#❝ analysis ❞

[coolreader18]

discourse.jpg

[starbuck]

“…to me” is one of the most powerful disclaimers we have on here… is this character analysis accurate? debatable. but it’s real… to me.

[the-uncanny-dag]

[chessb0r3d]

Analysis so bad you don't even know what it's talking about anymore.

[h3artw0rms]

So the gift Powder received from Ekko was a necklace with a blue peony.

And you know me from my Vi and Caitlyn post so of course I'll look up what the flower language of that means and it's the following:

And if you look closely, you can see the profile faces of Ekko and Powder in between the petals

In this reality, the two can't be together, as he wasn't HER Ekko. But Powder still means the world to him.

[susellesie]

no dentist's office. no writing christmas cards. no taking flights. a world where every pain or minor annoyance is dismissed as your consciousness is replaced with a different version of you. a life without pain, or agitation, or monotony. and conversely, a life full of only that for every version of you who experiences the chores you wished to evade.

forget skipping work or school or birth. try everything. never experience anything that expires a negative emotion. the ideal consciousness sold as a product for the price of a version of you that you'll never meet.

but it doesn't matter. you carry the hurt down with you. in your hands, in your mind, your mouth. the grief mark experiences carried into his innie, gemma feeling the pain she experienced in the rooms even after she's been severed.

it doesn't matter. you carry it with you.

[going2hell4everythingbutbeingbi]

yall gotta learn the difference between "this character is an asshole" and "this character was supposed to be super cool but the author is an asshole" and "this character is a teenage girl who was mean once"

[victusinveritas]

It's almost like something happened in 2020-now that is causing these problems.

[helly-ena]

ether as severance + “the courtship of kier and imogene” (relationship parallels)

(just so we’re clear, while the kier-imogene dynamic is clearly paralleled with helena and mark, it is also reiterated in cobel and mark, dr mauer and gemma, and even burt and irving to some extent; season 2 has also made it a point to show us that helena and cobel are both victims in their own ways while being perpetrators. it is not a black and white situation and misogyny will get you blocked.)

original threads: (x), (x)

[odetokeons]

♱ Nosferatu (2024) dir. Robert Eggers ♱

+ bonus

[justgivemeabookplease]

Shrek 2, while a cinematic masterpiece, is also an interesting look at queerness and comp het.

Fiona is married so it's time to reunite with her parents. But instead of marrying a prince, she's married to an ogre. Not just that, but she's also an ogre. (Yes everyone knew she would sometimes be an ogre but that was when she was a child, she didn't know she would be an ogre for the rest of her life, and besides once she met the right prince she would stop being an ogre. She was supposed to stop being an ogre.)

But okay they're both ogres. We can still ask about when they'll have children because even if they're ogres they can still have kids, right? That's what married princes and princesses do so naturally that's what everyone does. Even if ogres might not be great parents (I've heard that ogres eat their young, is that something you people do?) it's still something that should be discussed.

And okay you can stay in Fiona's childhood bedroom filled with all the reminders that hey, everyone thought she was just a princess and princesses marry princes. Her toys left out from the last time she played with them. The prince slays the ogre. The princess offers a token of gratitude for slaying the ogre. Fiona wrote Mrs. Fiona Charming a million times in her diary because what else was she supposed to grow up to be?

And Harold, the Fairy Godmother says, you have to fix this, your kingdom can't be ruled by ogres. You were unfit to rule, to be loved, when you were a frog but I changed you, I made you better, I made you a prince. You know how this works. Think of your daughter's safety.

Shrek goes to the Fairy Godmother and oh honey, ogres don't live happily ever after. It's just not done. It hasn't happened in all of fairy tale history. You have to change the both of you to be happy. You have to present as a prince and a princess. It will be better. You'll fit in better that way. You'll be accepted that way.

[sunnyrmrez]

[your-senpaaaai]

so are we gonna talk about how mirror pieces around jinx’s face are literally in the form of warwick jaws ???? like omg ?????

[sheisoverhere]

Peeta Mellark is an integral member of the four D12 victors. He is literally the sunset on the reaping! How is this not clear? I’ve never wanted to report people for bad literary analysis more and I��m only half joking. It has forced me to commit a cardinal sin: analyze in anger!

1. Him being chosen by absolute accident is the point. Not only does he represent every single other tribute who simply gets chosen because they live in a messed up country but he represents how even with some odds being in your favor (older siblings, merchant family, being white, being popular, etc.) you are still very likely to be victimized by the oppressive structure of Panem.

2. When Haymitch says, “But she was smarter than me, or luckier” - the luck is all the people around Katniss who created the circumstances for her to lead a successful revolution (her father teaching her to hunt, the arena having woods, Rue healing her with leaves, Thresh not killing her, Haymitch consistently giving her support, her mother teaching her aspects of medicine, on and on and on) and Peeta is the number one, most important part of her luck in the first book. She has someone in the games actively putting her life before his… are you kidding? There is legitimately no better luck than that.

3. Even if we take Katniss out of it, Peeta is so impactful as a victor because most of his scenes would not be cut/doctored. What’s there to edit out? Instead, the viewers get a full view of him loving a girl so selflessly, using trickery and strategy instead of violence, keeping himself alive through art, joking on literal death’s door, and sharing so much of himself with the audience it becomes harder for them not to see him as a real human boy. How rare do you think that is for the games? Haymitch and LGB are caricatures of themselves in the games, playing roles that flatten them down. Even Katniss becomes one dimensional on screen without Peeta (and Rue, of course). It is also heavily implied that he does not kill anyone during the games (in a straightforward way) and even if you count Cato or the girl from 8 or even foxface, it’s never him hunting them or seeking out a kill - again how rare do you think that is to see on screen for Games viewers?

4. I didn’t think this needed to be said but: Katniss dies without Peeta in the first games. a) she goes for the bow and dies in the bloodbath; b) she is hunted and killed by Careers; c) she is killed by game makers because there’s no love story angle to keep them from just burning her entirely; d) she dies from tracker jacker stings or Cato because Peeta doesn’t defend her or tell her to run… I could go on…

5. But even if she does win and wins alone - the victory means as much (I would argue less than) any other rebellious victor winning, certainly less than Haymitch’s win. The biggest rebellion for their games is that two of them win! This is legit the only thing that distinguishes them from any other sympathetic, kind child who would have won the games. Like if Haymitch or Finnick or Wiress winning isn’t jarring enough for the Games to end… why do you think Katniss killing Peeta and winning solo would be? It would not.

6. And finally, I cannot stress this enough: There is no peaceful end to the rebellion or the trilogy without Peeta. “Peeta’s a whiz with fires” (HG) for a reason! Collins, over and over, shows us how fire can get out of control and destroy even those who are innocent and who you love (Gale, Beete, Peeta’s family, Haymitch’s family). If everyone really burns, there’s no one to clean the ashes. The reason not everyone burns is because of people like Peeta who can coax the flames in a way that is nurturing and consistent. I mean…. “Peeta fashioned some kind of incubator” is such an obvious detail. Those goslings don’t hatch without Peeta, life does not go on in peace and joy without Peeta.

It is no coincidence that when Maysilee says Lenore Dove got the “jump on us all” (in being a rebel), she is referring to LD using orange paint to make protest art!

We must stop pushing Peeta Mellark out of the narrative! He is literally the sunset on the reaping!

[tiredandoptimistic]

Something that I think is important about Wyatt as a character is how he highlights the stupidity of the district system. I know that the human love of sorting ourselves into categories meant that every YA series for a while had a bunch of different groups with associated traits that tweens could take uquizzes about, but The Hunger Games isn't like Divergent or Harry Potter where young adults get grouped based on their personalities. Sure, the districts all have industries they're known for and the tributes are clearly shaped by wherever they grew up, but being born into District Four doesn't actually mean that you'll like fish. Wyatt is brilliant when it comes to numbers, but in District Twelve he can only channel that into gambling. Imagine if he'd been born into District Three with a father like Beetee, what he could have done with his mathematical talents. There's mention of it with Maysilee too, how she doesn't want to run the candy store but her options are that or the mines.

I guess what I'm saying is that the district system is great for keeping people oppressed because they see their fellows as "other," which is why it is a tool of fascism and not a practical way to run a society. It doesn't matter who is in what group, it matters that they internalize their group identity to the point that they ignore the similarities between them.