#“relationships” isn't intended as the romantic sort in this case

[autumnalwalker]

Themes Tag Game

Thank you for the tag, @druidx. Always fun to do a new game (even if it took me over a month to get around to it).

Rules: Bold the themes that appear in your WIP (& italicize those that are loosely covered) then tag 10 people.

Doing this for The Archivist's Journal. It's long enough that it touches on a lot of things tangentially

addiction | beauty | betrayal | change vs. tradition | chaos vs. order | circle of life | coming of age | communication | convention vs. rebellion | corruption | courage | crime and law | dangers of ignorance | darkness and light | death | desire to escape | dreams | displacement | empowerment | facing darkness | facing reality | faith vs. doubt | fall from grace | fame and fortune | family | fate | fear | fear of failure | free will | friendship | fulfilment | good vs. bad | government | greed | guilt and forgiveness | hard work | heroism | hierarchy | honesty | hope | identity crisis | immortality | independence | individual vs. society | inner vs. outer strength | innocence | injustice | isolation | knowledge vs. ignorance | life | loneliness | lost love | love | man vs. nature | manipulation | materialism | motherhood | nature | nature vs. nurture | oppression | optimism | peer pressure | poverty | power | power of words | prejudice | pride | progress | quest | racism | rebirth | relationships | religion | responsibility | revenge | sacrifice | secrets | self-awareness | self-preservation | self-reliance | sexuality | social class structure | survival | technology | temptation and destruction | time | totalitarianism | weakness | vanity | war | wealth | wisdom of experience | youth

Passing the tag to @rickie-the-storyteller, @writernopal, @writingpotato07, @ceph-the-ghost-writer, @papercutsunset, @sarahlizziewrites, @cljordan-imperium, @nightshadetheghost, @kahvilahuhut, @void-botanist, and an open tag for anyone else who wants to do this.

[0daylighthours0]

(part 2) A Deep Dive into Milkvan and Byler's Development: If Milkvan's Destined Endgame, Why's it Written Like This???

The decision to confirm Will to be in love with MIKE is wild, and I'll tell you why.

When you add a third party to a t.v show relationship, if the first relationship isn't perfect, people gunna start rooting for the third party. Take Stancy for instance.

Throughout s2, we got the vibes that Jonathan held feelings for Nancy. This was clear. But Nancy was still with Steve. This means, in order for us not to sympathize more for Jonathan, Nancy and Steve gotta be ✧ tight ✧. I mean, their issues must be kept at a low, and at the end of the day it's gotta be clearer to us that Nancy does in fact love Steve. Welp, that wasn’t the case. Stancy's relationship ✧ struggled ✧, justifying intimate moments between Nancy and Jonathan - making us feel as if he'd be better for her after all. A smart writing choice, as Duffers intended Jancy as season 2's endgame pairing.

Now, I'd like to point out the foreshadowing of this development.

Come the wrapping up of s1, and it seemed Nancy had retreated back to Steve.

They'd clearly reconciled and - to an outsider - all would appear to be going smoothly. But us as the audience know that not to be the case.

One reason? Well, she'd just shared a suggesting moment with Jonathan.

So our minds weren't on Steve and this show of his with Nancy. Rather, we read into Nancy's slight discomfort, and wondered if perhaps she'd prefer being with Jonathan instead.

This was of course intentional. I'd like to briefly bring to attention the similarities in these moments to ones at the end of s3 - between Mike and Will, and then Mike and El.

Here a conclusion to milkvan's seasonal drama is made, them seemingly staying together, parting on good terms. Hm. And milkvan's moment is.. kinda like stancy's. They got back together because, well, El said she loves Mike. And Steve loves Nancy. And Mike loves El right? The way Nancy loved Steve- But just, coincidentally, we have byler's reconciliation too.

This came before the guy's makeup with El, because, why? This was quite the interesting decision mates. It means that whilst he spends that moment with his girlfriend, our minds are fresh off of Will. People might read into the way he's acting in contrast, just maybe, the way they did during stancy. And people did. That's a bit of a fumble on the writers' part, if you ask me. I know you're trying to let us know that Mike's now on good terms with both members, and his and El's goodbye needs to be the dramatic finishing of the season, but, man, did byler even have to make up at all here you guys? I mean this miscommunication of theirs lasts through to s4 (just like janc-). Why not sort their good terms out later or earlier on, so that we have more mindspace here to focus solely on milkvan, our main main? Or at least, why not just have Mike apologize to Will and be done with it? He could even apologize alongside Lucas, making the moment less personal. And Will could simply forgive him, give a dudely pat it out, and that's it. We wash our hands.

But nah. There's this electricity in the air. The swelling music, the prolonged looks, this doesn't.. seem like a simple make up. It's startlingly short, making us feel as if there have been things left unsaid. And that line,

".. Not possible."

It's so... implying. What do you mean? Why are you looking at eachother like that? What am I meant to get from this scene?

And it isn't a closing reconciliation either, they haven't properly ended their season's drama. I mean no one even apologized for the argument, we're just sort of left with this. Left with the hint of a story that might be further explored - their moment coming off more as anticipation for what's to come than a conclusion. Maybe just a bit like Jonathan and Nancy s1.

But so what? That does not have to mean anything romantic between them is to be told. After all, El just expressed to Mike that she loves him. This means that these sweethearts are practically fortold as endgame, right?

Alright I'll stop stalling.

Season 4.

So. Will is in love with Mike now. Huh. Well, I don't recommend this. As I said, you risk people rooting for Will beyond their hopes for Mike and El as a couple. If this is a plotline you desire, it has to be navigated with precision. So this means that milkvan must be on their A game. Struggle between them has got to be handled delicately. As we see in stancy, and as we saw in s3, just making up at the end of it all isn't good enough. You can risk this mistake once, but we must like these guys together throughout season 4, more than we sorrow for Will. Infact, Will's feelings must not be made too big of a deal. Mike and El are going to stay together, so we should feel a bit sorry for him, but not gather any hope that things will actually work out to his favour.

Like Dustin in s2. He sprouted small feelings for Max, and so did Lucas. Lumax were the endgame, so Dustin's feelings were craftly navigated and not made more important than Max and Lucas' bond. We don't really feel that Dustin is in love with Max, moreso that he likes her and has some moments of jealousy aimed at Lucas. Noone really wanted him with her more than they rooted for Lumax, though we did sympathize for him and feel bad for him regardless.

So yeah, this can easily be written out for Will too. If his story's purpose is meant for the exploration of a gay kid navigating a still homoph#bic time, then there's a lot that can be done without even having to spare much screen time between him and Mike. Focus on his fear of judgement from Jonathan moreso maybe, or have Argyle say something - it can be whatever, mention something homoph#bic, mention something not homoph#bic and give Will hope, whatever - which sets off a thought or idea for Will that prepares his arc for the season.

Back to Mike and El - so we want a 'scared to say "I love you"' subplot. That's good, that good. Fleshes out Mike, plays into El's fears. Shouldn't be too hard.

There's already a mild problem though. This plot is playing out twice at once. We have our boy Will hosting this same fear of rejection by Mike - at least that's how things have been shot. His dread is portrayed through his restraint and timidity in revealing his painting to Mike. Will's painting is basically his version of a confession - the guy too selfless, shy and afraid to express his love outright.

So playing out this storyline at the double is.. a choice. I mean, Mike telling El he loves her is a big deal for the milkvans, shouldn't this romance dominate as much screen time as possible in order to be fully pumped up without any sidetracks to other insignificant in comparison feelings? S3 was already quite clumsy, why not have Mike and El's activities soak in all viewers' engrossment without any departures? Maybe spend a bit of time demonstrating how likeable and wholesome they actually are together. Now that we have Will's affection ontop it all, what's important is that Mike and El's camera time spent matters. They can be angsty, they can withhold some misunderstandings, but they still have to be a good. couple.

Oh yeah, also, Mike should blatantly display feelings for El and El only - duh.

.

..

huh ?

huh ? ? ?

[saintsenara]

In the last post you implied that jily fell for each other the moment they met, why do you think this? I never really got that vibe (it seems like they both like each from atleast as early as their 5th year) but I could be missing something here.

thank you very much for the ask, anon!

for the simple reason that both lily and james choosing to be so bothered by each other the second they properly meet is a very good sign that each considered the other to mean something significant to them from the off.

after all, if lily considered james to be completely uninteresting and unworthy of her time... then she wouldn't have involved herself in the dick-measuring contest he, snape, and sirius get into on the hogwarts express. and james wouldn't have felt compelled to be rude about her - in a way, let's be clear, which he intends her to hear and to know is directed at her - while she's storming out of the compartment with her nose in the air if he didn't think she was worthy of his attention either.

this doesn't mean that what each of them felt for each other was immediately romantic [after all, they're eleven...], but that sort of prickly, "no, obviously i don't care about james potter! i hate james potter! he annoys me just by breathing!" dislike of someone can [in many cases] be a precursor to love...

[because - of course - the opposite of love isn't hatred... it's indifference.]

and it also doesn't negate the fact that both snape and sirius are directly involved in starting - and maintaining, and escalating - the beef. snape's immediate dislike of james and sirius [and their immediate dislike of him] has that same sense of only being so bothered by someone because they matter to you. the text points this out explicitly - that snape is immediately jealous of james having the "indefinable air of having been well-cared-for, even adored, that snape so conspicuously lacked".

and that james is immediately jealous of snape having lily.

one of snape's great tragedies is that he doesn't quite possess the ability to understand the subtext of lily's relationship with james prior to the breakdown of their friendship - and that this is why james and lily bantering [pretty flirtatiously, to be frank] while james is bullying him blindsides him, making him so angry that he lashes out in the only way he believes could soothe his pain and calls her a mudblood.

it's clear from the princes tale, for instance - especially the bit where they're arguing about mulciber versus the marauders - that snape is trying to needle lily into stating conclusively that james doesn't matter to her [and that he's immensely reassured when she seems to do so], but that he doesn't realise that lily calling james an "arrogant toerag" doesn't actually indicate the indifference he's looking for...

that conversation seems to take place in their fifth year - and snape being worried that james' interest in lily is sexual might very well have only started then - but it has as an undercurrent the heavy implication that snape and lily have had similar discussions before. it seems pretty unlikely, for example, that lily would ask snape "why are you so obsessed with them?" if he'd only just started bringing james and his cronies up with her - and it seems equally unlikely that snape would have felt the need to complain to lily about the marauders prior to this conversation if he hadn't been worried for a significant amount of time that lily was not quite as unconcerned by james as she claimed...

[this - for what it's worth - is why i think the anti-jily "james forced her into being with him!" argument doesn't hold up. james' technique is pretty heavy-handed - absolutely - but he behaves the way he does because he's noticed that lily not only reacts to it, but that she reacts to it in ways which aren't boredom, sadness, or fear. and she does this - of course - because james sincerely interests her.]

and - while this comes with the risk of undermining what i said yesterday - it's striking that this is exactly what happens with ron and hermione. while their friendship establishes itself very differently to james and lily's - and while the course it takes towards romance is also very different - that same "no of course i don't care!" interest in each other is present from the get-go.

i don't think this is because jily and romione are intended by the doylist text to be parallels so much as i think that it's a way of conducting interpersonal relationships that jkr is clearly fond of in her own life [which is due both to her own personal idiosyncrasies and the cultural context in which she lives - insulting people you care about is the british love-language, describing a man as an "arrogant toerag" is practically writing him romantic poetry].

but i do think the fact that it turns up in how both couples are written - particularly since the doylist text thinks that james and lily were a perfect couple, even if its readers disagree - is intended to show that, in both cases, the fact that it was irritation-at-first-sight meant it later turning into true love was inevitable...

[dutchdread]

What response do you have to that one quote(I think it's from an ultimania) where it basically says: "Cloud has complex feelings for Aerith, he had a bond with her that was different from the one he had with Tifa."?

Obligatory "spoilers for rebirth" warning. I think that is very accurate. One of the problems with the LTD is that it tends to equate all types of love. In particular it pretends that all love is romantic. I think a good starting point for answering this question is to read my article "what is love, baby don't hurt me". And "Do I think Cloud had romantic feelings for Aerith? Plot twist: Yes" if you want a bit more nuanced take on what I think about Cloud and Aeriths relationship. I think after Rebirth we can stop pretending that Cloud isn't romantically in love with Tifa, he literally kissed her. People can pretend it's optional but that is missing the point of these scenes, which are intended to give insights into the nature of the relationships between these characters. Regardless of which date you actually unlock, if you maximize your affection for all the characters you will have a Cloud who, if asked to go with any of the characters, would react the way he does in the high-affection version of that date. That means that even in the universe where Aerith asks Cloud on a date, and he decides to comfort her by holding her hand, that SAME Cloud would have kissed Tifa had she been the one to ask him to go with her. These are not two time-lines, these are two "what-ifs" concerning the same person with the same emotions. Similarly, the same Cloud who kissed Tifa would have held Aeriths hand for her. The reason this matters is because clearly Cloud is not the type of person to cheat, this is not that sort of narrative. Nor is he the type of person who would engage in actions that he'd think are a betrayal of his feelings towards some other girl. If Cloud loves Tifa he would not do things with Aerith that he would see as a betrayal of those emotions. Similarly, if he loves Aerith he would not do things with Tifa that he would see as a betrayal of those emotions. We see this several times in the game in fact. Cloud isn't fond of Aerith typifying their Costa Del Sol "date" as "a date", and is very unhappy with Aerith doing something similar in Kalm. And yet Cloud does kiss Tifa, without guilt or hesitation. He tries it in Gongaga, he does it at the Golden Saucer, and he continuously tries to advance his relationship with Tifa throughout the game in general. So given that that's the case, why would he grab Aeriths hand at the Golden Saucer, and in the dream sequence? Answer: because he doesn't think that grabbing Aeriths hand is romantic in the sense that kissing Tifa is. Because these are not the same type of feelings as the romantic type that he has for Tifa, and are therefore not at odds. And what they actually are....is complex. I don't think anyone could really accurately jot down the precise nature of Clouds feelings regarding Aerith, since that is precisely the point. That is why the word "complex" is used in the first place. You have to remember that the situation here is unlike any that anyone would be well equipped to deal with, or has ever had to deal with. We have a Cloud who is not himself, and who has a host of traumas and struggles and very specific afflictions he's working through. Aerith is the person he's bodyguarding, she's a symbol of the planet, she's a friend, she's a cetra, she reminds him of his mother, she's the girlfriend of his best friend, the girlfriend of someone whose identity he has in a vague sense taken on, someone he's having visions off. He finds her annoying, but also likable. But most importantly she is someone who is helping him, and whom he is helping. (continued)

[psychangels]

Poking my nose in here like a stray cat that just caught a whiff of fish to go, hiiii, you have thoughts on the fandom's approach to Chai & Peppermint?? (Feel free to DM away if you're worried about discussing it openly 🤣)

i sure dooo! a whole lot. this wound up pretty long (much longer than i intended; i went on a bit of a rant), heh, so i've put it under the cut

i have a Very averse reaction to when people say, "peppermint wants to smash chai's head in with a rock/kill him with hammers/literally any other variation of that in which she wants to hurt or kill him," Especially in regards to people using that for their reasoning as to why they see them as siblings

and after much thought, i realized it's because that literally Isn't Their Fucking Dynamic lmao

the thing is, yes, chai Does annoy peppermint. but She annoys Him, too! she's cocky and smug and gets on his nerves! she's a little shit, too! they're Both shitty to Each Other! but i guess everybody just. Forgot.

plus! yes, they bicker and fight—but as the game goes on, they get on each other's nerves less and less. and yet, people act as though their dynamic stays the Exact same

see, if someone wants to make the claim that peppermint wants to hurt/kill chai, then they better be talking about her at the beginning of the game, because by the End? no! not at fucking all!

even around the beginning, honestly, it's still not really true because she Very Obviously comes to care for him Really Quickly! like, there's even signs of it as early as the end of track 2, when she's so Clearly outraged about the mind control and then later during that same bit when she sighs and her voice gets softer as she says, "just...check this out"

it really irks me when people have peppermint—or any of the others, because i've seen it happen with them, too—constantly be Pissed at chai and have them treat him pretty shitty when they're making content that's set post-game. because by Then, they have changed! not to mention that they're supposed to be FRIENDS! why would they be so awful to him?!

i have literally seen someone have korsica say, "Nice to hear someone with brains talking," upon another character entering the room after having a conversation with chai. and her just generally being weirdly snappish to him for...making a joke.

but. this isn't about those two. it's just sort of related. anyhow.

as for the siblings side of things, i feel like i have to make it Extremely Clear that i don't really care if people see them that way. i mean, i've written writing requests where people ask for that. so.

what i Do have a problem with, is that it's a constant thing in fandoms where people will see two characters who are of the opposite gender who bicker and immediately go, "they're sooo siblings!" so. suffice to say, i was not surprised to see it in this one. however, i am still certainly annoyed by it!

and i never really understood why that pissed me off Until i really gave it some thought, and i realized it's because, truly? it feels like a lot of these people don't actually understand that not every sibling dynamic ever is "i want to beat your head in with a rock" (because that's Always what the dynamic is boiled down to)

sure, that's sometimes the case. but as someone with two siblings, both of whom i have pretty different relationships with and Neither of which are anything like that, it's kind of frustrating to see this generalization. especially when it's fucking EVERYWHERE!

friends, or even romantic partners, can have that kind of fucking dynamic! it's not inherently a sibling thing! and for peppermint and chai, again, it ISN'T EVEN WHAT THEIR DYNAMIC IS!

sigh. sorry. this turned into a whole rant.

[idrellegames]

You've probably gotten a few of these before but my turn for praise. Even as a person who's probably a hopeless romantic I dearly appreciate that Wayfarer doesn't make itself a romance first game. So many IF do that and it makes the game lose any sense of plot and in the worse cases, outright repetitive because the options fail to add any flavor to the rest of the game. Even worse are all the games that sort of 'forget' the other characters are there once you're in a romance.

But what makes Wayfarer even better is the fact you have ace/aro-spec representation that actually matters because people fall into the pitfall of making them a "hard to get/aloof/unaware of anything ever" romance option. Having the ability to make platonic bonds that influence the game just as much as romantic ones and don't diminish aro/ace characters is so nice and I appreciate it so much.

I think this is maybe a good opportunity to riff a little on genre conventions and expectations.

Romance games have their own conventions. They're fun, they're often self-indulgent--the point is to indulge in the fantasy that the MC (and therefor you, the player) is the centre of the universe. Everyone you come across is at least a little bit in love with you. You are special. You are loved. And this is really fun!

Of course, there are romance games that colour outside these lines, but the general expectation is that you will have your selection of ROs, their individual routes, and that the ROs are always going to put the MC first. Having individual routes for each RO usually means that the RO is the star of their route, and all other characters take a backseat because they are the star of their own route. The MC and the romance is the focus, everything else is secondary.

I do really want to stress that there is nothing wrong with this format. It's successful for a reason! The problem comes when you try to apply these conventions to all games, especially ones that do not fall within this genre.

When romance isn't the focal component of the game, the narrative can ring a little hollow if you try try to employ conventions like this. I think there needs to be room for IF games where the MC isn't special, where they are literally Just Some Guy, where the characters they interact with have a range of things going on with them that don't have anything to do with the MC at all. Characters having a life outside the MC is really important for creating deep bonds and meaningful relationships; it's part of having rounded, fleshed-out characters. There needs to be room for conflict and complications, because that's where character development lies.

There's a reason why Aeran doesn't spill all his secrets in Episode 2. If this were a romance game, he might--but it's not and he won't. He is in a significant amount of emotional distress in Velantis and it is not in character for him to break down and reveal everything at the MC's request. Relationships aren't easy, especially when both parties have a lot of growth and healing to do.

And I think, too, when it comes to early IF development it's very easy to want to rush right to the romances. Romances draw in an audience, they give folks something to look forward to. They're the thing you get asks about, which generates interest in your game, and helps you inspiration and drive afloat. But when the focus remains only on that, it's very easy to overlook other necessary narrative aspects. There needs to be balance.

With regards to aro/ace characters - it's easy to fall into tropes for them, even if you don't intend to. There are expectations about what a "good" and "satisfying" relationship looks like in fiction, and aro/ace characters often fall outside of that. To grasp being aro/ace, you have to question what sexual and romantic attraction actually is, which you don't necessarily have to grasp with other characters because the assumption is that it is there naturally.

And even then, aromanticism and asexuality is hard to communicate effectively in fiction without making it feel "lesser". Take for example, Aeran's intimacy scene in Episode 2. There's a difference between the allosexual option (where the MC sleeps with him and they are emotionally and physically intimate) and the asexual option (where they don't have sex, but the emotional intimacy is still there). Even though I was being as careful not to weigh one option over the other, in comparing the two the allosexual version is the more traditionally "satisfying" ending to that arc than the asexual one because it follows conventions. I am personally really happy with the asexual option, but it still feels like it lacks a certain… "oomf", for lack of a better term.

I think this is why it's really important to have substantial relationships outside of romance. When romance and sex aren't weighted as a signifier of the deepest bond you can have with a person, there's room to explore more diverse relationships and how they can take form.

[risingsouls]

[Okey dokey. Now that I've imploded and have picked up those pieces (maybe), I want to discuss what I plan to do moving forward. I want to preface this by saying I do not blame anyone but myself for getting to this point. I didn't follow my own rules, and it has made me uncomfortable with what I'm doing on this blog.

This is mainly about shipping so, if you ship with me, you'll want to take a gander. Under the cut for obvious reasons and to not annoy people.]

So, this has really been a long time coming but I do think I want to reset pretty much all my ships. Again, this is not anyone else's fault but my own, but I've just sort of become bored with what I've been doing in that realm. I went against my own rule of building up ships and allowed them to be rushed instead of built from the ground up like I like. I want to go through the stages of getting two (or more as the case might rarely be who knows) muses into a relationship. I want to see the messy parts. I want to do more than just having relationships be established from almost the jump after one or two small interactions. It's not fair to my muses who are all pretty damn picky. I don't feel like I'm doing right by them by not building these relationships properly. I do love all the ships that have happened, but I'm just not happy with myself for not sticking to my guns about REALLY building them.

What does this mean? Good question. By default, I think this means that I'm just going to wipe the board clean of all ships, save for a few exceptions. I'm also going to lay some ground rules for shipping in general that are honestly more a reminder for me, but also a sort of "this is what you can expect" thing moving forward for my partners.

First and foremost, I'm going to be pickier. I'm not going to allow people to just come at my muses from the jump with anything that's obviously shippy in an established way. Flirting is fine, but if I get something like "I've always loved you" (within reason on this one because that could be interesting) or "we've been married for sixteen years!" when there was no build up to this or they're basically strangers, I'm going to ignore it. Anyone is welcome to come ask me to ship, but, at the risk of sounding harsh, we're BOTH going to have to work for it.

If characters have a history, either in my canon or regular canon, I'm obviously willing to be a WEENSY bit more lenient. For example, Nabooru and Vegeta, in my AU crossover shenanigans, already have some history. Not necessarily as a romantic relationship (unless it's way down the line and even that's not traditional), but they did build some rapport with each other in that realm to some degree. However, since my Vegeta isn't the same as someone else's, I do still want to do the lifting with getting them off the ground. I want to see how it would differ with someone else's Vegeta than with what I've written/imagined in my AU. And I should also disclaimer that no other Vegeta or any other character needs to know Nabooru or any other one of my characters in the way they do in my AU.

This is where I'm afraid I might hurt feelings or lose RP partners, though I really hope I don't as it's not intended. As mentioned, I am starting ships over. I know I told some people recently that I was okay with continuing what we had, but it's become clear that I'm not happy with what I allowed and how I rushed things. Basically, I am very much still willing to explore the ships I already have again! But I do want to sort of start at some kind of beginning. To build it from the ground or close to it up. If you don't want to deal with that, I understand, but I feel this is necessary for me to feel good about what I'm doing again.

I think that covers everything. If you have questions, don't hesitate to pop in my DMs or hmu on dis.cor.d. Again, I'm not upset with anyone at all! This was definitely a me issue that I didn't get a handle on before I let it get to the point it bothered me.

[bokettochild]

ok zoned out and was randomly thinking about legend’s speech in heroes legacy (right before shifting shadow) and how he calls himself an average nobody, and how there’s a theory/headcanon that leg is zelda’s brother or in some way royalty, and how his ‘average nobody’ line could be a tongue in cheek nod to that at the very least, and full on foreshadowing potentially. if jojo goes for the ‘legend is of royal blood’ thing does leg know? is he secretly being sarcastic? or is he in the dark and will we get to see him figure it out

idk why i sent this i just needed to see if anyone else saw merit in this and you like legend so hopefully i can go back to dozing peacefully

He describes all the heroes in simple ways, ways that focus on their origins and not on their achievements. I think JoJo's reasoning for having Legend describe himself in this way is because, unlike so many of the others, before he became a hero he hadn't done anything yet.

Legend's whole existence is as the greatest of the hylian heroes, as per Nayru. He's never been anything other than a hero, because he started when he was still a very young child and thus never had time to try his hand elsewhere. In this talk though, he is saying that the hero can come from anywhere, from any walk of life, and naming the paths the others followed before they were heroes. he, however, was nothing remarkable before he was a hero. he was a random kid in a village, so there's no job he can name like smithy, soldier, or rancher, and there's no unique origin like "from the forest" because he was just an average kid living in Hyrule like anyone else.

Now, if he does know, if he's aware that he is not, in fact, an average kid with average origins, then this might be a subtle sort of joke to himself. Honestly, I do think JoJo intends on having Fable and Legend as potential romantic partners rather than siblings, but let's say her plan IS for them to be siblings, for theory's sake.

If they're siblings, I think it's quite likely they'd have found it out by now. I mean, if there's any proof of such a thing, Fable most certainly would have figured it out and told him. In which case, Legend would be sort of laughing to himself as he says this because he really isn't an average nobody, he's a prince, but for all intents and purposes what he says is also true. No one knows, and thus as far as anyone outside of the castle is concerned, he was just that; an average nobody.

In the case that he doesn't know though, there's a good chance that Legend honestly thinks this way about himself. Sure, he's been lauded with titles and honors, but at his core he still sees himself as Some Guy who just did the right thing, just like anyone should. In the case that he's a prince though and has to find that out, I think it would be sort of earth shattering.

Legend defines himself by his normalcy, it's the only bit of sanity he's assured and he builds his identity around this idea that he's just A Guy, not something amazing or great or profound. To have that ripped away would shatter his entire self-image and make him question everything about himself and his life. Is anything he's ever thought about himself true? are his accomplishments really accomplishments or just him doing his duty by way of the kingdom he was born to serve? What is he beyond his duty and service to the kingdom? Without a crown, he's a Stand-up Guy helping others out. With one, he'd be a Prince serving his people as is his basic duty.

Whatever the intent JoJo has for his relationship to Zelda, I think this line is more a betrayer of Legend's character, but how that self-image will effect him will really depend on where JoJo takes his growth and character arc.

[crossedwithblue]

You're a Mansfield Park fan?

Yes!

IDK if you intended it as such but I am going to take this as a license to ramble about MP on main.

I think the thing about MP is that people (especially people who aren't as quite intense about JA than I am lmao, or who have only read P&P before) often come to it expecting a light-bright-and-sparkling romance like P&P, and are surprised when that isn't the case. Hell, I felt like that too on the first read, because the pop-culture perception of JA is that she was a romance writer first and foremost - but the romantic happy-ever-after is shoehorned into a few paragraphs on the last page or two, and not even shown on the page. MP isn't a romance novel at all - I have minimal English lit knowledge outside of JA, but I'd class it as more of a bildungsroman, maybe? Or a predecessor to those modern Literary Novels all about objectively nasty people being nasty to each other? (More on this in a min) I would very much welcome corrections from people who do know what they're talking about, though!

To me, JA isn't actually a romance writer most of the time. She wrote really good romances because she was really good at characterisation and at understanding and describing how personalities interact to form relationships, and romance is just one type of relationship. It's just the one that pop culture tends to focus on when it comes to JA (I mostly blame Georgette Heyer but of course there's an essay to be written on that too). The only JA novels I'd describe as true romances are P&P, of course, and Persuasion - the rest have romance as just one among many other dynamics as a supporting or side plot, or a tool to reveal characterisation, rather than being the main focus.

Fanny is also a very passive narrator who tends to be acted upon rather than acting herself, which tends to irritate people, but MUCH more on that in a minute.

I think MP is in some ways sort of... cruel. It's certainly the most openly incisive and potentially upsetting, with depictions of complex abusive/toxic family dynamics that could probably come straight out of a domestic/familial abuse/neglect resource. The point where I started to enjoy MP was when someone told me to embrace the schadenfreude - everyone besides Fanny and Edmund (possibly - both points very much up for debate, but they are at least trying their best in the middle of a family that doesn't give a fuck, really) is either an actively terrible person or at least a pretty bad enabler. That did help me find the humour in it, but personally I certainly find it a bit hard to read at times, especially the Mrs Norris scenes. It's not usually my first choice when I want to be cheered up.

This also tends to surprise people, I think, because the pop-culture image of JA, (probably in large part due to her Victorian relatives wanting to protect her posthumous image) is of a twinkly, proper, sweet-natured spinster lady.

Which she was not. Anyone who's seen extracts of her surviving letters knows that she had a biting, frequently uncharitable sense of humour (miscarriage jokes aren't a great look, Jane!) - and we know Cassandra destroyed the really juicy stuff, so that's got to be the tip of the iceberg. This is certainly apparent in all of her books, but can be ignored much of the time - but not in MP, where uncharitable descriptions of awful people are pretty much the core of the book.

Finally, we come to Fanny, the extremely divisive heroine (not least because of that name lol). Personally I tend to imprint on pathetic small girls who need looking after, but Fanny is a massive turnoff (lolol) for many people. I think that's just a personal thing but I enjoy the effect of her frequently becoming another layer through which the narrative filters - JA was a master of free indirect speech, of course, often with deliberate ambiguity about whose POV is being reported - omniscient narrator or character or both in agreement - and if it's a character, then which one? Fanny usually says and does little, but observes very keenly and astutely, which interacts in a really interesting way with the narration.

Also, I'd just like to point out that Fanny is Like That because she is an abuse victim. She may not be the most compelling heroine for everyone, but she isn't going to "just stand up for herself". The one time she does, the Bertrams punish her for it pretty harshly by sending her back to an environment that they know will be bad for her physical health (!)

Bit of a tangent but I am also a huge fan of Jane Eyre and I think there are interesting parallels to be drawn between Fanny and Jane. Jane Eyre is a fiery, independent character who manages to get out of bad situations one way or another, mostly through sheer dumb luck (don't get me wrong I love my girl Jane but How did she leave that parcel on the coach...). If she'd stayed at Gateshead, I could see her gradually getting beaten down until she became a lot more like Fanny - because other than Jane's innate temper, they have quite a bit in common - they both do, when it comes down it, have a very strong sense of self (yes, even Fanny) and the ability to reject things that they know are morally wrong, no matter the potential cost.

That turned into a bit of a defense of MP because I usually hear people dissing it and so that's what I end up thinking about. Lots more to be said on the Crawfords and the Bertrams, of course.

[m34gs]

It's been a while since I watched it but I've been thinking a lot lately about why I enjoyed House of Wax (2005) so I felt like posting about it (since I had to call in today, maybe this will take my mind off some of my pain...). There will be spoilers ahead. And I know lots of people didn't like the movie. I don't care. I did. So, if you didn't or don't like it, move on.

Parallels. I am a sucker for parallels between the antagonists and protagonists. In this case, it's the twins. The main protagonist and her twin brother are travelling with some friends when they end up stumbling on the strange small town. The antagonists are also twins. As the movie goes along, the audience finds out that the sets of twins both had one twin considered the "good twin" and the other the "troublemaker", though for the antagonist's it isn't who you think it is.

Jumping off that point, let's go right into part of the plot twist. See, in the beginning of the movie there's a flashback to a screaming, crying child being mistreated and strapped into a chair with restraints that dig into his arms, but his face is not shown to the audience. There is also an indication that the two children in the chairs were conjoined twins who were separated via operation; leaving one with deformities to his face as they were attached face-to-skull. Once it is clear that the children in those chairs were the antagonists growing up, it is discovered that it was not the deformed brother who was put in that chair. I found that development interesting and rather refreshing because while I understand that humans can be cruel and mistreat people who look different, it is nice for once to not see parents treat their disabled child with malice (not that it's good that his brother was mistreated in that way at all). I just feel that often the way that trope goes, it would have been the other way around and it was refreshing to see it the this way instead. It also made me appreciate the way the filming was done in the beginning, keeping the audience in the dark as to who was experiencing what in their childhood so that when things are revealed it brings a whole new light to the situation and characters of the brothers.

The actual situation. Ok, so it would be terrifying enough to stumble upon a ghost town with highly realistic wax figurines and find out that the guy helping you was lying the whole time, and being trapped in the middle of god-knows-where with him. But then for the characters to find out that all those figures are actual people, who were coated in wax while still alive...that's pretty sickening. I find it fascinating in a grotesque way, and horrifying, which is good because it is a horror movie.

The way the antagonist twins seemed to genuinely care about each other. I don't know why, but seeing them worry about each other and interact like that, even with Bo being really manipulative of Vincent, it was interesting and I liked it. Kind of gave them back some of their humanity. And it again was a great comparison to the protagonist twins as well.

One guy, One girl. The One Guy, One Girl left standing at the end trope usually annoys me because it often has some sort of forced romance to it and I just don't like that. However, this time, it was not romantic, as the last two standing were the protagonist twins: Carly and Nick. I liked the focus on their familial relationship and how they care about each other.

The ending. I really liked how in the end, when Bo and Vincent died, they resumed the same position they had when they were born: Vincent with his face fitted against the back of Bo's head. It's as if they were never separated. I love the way it circles back to their beginning like that.

The third brother. Whether it was intended merely as an open ending, or as a set-up for a sequel, the way the third brother is mentioned at the end almost seems like an afterthought, except the camera then pans to the man who initially sent the group of friends in the direction of the wax town, heavily implying that he is the third brother. I liked it because it tied up a loose end as he disappeared from the beginning and the audience would be left wondering "why on earth did he send them that way, and did he know about the town???", so they answered that question while also leaving the threat of the brothers open-ended. And, if it turned out it was supposed to be a setup for a sequel...well, I've seen worse. As in, I've seen movies that were in no way set to have sequels have more sequels than they should, none of which actually fit together or seem to be part of the same timeline (stares at Texas Chainsaw Massacre - don't get me wrong, I love it, but none of those sequels made a whole lot of sense when trying to put them together with the original).

Anyway, that's my thoughts on House of Wax. I liked it. I really like horror movies 💜🥰

[scoobydoodean]

I think part of the reason Cas hates Crowley and dislikes Benny (at first) so much is that both of them don’t self-sacrificingly resist from ever asking Dean for anything and do pursue a relationship with him (argue over whether it’s romantic, or whatever). I think Cas is sort of unable to handle the transition between the way things work in heaven (heavily regimented, everyone knows who they are to each other) and on Earth (lots of feeling out boundaries). I think the disconnect people are expressing is they don’t understand that Cas’ discomfort isn’t Dean’s fault, even if it is relatable/makes sense from the perspective of a very isolated character who has already lost all sense of belonging and fears jeopardizing that further by asking for literally anything from the few friends he has left. Cas didn’t hide how he felt for Dean’s benefit (though he may have told himself that), he did it for himself. And that’s totally understandable, but like you said, you can’t have a real relationship if you never communicate what you want out of it. And that is again, not Dean’s fault.

That's interesting about Crowley and Benny. This is definitely all a perspective I can respect.

I think from my perspective, what Cas struggled with with Benny early on (and Purgatory is a good example of most of Dean and Cas's problems actually), is that Benny immediately wanted an answer as to why Cas abandoned Dean in Purgatory. Dean actually would have been willing to brush it under the rug (this is the guy who rewrote his own memories of what transpired at the portal to make it so Cas didn't intentionally let go of his hand). Benny was willing to poke into the issue, and he did, in fact, find some hot air in that balloon. Cas and Benny both agreed that Cas was a liability, but Cas did believe in his own integrity (at least when it came to his choices on "The Best Ways To Protect Dean Winchester"—which in this case, involved bailing). The thing is... "protecting Dean" isn't the entire explanation for Cas's actions (see 8.07), and that's why Cas didn't like Benny poking at him. He'd suffered enough hits to his self-image and didn't want to deflate any further (and I'm not entirely sure Cas knows yet why he might deflate further if pressed—but Benny—the person with the objective outsider's view—is shrewd enough). Even if "Protecting Dean" was the sole reason for Cas's actions, it's bullshit anyway, because Cas proves while doing it that he doesn't actually see Dean's opinions and feelings about the best ways to protect Dean as relevant to protecting Dean, and... they are. Not just because Cas isn't always right and needs someone to challenge his perception (maybe abandoning Dean to a pack of gorilla-wolves isn't the best way to protect him... shocking idea I know), but also because Cas isn't capable of understanding Dean better than Dean understands himself, and actually has no idea how badly he can actively harm Dean (the exact opposite of what he is trying to do) through actions that are intended to protect Dean.

Does Cas realize that he treats Dean's feelings as irrelevant when he is off doing Hot Girl Summer things, and that he frequently wounds Dean while trying to protect him? Of course not—which is how he isn't actually Chuck or John 2.0. He's got a lot of issues going on in his life, like being raised in the equivalent of a weird religious cult where free will was frowned upon, losing a lot of his strength over the course of the series which he stocks the majority of his self-esteem into, lots of siblings with very different expectations, speciesism, homophobia (speciesphobia?), repeated lobotomies, and like you said... cultural differences (we actually don't talk about this enough lmao).

As a clarification, what I'm arguing isn't exactly that Cas didn't communicate what he wanted out of the relationship and therefore his stans can't blame Dean for Cas's issues (though I would agree with that argument). I'm actually arguing that Cas pre-decided, without an actual conversation or input from Dean or clarification of what he might think if all the cards were on the table, that a relationship with Dean was impossible. What he wanted was something he could never have. So he specifically did not communicate his feelings. Instead, he slotted himself into Dean's life in a very specific way—and it wasn't in a romantic way (move over, "Dean needs to pull his head out of his ass" truthers—your ideas aren't just patronizing—they're wrong—hope this helps <3). Cas intentionally slotted himself into Dean's life such that he was Dean's guardian, ready to be martyred in his name to achieve sainthood. The object of his affections was Dean Winchester though, not Moloch, so that blood offering wasn't smelling super tasty to his god of choice... and Cas never did quite get that part—that every single one of his blood offerings smelled less like tasty morsels of bacon and pie and more like repeatedly stacking proof that Dean Winchester is poison and anyone who falls in love with him slated for a violent horrible death... his touch is worse than Midas's.

[connanro]

look, as much as i like to talk about the tragedy of goncharov/andrei (yes i know that's not the official spelling but 'andrey' is a bad and dumb romanisation from the 1956 translation of the novel), i really think that the foil katya/sofia provides is equally, if not more fascinating - especially given the political climate of 1973 when the film was produced. obviously there's a huge issue of lesbophobia when it comes to sofia's characterisation, and i'm sure we all know the reason she gets sidelined is because the katya/goncharov/andrei triangle is more conventional (if subversive) in terms of social class status.

but sofia. sofia. she plays the role of both the overlooked serving woman AND the threat of female sexuality. you can't even call her two-sided because the roles are so integrated. like, the film obviously deals with threats to the idealised husband-wife relationship - anyone with eyeballs can see how dangerous andrei is to goncharov - but the threat sofia poses is so much more subtle. she's a woman who isn't what she seems. she's in a position of relative vulnerability. she initially plays the role of sympathetic listener to a katya who is struggling to adjust to her own role as a mafia wife in foreign territory. and then!! and tHEN! the romantic tension starts building! it's incredible because it's a reversal of the typical maid/employer relationship - the employer is katya, a woman, and it's SOFIA who makes the initial overtures. i can't get into the complexity of sofia's motivations in this post, but it's definitely a mirror of goncharov's motivations to befriend andrei.

the way that katya responds to sofia's flirtations is, i think, the most interesting aspect of it. we would expect to see katya portrayed as an innocent, naive women being preyed upon a more powerful/mature woman (sofia), but she's not. she clocks (pun intended) sofia's intentions immediately. her reticence is purely about preserving her own place in the complex web of relationships that unravel over the course of the movie. the conflict of their relationship isn't that katya doesn't know what she wants (as is the case with goncharov); it's that her desires oppose each other. she truly does love goncharov, but she she wants to go back home - which she can't do because of him (!!!). she loves sofia, but she hates the entire situation that allowed them to meet. goncharov is supposed to represent security for katya, and sofia freedom; a classic duty-vs-feeling sort of thing. but in the end katya has neither security nor freedom. her relationships gradually fall apart, starting with ice pick joe's death and culminating with that absolutely GUTTING showdown in the middle of act 3. (no, i'm not over it yet. don't talk to me). in the end, it's sofia's vulnerability, not katya's, that undoes them. it's so delightfully tragic, especially because goncharov/andrei's story ends the same way despite all the other differences.

anyway. yeah. gonna be thinking about this for a while.

[thepearlescentdragon]

I think either I'm canon divergent, or I misinterpreted the situation with 10 and Martha. Or just interpret it differently than fans. And that may or may not be because of the whole "fictionkin" thing but I don't really know.

HEAVY Disclaimer:

This is a Fictionkin's perspective of a character dynamic in Doctor Who. I am fictionkin, so I'm sharing my interpretation of it from that perspective.

My experience and feelings may not match what was intended by writers and they have no obligation to accommodate it; neither does the fandom. I am aware of this and you don't need to inform me. If this doesn't interest you, just scroll away, it's all good.

I agree with most people that 10's treatment of Martha was utter dogshit. I don't dispute this at all. What I do dispute is the reason, because it seems the fandom looks at it a little differently

Where I agree: On at least two occasions, 10 thrust her into places where race relations for the time/setting could (and often did) make things harder for her, and he wasn't too considerate of how her experience might differ from his as a white-and-human-passing alien.

Her first proper trip, we have Shakespeare calling her questionable things in an attempt to flirt. We also get Human Nature where she's reduced to his maid and babysitter in a racist setting - even 10 as John is wildly racist toward her. And like every other companion, this is all new to her. She's not a seasoned time traveler. She doesn't know the rules or the science, but he brushes off her butterfly effect concerns and other things she has the foresight to at least ask about (where other companions - even Rose - would've acted impulsively about instead)

Where I disagree is on the idea that it was poor treatment for The Doctor to reject her romantic/flirty advances. I think that was understandable. He/I had a good reason to (not that you ever need to justify saying no)?

He'd just lost someone he was deeply in love with to horrible circumstances. He was recovering from trauma and heartbreak, and here comes a new human who definitely got the wrong idea - he was well within his rights to reject the flirting.

Could he have said more about why he was doing this? Sure, technically he could've. But at the same time, no one owes anyone an explanation for why they're not interested in them romantically; a no is a no. Getting rejected isn't a temporary obstacle, it's a door being closed.

Had it happened at a different time, maybe it would've been different. But the circumstances just didn't make it so. And I don't think it was a form of wrongdoing, it's just bad timing and/or bad luck.

Also, I really don't see him learning she's engaged when he and Donna meet with her as "jealousy." I don't think he wanted her romantically. I also don't think he wanted her to want him romantically. I think he just realized, "Oh, it's not just me that moves on when I say farewell to a companion - they also go on and live their own lives when I leave." He's on the other side of the fence now. He knows how it feels to see your friends have adventures with other people without you.

At least, that's how I interpret it. And it's how I remember it. Maybe the writers intended otherwise, in which case I would be canon divergent and that's fine. I just... I don't know. It feels very uncomfortable seeing people insist I was/should have been romantically interested in Martha. In my experience, I wasn't, because I was still heartbroken about yet another heavy loss. I was looking for new distractions, but not the relationship sort.

Maybe canon Doc was otherwise, but I don't know that. I don't know if I can know that.

I know I'm not supposed to "take it personally" when fandoms talk about the media they're centered on, or the characters in them. And I don't! Not exactly.

Because at the end of the day, I know fans aren't criticizing me, they're criticizing the fictional character I just so happen to identify as. And there IS a difference. I identify as him, but the entity they're interacting with in media is not literally me. (I imagine actors might feel similarly, watching their characters get criticized, now that I think about it...)

It just feels funky and I'm still learning how to adjust, you know?

[o-wyrmlight]

I've been thinking about the whole 'bi lesbian isn't a valid label' and trying to think about why that bothered me so much, aside from the whole 'disrespecting labels' debacle. I think I figured it out.

Are we running under the assumption that biromantic and bisexual is the same, and that's why calling yourself a lesbian would then be 'incorrect'?

My perspective is that you can be a bi lesbian. Let me explain.

Lesbian is explained as 'a woman who is exclusively sexually or romantically interested only in other women'. Its a twin meaning situation, sort of like how bi can refer to a preference of both genders in either both or either setting. If you're a bisexual, you can be a romantic lesbian. If you're biromantic, you can be a sexual lesbian. It's simple as that.

Then there's also situations where calling yourself a 'bi lesbian' is intended to indicate that you are capable of being attracted to both genders, but tend to be more attracted to women on average. This can apply to bisexual, biromantic, or both cases. People have their preference, and that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that.

Saying that someone isn't allowed to be a bi lesbian is like saying that if they date somebody who is of one gender, it automatically invalidates their bi status. This is especially prevalent if that bi person ends up with somebody who identifies as a man when the bi person identifies as a woman. Because in doing so, people interpret it as meaning that you're 'too straight to be bi', which--I feel--is rather biphobic in and of itself.

As a matter of fact, I feel like saying that people cannot be a bi lesbian is biphobic in its entirety. What it implies is that people cannot have preferences in who they have sex or romantic relationships with, which is prone to happen anyway for a variety of reasons.

If we acknowledge that women and men being together isn't the status quo that our cultures have told us for so long, then why would being a biromantic with a preference for one gender or the other (or the other, or the other, etc) any different? You don't know when somebody calls themself a 'bi lesbian' whether it means they're biromantic but have sex with women, bisexual but have romance with women, both bisexual and biromantic but with preference for women, or either (with a preference for women).

I wonder if it follows along with the radfem theory that trans women are dangerous to women, and whether it follows that theory and tags it on bi people instead. 'Bi people are dangerous because they say they prefer women, but because they can have relations with men in a romantic or sexual way, they are inherently harmful to women.'

I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud to the Tumblr void.

And I'm frankly finding it ridiculous that this is the most poignant point of contention against someone who leaked the USA no-fly list instead of. You know. The fact that the no-fly list has literal children in it and is violently Islamophobic and anti-Russian with over one and a half million documented people on it.

Just saying.

[seeingteacupsindragons]

i found your post about 知音 and the post you linked to really interesting, but i read some of your other posts, and im slightly confused (and I mean that genuinely this really isn't a criticism) about why you seem to think that they are like, definitely in a romantic relationship in canon but also make posts like this? like I sort of get it, like framing and stuff can suggest it could lean more that way, but i dont really totally get your reasoning for favouring that interpretation so strongly. maybe my personal interpretation is just biased too, but i can definitely see how their relationship could easily be seen as romantic (like really easily ( even for people who aren't chronically fandomised)) but also like, that's not necessarily the case? like that term for example, like that sort of relationship even with all how it's portrayed is not necessarily romantic. and personally I'm not sure if I even have a position on where I think it 'actually' is or what's intended other than that it's certainly quite complex and nebulous and I am talking from an out of universe perspective here, like maybe it wasn't written that way so some people would think it's romantic and some not, but that's the effect it has. and obviously people are going to have their own opinions from their own way of viewing (sorry this got so long) that's why I'd be interested to hear the justification of your own perspective (cause I actually find both their relationship and the way people have seen it quite interesting)

I think my answer to this is going to be shorter than this ask.

Multiple interpretations are often valid of the same thing at the same time. There are definitely invalid interpretations, but that doesn't mean only one true reading exists, either? Especially about relationships, which are often so messy and nebulous.

It's really not that hard to be a person who recognizes the validity of multiple readings and finds each interesting in different ways.

People can have multiple relationship "categories" with one person, because relationships are not labels but constantly changing and evolving interactions with other humans. You can be a teacher and a sister to the same person. You can be a friend and a lover. You can be a rival and a boss. Like. Any combination of categories can exist, because these categories only describe usually one or two facets of a relationship and people usually have far more than that and interact in different ways on different levels.

I am a strong proponent of relationship anarchy.

This isn't The Highlander. We're not forced to dig into one thing, one opinion, one reading, one word for all eternity. There can be more than one.

The 知音 thing really has little to do with my arguments for Sherliam being written as a romance anyway. Those lie in the romance trope framing and narrative structure of romantic relationships--aka, the fact that this is a story, and the story is identical in many ways to a romance and twists on a romance in many others. We are being told a story, and a story uses tropes and narrative tools in order to tell us what a story is. This one uses romance tools, and it doesn't really subvert those despite openly subverting a lot of others.

I really desperately do not care what people call their fictional relationship.

[onewomancitadel]

There is much more paralleling, reference and foil to Ozlem than what I've just provided above for demonstrative purposes. I intend to do a rewatch to really gather everything together but you can as always see more under my Reverse Ozlem tag. Plus, once you see it, you can't unsee it. Lol.

This is more or less my working approach to Reverse Ozlem as it relates to Knightfall:

The null hypothesis

There's nothing to it. Any visual, conceptual, emotional, thematic paralleling is purely coincidental. This is the usual refrain from the sceptic; to make the case it's not null you need to be demonstrating that the text employs visual, conceptual, emotional, and thematic paralleling. RWBY is up to the gills with it that the exercise is left up to the reader. It really can't be overstated that it's everywhere in the story. Characters like Penny even proclaim 'it'll be just like Beacon!' when Atlas is sort of like Beacon and then sort of isn't. They know, we know. Anybody trying to argue otherwise is probably operating from a position of bad faith. The harder and more realistic argument is to what degree it is being used. I generally lean towards the most straightforward interpretation and pay attention to what's meaningfully being said and communicated without stretching it too hard. Easier said than done, but this is also why I write out posts like this; sometimes you just see what you want to see, and when you have a hammer everything is a nail.

So, null is probably the least likely, but it's worth getting out of the way. Ozma reincarnates and Salem is undying; their problems are everybody else's in a metaphorical and literal way repeating over the story. Of all the poetic ideas in the story, Ozlem is the biggest deal, so anything referencing, paralleling or reprising Ozlem in any way is doing significant things for the story.

2. Subversion

Jaune/Cinder is a subversion or reprisal of Ozlem which is a negative one. 'Subversion' here is used in the sense that the set-up is that you'd generally expect the relationship to be redeemed based on the stakes set out in the story and the other relationships which reprise and redeem Ozlem - e.g. Blake/Yang (-Blake/Adam), Ren/Nora, Ruby/Oscar, etc. In this case the treatment of Cinder should in some way be contrasting with Salem in that Cinder's treatment is for some reason unsympathetic. I don't know why they'd do this, but it's the only explanation I've got. As I mentioned in the other post, the subversion also operates under the idea that in the specific enemies circumstance - unique to Jaune/Cinder right now outside of Emerald/Mercury - the relationship cannot be redeemed. So there's a limit put on it. It's appreciating one aspect of the relationship, but Jaune's not meant to be with Cinder. Whomever he does end up with should instead answer Ozlem in a different way (e.g. Ozma moving on from Salem). Again probably expecting less sympathetic treatment of Cinder here and really similar potentially even goes for Salem. I would again be expecting there to be some specific statement about Salem and why Salem is specifically villainous and narratively punished (even if redeemed in some small way).

To really motivate this interpretation you'd need to establish why Cinder's redemption won't be a thing, or won't be a strong idea, and why Salem (who famously can't be killed) will have a nonviolent resolution which is also one that doesn't reprise her connection with Ozma in any way. There are a lot of working variables but the ultimate statement is that at least for Jaune and Cinder, the relationship can't be fixed. There's some upper limit on it.

I don't really know why the average audience member would be meaningfully expecting Jaune/Cinder, though. There's no expectation to subvert. So they would need to go to pains to establish it romantically as being in question (e.g. onesided romance or star-crossed 'toxic' romance as examples), and then refute it.

3. Reprisal/redemption

This is the one I keep circling back to. It's the cleanest. It's the simplest. Ozlem is lovers to enemies and Knightfall is enemies to lovers. Straight-up uncontested redemption, romance, paradigm shift of the story, utilising Jaune's Semblance and Cinder's Maiden power in a unique way, Jaune ends up with the Fall Maiden type dramatic irony. It's elegant. Everyone wants to be them. Jaune and Cinder are meaningfully connected just not in the way people expected. It's the complete set-up for how Ozlem is overall dealt with in the story. It's the missing component. It's the bit that solves everything. The visual, conceptual, emotional, thematic paralleling has a job to do and it's doing it beautifully. If Ozlem is romantic then so is Jaune/Cinder and it was the secret story there all along no one noticed, which is playfully thematically relevant.

You can see which one I lean towards because the thirdmost one is the most straightforward. It's uncomplicated. It's a little ironic. It's unexpected but it makes sense. Why frame Jaune/Cinder like Ozlem and vice versa and separately put their characters through what Ozlem have gone through (Grimm curse and all) if you're not going to do something with it?