Meet John, meet Sherlock, have a baby. And then go on the run.

The conclusion of Mary's story in season 4 is natural and logical for her in her own eyes. Although Sherlock – maybe one of them all – understands that this is not so. That is why his grief is so deafening. That's why, so petrified, he stands over the body of the deceased Mary. Because he knew – if she had come to him earlier and if she had more faith in herself – and in him, he could help her. The problem was that Mary was sure that she could not be forgiven and there was no turning back. Her sacrifice along with a perfectly sincere desire to protect Sherlock was a last request, a desperate plea – to let her hope that she, having made the right choice, has a chance to save her soul.

And of course, Sherlock's dumb nod is yes. Of course, she's forgiven, that's obvious. Forgiven, understood, and loved. That's why she stays with John for so long, tormenting and comforting him. That's why she ends the story, smiling from her other world. And she reminds us that faith is primarily about faith in oneself.

And about love, without which nothing is possible.

#sherlockbbc #sherlock bbc #bbc sherlock #mary morstan #steven moffat #moffat #sherlock s3 #sherlock season 3 #amanda abbington