#//Valid points! Lovely meta!

[necrotic-nephilim]

this is not a ship post, but something that frustrates me a lot in fanon concerning Jason Todd that attempts to soften Jason's return to Gotham for the sake of found family domesticity or easy hurt/comfort or just sliding him into the Batfam sooner, is they all seem to fundamentally misunderstand Jason.

because there seem to be a lot of fandom popular concepts of Jason coming home much sooner and just not having his whole Under The Red Hood arc. which in theory is fine and i can see the want to simplify canon to make room for your lighthearted more fluff-leaning concepts. but in everyone without fail, the way they address the clown-shaped elephant in the room is by having some throwaway line that "oh Jason quietly kills the Joker and moves on".

when the Joker being dead or alive is not the *point*. if by some chance accident, the Joker had died prior to Jason's return, whether by ridiculous freak accident, getting whacked by a fellow villain, hell even someone actually doing so to avenge Jason, it *would not* satiate Jason's anger. because Jason's end goal in UtRH is not to simply kill the Joker: it is to make *Bruce* kill the Joker. Jason's anger is directed to the idea that to Jason, if Bruce truly loved Jason, he would've killed the Joker. that is love, for Jason. compromising your personal values for love and not letting someone go unavenged. when Jason was Robin, almost every angry or misguided thing he did was born of love. he wanted to kill/hurt Two-Face because he believed Dent killed his father. he was so angry at Felipe because an innocent woman was dead due to that man's actions. he wanted to save his mother in a situation he knew he shouldn't be in because he loved her. his anger, his violence, it is driven by love and feelings of righting wrongs. that is how he thinks wrongs *should* be righted. that is how you avenge and *love* someone.

because so long as Jason's return to Gotham doesn't end in Bruce killing the Joker (which, it never will bc Bruce is Bruce), Jason will never forgive Bruce. you cannot wave away the layers of hurt and complicated trauma by killing Joker offscreen. because Jason will still be angry that Bruce didn't avenge him. in his eyes, that means Bruce did not love him enough. he was not truly loved by Bruce the way he loved Bruce. bc Bruce was Jason's whole *world*. prior to being taken in, Dick and Tim, they had support systems. they had loved ones. they knew what stability and healthy family love looked like. Jason *didn't*. and that's not to say that Catherine Todd did not love him with her whole heart and thus he loved her, but it certainly wasn't a stable and safe support system for Jason to grow up in. Bruce was Jason's first real sense of a stable, healthy life. and so of course Jason poured everything into Bruce and loved Bruce so devoutly. Bruce was his world. like he says, if it had been Bruce, Jason would've stopped at nothing.

so his betrayal is rooted in that he was not avenged, not that Joker is alive. so long as the Joker does not die by Bruce's hands, it will never be enough for Jason. (in this era, at least.) notably, this is also why i don't think it would change a thing if Jason knew the whole "oh Bruce wanted to kill the Joker but Superman stopped him" tidbit that fanon has really latched onto as a way to pacify Jason's anger toward Bruce. Jason knowing that wouldn't change a thing, in my opinion. because Jason knows Bruce. and a tenant of Bruce's character is that he grapples with murder *every day*. the whole point is how *easy* it would be for him. he is a human weapon, trained by killers, trained to be deadly. he is the greatest strategist to exist. he knows he could kill someone and get away with it. *no* trace, no proof, nothing. and he knows he *wants* to. wants to kill the Joker, Joe Chill, anyone who's hurt him that viscerally.

but he *doesn't*. that's the point. Bruce wakes up every day with that question on his mind, and every day the answer is the same. Bruce's morality is not a decision he made in an alleyway when his parents died, it's a decision he continues to make every day and he *must* continue to make in order to remain who he is. Jason is quite familiar with the fact that Bruce grapples with this daily. i do not think it surprised nor fazed Jason to know that Bruce did *consider* killing the Joker. that he wanted to. maybe even planned to. but a consideration, a want, a plan, is just a thought. it's nothing substantial, and substance is everything to Jason. at the end of the day, Bruce didn't. he was talked down by *Clark* of all people with an excuse of diplomatic immunity, as if Jason and Bruce don't both know that Bruce could've *easily* found a way to make it look like an accident or some other loophole. because he's Batman. there's always a loophole. he always finds a way when he actually intends to. but he never actually intended to kill the Joker. so he didn't. and Jason would know that there was never an intent. it's an interesting piece of fodder to add to the nuance of Jason and Bruce, but honestly, i think it'd make Jason angrier to have that excuse thrown in his face. as if Bruce hasn't beaten Clark half a dozen times by now. it's a flimsy nonsense excuse that Jason would rip to shreds.

so while yes, i understand the wish for easy lighthearted fanfic that doesn't have to deal with the nuances of canon, i think that Jason's character will always be so deeply robbed and altered if you try to fix his thirst for vengeance with an off-page killing of Joker at Jason's hands. it was never the point. the point was that -in his own eyes- he wasn't loved enough for Bruce to make an acception. he realized that not even his *death* would come before Bruce's Mission. Jason truly believed that Bruce loved him and held him as the most important thing in the world, and now he has proof that Bruce didn't. because the Mission mattered more.

i'm not saying i have a solution to this conundrum if you're attempting to solve it for fanfic/fanon, nor am i even saying it's a bad thing it exists. i just think it becoming overwhelmingly common has led to misunderstandings surrounding Jason's motivations and feelings about this arc and it's an unsatisfying solution that only seeks to pacify Jason's rage and his trauma responses for the sake of found family-ification.

[lunar-years]

i'm still very sad they didn't do anything at all in season 3 with the Nate & Roy dynamic they'd been building off in the background for the first two seasons, because the layers there were really fascinating.

Starting with like, Roy being the only one to vocally and actively stand up for Nate in season one. At the time I think Nate was appreciative, but I think in hindsight, (rightly or wrongly) it quickly morphs into this mindset that Roy is sort of patronizing and has long viewed him as this weak thing in need of protecting. It feels (in Nate's mind), like Roy swept in to play the savior when it convinced him, but even that was based more around his hatred of Jamie than it was about liking Nate. And we see Nate later think himself proven correct in that thinking after he kisses Keeley and confesses and Roy...barely reacts. Roy, who is furious and angry about everything and everyone every day of his life, is suddenly like "Oh it's fine" when Nate has kissed his girlfriend. Nick Mohammed's commentary that Nate actively saw that as a micro-aggression was so fascinating and makes a lot of sense.

Then you have Roy, who did see season one Nate as someone to protect, but then was also driven to his best performance on the pitch during his final season by Nate's no-bullshit speech before the Everton game. That scene is so effective because it's such a jarring departure for the entire team from how they've previously viewed Nate, and it works for Roy especially because Roy respects people who don't give in to the intimidation he's constantly goading them with and instead tells it to him straight, no words minced (this is why Roy gets along so well with people like Rebecca, Keeley, and Ted, and why the breakthrough moment with Jamie is Jamie calling him out at the gala, etc.). I think there IS a part of Roy that doesn't respect Nate in season 1, which is why he later reacts how he does to Nate's kiss with Keeley, and it's a mindset he's vindicated by when Nate turns on Ted. But that also gets all mixed up with moments like the Everton, with the evidence of Nate being such a good strategist that Roy later finds himself deeply envious of after becoming a coach himself.

During the time they are both coaching together, there's a dynamic there where they both (I think) believe the other person doesn't take them seriously, and it's rooted in a little bit of truth (on both sides!!) that's then wildly exacerbated by their own insecurities. Like, Nate is intimated by the fact that Roy is this rich famous hotshot publicly beloved, so that it feels way out of Nate's league to even be interacting with him. At the same time, he also thinks Roy is a bit of an asshole who doesn't see him as a threat because he doesn't take him seriously, and is (fairly) offended by it. Meanwhile, Roy is intimated by Nate because Nate is so clearly so intelligent, which I think is something Roy is insecure about in general, given his own education being superseded early on by football. He sees Nate as being a more adequate coach than himself because of this. But he also thinks Nate is spineless and whatever respect he had for him (fairly) dissolves completely after Nate goes to the press about Ted.

So it's like, this messy mixture where they both have something the other desperately wants but they can't see at all why the other would possibly be envious of them due to their own insecurities. They are, imo, the two most insecure people on the show in completely different ways. They hate themselves far more than they hate each other, yet they displace the weight of that feeling onto each other; Roy by treating Nate with indifference and Nate by dismissing Roy in his head as an asshole hotshot whose had a great life handed to him and doesn't even appreciate it, whereas Nate has to fight tooth and nail to find success. And it all boils down to them not understanding one another while also having a lot in common under the surface.

Anyway, I think it would be super interesting to see how their friendship or even just their relationship as coworkers develops after season 3, as they both make active attempts at overcoming their insecurities and doing better by themselves and each other.

[inventedfangirling]

Episode 7 Pat : To lose or not to win that is the question

Okay I saw a post talking about how episode 7 pat "loses the bet everyday" and how in this rooftop scene...

Pat raises the stakes (asking pran to confess in public) to keep Pran from saying the words just then (knowing he won't take that option) is making me feel and think a lot of things and now my brain is all over the place and i might as well just all note it down here or i won't have peace of mind.

At the outset i want to confess that eventhough i know that the bet has been for pran's sake i still viewed at as a legitimate competition that both pat and pran were trying to win, but i'm realising more and more how (for a large part of the bet) that just wasn't the case at all.

Pat came all the way from Bangkok to the hostile architecture trip alone only and only for Pran. Pat wants to be with him. Pran knows that and Pat knows that Pran knows that. He hasn't tried to hide it at all.

Pat knows that Pran has feelings for him, Pran knows that Pat knows that. But he also isn't ready to admit what it would entail and the familiarity of competition between them allows him to explore that.

"Whoever falls in love first loses" - when both of them know that they have feelings for each other, is hilaaaarious on first watch, but once you've rewatched it countless times and reached a whole new level of brain rot where your blood cells have p cells embedded within p cells in them then it isn't funny, it isn't funny at all * screams into a pillow *

Coming back to the bet, and what it actually means which is that whoever admits it(their feelings) first, loses. And all of us including pat and pran know that pat has already lost. Him coming to the trip just to get Pran to talk and his confession that he actually didn't like Ink 'like that' is all pointing to just one very obvious thing.

So Pat has already lost and yet they're both entering into the bet as if on equal ground. Pat could (and is very much willing to) keep losing over and over again, he very clearly wants to be with Pran but he would keep the charade of the bet up if it meant Pran wasn't ready.

Which means that the entire time that they were teasing and flirting with each other, all throughout episode 7, pat keeps on losing just for Pran's sake.

Do you realise how absolutely insanely madly crazy (mature) in love Pat is???? This might be a childish bet to YEW but to him its a space for Pran (and him) to explore their feelings without the responsibility of a relationship on them, it's actually revolutionary.

Kinda like killing with kindness, which basically sums up the kinda guy Pat is when he's with Pran.

"Don't force me to" he says in response to Pran's "You're just not brave to" (confess) when all of us know Pat is very well brave enough to do that and that is exactly what Pat is reiterating here. He's saying "you very well know why i'm partaking in this charade don't act like you don't i could kiss your competitive ass right now but im not doing it cos i want you to (admit that you) want it".

The man is basically losing (coming over to play and then offering to clean pran's face cos he looked upset screams somebody who wants to win real bad right hahahah NOT *argh pat can you not be so unreally sweet people have to go back to their real lives with real men to be disappointed by*) over and over again asking Pran to "just let me love you, you dork".

Here Pat is literally doing the confession, the very thing they started the bet stating, "i'll make you beg on your knees for me", well he's almost doing the next best thing, and he's doing it willingly, in front of people, with the most genuine smile on his face.

And when he raises the stakes on the rooftop and he does it entirely for Pran again. As much as he wants to be with Pran he equally wants it to be when Pran is ready for it. Not for it to be a decision he is forced or boxed into. He doesn't want to beat Pran he wants Pran to walk into the loss like he himself did, over and over again, because that's just the kinda guy he is.

Boy basically said if me winning the bet means you losing your chance to make that choice for yourself then i don't want that kinda win.

Which is why he's been willingly giving up all the chances to win throughout the episode, but continuing to put up the charade of the bet cos 1. yeah ofc its loads of fun teasing pran and he is so grateful he gets to be close to him again but more importantly 2. he can't (but he is fully willing to) wait for Pran to mentally be ready to get into a relationship.

"As for me, when i have a lover, I always let my lover win" - And truer truths haven't been told. Man has been losing since the very beginning. And that too happily. He is only doing it to give Pran the time that he deserves to process the whole thing and accept his love.

See even here he isn't expecting Pran to confess his love and sweep the whole bet thing away.

Look at Pat pausing trying to figure out what Pran is doing here. I can almost hear the cogs in his brain turn, until the very moment that Pran extends his hand to wipe the stray piece of rice away and then gives him that look. The look that says, "I love you, i'm done making you wait, thankyou, i love you".

So to conclude, Pat like the simp he is entered the bet (and kept willfully losing) only to make Pran comfortable. And literally the first moment that he completely feels comfortable, Pran gives in.

This whole post is borne out of my thoughts after i read what was said in here.

For more of my bet era patpran brainrot :

[2024skin]

I absolutely love bojack horseman I love that Diane and bojack literally are the same except Diane could never get as low as bojack because bojack is a man and has a power over other people (particularly over women) that Diane has never had so even though they are both damaged in a similar way Diane isn't a manipulative sex pest and that's literally the biggest difference between failwomen and failmen. that's real life

[francesderwent]

”A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes” from Disney’s Cinderella and “Impossible” from Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella are both at minimum beside the point and possibly even opposed to the truth at the heart of the Cinderella story. Cinderella cannot escape her stepmother’s cruelty; she certainly cannot change any larger injustices in her kingdom. and so almost every single adaptation, when asking the question “so what can Cinderella do? where is her agency?”, answers it with “she can dream! she can hope for something to change!” Disney’s Cinderella sighs “they can’t stop me from dreaming!” this is her last recourse, the one activity available to her. Rodgers and Hammerstein’s fairy godmother, taking it even farther, says “the world is full of zanies and fools who don't believe in sensible rules and won't believe what sensible people say, and because these daft and dewey-eyed dopes keep building up impossible hopes, impossible things are happening every day”—believing in the impossible makes it come true, the dreaming is the impetus for the magic which will get Cinderella to the ball, it does do something in the end. when actually, the point of the Cinderella fairytale is that even when you don't have the power to have an effect on anything else in your situation or the world at large, you do have power over what sort of person you become. hoping and dreaming is fine as far as it goes, and might be considered a kind of necessary condition for remaining good and kind (once you give up holding onto hope it’s possible succumbing to bitterness is inevitable), but the hoping and dreaming is not the point. we don’t celebrate Cinderella marrying the prince because that’s her dream come true. we celebrate because she’s finally, at last, getting what she deserves, because of the kind of person she is! if none of Cinderella’s “dreams” came true and she still didn’t let the world turn her hard and cruel, she still would have won. the fairytale ending heaps victory on top of victory, revealing the miracle of Cinderella’s heart for all to see.

[deancasforcutie]

happy five years to canon bisexual Dean Winchester! 🩷💜💙

[s0fter-sin]

i hate the commercialisation of the avengers inside the mcu both bc i find it cringy and meta but also bc it narratively doesn’t make sense.

we spent ten years establishing that the avengers are a contentious presence, civil war was literally about people not trusting them bc of what/who they are and now it’s almost completely erased and everyone loves them now? and don’t even get me started on rogers the musical

the way clint reacts makes it seem like the writers are trying to say it’s in poor taste but it’s less bc it trivialises a literal alien invasion but bc clint misses natasha and it hurts him to see an interpretation of her. not bc people are singing and dancing about an event that got hundreds if not thousands of people killed. the closest american equivalent i can think of is 9/11. people can’t even joke about it without being torn apart and it happened over 20 years ago. the battle of new york happened 10 years ago in the current mcu, the snap happened maybe a year ago, you’re telling me everyone’s chill with a musical about one of the worst days of their lives?

“i can do this all day” being their tagline encapsulates everything i dislike about it. the only people steve said that to were nazis that were immediately killed, tony who would never talk about what happened in siberia and the 2012 version of steve says it to him. no one else would know that phrase and acting like it’s something he crowed from the rooftops is at best a plot hole and at worse, an indictment of how little care the writers are having for the new era of the mcu

[australet789]

Really need to stop reading the comment section of the playthrough of TLOU2 im rewatching, because the mentai parkour people do to hate on Abby is insane.

Like, just said she killed Joel and that‘s why you don’t like her.

I don’t like Joel because he killed Marlene and the nurses.

Simple as that

[act-more-like-a-dog-sirius]

So everyone says Harry’s sneakoscope is whistling on the Hogwarts Express because of its proximity to Pettigrew (as Scabbers) but that’s wrong. If that were the case they would have heard it before they entered the compartment with Lupin. They were in the car with it, Ron was in the next room over in the Leaky Cauldron. It would have gone off long before that point if it was sensing Pettigrew. It’s going off because of Lupin… and I mean he is untrustworthy.

[obaewankenope]

Okay, so, fair warning, I went and did some research for this because it's better than thinking about being a Foster Carer right now (jokes on me). So yeah, buckle up. Good luck.

Note: do not mistake community for therapy, please.

.

Right, to give a bit of info about DBT from my own research because I like to define things and help break stuff down.

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy

Dialectical Behaviour Therapy is an adapted form of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy that was made for people who Really Feel Them Emotions. It does more than just CBT with its focus on changing unhelpful thinking and behaving, DBT also focuses on helping you to accept yourself at the same time. It’s often a method of therapy that uses group work more than CBT because of the way its set up.

With DBT you should be able to accept yourself and change your behaviour at the same time. It seems like a contradiction, hence the ‘dialectical’ part of the name: dialectical is basically accepting that two contradictory things can be true at the same time.

The thing about DBT is it needs you to be:

Committed to making positive changes to yourself.

Ready to work with the therapy and do the homework you’re given to improve.

Focused on the present and the future and not your past.

Able to work with groups for group sessions.

(info sourced from Mind.Org)

So, that's DBT. Except, wait! Something else. The techniques DBT uses:

Acceptance techniques -> focus on understanding yourself as a person, and making sense of why you do things you do (e.g. self-harm)

Change techniques -> focus on replacing behaviours that harm with behaviours that help by challenging unhelpful thoughts, encouraging to find new ways to deal with distress.

The Jedi Code

It's always nice to have the Code on hand to refer back to, especially when comparing it with a therapy technique. I went with a longer version of the Code, available via the Star Wars Fandom website:

There is no emotion; there is peace. There is no ignorance; there is knowledge. There is no passion; There is serenity. There is no death; there is only the Force. A Jedi does not act for personal power or wealth but seeks knowledge and enlightenment. A Jedi never acts from hatred, anger, fear, or aggression but acts when calm and at peace with the Force. Jedi are the guardians of peace in the galaxy. Jedi use the powers to defend and to protect, never to attack others. Jedi respect life, in any form. Jedi serve others rather than ruling over them, for the good of the galaxy. Jedi seek to improve themselves through knowledge and training.

The entire Code just screams spiritual enlightenment, doesn't it?

.

Replying to... everything, basically

All Jedi have built-in trauma as children stolen from their homes and raised devoid of their culture and families. The Jedi Order literally traumatizes their subjects as a form of initiation.

This is not untrue in the sense of the children having trauma. The Jedi don’t necessarily steal children from their homes, however. In most cases, children are voluntarily taken by the Order from their families and homeworlds because they are force sensitive and require the training the Jedi Order provides. Of course, it’s possible that not all children are given by choice but rather out of desperation, fear, or hatred of the child and their force sensitivity. These all present additional complexities for the trauma these children would have.

The reality is that all children who are taken/given/lose their birth families have some form of trauma. It can manifest as attachment issues, insecurity, behavioural problems and more. It is why Foster Carers are given regular training on trauma for children.

If you want an example of what a Jedi is, compare them to a Foster Carer. Each Jedi has a responsibility to a child to raise, teach, protect, and help heal from harm and trauma. Just like a Foster Carer. And just like a Foster Carer, they answer to a panel, a council, for their actions.

I digress.

Taking children from their parents will always cause some distress and trauma. Even if those parents are horrible people and it’s for the children’s safety, it still is a traumatising experience. So the Jedi taking children from their homes is causing trauma and then reinforcing it inadvertently later on when children who don’t pass ‘muster’ are parsed out to the Corps away from a Second Home.

To steal a paragraph from Vanessa LoBue on their blog Psychology Today, here’s the basic low-down of why children separated from their parents is kinda bad. Even if it’s for a good reason:

First and foremost, separating children from their parents will most certainly cause distress. When we’re distressed, our brains release stress hormones into our bodies, one of the most well-studied of which is called cortisol. Brief or mild periods of stress—perhaps caused by routine vaccinations or a temper tantrum—are normal and don’t generally have long-term negative consequences for the child. Moderate stress responses—from a death in the family, or parents divorcing—are sometimes called “tolerable” stressors; these stress responses don’t necessarily cause long-term harm to a child if they are somehow lessened or soothed by the presence of a parent. The most dangerous kind of stress—called “toxic stress”—can result from a prolonged period of distress without help from a loved one. This kind of stress can cause problems for the development of a child’s brain, and can have serious long-term behavioral consequences, possibly disrupting a child’s ability to regulate their emotions and cope with future stress. It could even be detrimental to learning (Shonkoff, Garner, et al., 2011).

[Ref for the journal paper referenced: Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, & Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care. (2011). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics, peds-2011.]

Then, as they grow, they are demonized for expressing emotion and forming "attachments." Attachments are human relationships and relationships are integral to mental health. You don't even see Jedi with pets. They have absolutely nowhere to turn to for comfort except the unfeeling void of the Force.

The “attachments are forbidden” line is… I think there is an issue with how we define the term ‘attachment’. The Cambridge Dictionary defines attachment as “a feeling of love or strong connection to someone or something” as well as “a feeling of love and need for another person, for example for a mother by her child”. The core aspect here is connection not necessarily love which we often conflate with attachment. In the Jedi sense, what is advocated is not not loving others and caring about them but rather avoiding forming attachments that will lead to negative emotions and thoughts which may corrupt and cause harm. Essentially, it’s fine to love but it’s not fine to try to possess what you love against its will. Thus, the perspective by the Jedi is that ‘attachment’ is bad because it can lead to harm.

You are completely right that animals, relationships with others and pets, and such are integral to mental health. But we are aware that the Jedi Temple on Coruscant has the gardens, that there are friendships formed with other Jedi and non-Jedi alike by a number of named Jedi in canon (such as Qui-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Ashoka Tano all befriending non-Jedi). I would not say they have nowhere else to turn to except the Force, nor would I necessarily call it an unfeeling void, only because it is portrayed in canon as a transcendental thing which can soothe, calm, reassure, protect, and empower Jedi when interacted with.

We do have some evidence that forming attachments of any kind is looked down upon, I do agree. I do not necessarily think that it is meant in a harmful manner.

The Jedi order is more akin to a cult than to DBT. They deliberately manipulate the tenets of mindfulness, sterilize them, and offer them to their members like the one true way to live. Mindfulness is *not* about eradicating big emotions, it is about feeling them. Anakin is discouraged from feeling anger multiple times in the prequels and Clone Wars. He is dismissed for his concerns and his suffering is diminished.

The Jedi may have understood mindfulness but only enough to manipulate it with the goal of indoctrinating the children they stole. Anakin is a direct product of their failure.

I have to disagree about the cult thing, honestly. The Jedi Order is a community that you could more accurately compare to, say, The Vatican in that it acts autonomously, still works with the larger government of the place it is located (Italy for The Vatican, the Republic for the Jedi Order). The Order doesn’t enforce its mentality or approach, but it also doesn’t deny Jedi the opportunity to live and experience things; it’s arguably impossible with how wide-reaching the Jedi have to be in the galaxy in order to be effective peacekeepers.

I do, however, agree that in the canon of the Prequels, the portrayal of the Jedi Order does suggest that the Order utilises therapy methods like mindfulness in a manner that does not necessarily encourage acceptance of the self and of one’s emotions. Anakin is cautioned several times about his anger but in the Prequels we’re not given any form of treatment or homework assignment for Anakin to actually work on his anger constructively.

Of course, the Prequels are movies so the focus there is on telling a story rather than showing the nuance of the Jedi Order’s therapeutic approach.

The Jedi Order actually portrays mindfulness more similarly to Buddhist ways than the more recognisable Western Therapy manner. Buddhism is about non-attachment in order to reach spiritual enlightenment. (Regain Us) If you look at the Jedi Order as an in-universe representation of Buddhism and Buddhist philosophy, the entire way the Order operates makes a lot more sense.

In Buddhist philosophy, one of the main aspects of it is non-attachment aka letting go of attachments to material possessions, relationships, thoughts and even emotions. Another main aspect of Buddhist philosophy is of finding the middle way aka balance. These are essential for enlightenment (in-universe: becoming one with the Force) and enable individuals to cultivate wisdom, inner peace, and universal compassion. (Original Buddhas)

DBT actually combines traditional Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with Zen Buddhism, which is reflected in the way the Jedi Order’s own DBT approach presents itself with a central focus on non-attachment. (DBT Self Help)

For a philosophical analysis on attachment and the Jedi Order, I’d recommend Jedi Philosophy: why attachement is forbidden? And why it should be? By WriterBuddha on Wookieepedia. And for an analysis on emotions and the Jedi Order, I’d suggest [Analysis] The Jedi Order and Emotions by WriterBudda on Wookieepedia, also.

Interestingly, the analysis by Paul Shirey on ScreenRant offers a much more negative perspective on the Jedi Order taking children to train, but it seems rather limited in its references for accuracy and specificity of statements. Although there is a reference to a comic book accounting for why children are taken by the Jedi (to protect them from monsters who feed on midichlorian-rich blood). I am aware that the extended Star Wars universe has been both accepted and rejected in recent… in recent and that some of the sources for the reasons Jedi take children, and the how, may be accepted or rejected on this basis. Personally, I enjoy the extended universe still being of relevance even with the newer Star Wars material provided by the movies and shows.

.

1. The Jedi steal children from their families and erase their cultures

@bbygirl-obi, I agree that the Jedi still retain aspects of their individual cultures and ways of life from their homeworlds but, truly, it is a vast difference to growing up in it. As a Foster Carer, the challenge of providing a child with access to their birth culture would be dependent on the type of culture, ability to interact with it, and whether or not there is something lost between the child and their culture because they are not actively growing up in it. You can still be connected to your culture, for sure, but there is still… a difference. Children always wonder “is it me” when they’re not Like The Others, when they’re not Raised By Mummy And Daddy For Reasons.

I don’t disagree that the Empire suppresses individuality and culture because it absolutely does. But that’s not what was implied in any way by @dialecticalbehaviorharpy. They argue the Jedi are not performing DBT in the sense you’ve explained it and, to a degree, I agree with them. But that’s because the Jedi Order perform DBT with more emphasis on non-attachment than I, personally, think would be reasonable.

2. The Jedi do not allow emotion

Again, @dialecticalbehaviorharpy did not say the Jedi don’t allow emotion, only that they demonise it. Which is accurate. There are a number of phrases, comments, scenes, etc that all centre on emotion being dangerous if not regulated. If we emphasis danger, we demonise, we other, we create a defined line of what is “safe” and what is not. Is it intentional of the Jedi in the Prequels to seem to imply emotion is a bad thing? No. Honestly, the majority of the sort of cautioning we get on emotion comes from Yoda and Obi-Wan to Anakin. They don’t present Anakin with the chance to really work through his emotions in the Prequel movies (obviously because they’re movies) so they imply emotion = bad. Obviously with The Clone Wars and other supplemental material we gain a more nuanced understanding that the Jedi don’t think emotions are bad, only that it is important to control yourself, your feelings, and not allow yourself to be overwhelmed by them.

Emotion regulation, basically.

3. Attachment is healthy

I agree with you about the attachment.

4. The Jedi don’t have relationships

@dialecticalbehaviorharpy didn’t actually say anything about Jedi relationships but rather about ‘attachments’. Obviously, relationships are normal and vary in type and intensity. Jedi have relationships between Masters and Padawans, Knights, and Initiates. These are more community based relationships but they’re not attachments in the sense meant by Lucas.

.

5. Anakin’s actions are entirely the Jedi’s fault

You're right that victim-blaming is Not Good. But Anakin and the Jedi do have some culpability for their actions. A therapist who does not provide therapy in as effective a manner as possible is responsible for failing their client. The Jedi had a responsibility to Anakin, they did fail in that even though they tried. But, of course, there were definitely extenuating circumstances that the Jedi Order had no idea the nature of. They're not to blame for being eradicated, but Anakin struggling with his emotions is partly due to the teaching of the Order, the fact that he was met with hostility as a child by the Council (TPM). However, no reason is reason enough to justify genocide or systematic murder, you are entirely correct.

Anakin is, to make a point clear, being actively manipulated by a Sith Lord who is encouraging Anakin’s instability and making it, so Anakin perceives the helpful tenants of the Jedi Order’s code to be constricting and harmful to him. In achieving that, Sidious achieves something that makes his plans a success because he turns Anakin to the Dark Side based on fear. Years of having someone make comments, inferences, imply this and suggest that has an impact. Emotion regulation for Anakin is something that wasn’t going to happen because of the repeated interference from a manipulative, actively harmful individual.

I don’t think any amount of DBT would have helped Anakin without removing the actual problem from the situation (Sidious) with extreme prejudice first.

.

In conclusion, let me say something and make it clear to everyone reading:

Just because a philosophical approach, community outlook, whatever may be based on therapy techniques THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT ACTUALLY THERAPY. THERAPY TAKES TIME, EFFORT, CONSISTENCY, AND DEDICATION. IT IS NOT A ‘WAY OF LIFE’ IT IS A TOOL TO HELP MAKE A WAY OF LIFE FOR SOMEONE THAT IS HEALTHY AND POSITIVE.

"the jedi don't have therapists-"

jedi philosophy, and in particular the practices and teachings that jedi were expected to implement in their everyday lives, was therapy. dialectical behavior therapy (dbt), to be exact. anyone who's familiar with dbt knows where i'm already going with this, but like genuinely look up the basic tenets of dbt and it's identical with what the jedi were doing.

dbt, to put it simply, is a specific therapy technique that was designed for ptsd and past trauma. it's pretty different from traditional talk therapy. it combines a few different environments (individual, group, etc.), recognizing that no single format of treatment can stand alone.

the key focuses of dbt include:

emotional regulation- understanding, being more aware of, and having more control over your emotions

mindfulness- regulating attention and avoiding anxious fixation on the past or future

interpersonal effectiveness- navigating interpersonal situations

distress tolerance- tolerating distress and crises without spiraling and catastrophizing

i'm sure it's already clear from that list alone how much the jedi teachings correspond with the goals of dbt. the jedi value, teach, and practice the following:

identifying and understanding emotions

mindfulness and living in the present

compassion, diplomacy, and conflict resolution (on interpersonal scales, not just planetary or galactic)

accepting and tolerating certain levels of distress or discomfort (particularly mental, such as discomfort at the thought of losing a loved one to death)

idk man seems almost as if jedi mental health practices and dbt are two sides of a completely identical coin. (fun fact: both star wars and dbt are products of the 70s.)

and guess what? dbt was specifically designed as a treatment for borderline personality disorder. remember that one? or, if you don't, maybe you remember a specific character, the one who was literally used as an example by my professor in my undergrad psych class when she was teaching us about bpd?

tldr: simply existing within the jedi community, practicing jedi teachings, surrounded by a support network of other jedi of all life stages, was the therapy for anakin. even when viewed through a modern lens. it was even, more specifically, the precise type of therapy that has developed in modern times to treat the exact types of mental issues he was struggling with.

[cursedmoon-doll13]

‘Imagine Your S/I Was Canon…’ Self-Ship Asks

✍️: Overall, how does the fandom trait you? Are you a beloved character, or hated? Are you popular, or a minor side character? Anything in between?

📝: How would your story in canon go? How would you influence the events of the original story?

🤪: What is your trait that fanon would exaggerate?

🥰: How would someone who loved you portray you?

😡: How would someone who hated you portray you?

👯: What canon character are you most similar to?

🌦️: Would you be accompanied by mostly fluff or angst fanfics? Both? Explain why.

🏷️: What is you and your f/o’s ship name?

❤️: How popular is you x your f/o? Are you a rarepair?

💞: Aside from with your f/o, who else would you commonly be shipped with? Why?

☕️: What are the most common plots of shipping fics between you and your f/o?

🛌: What tropes show up in fics involving your ship?

🪐: What would be your most popular AU and why?

💘: Why would people love your ship? Why would people dislike your ship? How might it start debates?

🙈: Why would your ship be thought of as cute/fluffy? Why would your ship be considered problematic?

🎞️: What ‘canon’ scenes would the fandom point to as evidence for the validity of your ship?

💌: How would your dynamic be portrayed? What might people focus on most? Any misconceptions?

👀: How does your ship with your f/o influence both of your characterisations and the world? Would there be any interesting metas written about your dynamic?

[angelacostumery]

I have not posted on this Tumblr in a thousand years (okay like seven but in internet time that is a millennium) but I took a year off from allll social media and coming back to all these changes on instagram and completely new platforms (I don't know what threads is and at this point I'm too afraid to ask) has made me yearn for the simplicity of Tumblr.

So I'm back. I'm not sure how often I'll post but maybe it will help revive my love of sharing progress of my projects, which is faded thanks to how discouraging the meta algorithms can be.

I feel like the likelihood of any of my followers still being active is slim at best (how are there still 60k people following this blog, really?) but maybe I can find some new ones while I share my new works.

In case you're like, "who is this bitch in my feed" -- I'm Angela, I make historical/fantasy costumes wish varying amounts of success, and I like both talking about the process and seeking validation on the internet. 🥰

[partfae]

Sauron, Galadriel, & Tolkien's Theology of Repentance - Part One

Summary: Character meta analysis on Sauron (and Galadriel, through the lens of Sauron). Based on both Silmarillion & RoP canon. 3.5k words. Discussion of Catholic theology involved. Blanket TW for discussion of violence, manipulation, etc., because Sauron. Spoilers for S1 & S2 and the Silmarillion, of course. The tragedy of Sauron is that he gets offered so many legitimate chances at redemption and forgiveness, and he denies them every single time. But we know he wants absolution, because that’s what he sees Galadriel as: his chance to bind himself back to the light, to be Mairon again, to heal the pain that he caused and that was caused to him under Morgoth. But because he has such a warped view of himself and his actions, he dismisses genuine extensions of compassion, forgiveness, and care as simultaneously beneath him and too good for him. And yet, he still pursues redemption, but through none of the channels offered to him.

In The Rings of Power, he’s given the explicit instruction to change for the good in the village after he’s reborn. He’s given the chance leave his past behind and work meaningfully in Númenor. He’s given the chance to redeem himself by Galadriel's offer of friendship (or love, depending on your interpretation). In the Silmarillion, he's even given the chance by Eönwë himself, and comes close to leaving Morgoth behind completely!

Let's look at this passage from Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age (emphasis mine):

When Thangorodrim was broken and Morgoth overthrown, Sauron put on his fair hue again and did obeisance to Eönwë the herald of Manwë, and abjured all his evil deeds. And some hold that this was not at first falsely done, but that Sauron in truth repented, if only out of fear, being dismayed by the fall of Morgoth and the great wrath of the Lords of the West. But it was not in the power of Eönwë to pardon those of his own order, and he commanded Sauron to return to Aman and there receive the judgement of Manwë. Then Sauron was ashamed, and he was unwilling to return in humiliation to receive from the Valar a sentence, it might be, of long servitude in proof of his good faith; for under Morgoth his power had been great. Therefore when Eönwë departed he hid himself in Middle-earth; and he fell back into evil, for the bonds that Morgoth had laid upon him were very strong.

This passage is clear that Eönwë is willing to pardon Sauron--he simply did not posses the power to do so. But when Sauron was told he must appeal directly Manwë, he gave up entirely and skulked back to Middle-earth. There are a few ways to read this:

1. He was not wholly repentant

Sauron simply wanted the protection of a new master in the absence of Melkor. i.e., he was rather fickle and simply wanted to be on whatever the "winning" side was. This is supported by the text literally saying that at least some of his obeisance was completely false, and that he only made a point of feeling bad about anything once his master had been chucked into the Void and his armies and strongholds were being destroyed (Thangorodrim). In this reading, perhaps Eönwë saw Sauron's treachery and referred him to Manwë knowing that it would be a test of his true intent. However, while a valid interpretation, I believe this to be the less holistic of the two.

2. He was truly repentant

Sauron did truly feel badly and "abjured all his evil deeds," but he was unwilling/unable to humble himself after being so fundamentally broken by Melkor and developing an insatiable power lust (hey, he isn't defined in the narrative by lust and pride for nothing).

Earlier in this same chapter, Tolkien wrote that Sauron could "...deceive all but the most wary." This is in the specific context of his physical shapeshifting. But, I would argue that this can also be tied to his lies. Tolkien has a specific ethic of beauty, where physical perfection is equated with moral goodness. Sauron completely inverts what is otherwise a hard and fast rule within Tolkien's writings by being the character most frequently described as "fair"--seven times to Lúthien's six, and she was the most beautiful woman to have ever lived!

(Side note: I have another post on Tolkien & beauty in the works where I'll get more into this idea)

Why does this matter? Even though this interaction with Eönwë takes place in the First Age, Sauron could at this point be in the demonic form Mirdania describes in the forge. And, I am inclined to believe that Eönwë, as the head Maiar and herald of Manwë, would be a pretty wary guy, and thus able to sense any of Sauron's trickery. I read this to mean that Eönwë looked at Sauron and saw his potential to be Mairon again, either in absence of his evil form or in spite of it.

Because Sauron is incredibly beautiful. And even if it is a disguise of the true, depreciated form of his spiritual essence, he presented himself to Eönwë at his most beautiful. He wanted, even in his act of repentance, to make himself more favorable in Eönwë's eyes. To show up as Mairon (who was likely close friends with Eönwë before everything went down, since they are considered to be two of the most powerful Maia and would have worked closely together).

But I don't think this was all manipulation on Sauron's end. I agree with the scholars mentioned in the text who believed that Sauron was truly repentant--which is why Eönwë even bothered referring him to Manwë instead of kicking him into the Void with Melkor.

And this is the tragedy: Sauron is told exactly how to repent, and believes fundamentally that it is an impossible path for him. And yet, he still longs so intrinsically for it! He was, under Aulë, a Maia of precision, perfection, and order. Under Morgoth, he feels disordered, dis-regulated. He needs to correct the fundamental imbalance within him, so why does he flee Eönwë?

It comes back to Sauron's pride.

If he follows through with this path of reconciliation, there is no way he can hide or pretend his actions away. If he cannot trick his fellow Maiar, he certainly cannot trick the Valar. And he cannot stand the idea of submitting himself back under their rule, especially now that he has tasted power. This is a pride wound; it is why the idea of confessing to Manwë would be humiliating to him as opposed to just upsetting/uncomfortable.

Again, the pivotal moment: he is told how to make amends for crimes and determines that he cannot do it. So he returns to Middle-earth and stews in his own self-hated and self-pity for a few years. In that time, he consciously or subconsciously latches onto Eönwë's offer--forgiveness from penance. It is the way forward. And if he cannot earn penance at Manwë's hand, he will do it on his own.

The Prodigal Son

This is where we have to talk about the Catholic roots of Tolkien's work for a moment. The scene where Sauron approaches Eönwë mirrors the biblical parable of the prodigal son. In this story, a man abandons his family, spends all his money, and falls into ruin. But when he recognizes his failings and returns to his father to get help, he is welcomed back into the family without question--in other words, he is forgiven and restored to his former position.

17 But when he [the prodigal son] came to himself he said, “How many of my father’s hired hands have bread enough and to spare, but here I am dying of hunger! 18 I will get up and go to my father, and I will say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired hands.’” 20 So he set off and went to his father. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. - Luke 15:11-32, NRSV CE (emphasis mine)

The parallel is clear; Mairon, the repentant Maia, returns home with hopes of reconciliation. He is prescribed the same task that the prodigal son offered to his father: he must be bound in servitude to his father/creator in order to pay off his debts. This is a deliberate allusion from Tolkien. The story of the prodigal son models the path of reconciliation that Eönwë describes. Tolkien seems to be drawing a line in the sand with this: Sauron is unwilling to do the work required by the Valar for repentance, so he is unable to receive the grace of a warm welcome back into the fold of the Ainur. Since he did not humble himself, he has to be told to do it. And he does not want to! He wants to be loved, but he also wants his power--evidence, in a way, of how his character was fundamentally altered in his time with Morgoth.

His pride--and his fear--cut him off from the potential of grace. He does not know for certain that Manwë would subject him to servitude (though I would argue that it's textually evident that it is a custom), but this assumption leads him to flee, which allows him to slip back into his old ways.

He wants to be Mairon (admirable) again, not Sauron (abhorrent). He wants to be accepted and loved, but not punished. He wants the benefits of reconciliation without the work he would have to do to earn it or the shame he would feel as he did. It's pride, but it's also deep shame--the flip side of his extreme ego is an implicit self-hatred, one that we can see in the subtext of how he speaks about himself and about his time with Morgoth.

Even the language Tolkien uses is heavily shame-coded, especially in a Catholic context; Mairon did not go willingly, he was "seduced." He admits to Celebrimbor that he was "tortured by a god". It becomes exceedingly clear through both text and on-screen canon that Sauron was routinely broken and abused for centuries. This has fundamentally damaged his self-perception, which is ultimately what leads him to "[fall] back into evil"--whether due to pride or shame, he hides, perhaps because he consciously or subconsciously does not believe that he deserves forgiveness, no matter how much he craves it.

Naked in the Garden

His flight back to Middle-earth after meeting Eönwë is reminiscent of another biblical scene, where Adam and Eve, after committing the first sin, hide from God in shame and fear (emphasis mine):

7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked...9 But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” -Genesis 7-10, NRSV CE

The image of nakedness is, here, one of vulnerability, and Tolkien establishes that Sauron fears that which he cannot control. He needs the Rings under his power. He needs his armies and his enemies under his watchful eye. He is petrified of letting his power slip away (possibly due to never wanting to feel powerless in the hands of a Vala, fallen or not, again).

The biblical allusion here hearkens back to the fear Tolkien describes Sauron as feeling regarding his return to the Ainur. In the religious system Tolkien has established, which is likely inspired by his own religious beliefs, Sauron has sinned, and must make penance. But he is afraid of God/Manwë, and does not want to "let go" of his sin. In other words, he is not truly repentant. This reflects the Catholic sacrament of confession, which requires self-reflection and resolve to never commit the sin again.

Instead of shame driving him to contrition, it drives him to isolation.

But he still wants forgiveness. So, in his years of hiding in Middle-earth, he decides to earn it himself. His own way.

Enter the Rings.

Sauron wants to perfect the wrong he wreaked so that he can both earn his way back into the Ainur and keep his power. But what he does not realize is that this does not work. Eönwë is clear that he must forsake his true temptation--absolute power--through penance by submission. Yet Sauron in his pride thinks he can have it all. Sauron is a very carefully controlled villain, and the only times he snaps or makes significant mistakes are when his inflated self-perception is challenged, revealing the self-loathing and/or self-pity underneath. The best example of this is when he kills Celebrimbor prematurely, and cries afterwards. Why? Because Celebrimbor was right about him, and he hates it. He hates knowing that he is nothing more than the Morgoth's shadow, because Morgoth was his master as much as he was his tormentor. As Sauron puts it, his relationship with Morgoth was often defined by pain as a test to see "whose will was the mightier":

This image carries more shame, both in its implicit sexual connotations and in the simple power dynamic of it. Sauron, even though misguided, is rallying against Morgoth. He wants to break what Morgoth has created and build something new, something better, something apart from his old master entirely. But Celebrimbor confronts him with reality: he has not created something new, and perfect, and special, as he so wanted to--he can only act in imitation, not in generation. And when he got close with the Rings, it cost him everything. It's almost like he wants the power of a Vala, and loathes that he cannot attain it.

And this is why he becomes so singularly obsessed with Galadriel.

She’s his foil. They both crave power and adoration, but in the end of things, she does not fold under his temptation. She turns down everything she has ever wanted for the greater good and for the sake of her own soul. Sauron looks at Galadriel and perceives that she would have succeeded at Eönwë's test because she is willing and able to humble herself. This maddens him to the point of both desiring her and desiring to break her.

She learns that she is easily tempted and becomes strong enough to handle it (through a lot of tough love from Elrond & co.). She has to learn how to do it, but she is able to.

She grows from someone who resisted and rejected authority to someone who is trusted as an authority because of her ability to wield it wisely (see: Gil-galad allowing her to answer for him in 2x08).

In other words, she earns the trust, love, and support of her community. Sauron has to force his to comply—it is an illusion of love.

His possessive obsession with her also stems from her fairness. She was the object of her uncle Fëanor's obsessive desire for creation as well. Her hair was the inspiration of the Silmarils (see: The History of Galadriel and Celeborn; The Shibboleth of Fëanor - source with page #s here), which Morgoth desired more than anything to possess.

Sauron, wanting to spite his master, wants one better--to own that which inspired the Silmarils, to own the image of fairness (and thus of moral good) completely. This is why he wants to bind himself to her. This is why he needs her. He sees Galadriel as his mechanism of repentance, and his last triumph over Morgoth. Winning her is his salvation as much as it is proving that his will is the mightier. It is his way of dominating Morgoth. This starts, I think, as a genuine effort at proving himself to the Valar, but quickly consumes him entirely. He is overcome with the desire for revenge, just as Galadriel was at the beginning of the First Age.

And he sees this in her. Sees their similarities. Sees that she, too, is angry and lonely and so afraid of losing her power. And he leverages that to befriend her. This is where it gets ambiguous and you can read RoP as either painting the image of Sauron being earnest but completely misguided in his proposal, or you can see it as him being entirely manipulative.

I think the truth of that scene probably falls somewhere in the middle; just like when he presents himself to Eönwë, he is sincere in his desire, but only knows how to present it in an inherently contriving way. He does want to bind her to him, so he tries to only reveal to her the good aspect of that desire (and also of his desire for power, which he allows her to see because he believes that it is good and also because she understands it), and not the ugly underside of his internal struggle against Morgoth, the Valar, and himself.

And I do think, in his own way, he cared about her. Galadriel consistently shows kindness and compassion to him. In S1, they grow to know each other's minds and souls, and she considers him a close friend. He finds comfort in this, that someone could see the blackness of his heart and care for him anyway. He thought, in his isolation, that he lost that chance when he fled back to Middle-earth. And here is the very picture of the light itself telling him that she supports him, that she sees the good in him, that she wants to help him set the world to rights! Of course he is infatuated by this. Of course he also wants to use it. He is Sauron.

But Galadriel succeeds where he fails, so he stops playing nice and tries to forcibly drag her down with him. First, by baiting her with the image of the man she cared deeply for:

Then, by reminding her of all she is losing by rejecting him:

And she is still strong enough to say no. And not just to say no, but to shut the door completely. To look in the face of everything she has desired for centuries and turn it down, understanding that it will ruin her. Yes, she hesitates. Yes, she still wants it (wants him). But she wins the day by holding fast to the light that Sauron wishes so badly to bind himself to.

Because she has lost everything--her brother, her husband, the station as commander, the trust of her high king and best friend--and earns it back only through her resistance of her greatest temptation. It is a struggle, it is painful, it nearly kills her--but she does it. She wins the test that Sauron could not even bear to face.

In their headlong, self-sacrificial tendencies, they are the same. Both view themselves as fundamentally stronger/better than their peers while also being deeply lonely due to their self-imposed isolation (Galadriel's laser-focused hunt for revenge, Sauron's exile in Middle-earth). But to Galadriel, the light is more important than her pride.

For Sauron, the light is his source of pride. He desires it more than anything, but condemns himself to never being able to touch it due to his rejection of Eönwë's offer. Paradoxically, he tries to grasp at it through Galadriel, the living silmaril, and succeeds only in darkening her. We learn from Gil-galad in 2x08 that his crown piercing her flesh in an act of brutal domination nearly strips her soul from her and pitches it into the unseen world. In this, Sauron is saying: If I cannot have you, I will force you to need me. I will break you into loving me.

He says this to Celebrimbor as well. He no longer knows how to love properly. He only knows how to inflict pain until this object of his obessive desire needs him--just like how his immortal spirit was broken into submission by Morgoth. And isn't this revealing of his own sense of self? He refuses to suffer the path of light, but willingly suffers the maddening path of darkness because it is a comfortable, familiar suffering. One, he tells Celebrimbor, he even grew to enjoy (2x08). As the path of the Rings drive him madder and madder, his desire for the light (Galadriel) and the return of his power (Celebrimbor) become further disordered and corrupted until they culminate in him destroying them--and his chance at earning/owning them--entirely.

And this is Sauron's ultimate point of no return (which we will hopefully see in S3 🤞). The razing of Eregion and slaying of Celebrimbor were acts of petty rage he committed when his pride was injured. This was the final nail in the coffin. Galadriel, in her rejection of him, ruins what he sees as his true chance for redemption.

Galadriel, now stepping into the role of Eönwë, re-opens the invitation: "Heal yourself!" (2x08). But in rage and shame and stubborn pride, he turns it down again. I believe this is where his desire to heal Middle-earth shifts fundamentally into desire to dominate Middle-earth. He always wanted to rule, but now he wants to own.

[vikingnerd793]

I agree with the reblog completely. I think self-preservation, especially as a slave, can't be inherently seen as selfish or gray. 99.999% of humans have an instinct toward self-preservation. Instinct to survive. So I am not taking something from her character over it.

That does not make her anything less than good.

And, burying negative emotions and trauma? Why wouldn't she when she has no choice ? They're on borrowed time against a very, very dangerous evil that could end everything and everyone. She could die at any moment. Hard to process that trauma and anger and pain when you only have so much time and energy and you're scared you'll lose focus when so much depends on you. Again, not selfish. Self-preservation. She doesn't owe us the bearing of her soul, just because we personally want to see her do that. It comes out at the time she feels like she has a second to process and breathe, and...rightfully so... none of her companions blame her for the wave of emotions in that moment.

She is chaotic good. She is not perfect ....I don't think anyone makes that claim, given how much she loves violence...but she also is not, and I say this with emphasis, anywhere near evil.

Also, The cinnamon roll thing someone mocked fans for in the reblogs? That is literally how she behaves toward those she cares about. And that's OK for people to appreciate that.

Karlach isn't a good girl

Listen, LISTEN. I love her, okay? Now that's out of the way. I see many people reducing her personality to the "big friendly labrador dog" thing. And while it's cute and all that, I disagree. Let me get into why I think Karlach isn't the goodie nice girl she puts a lot of effort to be. She has just returned to Faerun when we meet her in game, and she IS trying her bestest to start anew, to be the best version of herself now that she is free. But it doesn't mean she was always like that, or that her past has not changed her. I think it did - quite a lot, in fact.

Let's start with Gortash. She worked for this fucker. Granted, she might not have known he was such an evil bastard at the time, but she was his bodyguard. And by bodyguard, it is implied that she was his bully, his enforcer and debt collector - you know, the kind that breaks knees and kills people. When she meets an old friend in the city, that friend asks her if she is still in "the business of intimidation", and offers her to come see weapons. Even though Karlach, in her mind, might have been convincing herself that doing such a job was to help someone she respected, she still did it. And that is FINE. She was a young orphan, a tiefling in a place where tieflings are discriminated against harshly, poor and without much perspective. Of course a guy coming over offering her a well paid job that she excelled in would seem like winning a lottery. Still, she was a pretty shady violent person doing it. Now, the Hells. Avernus. She was sold to Zariel quite young still, and went through all sorts of torture and other perks enslavement gets you. For 10 years. She was scared shitless while there, especially in the beginning - she says so herself (to Halsin). All the carnage she inflicted was not (very) voluntary. She HAD to, or she would be the one getting killed. But she enjoyed it - or grew to. She likes violence, the adrenaline of it, the rush of excitement. The thrill of it, she says, is second only to sex.

Continuing on. Avernus, as well as the other layers of the Nine Hells, is not like the Material Plane. The place itself influences you. It means that being in Avernus for any time changes/corrupts/influences who you are. The longer you stay there, the deeper it gets. It did so to Zariel who was a literal angel. Avernus (and it's Archdevil's personality) insidiously get in your body and heart. It is just the way it goes, lore-wise, in DnD. If a fucking SOLAR wasn't immune to it, Karlach - young and lost - certainly wouldn't be either. Even more so because she was near Zariel all the time. I strongly believe Karlach was getting more and more exactly like Zariel - who herself is a fierce berserker warrior who charges head first into battle. Zariel is KNOWN to be this crazy strong, insane, fearless and (in her mind) righteous demon-smiting war machine. Sounds similar to a nice red tiefling we know, doesn't it? Now, did Zariel chose Karlach beause she was already like this, or did Karlach took after Zariel while she fought with her? Hard to tell. In any case, Karlach's 10 years in the Hells did change her. Needless to say, Avernus doesn't change you for the better. It doesn't mean that Karlach became "evil" - she is obviously far from it. But she is chaotic, violent and bloodthirsty. She is also selfish. There are several situations where this personality trait of her comes up.

It may sound kinda wild considering how she offers to help everyone and even sacrifice herself (since she's already dying anyway) - when we meet her. But that's the thing: she is being as selfless as she can now because she has been very selfish for a very long time (proof she has a conscience). Perhaps, she is terrified of what she was becoming and is trying to make amends, to revert whatever evil was growing in her.

She mentions herself that she did not help the tieflings of Elturel when their city was pulled down into Avernus. She did not get out of her way to help them. Instead, she thought that if "she was living that nightmare, they'd have to live it too". She would not put her neck on the line to help another - which, not so coincidentally, is typical behavior in the Hells (again, proof that Avernus was indeed getting to her). The Hag's Vicious Mockery targeted specifically at Karlach mentions how she is willing to "sell everyone's soul's if it means she can save hers". We do not know exactly what it refers to - soul coins, throwing others under the bus, ignoring people in need - but it reinforces the idea that Karlach was not the nicest person for at least 12+ years. Granted, the devils around her were much worse - but they are DEVILS in HELL. So.

Generally, in game we notice that her effort to survive and stay alive has pushed her selfishness to grow. But it still is selfishness. Another example is how she disapproves (together with Astarion), if you say to healer Nettie that you "swear to drink the Wyvern poison". She wouldn't drink it. She'd rather kill Nettie (that gets hostile).

Another hint at her grey-ish personality is when she talks to/about Wyll after he is punished by Mizora for not having killed Karlach. She mentions that she would NOT have done the same in his place. That he was better than her. Again, she would not put her skin on the line like that. She would and has turned a blind eye to situations and persons if it meant it would guarantee her survival or avoid injury. (Mind you, I 100% belive she would do this sacrifice if she was in love with someone, though.)

She will ask to, and will use Soul Coins even though she knows it's morally a sus choice to do so. If you play as her she will repeat to herself "I won't use them, they are people's souls - and I am GOOD." like she is trying to convince herself. Because she would fucking use them to smash some big fuckers in a blink - and feel awesome while doing it. Even as her, she keeps insisting "But... maybe I can use them... JUST when I really need them." Additionally, when she talks to the bugbear merchant in Moonrise Towers and he offers her soul coins, she doesn't really feel guilty for the stories of the souls in them. She even says at some point "they are already doomed, so why not use them anyway", justifying that she will only kill evil bastards with them. In any case, the morality of her choice is debatable. It makes clear that Karlach is not "lawful good" by any stretch.

Let me reiterate that just because I am saying all this about Karlach, doesn't mean I dislike her. I think she is abso-fucking-lutely the best character in the game. But I hate to see her personality "flattened" to nice happy go lucky gal. I think she has a grey-tinged personality - she has good and bad aspects to herself; she has character flaws too.

But I also think that she is trying her damn hardest to be the best she can be right then. The opposite of what she's been. Maybe it is because she has so little time left, that she needs to be the absolute best version of herself while she can. Perhaps she is trying to be what she would have been if her parents did not die - because they seemed like great loving parents. And I think Karlach didn't turn into a broken evil maniac because of them, the way they raised her while they were alive. But she lost her mom at 6, her father around 13-15. After that, it was struggling on the streets, Gortash and Zariel - betrayal, violence, carnage, war and loneliness. It is too naive to think a person would not change after all this, that Karlach would not carry more scars than those she shows on her body. To her credit, she turned much MUCH better than anyone would have. She WILL kill with a grin on her face, seek violence, blood and even revel in it - she learned to relish it and now it's part of who she is. She is selfish, she will look out for herself and has no qualms about killing or throwing people she doesn't care for under the bus (if she sees justification for it). BUT she knows what evil is, and doesn't let shit happen to people who don't deserve it. She will side with those who suffer prejudice and fight against what she sees as injustice - but even she has a limit to how far she'd go.

If you raid the Emerald Grove, she will leave the party. To me, this screams of her trying to right her past wrongs. She left the Elturians to their fate once before, so she MUST save them now that she has another chance - and that it won't cost her her life. I love her being 1/3 brutal killing machine (and fucking LOVING it), 1/3 ptsd, fear and overcompensating trauma under a smile, and 1/3 just trying her best, really, and being lovely for it. Phew. That was a long rant. I guess I just wanted to organize my thoughts about it a bit :V

[randomness-is-my-order]

idk why but there is this idea in the fandom that if someone hates/dislikes jiang cheng, it is coming from a place of “not understanding” his character or lacking empathy for his circumstances to which i say, respectfully: bullshit. and that disliking/hating jiang cheng is a needlessly miserable experience for the reader, to which i say once again: bullshit.

i can’t speak to anyone else’s experience but for me, hating jc more and more with each of his subsequent appearances in the novels was a GREAT, fantastic, very enjoyable experience because the way he was characterized was so unpleasant that if i had no snarky internal monologue directed at him, the books would be no fun when he showed up! i love to hate him and that’s a completely valid way of interacting with a character! “hating a character is easier than understanding them” is once again, bullshit, in the sense that it doesn’t account for those instances where understanding doesn’t really help in endearing a character to the audience. sometimes, you can understand the complete 1000 pages long backstory of an antagonist and still find him slimy, pathetic and despicable and that’s valid. complex doesn’t always mean likeable. liking a character doesn’t always mean liking the person the character represents.

not liking jiang cheng and criticising him should not be a shocking or offensive thing. his growth comes too little too late. he spends 13 years making himself miserable and refusing to take personal accountability and engaging in any kind of healing. at some point, the tragedies he went through stop shadowing his wrongdoings and my sympathies die down to nothingness and that’s okay. jiang cheng will literally NEVER be dear to me but he’s such a great character and such a terribly-adjusted adult that i want to be able to discuss him in a way that feels authentic to my reading experience of him. does a fan of a character always have to necessarily like the character’s personality and arc? nope. i think loudly and enthusiastically dressing him down in metas is extremely cathartic and shows an understanding of the themes of the book as much as–if not more–as more sympathetic essays about his good sides.

[vidavalor]

The Vavoom: Or, when the show's hinting Crowley & Aziraphale first kissed

It was not in 2.06, if that makes you feel any better?

Meta/theory hybrid stuffity stuff below the cut. As always, all interpretations are valid. This isn't meant to offend anyone who sees things differently. Post contains spoilers for the films 'Kiss Me Deadly' (1955), 'About Time' (2013), 'Love Actually' (2003), and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral' (1994). Apologies that this took a few days. Life's been wild this week. Let's dive in...

Right. So. The Vavoom...

I feel like most of us, by this point, are probably in agreement that Crowley is not talking about something he saw in a Richard Curtis film when he talks about his plan to help The Shop Lesbians to fall in love... and that, if he's not talking about something he saw in a movie, then he's talking about something he experienced... and yes, sure, absolutely Crowley has been on Earth for 6,000 years and could have vavoomed with basically anyone who has ever lived at this point as well as one semi-sentient car and even the world's once only-remaining unicorn but... we all know he's talking about Aziraphale. So this is about unraveling what the show presents as Clues to this end and using those Clues to solve for x and see if we can prove that Crowley is talking about Aziraphale and then figure out when this Vavoom happened with the information the show has given us so far... and the good news is that we can do all of those things so here we go...

The first thing to do is to eliminate the Richard Curtis films. Let's just start with Crowley saying that he saw his whole vavoom moment in "a Richard Curtis film." As someone who has seen a frankly embarrassing number of Richard Curtis films, I can tell you that this is a very amusing misdirect from a writing standpoint. It is amusing because it's a wink of sorts towards the same problem that comes up when you try to find The Vavoom on the GO timeline based on what the show's presented so far. What is that problem? It's that-- at first, cursory glance-- no one GO scene or Curtis film seems to have everything Crowley describes. Don't worry, though, because we actually do have enough information to find the lone caraway seed beneath these three cowrie shells here. You'll be Aziraphale-voicing an "a-HA!" very soon. :)

There are only two Richard Curtis films that feature elements Crowley lists as having occurred during The Vavoom: 'About Time' and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral.' The Awning of a New Age scene in GO actually winds up an homage of sorts to 'About Time', as it is referencing it pretty heavily. However, there is no vavooming in 'About Time'; meaning, there is not this gaze-to-kiss moment that Crowley is talking about. A wedding reception tent collapses under heavy rain and soaks several supporting characters in the film, much like how our supporting characters Nina and Maggie get soaked by too much rain causing the awning to collapse. There is no gaze or almost-kiss or kiss before it. There are other canopies-- umbrellas-- but no one gazes or kisses under one. So, Crowley did not see The Vavoom in 'About Time'-- but that particular Richard Curtis film might have been the one in Crowley's mind when he quickly latched onto Richard Curtis films while speaking with Aziraphale in the pub.

As a result, thinking about his conversation with Aziraphale while trying to craft his Shop Lesbians Vavoom might have actually caused him to over-weather and cause the awning to drench Maggie & Nina. So the joke there is more that The Original Vavoom of which Crowley is speaking in the pub scene is something that really happened and had an element or two in common with a scene in the Richard Curtis film, 'About Time', which also features Bill Nighy (see: 'Love Actually' stuff below), whose mannerisms Crowley seems to like to emulate at times. As a result of seeing the film and thinking about how it *wasn't* like The Vavoom-- the canopy collapsing, the lack of an actual Vavoom in motion prior to this, all of that disappointing Crowley greatly when he saw this film lol-- Crowley ironically then says he got the whole idea of The Vavoom from a Richard Curtis film... when, in fact, *the distinct lack of Vavoom* in the film was what Crowley remembered from it... and then, upon thinking of the pub discussion when trying to start an Awning of a New Age for Maggie & Nina, it accidentally became part of his miracle, causing him to over-Weather and, kind of hilariously, substituted the kiss Crowley was trying to incite with the collapsing awning scene from 'About Time'... the film then disappointing him all over again lol.

The other Richard Curtis film that is relevant is 'Four Weddings and a Funeral.' You might be familiar with the scene-- its ending scene-- just from cultural osmosis as this point, even if you haven't seen the film. Hugh Grant proposes to Andie MacDowell in the pouring rain. So, the big problem with this scene is that there is no canopy. None. Whatsoever. They're soaked through. We never see them go inside. They look into each other's eyes and they kiss but it's raining on them the whole time and Crowley is really specific about his canopy requirements for Vavooming. This scene is also wrong because it's a proposal between characters who have known one another on and off for years and have a more extensive history, whereas Nina and Maggie are much earlier in a potential relationship and The Vavoom Crowley talks about is an intense gaze into a first kiss. That said... just as how 'About Time' ties to Nina & Maggie's story, there are some 'Four Weddings'-y elements to Crowley & Aziraphale's relationship, in that their story also covers them meeting up through different points in time and such. 'Four Weddings' was also the first mainstream, hit rom com to openly feature queer characters in supporting roles so it's a strong one for GO to be referencing... but, ultimately, no Crowley-described Vavoom scene in sight.

Finally, there's 'Love Actually', which doesn't actually have a single element in it that pertains to The Vavoom but I'm throwing it in here because I'm just looking at all GO ties to Richard Curtis films at this point. 'Love Actually' features Nina Sosanya (GO's Nina, of course) as a queer-coded character and, in GO, David Tennant has a few scenes where he seems to be channeling Bill Nighy's Billy Mack from 'Love Actually' in S1. (Tell me Crowley's not doing Billy Mack's walk when they cross the street to the bookshop in Eleven Years Ago in S1 lol.) For those of you who have somehow avoided seeing this movie lol, Billy Mack is an aging rock star who is the best character in the film and heavily queer-coded. In S2, there's also some Big Bill Nighy Energy in the "we'll just to have to make it worthwhile then" bit with Muriel in Heaven and also in the way he chuckles in the "I *was* there, you see" moment with Gabriel. Also probably worth mentioning that, in 'About Time', Bill Nighy plays the dad of one half of the main couple in the movie and his role is to teach him how to live life and this involves pursuing the woman he is trying to marry throughout his ability to fall through time. So, Bill Nighy is basically playing the S2 Crowley of 'About Time' while the main couple of that film parallels Maggie & Nina, in that he's setting up the scenario for the couple involved to get together. Nothing in the film, though, is as overt or contains elements that match The Vavoom, other than the collapsed awning, as we got into above.

So mah point is dolphins that while there are a couple of Richard Curtis films that contain bits and pieces of what Crowley is talking about, there isn't a single one that has anything really remotely close to the, uh, extremely specific scenario he was detailing... so now we have to look at just what the hell Crowley's on about, exactly... and for this, we are, surprisingly, going to wind up looking at a very different film from any by Richard Curtis-- 1955's classic film noir, 'Kiss Me Deadly'. Why this random film, you say? Because it's actually not at all random to GO S2. It's the origins of the phrase "vavoom"... and S2 of GO contains a multi-episode homage to the film.

'Kiss Me Deadly' is, tonally, very different from GO as it's pretty dark film noir but it has a plot you might find a little familiar. One night, driving down a dark road, the main character picks up a hitchhiker who has lost her memory. After she's murdered, the film revolves around the main character-- a private investigator-- and his lover/partner investigating the case to try to solve the mystery. GO's episode "The Hitchhiker" opens with a plot and visual homage to this film when Aziraphale picks up Shax in The Bentley and obviously S2 contains a plot surrounding a mystery related to a character who has lost their memory in Gabriel. I'm going to do a separate thing that is a deeper dive into this with particular emphasis on how the lead characters relate to Crowley and Aziraphale at another point in time because it crosses into too many other things to fit it into this one at the moment but the reason why I bring the film up now is because of its ties to the phrase "vavoom."

"Vavoom", alternatively spoken as "va va voom" and containing the same meaning, is thought to have originated in a cartoon in the late 1940s but its use in "Kiss Me Deadly" in 1955 is what pushed it into popular, cultural use and knowledge. In the film, there's a character named Nick, who is friends with the two leads (the Crowley & Aziraphale-paralleling Hammer and Velda). They have nicknamed him "Va Va Voom" because he says it so often. Nick is an auto mechanic who works on the leads' car-- yes, there's a Bentley parallel lol-- and it is his use of the phrase that made it one we are familiar with today. But what does it really mean exactly in terms of this scene in the pub?

Without going too far down the road that we wind up in another meta about wordplay and symbolism in S2 here, the show is doing things related around the word 'passion' and all of its various meanings. It begins with Aziraphale referring to Maggie's feelings for Nina as "a pash"-- which is British English slang for "a crush" or "an infatuation". It comes from the word "passion"... but the word "passion" actually means something much different. "Passion" is very specifically romantic, erotic love when used to describe a relationship. It means enthusiasm when about a hobby or the like-- Aziraphale will get the neighbors to come to the meeting/ball by negotiating their commitment based on things they're passionate about-- Mr. Arnold and Doctor Who, Mutt and the history of magic. Finally, S2 is tying a lot of this passion-related plot to *The* Passion-- as in, The Passion of the Christ, or the Christian phrase for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why is it called 'The Passion' anyway? Because the Latin root of 'passion' is 'pati', which actually means 'to suffer.' Looking at all of this and how the show pairs up scenes with different types of passion is a whole other meta. I'm bringing it up here because of the relationship between 'passion' and 'vavoom'...

"Vavoom" means voluptuously sexy. It means passionate. Something having a sense of "vavoom" or "vavavoom" means it is either suggestive of or is sensually pleasing. In GO S2, Maggie & Nina represent the pash use of passion-- the new love, the crush-- while Crowley & Aziraphale are the show's example of passion in its fuller, richer meaning of romantic, erotic love. So now that we eliminated the idea that Crowley is talking about having seen an example of this vavoom he's talking about in a movie-- I mean, 'Kiss Me Deadly' is totally a movie Crowley saw once so he might have first heard the phrase in it, like many people did but there's no vavoom itself the way Crowley describes it in the film, just the phrase-- but yeah, now that we've eliminated the idea that Crowley got his idea from a film, we can say with relative ease that he's talking about something he personally experienced. I think we can all agree that if he did, it was with Aziraphale and the purpose of him bringing it up in the scene is not just as a suggestion to solve the issue of needing to matchmake The Shop Lesbians but as a way of being seductive towards Aziraphale.

This is also part of 'Kiss Me Deadly' in that Crowley here is the Velda to Aziraphale's Hammer. Hammer is preoccupied with the mystery. Velda tries to help him solve it but is also seeking his romantic attention the whole time and being rebuffed in favor of the mystery. It's darker in the film, as you'd probably expect, since it's film noir, and Aziraphale is actually subtly playing back in GO S2. In GO, it's mostly played off as Crowley, kicked out of bed since the religious family are in the guest room lol, continuously making overtures towards Aziraphale to torment him a little for the whole Gabriel situation but also mainly just because he likes to and he misses him. (It has been, like, maybe 18 whole hours lol.) He continues it into later in the day when Muriel is in the bookshop and Aziraphale is a little more overtly playful then but he is in the pub scene as well. All of this also ties into the fact that Aziraphale wants to drive The Bentley but again, that's a whole other meta. Going to stay focused on the kiss here...

So what we're saying is that, in the scene in The Dirty Donkey, Crowley does that whole lean and the sexy hands and that super posh voice he does from time to time to seduce Aziraphale, and describes their first kiss back to Aziraphale when asked to come up with a romantic solution to help their neighbors realize they are in love. Specifically, Crowley says this:

Whew. *fans self* Jesus, Crowley... No wonder why Aziraphale thought you could help The Shop Lesbians. That? Was romantic...

The key thing I love about this is that while everything he says lends itself to the idea of a kiss, he doesn't actually explicitly say that until the later scene in the back room when Muriel is in the bookshop-- the "one fabulous kiss" part. It's evident later on when he explains the plan to Jimbriel and when he puts it into action that his intent is to trigger a scenario that might prompt Maggie and Nina into kissing and when the awning collapses, he feels like he failed at the overall Vavoom. He did, however, see it working from across the street, such were the fireworks, when they looked into each other's eyes and what's sweet and also very hot about this scene in the pub is that the looking into each other's eyes is the key bit of The Vavoom to Crowley. The kiss is what happened as a result of looking into each other's eyes. The romance of the gaze and the passion of the kiss = The Vavoom but the latter without the former isn't the whole rapturous, perfect moment and Crowley is into this moment. He's still weak in the knees over the thought of it.

And what he says happened in it? They looked into each other's eyes and realized they were made for each other? Crowley thinks that. He says that, flat out, to Aziraphale. Crowley. Who was abandoned by the God who was supposed to love him believes that same God created he and Aziraphale for each other. That they're fated, destined soulmates. And that they both knew it, in that moment when they were taking shelter from a sudden rainstorm together, under a canopy, and they gazed into each other's eyes and then

Yes, I am aware that he says "humans" in that bit in the pub scene. He's referring to Nina & Maggie but also he and Aziraphale have a tendency to refer to their love for one another in human terms in different scenes throughout the series, which is probably a whole other meta and *refocuses on finding this damn kiss here*...

So Crowley-- while heavily emphasizing the words "together" and "canopy", both for maximum sexiness and to lead us in the correct direction lol-- tells us what's needed in this scene, right? We need a sudden rainstorm, a canopy, them wet from the rain and taking shelter, Crowley's glasses to be off or he's in a situation to be able to take them off (ironically, unlike he was when he was in the pub while he's talking about all this erotic gazing), and then we have all this gazing into a very vavoom-y, very passionate first kiss.

So, what scenes seem at all remotely tied to things Crowley describes for The Vavoom? There are three scenes that jump out immediately-- and it's none of them lol. They *are not kidding* about quite literally 'three cowrie shells and a lone caraway seed'. There are three scenes that they want you to think could be connected to this and be distracted by to complete their sleight of hand trick. They want you to look towards Aziraphale's hand and not up his sleeve, so to speak.

So the three cowrie shells scenes here are Before the Beginning, Eden, and the Job minisode. Why? They are the scenes that involve Crowley and Aziraphale and some form of a canopy, which is one of the two words in Crowley's whole Vavoom moment that he heavily emphasizes. So it's not Before the Beginning and it's not Eden and why? Because we're missing the other word Crowley heavily emphasizes-- *together.* Crowley and Aziraphale took shelter from a sudden rainstorm *together* under a canopy. That's the set up. But Before the Beginning and Eden-- the first scenes our minds run to-- are not this because they are sheltering *one another* but not sheltering *together*. One of them is exposed to the rain each time.

There's an additional possibility that is thrown into the mix that is tied to these two scenes, which is the S2 announcement poster-- the one that features Crowley and Aziraphale on Whickber Street in the rain. That one is also out because Crowley is being sheltered from the rain by Aziraphale with a tartan umbrella (ridiculously adorable, I agree lol)-- but they're not both sheltering together. That one feels like it was designed just to fuck with us, especially because Crowley's hair in it is, for some reason, at Eleven Years Ago length in it. It's almost like it exists to both be cute and to, after the season is over, make us go wait... was it then? (It was not then.) More distractions. Ok, so, then what about the Job minisode?

Is it ox rib night? This seems to have some elements at play-- there's a roof and a storm and them together and all-around kiss vibes-- but it's actually not this, either. That said? Job is connected to it in a big way and helps prove my theory here so we're going to come back to it. I'll eliminate it here by pointing out that when Crowley defends The Vavoom as a possibility for Maggie & Nina to Aziraphale, he says "get humans wet and staring into each other's eyes" and "humans" in that bit is them, even if they are not fully. This eliminates the Job minisode as The Vavoom because it confirms that Crowley & Aziraphale did get wet as they went to shelter from the storm. In the Job minisode, they never go out in it. So, Job is out, too.

Ok, so then how do we find the one scene that unlocks this and points us towards the answer hidden in plain sight in front of us?

What is the one scene that really should tell us more about The Vavoom? How about the one wherein Crowley partially recreates it?

The Awning of a New Age is the lone carraway seed. Maggie & Nina paralleling Crowley & Aziraphale. What can we learn about what happened with Crowley & Aziraphale from what happened in this Maggie & Nina scene?

We already know that Crowley feels like he partially failed at recreating The Vavoom for them. It was meant to lead into a kiss and then the awning collapsed. That is what is different from Crowley & Aziraphale's first kiss but Crowley was delighted by the gazing, which we already know to be the very important bit of this here. Off of this, we can conclude that there's obviously a parallel of this bit for Crowley & Aziraphale and this is where the parallels in the scene stop. That means that what happens *before* the gazing moment in The Awning of a New Age scene is important because that's the parallel. So, what's happening while Crowley spots them together outside and starts up the rain? They're talking, right? And what are they talking about?

They're talking about one of them-- Nina-- having a partner who is unreasonably upset. Nina is anxious about it. She doesn't blame Maggie for it, as it's not Maggie's fault. It's also not Nina's own fault and what Lindsay wants from Nina is confining and abusive. Lindsay, we learn, is cruel. We decide in this scene really how much we don't like Nina with this woman and that we want her to be with nice Maggie who is sweet and supportive and is over the moon for her.

On the surface, this would seem to be absolutely nothing like any Crowley & Aziraphale scene we've ever seen, right? Fooled by what is on the surface-- modern lesbians in London Soho, one of whom has a romantic partner-- this seems to be a plot Crowley & Aziraphale have never had. Except, that it's not. It's a parallel to one you'll remember.

One, paralleling sentence here for you...

God's a bit tetchy...

Awning of a New Age unlocks that Lindsay being unreasonably angry and dolling out insane punishment for no actual misdeeds is a parallel to God during The Flood. God was Aziraphale's Lindsay-- the unseen, abusive partners, sending down their words and marching orders and causing distress. Crowley approached Aziraphale like how Maggie approaches Nina. Aziraphale half-heartedly tries to defend God the way that Nina half-heartedly tries to defend Lindsay but both pretty much give up in the face of Crowley's and Maggie's sane responses and support. The agreement that the present situation-- Lindsay about to abandon Nina, God about to abandon her creations in The Flood-- is horrible and unjust. They connect over the lack of justice. The Flood scene we saw ends as the rain begins, with Crowley and Aziraphale both looking up as it starts to fall.

Maggie and Nina get further-- they get to the first half of The Vavoom, in parallel. We haven't seen that yet with Crowley & Aziraphale. (Maggie & Nina also didn't have to go stop and save a bunch of people first lol.)

So how do we know that The Flood was the first kiss?

How do we know that Crowley and Aziraphale first kissed in Ancient Mesopotamia in fucking 3004 B.C. and have been vavoom sorted gone on each other ever since?

Because it happening in the aftermath of saving lives in The Flood would then mean it meets every one of the elements Crowley describes. They get wet from the storm. They will work to save everyone, which is evident from Aziraphale being dead fucking certain in the Job minisode that Crowley was a sweetheart who wasn't going to kill any goats or kids. How would he know this for sure? Saying that what God was doing was terrible in The Flood scene isn't enough for Aziraphale's surety by Job. That means that Mesopotamia and The Flood is the first time they teamed up. It means that Crowley saved people and animals during it. It more than likely means that he did so in a way similar to what he does during the Job minisode-- he transformed them into something that could survive the storm, probably rocks or something. (Big Medusa vibes lol.) But what would happen then? Crowley and Aziraphale would have to *stay through the storm to turn the people back*, right?

So, they'd need to seek shelter from the rainstorm. Under a canopy that could survive the storm. One they can both step back under and bump into one another beneath. Most likely, it's an actual canopy in original meaning of the word-- the shelter of trees. I think one of them (Crowley) bolted afterwards, based on the Job minisode, which we'll get to again in a second, and from under a canopy would be the easiest way to just be able to leave during a storm. (They did not spend the Biblical 40 days and 40 nights under that canopy or they almost certainly would have wound up having sex, which the show is suggesting in other scenes didn't happen for awhile after this which is also another meta lol.) But there's also another reason for trees that kind of cracks me up.

Remember when Aziraphale comes back from Edinburgh in S2 and, before he left, they had their whole Our Car/Our Bookshop thing and Crowley's been peeved for a day now over how Aziraphale got to go adventure in The Bentley and he got to wear a cardigan and babysit their former attempted murderer? And about how what he's really playfully irritated over is that he keeps trying to use Operation Shop Lesbians to turn Aziraphale on by mentioning their Vavoomy first kiss and Aziraphale is, kind of hilariously in retrospect, just totally tormenting him by barely indulging him on it? What happens when Aziraphale comes back from his trip?

Crowley-- genuinely-- says "there you are-- I was worried something had happened to you" and he's off-camera for a moment as he does so and the camera is on Aziraphale, who kind of seems like he would like one of Crowley's kisses about now. But what does Aziraphale get in place of where a kiss could have gone?

A face full of plants lol.

In their box, so that when he handed them to Aziraphale, they hung over his head like a canopy.

Don't wanna talk about The Vavoom, angel? Fine. You're just getting the trees. Mwah. *goes to his car and is all did you misssssss me kissy face*

Aziraphale, in old married bitch mode:

Finally, there's that Ancient Mesopotamia is, chronologically, the last scene so far in which Crowley is not seen wearing glasses, which is essential because Crowley-- while wearing his glasses in the pub lol-- describes the key bit of The Vavoom as involving staring into one another's eyes, which Crowley & Aziraphale can't do if Crowley has his glasses on. Since Crowley wears his glasses in approximately 87% of Good Omens, it means that the answer is in a scene where he's either not wearing them at all or could be seen as able to take them off. Mesopotamia meets that criteria. But there's still one more thing that can really hammer home the idea of this The Flood, Part 2 being their first kiss and that's going to be how we end up back at the Job minisode again.

Go back and think of the Job minisode again but now with the idea that the last time they saw one another-- ages before it-- they shared this moment of wildly passionate vavoom and look at how it recontextualizes the entire minisode.

Start with when they first see each other again. Where did *that* Aziraphale come from? He's teasing him.

The Aziraphale in Before the Beginning and in Eden and in the first bit of The Flood that we've seen is more anxious. He's not afraid of Crowley and he's definitely attracted to him but he's distracted by the dangers of what is happening while they're talking. Suddenly, he jumps from the Aziraphale of The Flood to the Aziraphale of the Job minisode. This one is flirtier. This one is literally like all so you never called-ing Bildad the Shuite lol. He's all "last time I saw you was... The Flood?" like he doesn't know and Crowley is all tight nod ohfuckit'shim and also ohfuckit'shimhavemissedhimsomuch and hiding behind his sunglasses-- Bildad is the first appearance of the sunglasses, chronologically, so we go from the Vavoomy gaze to Crowley hiding his eyes... this then all moves into the courtyard scene after a few moments...

Oh, what's this now? The only scene in the whole series in which Aziraphale asks Crowley to take his glasses off? And he does? So quickly-- intentionally-- that his expression from before is still on his face and it's just nothing but naked want like he's saying oh you wondered how I was looking at you from behind these this whole time? yeah, it was like this... Aziraphale is straight up asking for more vavoom. Take the glasses off. Look me in the eye and tell me you want this and yeah, sure, they're talking *on the surface* on *one level* of their conversation about whether or not Crowley is exhibiting serial killer tendencies and wanting to kill small animals and kids but, really, this scene is also the formation of their coded way of speaking to one another. Crowley's "I want to. I long (pause) to kill the blameless kids of Job the way I killed his blameless goats" and then lifting just enough of the magic to let Aziraphale see that he had actually not killed the goats at all but had actually faked their deaths, indicating that that was his plan for saving the kids as well... Well, it also means that *all* of what Crowley just said to him was coded. That's the weird pause after "I long" that breaks it into two sentences. It makes the second level of their conversation that Crowley whipped off his glasses, gazed into Aziraphale's eyes, and said I want to, I long... meaning, I want you, I want to kiss you again, I long for you...

But the bit of the Job episode that sells me on The Flood being The Vavoom is actually the bit just after Crowley miracles himself, Aziraphale, the kids, Jemimah's pot (because he's so not a serial killer, he saved the damn pot lol), the wine (because fuck that little Influencer Brat of Job-- Crowley's not about to kill a kid but he absolutely will drink the last of his wine for treating Aziraphale like a whore lol), and the food down to the cellar and started iguana-ing the kids. Why this bit? Because Aziraphale is fucking giddy and is just tormenting the living fuck out of Crowley.

He's all "I knew it!" and when you first watch the scene, right, you could think he means he knew that Crowley would save the kids. Yet, he already knows that by this point-- that's what the courtyard scene was. That's why he's yelling that he's "QUITE SURE" when Crowley asks him if he is (and calls him "angel" for the first time when doing so) while he's setting everything on fire just a moment before. Obviously, Aziraphale is happy that Crowley didn't kill the kids but what he's all I knew it *smug smile, actually fucking wiggling with flirty joy* about is that Crowley wanted to be alone with him again and would find a way to make it happen because what's the plan? The one that Aziraphale is totally teasing him about?

Aziraphale is going on about how oh, this is *Satan's* big plan, huh? A *big storm*? He loves every minute of it and he also really loves Crowley getting very close to him-- kissable close-- and being all "ooh aren't you brilliant?" when Aziraphale was acting smug. When did Crowley get that comfortable getting that close to him?

But yeah, Aziraphale loving every second of Crowley saving the kids, turning them into sightless/soundless iguanas, and sending a storm over the land for the night while keeping the two of them dry in a little cellar canopy so they can be alone together again-- essentially, repeating a version of The Vavoom scenario, as he'll still be trying to do millennia later... Aziraphale thought that very romantic and had no problem flirtily teasing the hell out of Crowley for it. Crowley's game is as ancient as Bildad the Shuite lol.

So yeah, what we're saying here is that there's a The Flood, Part 2 and that it's likely in S3. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it opened S3, since the first two seasons are opened with the other canopy-themed firsts-- the two first times they met, really, in Before the Beginning and Eden, both with the wing canopy-ing of one another-- so S3 could be the tree canopy and their first kiss. The Flood also seems likely to return because of how it ties thematically to the whole end of the world of S3's Second Coming plot.

One aspect of this theory that I really like is also that it means that Crowley was more female-presenting during their first kiss (which also goes along with the feminine energy sometimes associated with the phrase "vavoom"/"vavavoom") but also that when they next see one another in the Job minisode, Crowley is the more male-presenting Bildad the Shuite... and Aziraphale is really just into all of it. He's just into Crowley, full stop. We already know he is but I like the idea of it tied to their early days and showing it unfold a bit and how it's just all fine by Aziraphale, who just loves this being and is happy to see them and get to be alone with them again. It's very sweet and romantic.

I guess the last thing to say is that if this is true, we're all going to have a field day redoing the psychoanalysis of this bit below, aren't we?