#(i.e. there's clear cause-and-effect)

[deathbypixelz]

I was gonna leave this in the tags but that got really inconvenient, so:

I agree with all of this. For your own safety, you should really assume any mammal acting weird has rabies.

BUT. I WANTED TO ADD. AS A CONSERVATIONIST AND ZOOLOGY STUDENT. Sometimes mammals are genuinely just injured or sick with something else. Personally, I'd leave it to its fate if it's something non-native to the area. But if it is native, and especially if it's a threatened species, then I would really encourage people to call a wildlife rehab center or the DNR or animal control (try the other two first though, imo) so they can get it the help it needs. They know what they're doing. If it IS rabies after all, they can kill the mammal before it can spread it to anything else. If it isn't, then hopefully they can rehab it. Because, hey, we're in the middle of the sixth mass extinction, and it is worth at least trying to help animals in those sorts of situations.

Also sometimes wild mammals are just more comfortable around people because they live in a densely-populated area and are desensitized (e.g. the population of squirrels on my uni's campus). But as people have said in the comments, rabid mammals often fall into the uncanny valley. Trust your instincts. We've evolved specifically to pick up on these sorts of things, because our lives depend on it. If it lives in a population center but seems wrong, if it lives away from people and is too friendly, assume it's rabies and stay the fuck away. And call the DNR or animal control so they can put it down.

Basically I wanted to say: yes for the love of fucking god do not approach random mammals acting weird or friendly. But don't assume every mammal acting strangely has the Absolute Nightmare Disease that is rabies, because it could - IT MIGHT - be rehabbed, if it's something else.

That said: Just assume it's rabies to begin with. Keep your distance, and call someone who knows what they're doing. And vaccinate your fucking pets. And if you do get bit or scratched by a wild mammal or feral cat/dog/etc., GO TO THE FUCKING DOCTOR and get rabies shots, because you can only treat it if you're fast.

Cartoons messed people up on what rabies looks like. Ppl think of a rabid animal and assume it's always snarling and frothing at the mouth and ready to attack. Rabid animals can appear really friendly because they lose human fear and they might approach you supposedly looking for food. It might look like a deer stumbling in circles and limping and falling over as if it's injured and disoriented. Might looks like a fox repeatedly trying and failing to stumble to its feet and unable to pick its head up. Their brains are melting. They might seem angry but they might also seem confused or injured or in need. But if you try to help that injured crying fox you could end up getting bit by an animal that's basically already dead and then your brain will melt too

[literaryvein-reblogs]

600+ Personality Traits

as reference for your next poem/story

Positive Traits

Accessible - easy to speak to or deal with

Active - disposed to action; energetic

Adaptable - capable of being or becoming adapted (i.e., suited by nature, character, or design to a particular use, purpose, or situation)

Admirable - deserving the highest esteem

Adventurous - disposed to seek adventure or to cope with the new and unknown

Agreeable - ready or willing to agree or consent

Alert - watchful and prompt to meet danger or emergency

Allocentric - having one's interest and attention centered on other persons

Amiable - friendly, sociable, and congenial

Anticipative - given to anticipation (i.e., the act of looking forward)

Appreciative - having or showing appreciation (i.e., a favorable critical estimate)

Articulate - expressing oneself readily, clearly, and effectively

Aspiring - desiring and working to achieve a particular goal

Athletic - characteristic of an athlete; vigorous, active

Attractive - arousing interest or pleasure; charming

Balanced - being in a state of balance; having different parts or elements properly or effectively arranged, regulated etc.

Benevolent - marked by or disposed to doing good

Brilliant - distinguished by unusual mental keenness or alertness

Calm - free from agitation, excitement, or disturbance

Capable - having or showing general efficiency and ability

Captivating - charmingly or irresistibly appealing

Caring - feeling or showing concern for or kindness to others

Challenging - invitingly provocative; fascinating

Charismatic - having, exhibiting, or based on charisma (i.e., a special magnetic charm or appeal)

Charming - extremely pleasing or delightful; entrancing

Cheerful - full of good spirits; merry

Clean - pure; free from moral corruption or sinister connections of any kind; fair

Clearheaded - having or showing a clear understanding; perceptive

Clever - mentally quick and resourceful

Colorful - full of variety or interest

Companionable - marked by, conducive to, or suggestive of companionship; sociable

Compassionate - having or showing compassion; sympathetic

Conciliatory - intended to gain goodwill or favor or to reduce hostility

Confident - having or showing assurance and self-reliance

Conscientious - meticulous, careful

Considerate - thoughtful of the rights and feelings of others

Constant - marked by firm steadfast resolution or faithfulness

Contemplative - marked by or given to contemplation (i.e., an act of considering with attention)

Cooperative - marked by a willingness and ability to work with others

Courageous - having or characterized by courage; brave

Courteous - marked by respect for and consideration of others

Creative - having the quality of something created rather than imitated; imaginative

Cultured - cultivated (i.e., refined, educated)

Curious - marked by desire to investigate and learn

Daring - venturesomely bold in action or thought

Debonair - suave, urbane; lighthearted, nonchalant

Decent - marked by moral integrity, kindness, and goodwill

Decisive - resolute, determined

Dedicated - devoted to a cause, ideal, or purpose; zealous

Deep - of penetrating intellect; wise

Dignified - showing or expressing dignity (i.e., the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed)

Directed - having a positive or negative sense

Disciplined - marked by or possessing discipline (i.e., orderly or prescribed conduct or pattern of behavior)

Discreet - prudent; modest; unobtrusive

Dramatic - having or showing a tendency to behave or react in an exaggerated way

Dutiful - filled with or motivated by a sense of duty

Dynamic - energetic, forceful

Earnest - characterized by or proceeding from an intense and serious state of mind

Ebullient - having or showing liveliness and enthusiasm

Educated - having an education; skilled

Efficient - productive of desired effects

Elegant - of a high grade or quality; splendid

Eloquent - marked by forceful and fluent expression

Empathetic - involving, characterized by, or based on empathy (i.e., the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another)

Energetic - operating with or marked by vigor or effect

Enthusiastic - filled with or marked by enthusiasm (i.e., strong excitement of feeling)

Esthetic - artistic; appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful

Exciting - producing excitement (i.e., something that rouses)

Extraordinary - exceptional to a very marked extent

Fair - marked by impartiality and honesty

Faithful - steadfast in affection or allegiance; loyal

Farsighted - having or showing foresight or good judgment; sagacious

Felicific - causing or intended to cause happiness

Firm - not weak or uncertain; vigorous

Flexible - characterized by a ready capability to adapt to new, different, or changing requirements; tractable

Focused - a state or condition permitting clear perception or understanding

Forceful - possessing or filled with force; effective

Forgiving - allowing room for error or weakness

Forthright - free from ambiguity or evasiveness

Freethinking - thinking freely or independently

Friendly - showing kindly interest and goodwill

Fun-loving - lighthearted and lively

Gallant - nobly chivalrous and often self-sacrificing; spirited

Generous - liberal in giving; magnanimous

Gentle - free from harshness, sternness, or violence; docile

Genuine - free from hypocrisy or pretense; sincere

Good-natured - of a pleasant and cooperative disposition

Gracious - marked by kindness and courtesy

Hardworking - constantly, regularly, or habitually engaged in earnest and energetic work; industrious, diligent

Healthy - prosperous, flourishing

Hearty - enthusiastically or exuberantly cordial; jovial

Helpful - of service or assistance; useful

Heroic - exhibiting or marked by courage and daring

High-minded - marked by elevated principles and feelings; also: pretentious

Honest - genuine, real; marked by integrity

Honorable - deserving of respect or high regard; illustrious

Humble - not proud or haughty; unpretentious

Humorous - full of or characterized by humor; funny

Idealistic - of or relating to idealists or idealism (i.e., having a standard of perfection, beauty, or excellence)

Imaginative - given to imagining; having a lively imagination

Impressive - making or tending to make a marked impression; having the power to excite attention, awe, or admiration

Incisive - impressively direct and decisive

Incorruptible - incapable of being bribed or morally corrupted

Independent - not requiring or relying on others

Individualistic - pursuing a markedly independent course in thought or action

Innovative - characterized by, tending to, or introducing innovations (i.e., a new idea, method, or device)

Inoffensive - giving no provocation; peaceable

Insightful - exhibiting or characterized by insight (i.e., the power or act of seeing into a situation)

Insouciant - lighthearted unconcern; nonchalance

Intelligent - guided or directed by intellect; rational

Intuitive - possessing or given to intuition or insight

Invulnerable - immune to or proof against attack

Kind - of a sympathetic or helpful nature

Knowledgeable - having or showing knowledge or intelligence-

Leisurely - characterized by leisure; unhurried

Liberal - marked by generosity; openhanded; broad-minded

Logical - skilled in logic; analytic; capable of reasoning

Lovable - having qualities that attract affection

Loyal - unswerving in allegiance

Lyrical - having an artistically beautiful or expressive quality suggestive of song

Magnanimous - showing or suggesting a lofty and courageous spirit

Many-sided - having many sides or aspects; interests or aptitudes

Mature - based on slow careful consideration

Methodical - habitually proceeding according to method

Meticulous - marked by extreme or excessive care in the consideration or treatment of details

Moderate - avoiding extremes of behavior or expression; calm, temperate

Modest - decent; unpretentious

Multi-leveled - having a scale (as of difficulty or achievement) with multiple positions or ranks

Natural leader - a person who has qualities that a good leader has

Neat - habitually clean and orderly

Nonauthoritarian - not authoritarian (i.e., of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people)

Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Observant - paying strict attention; keen; mindful

Open - characterized by ready accessibility and usually generous attitude; responsive

Optimistic - of, relating to, or characterized by optimism; feeling or showing hope for the future

Orderly - well behaved; peaceful; tidy

Organized - having a formal organization to coordinate and carry out activities

Original - independent and creative in thought or action; inventive

Painstaking - taking pains; expending, showing, or involving diligent care and effort

Passionate - capable of, affected by, or expressing intense feeling; enthusiastic

Patient - bearing pains or trials calmly or without complaint; not hasty

Patriotic - befitting or characteristic of a patriot (i.e., one who loves and supports his or her country)

Peaceful - untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion; quiet, tranquil

Perceptive - responsive to sensory stimuli; discerning; observant

Perfectionist - having a disposition to regard anything short of perfection as unacceptable

Personable - pleasant or amiable in person; attractive

Persuasive - tending to persuade (i.e., to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action)

Planful - full of plans; resourceful; scheming

Playful - full of play; frolicsome, sportive; humorous

Polished - characterized by a high degree of development, finish, or refinement; free from imperfections

Popular - commonly liked or approved

Practical - actively engaged in some course of action or occupation; useful

Precise - strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention

Principled - exhibiting, based on, or characterized by principle (i.e., a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption)

Profound - having intellectual depth and insight

Protean - displaying great diversity or variety; versatile

Protective - intended to resist or prevent attack or aggression

Providential - coming or happening by good luck especially unexpectedly; fortunate

Prudent - having or showing good judgment and restraint especially in conduct or speech; cautious

Punctual - being on time; prompt

Purposeful - full of determination

Rational - having reason or understanding; reasonable

Realistic - able to see things as they really are and to deal with them in a practical way

Reflective - marked by reflection; thoughtful, deliberative

Relaxed - easy of manner; informal

Reliable - suitable or fit to be relied on; dependable

Resourceful - able to meet situations; capable of devising ways and means

Respectful - marked by or showing respect or deference

Responsible - able to answer for one's conduct and obligations; trustworthy

Responsive - quick to respond or react appropriately or sympathetically; sensitive

Reverential - expressing or having a quality of reverence (i.e., honor or respect felt or shown; deference)

Romantic - having an inclination for romance; responsive to the appeal of what is idealized, heroic, or adventurous

Rustic - characteristic of or resembling country people

Sage - wise through reflection and experience

Sane - rational; able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions

Scholarly - of, characteristic of, or suitable to learned persons; learned, academic

Scrupulous - having moral integrity; acting in strict regard for what is considered right or proper

Secure - trustworthy, dependable; assured in opinion or expectation; confident

Selfless - having no concern for self; unselfish

Self-critical - inclined to find fault with oneself; critical of oneself

Self-denying - showing self-denial (i.e., a restraint or limitation of one's own desires or interests)

Self-effacing - having or showing a tendency to make oneself modestly or shyly inconspicuous

Self-reliant - having confidence in and exercising one's own powers or judgment

Self-sufficient - capable of providing for one's own needs; haughty, overbearing

Sensitive - highly responsive or susceptible; delicate; touchy

Sentimental - marked or governed by feeling, sensibility, or emotional idealism

Seraphic - suggestive of or resembling a seraphim or angel

Serious - thoughtful or subdued in appearance or manner; sober

Sexy - sexually suggestive or stimulating; appealing

Sharing - to talk about one's thoughts, feelings, or experiences with others

Shrewd - marked by clever discerning awareness and hardheaded acumen

Simple - free from guile; innocent; modest; naive

Skillful - possessed of or displaying skill; expert

Sober - marked by temperance, moderation, or seriousness; calm

Sociable - inclined by nature to companionship with others of the same species; social

Solid - sound; reliable; serious in purpose or character

Sophisticated - finely experienced and aware; intellectually appealing

Spontaneous - controlled and directed internally; natural

Sporting - of, relating to, used, or suitable for sport

Stable - firmly established; enduring

Steadfast - firm in belief, determination, or adherence; loyal

Steady - not easily disturbed or upset; dependable

Stoic - not affected by or showing passion or feeling

Strong - extreme, intense; ardent; firm

Studious - assiduous in the pursuit of learning

Suave - smoothly though often superficially gracious and sophisticated

Subtle - delicate, elusive; obscure

Sweet - marked by gentle good humor or kindliness; agreeable

Sympathetic - given to, marked by, or arising from sympathy, compassion, friendliness, and sensitivity to others' emotions

Systematic - marked by thoroughness and regularity

Tasteful - having, exhibiting, or conforming to good taste

Teacherly - resembling, characteristic of, or befitting a teacher

Thorough - complete in all respects; having full mastery

Tidy - methodical, precise; neat and orderly

Tolerant - permitting or accepting something (such as a behavior or belief) that one does not like

Tractable - capable of being easily led, taught, or controlled; docile

Trusting - having or showing trust in another

Uncomplaining - accepting pains or hardships calmly or without complaint

Understanding - endowed with understanding; tolerant, sympathetic

Undogmatic - not dogmatic; not committed to dogma (i.e., something held as an established opinion)

Unfoolable -impossible to fool (i.e., deceive)

Upright - marked by strong moral rectitude

Urbane - notably polite or polished in manner

Venturesome - inclined to court or incur risk or danger; daring

Vivacious - lively in temper, conduct, or spirit; sprightly

Warm - secure; ardent; marked by or readily showing affection, gratitude, cordiality, or sympathy

Well-bred - having or displaying the politeness and good manners associated especially with people of high social class

Well-read - well-informed or deeply versed through reading

Well-rounded - fully or broadly developed

Winning - successful especially in competition; tending to please or delight

Wise - marked by deep understanding, keen discernment, and a capacity for sound judgment

Witty - marked by or full of clever humor or wit

Youthful - having the vitality or freshness of youth; vigorous

Neutral Traits

Absentminded - tending to forget or fail to notice things

Aggressive - marked by combative readiness

Ambitious - having a desire to be successful, powerful, or famous

Amusing - giving amusement; diverting

Artful - using or characterized by art and skill; dexterous

Ascetic - austere in appearance, manner, or attitude

Authoritarian - of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people

Big-thinking - tendency to think about doing things that involve a lot of people, money, effort, etc.

Breezy - airy, nonchalant

Businesslike - serious, purposeful

Busy - full of activity; bustling

Casual - feeling or showing little concern; nonchalant; informal

Cautious - careful about avoiding danger or risk

Cerebral - primarily intellectual in nature

Chummy - quite friendly

Circumspect - careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences; prudent

Competitive - inclined, desiring, or suited to compete (i.e., to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective)

Complex - having many parts or aspects that are usually interrelated; complicated; intricate

Confidential - entrusted with confidences

Conservative - marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

Contradictory - involving, causing, or constituting a contradiction (i.e., logical incongruity)

Crisp - concise and to the point; lively

Cute - attractive or pretty especially in a childish, youthful, or delicate way

Deceptive - tending or having power to cause someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid

Determined - characterized by determination (i.e., the act of deciding definitely and firmly)

Dominating - dominant; domineering

Dreamy - quiet and soothing; delightful, ideal

Driving - acting with vigor; energetic

Droll - having a humorous, whimsical, or odd quality

Dry - not showing or communicating warmth, enthusiasm, or tender feeling; uninteresting; plain; aloof

Earthy - practical, down-to-earth; unsophisticated

Effeminate - having feminine qualities untypical of a man

Emotional - markedly aroused or agitated in feeling or sensibilities

Enigmatic - of, relating to, or resembling an enigma; mysterious

Experimental - of, relating to, or based on experience or experiment; tentative

Familial - of or relating to a household or family; homey; domestic

Folksy - homespun; having or showing an unpretentious informality

Formal - following or agreeing with established form, custom, or rules

Freewheeling - free and loose in form or manner

Frugal - economical; careful in the management of money or resources

Glamorous - full of glamour; excitingly attractive

Guileless - innocent, naive

High-spirited - characterized by a bold or energetic spirit

Hurried - going or working at speed; hasty

Hypnotic - readily holding the attention

Iconoclastic - tendency to not conform to generally accepted standards or customs

Idiosyncratic - peculiar; eccentric

Impassive - unsusceptible to or destitute of emotion; apathetic

Impersonal - withdrawn; having or showing no emotional warmth or interest in others

Impressionable - inexperienced; easy to influence

Intense - extreme in degree, power, or effect; passionate

Invisible - discreet; not readily seen or noticed

Irreligious - lacking religious emotions, principles, or practices

Irreverent - lacking proper respect or seriousness

Maternal - of, relating to, belonging to, or characteristic of a mother; motherly

Mellow - pleasant, agreeable; laid back

Modern - being or involving the latest methods, concepts, information, or styles

Moralistic - characterized by or expressive of a narrow moral attitude

Mystical - impossible to prove, understand, or explain by either the senses or intelligence

Neutral - not decided or pronounced as to characteristics; indifferent

Noncommittal - having no clear or distinctive character

Noncompetitive - not inclined towards or characterized by competition or rivalry

Obedient - submissive to the restraint or command of authority; willing to obey

Old-fashioned - adhering to customs of a past era; outmoded

Ordinary - being of the type that is encountered in the normal course of events; normal

Outspoken - direct and open in speech or expression; frank

Placid - serenely free of interruption or disturbance

Political - involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system

Predictable - behaving in a way that is expected

Preoccupied - lost in thought and unaware of one's surroundings or actions; distracted

Private - preferring to keep personal affairs to oneself

Progressive - liberal; not bound by traditional ways or beliefs

Proud - feeling or showing pride

Pure - having exactly the talents or skills needed for a particular role; immaculate; innocent

Questioning - skeptical; inclined to doubt or question claims

Quiet - calm; gentle; easygoing

Religious - scrupulously and conscientiously faithful; zealous

Reserved - restrained in words and actions

Restrained - not excessive or extravagant

Retiring - reserved, shy

Sarcastic - given to the use of sarcasm; caustic

Self-conscious - conscious of one's own acts or states as belonging to or originating in oneself

Sensual - devoted to or preoccupied with the senses or appetites

Skeptical - relating to, characteristic of, or marked by skepticism (i.e., an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object)

Smooth - amiable, courteous

Soft - lacking firmness or strength of character; feeble

Solemn - marked by grave sedateness and earnest sobriety

Solitary - not gregarious, colonial, social, or compound

Stern - having a definite hardness or severity of nature or manner; austere

Stolid - having or expressing little or no sensibility; unemotional

Strict - stringent in requirement or control

Stubborn - justifiably unyielding; resolute; mulish

Stylish - conforming to current fashion

Subjective - arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes

Surprising - of a nature that excites surprise (i.e., a taking unawares)

Tough - capable of enduring strain, hardship, or severe labor

Unaggressive - not aggressive; not given to fighting or assertiveness

Unambitious - feeling or showing a lack of ambition (i.e., desire to achieve a particular end)

Unceremonious - not ceremonious; informal

Unchanging - constant, invariable

Undemanding - not requiring much time, effort, or attention

Unfathomable - incomprehensible; impossible to understand

Unhurried - not hurried; leisurely

Uninhibited - free from inhibition; boisterously informal

Unpatriotic - not feeling or showing love for or devotion to one's country

Unpredictable - tending to behave in ways that cannot be predicted

Unreligious - having no connection with or relation to religion; involving no religious import or idea

Unsentimental - not marked or governed by feeling, sensibility, or emotional idealism

Whimsical - characterized by whim or caprice; especially: lightly fanciful

Negative Traits

Abrasive - causing irritation

Abrupt - rudely or unceremoniously curt

Agonizing - causing agony (i.e., intense pain of mind or body)

Aimless - without aim or purpose

Airy - affected, proud

Aloof - removed or distant either physically or emotionally

Amoral - having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong

Angry - feeling or showing anger (i.e., a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism)

Anxious - characterized by extreme uneasiness of mind or brooding fear about some contingency; worried

Apathetic - having or showing little or no interest, concern, or emotion

Arbitrary - marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

Argumentative - given to argument; disputatious

Arrogant - exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one's own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner

Artificial - imitation, sham

Asocial - not social; rejecting or lacking the capacity for social interaction

Assertive - disposed to or characterized by bold or confident statements and behavior; aggressive

Astigmatic - showing incapacity for observation or discrimination

Bewildered - deeply or utterly confused or perplexed

Bizarre - strikingly out of the ordinary

Bland - dull, insipid

Blunt - insensitive

Boisterous - noisily turbulent; tumultuous

Brittle - lacking warmth, depth, or generosity of spirit; cold

Brutal - cruel, cold-blooded; harsh

Calculating - marked by prudent analysis or by shrewd consideration of self-interest; scheming

Callous - feeling or showing no sympathy for others; hard-hearted

Cantankerous - difficult or irritating to deal with

Careless - negligent, slovenly

Charmless - unpleasant and without charm or interest

Childish - marked by or suggestive of immaturity and lack of poise

Clumsy - lacking tact or subtlety

Coarse - crude or unrefined in taste, manners, or language

Colorless - dull, uninteresting

Complacent - marked by self-satisfaction especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies

Complaintive - prone to complain

Compulsive - of, relating to, caused by, or suggestive of psychological compulsion

Conceited - having or showing an excessively high opinion of oneself

Condemnatory - expressing strong criticism or disapproval

Conformist - following or seeking to enforce prevailing standards or customs; opposing or avoiding unconventional thinking and behavior

Confused - being perplexed or disconcerted

Contemptible - worthy of contempt (i.e., the act of despising)

Conventional - lacking originality or individuality; trite

Cowardly - being, resembling, or befitting a coward (i.e., one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity)

Crafty - adept in the use of subtlety and cunning

Crass - having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination

Criminal - guilty of crime; disgraceful

Critical - inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably

Crude - marked by the primitive, gross, or elemental or by uncultivated simplicity or vulgarity

Cruel - disposed to inflict pain or suffering; devoid of humane feelings

Cynical - having or showing the attitude or temper of a cynic (e.g., contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives)

Decadent - characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence

Deceitful - deceptive, misleading

Delicate - weak, sickly; fragile

Demanding - requiring much time, effort, or attention; exacting

Dependent - relying on another for support

Desperate - having lost hope; suffering extreme need or anxiety

Destructive - designed or tending to hurt or destroy

Devious - not straightforward; deceptive

Difficult - hard to deal with, manage, or overcome

Dirty - morally unclean or corrupt

Disconcerting - causing embarrassment

Discontented - dissatisfied, malcontent

Discouraging - causing someone to feel less confident or less hopeful

Discourteous - lacking courtesy; rude

Dishonest - characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness; unfair, deceptive

Disloyal - showing an absence of allegiance, devotion, obligation, faith, or support

Disobedient - refusing or neglecting to obey

Disorderly - engaged in conduct offensive to public order

Disorganized - lacking coherence, system, or central guiding agency

Disputatious - inclined to dispute; controversial

Disrespectful - showing a lack of manners or consideration for others

Disruptive - disrupting or tending to disrupt some process, activity, condition, etc.

Dissolute - lacking restraint

Dissonant - marked by dissonance; discordant; incongruous

Distractible - when attention of the mind is easily distracted by small and irrelevant stimuli

Disturbing - causing feelings of worry, concern, or anxiety

Dogmatic - characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts

Domineering - inclined to exercise arbitrary and overbearing control over others

Dull - tedious, uninteresting

Egocentric - self-centered, selfish

Enervated - lacking physical, mental, or moral vigor

Envious - feeling or showing envy (i.e., painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage)

Erratic - characterized by lack of consistency, regularity, or uniformity

Escapist - relating to avoiding an unpleasant or boring life by thinking, reading, etc., about something more exciting or fun, especially something that could not really happen

Excitable - capable of being readily roused into action or a state of excitement or irritability

Expedient - governed by self-interest

Extravagant - lacking in moderation, balance, and restraint

Faithless - not to be relied on; untrustworthy; disloyal

False - not genuine; intentionally untrue

Fanatical - marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion

Fanciful - marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience

Fatalistic - having or showing a belief that the future is determined and cannot be changed

Fawning - seeking or used to seek approval or favor by means of flattery

Fearful - causing or likely to cause fear, fright, or alarm especially because of dangerous quality

Fickle - marked by lack of steadfastness, constancy, or stability; given to erratic changeableness

Fiery - easily provoked; irritable

Fixed - firmly set in the mind

Flamboyant - excessively showy

Foolish - showing or marked by a lack of good sense or judgment

Forgetful - inclined to forget what one has learned or to do what one should

Fraudulent - characterized by, based on, or done by fraud; deceitful

Frightening - causing fear

Frivolous - marked by unbecoming levity

Gloomy - lacking in promise or hopefulness; pessimistic

Graceless - lacking a sense of propriety; immoral

Grand - lavish, sumptuous

Greedy - marked by greed; having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions

Grim - ghastly, repellent, or sinister in character

Gullible - easily duped or cheated

Hateful - full of hate; malicious

Haughty - blatantly and disdainfully proud

Hedonistic - devoted to the pursuit of pleasure

Hesitant - slow to act or proceed (as from fear, indecision, or unwillingness)

Hidebound - having an inflexible or ultraconservative character

High-handed - having or showing no regard for the rights, concerns, or feelings of others; arbitrary, overbearing

Hostile - marked by malevolence; having or showing unfriendly feelings

Ignorant - unaware, uninformed

Imitative - imitating something superior; counterfeit

Impatient - not patient; restless or short of temper especially under irritation, delay, or opposition

Impractical - not practical; impracticable; idealistic

Imprudent - lacking discretion, wisdom, or good judgment

Impulsive - prone to act on impulse

Inconsiderate - careless of the rights or feelings of others

Incurious - lacking a normal or usual curiosity; uninterested

Indecisive - not decisive; inconclusive; irresolute

Indulgent - willing to allow excessive leniency, generosity, or consideration

Inert - sluggish

Inhibited - not confident enough to say or do what one wants

Insecure - beset by fear and anxiety; not confident or sure

Insensitive - lacking feeling or tact

Insincere - not sincere; hypocritical

Insulting - giving or intended to give offense

Intolerant - unable or unwilling to endure

Irascible - marked by hot temper and easily provoked anger

Irrational - not using or following good reasoning

Irresponsible - having or showing a lack of concern for the consequences of one's actions

Irritable - easily irritated or annoyed

Lazy - disinclined to activity or exertion; not energetic or vigorous

Libidinous - having or marked by lustful desires; lascivious

Loquacious - given to fluent or excessive talk; garrulous

Malicious - having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone; given to, marked by, or arising from malice

Mannered - having an artificial or stilted character

Mannerless - lacking good manners; impolite

Mawkish - exaggeratedly or childishly emotional

Mealymouthed - not plain and straightforward; devious

Mechanical - without thinking about what you are doing, especially because you do something often

Meddlesome - given to meddling (i.e., to interest oneself in what is not one's concern)

Melancholic - tending to depress the spirits; saddening

Meretricious - superficially significant; pretentious

Messy - extremely unpleasant or trying; slovenly

Miserable - causing extreme discomfort or unhappiness; being likely to discredit or shame

Miserly - marked by grasping meanness and penuriousness

Misguided - led or prompted by wrong or inappropriate motives or ideals

Mistaken - wrong in what you believe, or based on a belief that is wrong

Monstrous - having the qualities of a monster (i.e., a threatening force; of unnatural or extreme wickedness or cruelty)

Moody - subject to moods; temperamental

Morbid - abnormally susceptible to or characterized by gloomy or unwholesome feelings

Muddleheaded - mentally confused; bungling

Naive - deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment; credulous

Narcissistic - of, relating to, or characterized by narcissism (i.e., egoism, egocentrism); e.g., extremely self-centered with an exaggerated sense of self-importance

Narrow - illiberal in views or disposition; prejudiced

Narrow-minded - not willing to accept opinions, beliefs, behaviors, etc. that are unusual or different from one's own; not open-minded

Negativistic - having an attitude of mind marked by skepticism especially about nearly everything affirmed by others

Neglectful - given to neglecting; careless, heedless

Neurotic - behaving strangely or in an anxious way, often because one has a mental illness

Nihilistic - holding a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless

Obnoxious - odiously or disgustingly objectionable; highly offensive

Obsessive - excessive often to an unreasonable degree

Obvious - very noticeable especially for being incorrect or bad

Odd - differing markedly from the usual, ordinary, or accepted

Offhand - done or made offhand (i.e., without premeditation or preparation; extempore)

One-dimensional - lacking depth or complexity; superficial

One-sided - limited to one side; partial

Opinionated - firmly or unduly adhering to one's own opinion or to preconceived notions

Opportunistic - taking advantage of opportunities as they arise (e.g., exploiting opportunities with little regard to principle or consequences)

Oppressed - burdened by abuse of power or authority

Outrageous - violent, unrestrained; going beyond all standards of what is right or decent; deficient in propriety

Overimaginative - excessively imaginative (e.g., devoid of truth)

Paranoid - characterized by suspiciousness, persecutory trends, or megalomania; extremely fearful

Passive - lacking in energy or will; lethargic

Pedantic - narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned

Perverse - turned away from what is right or good; corrupt

Petty - marked by or reflective of narrow interests and sympathies; small-minded

Pharisaical - marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness

Phlegmatic - having or showing a slow and stolid temperament

Plodding - proceed slowly or tediously

Pompous - having or exhibiting self-importance; arrogant

Possessive - manifesting possession or the desire to own or dominate

Predatory - inclined or intended to injure or exploit others for personal gain or profit

Prejudiced - resulting from or having a prejudice or bias for or especially against

Presumptuous - overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy)

Pretentious - characterized by pretension (e.g., making usually unjustified or excessive claims)

Prim - stiffly formal and proper; decorous; prudish

Procrastinating - habitually and/or intentionally putting off the doing of something that should be done

Profligate - wildly extravagant; shamelessly immoral

Provocative - serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate

Pugnacious - having a quarrelsome or combative nature; truculent

Puritanical - : of, relating to, or characterized by a rigid morality

Reactionary - relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially: ultraconservative in politics

Reactive - done in immediate response to something especially without thinking or planning

Regimental - of or relating to a regiment; dictatorial

Regretful - full of regret (i.e., sorrow aroused by circumstances beyond one's control or power to repair)

Repentant - experiencing repentance (i.e., the action or process of repenting especially for misdeeds or moral shortcomings)

Repressed - characterized by restraint

Resentful - full of resentment; inclined to resent (i.e., to feel or express annoyance or ill will at)

Ridiculous - arousing or deserving ridicule; extremely silly or unreasonable; absurd, preposterous

Rigid - inflexibly set in opinion

Ritualistic - stressing the use of ritual forms; adhering to or devoted to ritualism

Rowdy - coarse or boisterous in behavior; rough

Ruined - bankrupt, impoverished; devastated

Sadistic - taking pleasure in the infliction of pain, punishment, or humiliation on others

Sanctimonious - hypocritically pious or devout

Scheming - given to forming schemes; devious

Scornful - full of scorn; contemptuous (i.e., manifesting, feeling, or expressing deep hatred or disapproval)

Secretive - disposed to secrecy; not open or outgoing in speech, activity, or purposes

Sedentary - lazy; not doing or involving a lot of physical activity

Selfish - concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself

Self-indulgent - excessive or unrestrained gratification of one's own appetites, desires, or whims

Shallow - lacking in depth of knowledge, thought, or feeling

Shortsighted - lacking foresight

Shy - sensitively diffident or retiring; reserved

Silly - exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment; frivolous

Single-minded - having one driving purpose or resolve; determined, dedicated

Sloppy - slovenly, careless; disagreeably effusive (i.e., marked by the expression of great or excessive emotion or enthusiasm)

Slow - lacking in readiness, promptness, or willingness

Sly - lightly mischievous; roguish; furtive; dissembling

Softheaded - having or indicative of a weak, unrealistic, or uncritical mind

Sordid - marked by baseness or grossness; vile; meanly avaricious; covetous

Steely - harsh and threatening in manner or appearance

Stiff - stubborn, unyielding; harsh, severe

Strong-willed - very determined to do something even if other people say it should not be done

Stupid - marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting; senseless; vexatious, exasperating

Submissive - submitting (i.e., to yield oneself to the authority or will of another; surrender) to others

Superficial - concerned only with the obvious or apparent; shallow

Superstitious - of, relating to, or swayed by superstition (i.e., a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary)

Suspicious - disposed to suspect; distrustful

Tactless - marked by lack of tact (i.e., a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense)

Tasteless - having no taste; insipid; dull

Tense - feeling or showing nervous tension

Thievish - given to stealing

Thoughtless - lacking concern for others; inconsiderate; reckless

Timid - lacking in courage or self-confidence

Treacherous - likely to betray trust; unreliable

Trendy - marked by ephemeral, superficial, or faddish appeal or taste

Troublesome - difficult, burdensome; giving trouble or anxiety; vexatious

Unappreciative - not giving recognition or thanks for something

Uncaring - lacking proper sympathy, concern, or interest

Uncharitable - lacking in charity; severe in judging; harsh

Unconvincing - not convincing; implausible

Uncooperative - marked by an unwillingness or inability to work with others

Uncreative - lacking originality of thought; not productive of new ideas

Uncritical - showing lack or improper use of critical standards or procedures

Unctuous - having, revealing, or marked by a smug, ingratiating, and false earnestness or spirituality

Undisciplined - lacking in discipline or self-control

Unfriendly - not friendly (e.g., hostile, unsympathetic; inhospitable, unfavorable)

Ungrateful - showing no gratitude; making a poor return

Unhealthy - of a harmful nature; morally contaminated

Unimaginative - having or showing a lack of imagination or originality

Unimpressive - not attracting or deserving particular attention, admiration, or interest

Unlovable - incapable of inspiring love or admiration; not having attractive or appealing qualities

Unpolished - not polished (i.e., characterized by a high degree of development, finish, or refinement)

Unprincipled - lacking moral principles; unscrupulous

Unrealistic - not realistic; inappropriate to reality or fact

Unreflective - unthinking, heedless

Unreliable - undependable, untrustworthy

Unrestrained - immoderate, uncontrolled

Unstable - wavering in purpose or intent; vacillating; characterized by lack of emotional control

Vacuous - marked by lack of ideas or intelligence; inane

Vague - not thinking or expressing one's thoughts clearly or precisely; vacant

Venal - originating in, characterized by, or associated with corrupt bribery

Venomous - spiteful, malevolent

Vindictive - intended to cause anguish or hurt; spiteful; vengeful

Vulnerable - open to attack or damage; assailable

Weak - not firmly decided; not factually grounded or logically presented; ineffective, impotent

Weak-willed - not having the determination that is needed to continue with a difficult course of action

Willful - obstinately and often perversely self-willed

Wishful - according with wishes rather than reality

Zany - strange, surprising, or uncontrolled in a humorous way

Sources: 1 2 3

[orphiclovers]

Avatar - fundamentally broken skill?

This is a thing I have been thinking about. The way powers (skills, stigmas, whatever) work in the world of ORV is fascinating in that they are not designed to help the incarnation or adjust to their bodies like a classical superpower. It's repeated many times that the Star Stream is a cruel place, so of course it makes nothing easy on them. Just look at how many times Shin Yoosung and Lee Gilyoung bleed when using their skills. Or how Anna Croft and Yoo Joonghyuk were destroyed mentally by their repeated lifetimes - don't even get me started on Regression.

And Avatar is one of the skills that is the most developed. I've talked about how manifesting it seemingly splits you in two (I recommend reading this previous meta before this post) but what does that split entail, exactly? Here's my theories.

1. Author/Character divide.

If we take 1863rd Yoo Joonghyuk as an example, it's very clear cut. The black coat wearing YJH would be the 'character' who stays and dies and the white coat wearing YJH would be the 'author' who choses to write another story. 'Character' used here in the sense that Kim Dokja would look at them and be able to see/assign them this metaphysical trait, as he does for everyone else.

With Kim Dokja, it is basically easy too. 51% is the author, while 49% is the character, probably.

Han Sooyoung is more difficult. I think since Kim Dokja looks at 1863rd and says she is already a 'character', while 3rd stays a person the whole time IIRC, 3rd would be the 'author' self, even if this seems counterintuitive and like it should be the opposite - this makes the most sense with the second part of this theory.

Technically every author (or reader - someone with the knowledge of the narrative) becomes a 'character' (i.e forgets everything) at some point as per Star Stream rules, but this has not yet happened to Han Sooyoung of the 3rd round.

Still, it's not a perfect fit. Both Han Sooyoungs write novels and neither Kim Dokja does (not that writing is 100% necessary to be an 'Author', since YJH is one and barely writes anything until the epilogue) But it's still an interesting connection to explore.

Onto the second part.

2. Does the divide into two...actually work long term, because it doesn't seem to, based on the evidence we have?

First, let's look at 49% Kim Dokja. Perhaps Kimcom would have accepted him as the real Kim Dokja, like they do with Han Sooyoung, if he didn't ACT like a wet paper towel. The detoriation in mental faculties is very apparent and jarring and soon he falls apart physically too. This doesn't happen to 3rd Han Sooyoung, who is also an avatar, so what gives?

Well, it might not happen to 3rd but definitely did to 1863rd Han Sooyoung.

A 'probability storm is gnawing at her memories' and there's physical effects too. She says this has been happening for a while. Even though she has found a way of slowing down the effects it clearly doesn't fix the issue and eventually, despite her resistance, she might have become like 49% Kim Dokja.

(Maybe that's why she was so ready to leave her companions after the scenarios were over. If rereading stuff helps, perhaps that's also why she kept a diary of her round that 3rd YJH eventually got? Just spitballing, this isn't part of the theory.)

She names two possible causes to this detorriation - exessive use of the Avatar skill or Ways of Survival. 'Ways of Survival' probably refers to the Star Stream rule that once you reach the end of your knowledge you forget you were an author and become a 'character', which 1863 justifiably doesn't want to happen. Later, Kim Dokja comments on her 'status as a character' too, so it is related to that.

With 'overuse of Avatar' she could be refering to the way she makes thousands of them in her mind, but if we look at 49% Kim Dokja and the way their sympthoms match pretty closely, it's likely also the fact that another her - the main body/'author' - is running around in another worldline.

So for these two it checks out that one of the halves is always unstable.

With 1863rd Yoo Joonghyuk, well, it's hard to tell how it would have gone, since black coat YJH dies almost immediately. But the very fact that his avatar didn't even make it a couple minutes is also pretty telling.

As previously stated, nothing is stopping a skill from being harmful for the user. So maybe, one half of the initial avatar pair gets the short end of the stick and ends up slowly disintegrating. That's the basics of this theory.

Technically 51% Kim Dokja disintegrates into the Star Stream too but it is by a different mechanism, unrelated to the Avatar skill. First, he overconsumes probablility and shrinks into a child - this happens to Secretive Plotter too, it's just a thing.

Then, he loses his memories and if Kimcom hadn't interviewed would have become the same exact child that SP takes away in the subway, so that was just the time loop asserting itself. Like alt-1863rd YJH losing his memories when regressing to the 3rd round, or 1863 Han Sooyoung going dormant in Young Han Sooyoung's mind on the day the scenarios start. (Each of these are the looping points of the universe for yhk.)

But something about the way 1863rd Han Sooyoung in those 13 years sheds pieces of her story to create TWSA is very reminiscient of how 51% Kim Dokja disintegrates into the Star Stream on that subway. So perhaps there is some kind of connection there too.

[iamnmbr3]

Great answers! I do love the idea of Sirius as DADA teacher!

Here's another one for you: rank these characters from worst to best for the post of Minister of Magic

Albus Dumbledore

Lucius Malfoy

Sirius Black (again cause I love him and I read a fic about this once)

Minerva McGonagall

Barty Crouch Sr.

oh god. these clowns would all be such terrible minsters of magic. why are you doing this to me? ok fine. here goes.

Lucius Malfoy: I think because movie!Lucius was sort of toned down and defanged fandom sometimes forget what a nasty piece of work book!Lucius was before he had his downfall and got all sad and pathetic. Fanon!Lucius often gets turned into kind of a joke but book!Lucius was out there torturing muggles for fun by night while he had the ear of the Minister by day and was, seemingly, extremely adept at subtly spreading his pureblood supremacist agenda in government. (Honestly, better at it than Tom because unlike Tom he actually cared). Also in book 4 it's very clear that if he had gotten hold of Hermione - a fourteen year old child - on the World Cup grounds he would've attacked her without hesitation (been eager for it, in fact). Yeah he wasn't down with Voldemort's whole thing but that was more because of the effect it had on him personally. with Voldemort out of the picture he was top dog and he was doing just fine. All this to say, as Minister the policies he enacts are...not good to say the least. He'd be out there building a violent pureblood supremacist dictatorship in a heartbeat.

Albus Dumbledore: Albus says he can't be trusted with the power of being Minister and honestly...I believe him. He'd still play the same messed up manipulation games he plays in canon but on a much larger scale (while simultaneously feeling bad about it and telling himself it's for the greater good). He does some truly epic mental gymnastics to convince himself he needs to make himself dictator for life and then things spiral because obviously anyone who resists him is evil right? Right? Of course! The alternative is that he is wrong and he doesn't want to think about that. Also, he doesn't seem that bothered by house elf slavery and his ideas for getting nonhuman magical creatures on his side in canon seemed to involve asking nicely but not actually granting them rights. So I'm not super optimistic on that front. So yeah. This just turns into the whole of wizarding Britain getting gaslit and thrown into insane situations by a madman who seems so wholesome and lovable and yet... Also. Given how poorly organized the Order is I think it's safe to say that all other flaws aside, the man does not have a gift for management.

Barty Crouch Sr.: Listen. He ALSO sucks. Very clearly ok with slavery, not a fan of due process, and allowed Aurors to torture confessions out of suspects. His only saving grace is that he does love rules so he'd probably eventually step down and wouldn't make as many potentially damaging changes as Dumbledore.

Minerva McGonagall: Her no nonsense attitude ensures that any meeting she runs actually accomplishes things. She's smart. She's sane. She's stable. She doesn't care about ending slavery or changing the status quo, but she's a lot better than most of the options. She's not especially creative or good at political games though which often hampers her ability to carry out objectives and prevent bad actors (i.e. Lucius and his faction) from getting their way.

Sirius Black: What does the man who hates authority do when he finds himself in a position of ultimate authority? I don't know but I'd love to read about it! Sirius is actually pretty shrewd (contrary to fanon) and I think he'd actually turn out to be a natural at handling politics (much as he might hate it). He also understands traditional pureblood society (he is a Black after all) but he doesn't idolize it (he hates being a Black) which would allow him to understand and work with multiple factions. Additionally he can be forceful and authoritative. He's impatient, often biased and unfair, sometimes quite cruel, can be temperamental, and again, has 0 problem with slavery. So like. He's not good per say, but he's actually better than some of the others. (At least with him meetings are never dull because if he gets bored enough he just turns into a dog and eats the agenda).

[whenmemorydies]

Chaos and Consistency

I've been thinking about why Carmy chose a career in fine dining in the first place. Obviously there are the reasons we're told in the show:

Cooking was a source of connection between Carmy and his family, particularly with his brother/surrogate father, Mikey (recall the first scene of 1x06 Ceres).

Carmy also knew that he wanted to be chef from a young age (recall 3x02 Next and the convo between Carmy and Chi Chi, and 3x06 Napkins and the convo between Tina and Mikey about Carmy's purpose).

Carmy's family is well connected in the restaurant industry: his parents owned their own restaurant (The Beef) and his cousin Michelle owns restaurants too (recall Michelle and Carmy's sidebar in 2x06 Fishes). Carmy is given the opportunity to work in these places and gain valuable experience that opens up doors for him to go onto work elsewhere in the industry.

In addition to the above, I think Carmy chose and stayed in professional kitchens as a response to the chaos he grew up in, which was largely the result of his absent father and abusive mother. I'll explain my reasoning for this conclusion below.

Chaos

The chaos that would have been present in Carmy's childhood is never as clearly illustrated in the show as it is in 2x06 Fishes. The emotional powder keg that is his mother, Donna Berzatto, propels the action in that episode, whether its via her constant yelling at the people around her, the repeated dinging of her kitchen timers or the multiple pots and trays of food she has going that simmer and bubble until everything boils over at the end of the episode with Donna purposely crashing her car through the family living room:

Its clear that in Donna's house, chaos reigned. She was erratic, unpredictable and inconsistent as a parent. She also nursed an alcohol addiction and left her children feeling afraid. Recall 1x08 Ice Chips and Natalie's disclosure to Donna about the former's fears for her unborn daughter:

Natalie: Mom, I don't want her scared like I was scared.

Donna: I scared you?

Natalie: You scared all of us.

While its indicated on the show that Carmy's father left the family when Carmy was young, its also implied that he too behaved erratically and suffered from multiple addictions. In 1x04 Dogs, Cicero tells Carmy that the last time he spoke with Carmy's father, they had fought about the latter's drug and alcohol use as well as gambling issues. Cicero also discloses to Carmy that his dad couldn't settle on a job and had a new career "every ten minutes."

Cicero's chat with Carmy along with what we know of Carmy's father from Mikey and Donna (i.e. that he abandoned his family leaving his eldest son to step into the trap role of "man of the house", that he was an unsupportive partner only being present for the birth of one of his three children - Carmen's - and while he was at the hospital, did everything BUT support his wife through her labour), paints a picture of a volatile and incredibly unreliable person.

Consistency in childhood

One of the most important things that caregivers can provide children is consistency in their parenting. This usually takes the form of regular routines for your child and as much predictability as possible in your reactions and behaviour.

Routines and predictability give children a sense of safety as they absorb the world around them. Consistent parenting gives kids the space to learn what to expect in any given situation, particularly in relation to cause and effect. It teaches them about limits: physical and behavioural, because kids can rely on their parents to model and guide them as to what is acceptable in both regards. Repetition through routine has a big role to play in children's learning (as kids - and adults alike - learn new skills through repetition). Importantly, the security that children feel due to consistent parenting also gives them the confidence to take risks and try new things. And novel experiences expand children's knowledge bases and skill sets.

Think about it: if you are in an unpredictable situation with lots of things changing or out of your control around you, would you feel comfortable doing something totally out of the box that you have no experience in? Probably not.

Where a child experiences parenting that is inconsistent or unpredictable, this has been found to lead to a number of different, harmful outcomes for that child, including but not limited to:

low self-confidence

anxiety

depression

attachment issues

emotional dysregulation

Its clear that the Berzatto kids grew up in a home where chaos and a fair measure of dysfunction dominated. Consistency was rare and when it did occur, it was likely to have involved the elder Berzatto children, Mikey and Natalie, stepping into provide that security for each other and their youngest sibling, Carmen.

Throughout The Bear, we've seen multiple examples of the impact of that chaos and dysfunction on Carmy as an adult. Those impacts include Carmy's various attempts at asserting control over his life (for example, his spiral in 1x07 The Review or his obsessive focus on perfection, most dramatically highlighted in season 3). Another example is the firm boundary he's able to set with his volatile mother. Of all three of Donna's kids, Carmy is the one who's maintained the widest distance from her: its been established by those working on the show that by the end of season 3, Carmy hasn't seen Donna since the events of 2x06 Fishes (which took place roughly 5-6 years ago).

Carmy is also the only Berzatto child whom we see clearly articulate that at least one of his parents was chaotic. He's also the first Berzatto child that we hear name the antidote to chaos: consistency. Recall the conversation between Carmy and Nat in 1x06 Ceres:

Natalie: Plus, we never spend any real time together. This place is eating you alive.

Carmen: You always blame this place.

Natalie: What do you mean?

Carmen: I mean, you blame the restaurant. Alright, you don't blame Mom. You don't blame Mikey.

Natalie: How can I not blame this place? I just cleaned up shot-out glass, and now, I'm covered in carbon. All of our time, money, work, gets sucked up into this place. The only thing we get back is chaos, resentment. Its bullshit.

Carmen: Sounds like Mom.

Natalie: I'm serious.

Carmen: I'm serious.

Natalie: I just want things to be calm. I just want things to be on solid ground. I want things to feel...

Carmen: Consistent.

Natalie: Yeah. Consistent.

Carmen: Yeah. That's totally reasonable.

While Natalie identifies The Beef as the source of the chaos that plagues her family, Carmy insists that that chaos rests at the feet of their mother, Donna. It is here in this conversation, that we can see a difference in approach between Carmy and Nat when it comes to relationships. Natalie is quicker to give her family members grace (recall her admission in 1x06 Ceres that she knew it was a bad idea to co-sign with Mikey for ownership of The Beef but did it anyway; also recall 3x08 Ice Chips and her reaching out to Donna to help her through labour, despite all of her trauma directly caused by her mother) while Carmy has shown that he will internalise sleights (real and perceived) and will cut people off as a result - though we know how deeply feeling the man is, I imagine the cutting off would be experienced as akin to dismemberment for him. Recall his monologue in 1x08 Braciole and his description of how Mikey made him feel as they grew apart:

Carmen: He stopped letting me into the restaurant, couple years ago. He just cut me off, cold. And that...that hurt, you know. And I think that just, that flicked a switch in me, where I was like, okay, fuck you, watch this. And because we had this connection through food, and he had made me feel so rejected, and lame, and shitty, and uncool, I made this plan where I was going to work in all the best restaurants in the world.

Also recall the entire walk-in blowout between Carmy and Richie in 2x10 The Bear after Richie compared Carmy to his mother, Donna (I'll just include an excerpt below because, honestly, I hate rewatching this fight):

Richie: Where were you when I fuckin' put your brother in the ground you selfish piece of shit?

Carmen: You know what? You're-you're obsessed with my family. That's what you are. You fuckin'...

Richie: I'm fucking obsessed with you.

Carmen: You're a fucking leech.

Richie: I'm obsessed with you.

Carmen: You fucking leech.

Richie: Yeah.

Carmen: I should've cut you out!

Richie: I fuckin' love you!

Carmen: I should've fuckin' cut you the fuck out!

Above: The line that, in my view, blew up Carmy and Richie's relationship at the end of season 2 and from which it still hasn't recovered by the end of season 3. Screenshot from 2x10 The Bear.

Despite Carmy and Nat's different approaches to their relationships, the conversation between them in 1x06 Ceres shows they do have something in common when it comes to responding to the chaos in their lives: a desire for consistency.

Striving for consistency as adults

Natalie and Carmy go about achieving their goal of consistency in different ways. Nat has sought it out and found it in her partner and father of her daughter, my beloved Pete. The man is the definition of an unproblematic king: see this post and this post by @thegirlwhowatchedeverything for the evidence). Natalie has also got a head for accounting and project management. Its hard to be good at that stuff without being consistent and diligent. She's actually a bit of a jack of all trades: she can lecture a plumber on how to fix a toilet (recall her phone call about The Beef's possessed toilet in 2x02 Pasta), run FOH for The Bear and interference with The Bear's main investor, Uncle Jimmy. For Natalie, consistency means making sure her home life is safe and secure. It means being practical and reliably available to check in and help others, even to her own detriment ("if someone feels sick, I start to feel sick").

In contrast, Carmy spends little to no time on building a secure home life for himself. When he does partner up, its with a woman wearing a bullet necklace, who talks about almost committing manslaughter at work and who mirrors his abusive mother. Carmy's home itself is pretty barren and he appears to be living out of boxes. He's still storing his books in piles on the floor by the time we hit the penultimate episode of the series thus far (3x09). Its also clearly established that Carmy is not practical (recall Sydney and Nat's joint observation in 2x01 Beef: "Your math is fucked" lmao), and he's often not reliable (recall episodes 2x03 through to 2x10 when he flakes on The Beef's renovation repeatedly).

The primary way Carmy has sought consistency in his life has been through his work as a chef.

In the course of researching and drafting You love taking care of people: Love in the Time of Late Stage Capitalism, it became very clear to me just how regimented the back of house of commercial kitchens aspires to be. The creation and implementation of the French Brigade system is one way that the restaurant industry tries to imbue order into a kitchen setting. The French became synonymous with fine dining and restaurants because, in large part, of their involvement in systematising the kitchen in order to scale service and increase the number of patrons that could be fed.

That systematisation and desire for order, consistency and control in restaurants is reiterated repeatedly in The Bear. Recall the following bits of dialogue from throughout the show:

1x02 Hands

Marcus: [cleaning BOH] Why am I using a toothbrush?

Carmen: Its about consistency and being consistent. Can't operate at a higher level without consistency.

1x08 Braciole

Carmen: And the more he wouldn't respond, and the more our relationship kind of strained, the deeper into this I went and the better I got. And the more people I cut out, the quieter my life got. And the routine of the kitchen was so consistent, and exacting, and busy, and hard, and alive, and I lost track of time and he died.

3x10 Forever

Will Guidara: I was just, like, immediately obsessed with the controlled chaos. Like, the orchestrated frenzy. [...] And then you get to, like, be the conductor of it all.

We also saw visuals throughout the show of the control asserted in restaurants, particularly in BOH. Recall Carmy scrubbing floors by hand, the cold sterility and precision in the Empire kitchen, and the well-oiled cleaning machine that is The Bear crew in 3x03 Doors:

Note how different the above restaurant kitchens are to the state of the kitchen in the Berzatto house - how orderly and clean. While I'm sure these kitchens can reach epic levels of mess when staff are in the middle of service, through his experiences as a chef Carmy would have seen time and time again a system - as fucked as it was - to get that mess under control. In the Berzatto house, there was no system - at least no reliable one - that could reign in the chaos left in the wake of Donna and her ex-partner.

We know Carmy came back to The Beef to try and fix his family, as he tells us in 1x08 Braciole. But what if Carmy has been trying to fix his family with every job he's taken as a chef? What if he is using - either consciously but more likely unconsciously - his experience in each kitchen he's been in as an opportunity to perform control and consistency in the way he wishes he was able to have done at home, with his mother and with Mikey?

Carmy may not be able to fix people, but he knows restaurants. He’s had experience in wrangling, to varying degrees, the chaos of a kitchen into some semblance of order. And if he can impose that order, that consistency in one context, maybe he can do it in another. What Carmy will need to learn is that consistency in terms of a product (e.g. a clean kitchen every night or immaculately plated dishes each service) and consistency in terms of relationships are two different things. You can strive for consistent products but destroy all your relationships in the pursuit of them. Conversely, if you strive for consistency in your relationships, you may not always make consistent products (and quite frankly, that's OK - is a perfectly plated agnolotti dish worth Carmy's relationship with Tina? Is driving Syd to a panic attack worth Carmy's pursuit of a star? I think not on both counts).

Consistency as peace: Sydney

The reason why Sydney makes Carmy better at his job is because unlike him, she is a chef who has practically mastered both forms of consistency. She understands what consistency of product means in the realm of the restaurant industry and can execute to that standard (she may not be as experienced as Carmy in this regard but she's more than capable).

Sydney is also incredibly adept at relationship-building and the consistency required for this. In regards to her relationships, Sydney is consistent to a fault, likely due to the fact that the parent who raised her for most of her life - Emmanuel Adamu - was also a consistent and loving father. He modelled steady, unwavering love for his daughter and Sydney exudes this in turn.

For me, the most clear manifestation of Sydney's consistent love and care is in how she mentors the staff at The Beef and The Bear. Unlike Carmy, she does not visit the trauma she has been subjected to (which we understand has largely occurred in kitchens through her work as a chef) on her peers. Sydney does not displace or blow her trauma through others. The one time she comes the closest to doing so is in 1x07 The Review. However, the experience is such a foul one for Sydney that she quits her job because of it (much to Carmy's dismay). And as we all know, she returns to The Beef and then goes onto run interference between Carmy and the rest of The Bear crew in season 3, protecting the crew so that don't get in Carmy's line of fire.

Above: Sydney physically and emotionally protecting Tina from Carmy's emotional dysregulation in 3x03 Doors.

Like Nat, Sydney is reliable and practical. Recall the below non-exhaustive list of examples:

how Sydney took control of lunch service at The Beef in 1x05 Sheridan after the restaurant loses power and gas (including by building an entire grill from found construction materials - what?!);

how Sydney single-handedly oversaw much of The Beef's transformation into The Bear in season 2 while Carmy was out numbing himself with Claire;

how after the birth of Nat's baby, Sydney makes a shit tonne of food for Nat and Pete, including Nat's favourite lasagne.

Above: Sydney and Tina building an outdoor kitchen in 1x05 Sheridan

Sydney is also able to establish firm boundaries with Carmy ("You are an excellent chef. You are also a piece of shit.", "If this is going to work the way that, I think, we both want it to work, we need to try to listen to each other.", "I'm not your fucking babysitter") and pushes Carmy to be consistent in his relationships. Recall 3x01 Tomorrow and her gentle insistence that he call Richie after their walk-in blow up.

Carmy recognises all of this pretty quickly with Sydney, making her his sous chef by the third episode of the series ("I will dial business. You are everything else.") and offering her part ownership of The Bear by 3x02 Next. Whether Syd is going to accept Carmy's offer is another question and one that I suspect is going to heavily depend on Carmy's ability to repair and practice loving consistency in his relationships next season.

I think key to this, is going to be a realisation on Carmy's part that he cannot treat consistency in relationships like he does consistency in the restaurant or creating a dish. He can't just "be square with everything [...] and everyone" or "make it good [by filtering] out the bad" like he described in 3x07 Legacy.

That description by Carmy of how he wants to be remembered - his legacy - still reads to me like the description of a product. That Carmy wants to be remembered for creating something panic-less and anxiety-free while giving little attention to how he might go about actually creating the thing in the first place: the consistent work that needs to be done in relationships to make sure that people aren't panicking and aren't anxious. Contrast this with Marcus' desire for his legacy:

Marcus: I kept my chin up. Listened and learned. I did honest work. Fun to be around. And an excellent emergency contact.

Marcus' legacy is all about relationships and process. He, like Sydney, knows that at the end of the day, the end product - his legacy - will not be a thing. It will be the sum total of everything: what he made through honest work but more importantly how he engaged with others: how he listened and learned, was fun to be around, and was reliable enough to be an excellent emergency contact. Key to all of this, is his consistency (which Marcus models from the first episode of The Bear and is probably why he is held so dear by Carmy as well). I’ve no doubt that Marcus’ consistency and how he treats people was modelled for him by his primary caregiver, his mother Angela Brooks. This is based on Marcus’ eulogy for Angela in 3x03 Doors.

Marcus: She loved everyone. I think you can tell 'cause there's so many people here. I always felt loved. It didn't matter what was going on or if I was in trouble or whatever. I knew she was listening. And she knew I was listening too.

This is essentially, the core of consistent parenting. Ensuring that a child feels loved, even when things are hard. Its also the core to consistent relationships throughout one's life. And it depends entirely on people and how we handle our connections to each other.

Indeed, what Carmy needs to realise could also be put another way, as it was by Chef Terry in 3x10 Forever:

Andrea Terry: I think what I've learned over the years in all the places I've worked, is people don't remember the food. [...] Its the people that they remember.

Tagging in case you're interested in more of my rambles but as always, I'm interested in chatting about this stuff with whoever wants to (tagged or not!):

@currymanganese @vacationship @thoughtfulchaos773 @moodyeucalyptus @fresaton @ciaomarie @hwere @tvfantic87 @freedelusionshere @mitocamdria @ambeauty @angelica4equity @anxietycroissant @turbulenthandholding @brokenwinebox @devisrina @alwaysrunningoutoftime

[fitgirlfemdom]

✧∘* ✧･ﾟsoft/sfw feeding tips✧∘* ✧･ﾟ

i'm gonna be honest, i haven't been feeling the best mentally. i also feel that a lot of my posts, although rooted in fantasy, are not exactly realistic or doable for a lot of feedee/feeders. that's why i wanted to explore the softer, fluffier sides of this kink, since these are a lot better to do publicly and help the efficiency/longevity of a feederist relationship.

-going out to dinner and ordering for your feedee. asking what they want generally, and deciding what they want based off their tastes. you can decide the amount, based on your budget. make sure the restaurant or eatery is one your feedee prefers (i.e. don't force them to eat Mexican food if they like Italian). by doing this, it 1) sets up a clear power dynamic between both parties that is healthy and mutually beneficial, and 2) helps both parties learn more about each others preferences. note: i would not recommend ordering alcoholic drinks for feedees, as they should choose themselves based on their own limits. overeating is a lot less dangerous than alcohol poisoning, and everyone's tolerance is obviously different.

-if you're planning on going out for drinks, plan to make them a meal beforehand. this shows that you not only care for their wellbeing, but also brings you closer emotionally before a night of debauchery. drinking alcohol on an empty stomach can cause a number of health issues, as well as exacerbating the negative effects of alcohol use. cooking together is also proven to strengthen relationships by enhancing communication skills and providing quality time alone.

-plan a charcuterie board together! take note of what snacks your feedee prefers, such as nuts, cheeses, dried fruit, crackers, dips, etc. you can also order one online if it's too much of a hassle. by planning a charcuterie board specifically, you can learn what type of snacks your feedee truly enjoys, as well as trying new foods alongside them (or just watching their reactions).

-pack lunches for work. if your feedee works in an office space or a job where there is a clear lunch time, prepare their foods for them based on their known preferences. this builds your relationship on trust, communication, and establishes a clear power dynamic. if packing lunches isn't your thing, or you don't have enough time or energy, set your DoorDash to their place of work and send them surprise orders (this is, of course, much more expensive, but can be a nice treat every once in a while).

-listening to your feedee's views on their journey throughout your relationship. sometimes, a feedee may discover that they aren't comfortable with this lifestyle, and that's okay! other times, a feedee may be comfortable with certain aspects, such as food play, but not others, such as force feeding. sit down and have a conversation with your feedee about their feelings regarding your partnership regularly. they trust you and place a large amount of power in your hands--the best way to reciprocate is to make them feel safe in your control. feederism may also just be a small part of your feedee's life, and they may only want to participate in it a few times a month. this should also be taken into account.

-encouraging confidence in their new body outside of kink. sometimes feedees have a humiliation or degradation fetish regarding their weight, but this should not continue in everyday situations, unless agreed upon. ask your feedee their favorite parts about themselves physically, but also mentally and emotionally. tell them your favorite parts about them, and vice versa. conversate about how this kink lifestyle makes them feel about their image of themselves, and orientate your approaches to feederism based on this.

i hope you enjoyed reading! have a good day! <3

[funnier-as-a-system]

Hi, singlet here, I hope this is okay to ask, not sure if y'all are the right person to ask, but I stumbled across your roleplaying tag - then again my question is kind of coming from the opposite direction than what the tag is for in your blog...

Do you have any recommendations or are there any resources on portraying systems while roleplaying? Because one of my roleplaying characters turned into a system by accident*) and I don't want to be a prejudiced, stereotype-ridden asshole about it

*)by accident, because during a scene I gave that character's fear a voice, mainly for reasons of exposition and very much on the fly, but because characters never behave as you expect or meant them to, exposition-personification-of-an-emotion just decided to flat out be a person after all... so now that character is two persons in one people, which was not planned...

Hm... that's an interesting question that I don't think we've ever gotten before. I don't have any advice or resources tailored to this specifically, but I will say that it may help for you to keep some personal notes on each system member, so that you can better identify what each of their feelings/responses will be to developments in your campaign/game, as well as what their relationship is like. Such things can be tricky to keep straight when they're just in your head, so having it all written out on paper can keep things clear(er).

Something in particular you may wish to keep track of is Who Fronts When. For instance, you could have conflict or angst if one of them appears to be "hogging the body" and the other feels like they don't get to front enough. Or maybe one of them is more skilled at something so you switch to get that buff for a particular action, but too many switches (or even just one) in a short amount of time causes a debuff in some other area, like how dissociation or other side-effects from switches can affect real-life systems.

I wouldn't worry too much about falling into stereotypes. The main thing is to just not make one of your characters into a serial killer Just Because; don't be a "murder hobo" or pull the "something inside me is trying to get out and murder innocent people/I fear whatever this thing inside me is" trope and you'll probably be fine. If this were a different medium I'd recommend avoiding murder entirely, but roleplay is... well, the base of the game itself can make it difficult to avoid such situations. But to be on the safe side, you may wish to avoid one of your characters fearing the other, especially if for unspecified reasons or because they don't know what they'll do when in control. While I believe that in general, anyone can write whatever they want, I also feel that such topics are better left to those who are systems or know systemhood well (i.e. have done a lot of research and went into their writing/roleplaying with a goal in mind, and didn't just stumble into it or decided to make a character plural on a whim), as these topics can easily be handled in a clumsy matter that echoes these horror tropes.

Hope this helps, anon!

[dairy-farmer]

Pretty sure I'm the anon who sent the 'Tim wearing people's merch and sometimes fucking that same person while doing it' ask awhile back. (I say pretty sure because, while I have started keeping track of the things I sent you when I started sending you a lot, I didn't at that point and Tumblr doesn't keep track of anonymous asks you send apparently 😑. But it definitely looks like my writing style and lt felt familiar when I saw it. If it was actually someone else's all I can say is Ope.)

Anyway!

Tim also uses the wearing of merch to signal his displeasure with certain family members i.e. by very pointedly not wearing their things. This punishment only works because his family is a bunch of creepers who have cameras and microphones in his bedroom (just for security! They definitely don't use it to watch Tim sleep or masturbate or fuck! Why would you ask that? Shut up! What were you doing at the devil's sacrament, Goodie Proctor?!) So of course this means that someone is usually watching Tim get dressed and luckily the bats gossip like old women so whoever is watching on at a given time will immediately share important things with everyone else.

Well, if you made Tim upset recently? It's not just that he won't wear your merch, oh no no - it's not as if Tim only wears the merch of someone he's particularly happy with or interested in on a given day, sometimes he just really wants to wear his Impulse t-shirt! No instead, to make sure his displeasure is known and that it's clear he isn't just wearing someone else's merch, but specifically not wearing yours, Tim will make a show of not choosing someone's stuff.

Bruce being particularly stubborn and not listening to Tim's advice? Tim holds up a pair of Batman pajama pants and turns his head dismissively while dropping them back into the drawer. Jason insults his choice on family movie night? Tim takes his Red Hood hoodie and pointedly drops it in the dirty laundry basket, even though he didn't wear it recently. Damian is being particularly rude lately? His Robin 4 novelty watch is shown to the cameras and deliberately put in the back a drawer. Dick won't stop smothering him after a very minor injury (I literally just sprained my ankle, Dick, I didn't break a leg 😑)? Takes his favorite Nightwing blanket off his bed and just kicks it into a corner before pointedly putting his newest Signal blanket down instead.

It's honestly a great system, because it means Tim can show he's upset with someone without *shudder* talking about his feelings, and it doesn't even take any real effort - no shouting or arguing or cold shoulders! And to show when he's forgiven the person he's annoyed with without 'rewarding' them by wearing their things immediately (yes, I am no longer mad at you. But you haven't done anything to earn me wearing your things again)? He will drink his coffee out of your themed mug (most of his mugs are novelty ones with silly little phrases, and he only uses the hero themed ones for this reason specifically).

One day, he is just so very pissed at everyone - mission went off the rails because they didn't listen to his plan or there was a big family event planned but everyone canceled or something- that he comes down to breakfast already dressed in a suit, even though he doesn't have any WE business that day. (This causes mixed feelings in everyone because, while it sucks that Tim is upset with everyone, he looks really really hot in that suit and since he never wears them outside of business meetings and galas, it has a similar effect on them that seeing Tim in, like, lingerie would. Honestly, that probably does make it an even better punishment because Tim looks extra hot today but definitely isn't going to fuck any of them anytime soon: Tim may be a slut, but he's also petty and stubborn ❤️)

tim punishing anyone who makes him angry by making a point to NOT wear their merch and when they all manage to piss him off refusing to wear anything but his suit which he KNOWs they all love seeing him in so he's punishing them twice as much- first by not wearing their merch and then by wearing his suit❤️

[a-d-nox]

web of wyrd: the career number

the number we are focusing on today is based on the SACRAL PHYSICS NUMBER AND THE FLOW NUMBER (ex: my career number is 7: 8 + 17 = 25 -> 2 + 5 = 7 (recall that numbers must be summed a second time if they total 23 (i.e. 2 + 3 = 5) and above)). for some reason this is a calculation error in my astro-calc chart - my monetary number and relationship numbers are swapped (don't be afraid to question your numbers and check the math of websites).

but what does this number mean?

this number represents your career and monetary situation in this lifetime. that being said, this number can give you insight into what you can do for a career long-term, what you are like at work (your strengths and weaknesses in the workplace), and your monetary mindset.

so let's talk about some examples:

7 - the chariot

click here for the card description of the chariot found in a prior wyrd web post.

for unblocked 7s it is important to maintain focus, have clear intentions, and a plan in their line of work. they often work from the bottom up - they start in an entry level position then come into power (in some theories, the charioteer was both the page of swords and the page of wands before they came into power in the major arcana). often it is their careful planning and plotting that gains them their success.

blocked 7s often lack confidence at work and fear being talked down to / judged for their actions. they often lack focus and direction, which causes them financial stress. they are in need of careful planning and reflection to get out of their burdensome situations. they should try to be less impulsive and more intentional at work and when searching for jobs in order for them to find what works for them.

careers for the charioteer are chauffeur, delivery driving (UPS, amazon delivery, mail, etc), military services, pilot, police men, emergency services (firefighting, EMT, etc), security guard, equestrian, chemist/pharmacist, chef/cook/baker/nutritionist, political diplomat, marine biology, phlebotomist, ship captain, babysitter/nanny, hotel manager, housekeeper, fisherman, fertility specialist, farmer, land baron/baroness, pottery maker, plumber, real estate agent, and other related fields.

14 - temperance

rider-white's temperance (symbolic of sagittarius) depicts an angel facing the view with their eyes shut. their purple-y/red wings emphasizes their passion for the mystical as well as harmony. their golden curls are haloed showing that the angel is an enlightened being. they stand in a white (innocence) robe with one foot on land and the other in water - which shows they are connected to the emotional and the physical world. water seamlessly flows between the cups, meaning to show the flow of energy in life forces. a sun (alludes to the sun card) rises in the distance and illuminates a path for the angel to take. the irises to their [the angel's] right show that they have the wisdom needed to take on whatever gets in their way on this journey.

unblocked 14s seek help from those around them so that they can reach their monetary and career goals. they look for signs as to what they should act upon in their career and as to what they should do for their long-term career. they are flexible at work and are often very even-keeled. they are patient at work and when it comes to making money.

blocked 14s often try very hard at work and to make a lot of money - they can be too hard on themselves and their co-workers. they might struggle with relaxing - they have a lot of monetary stress. they have to realize that being overworked does not mean they are working efficiently/effectively. look at you schedule / your role and try to find ways to slow down so that you can realign with your values and goals.

careers for the angelic temperance person are medical careers (doctor, nurse, etc), pharmacist, scientist, librarian, life insurance agent, marketing/advertisement, air steward/stewardess, attorney, banker, religious leader, teacher, philanthropist, philosopher, publisher, podcaster, radio show host/hostess, writer, and other related fields.

18 - the moon

rider-white's the moon (symbolic of pisces) depicts one wild dog/coyote and one tame dog (the duality of human nature) barking at the moon or rather an eclipse. behind and between the two dogs is a lobster - the lobster is a bottom feeder of sorts, thus could represent the shadow self. the lobster emerges from the water to walk a moonlight/guided path through the mountains similar to how the hermit once walked the mountains - thus alluding to the lobster doing self-discovery / the quartet doing shadow work. first the lobster must walk between the rebuilt towers - likely face personal change.

unblocked 18s embrace their darker selves when in the workplace - they are okay with failing and having weaknesses. they see it as room made to grow/evolve. while they know how to be civil, they also know when to be impulsive and aggressive to get things done. they are open to others ideas - they are open to learning what they perviously didn't know before. they are ambitious and want to go outside the scope of what they are already know. they don't fall for things that sound too good to be true in their financial realm. they are willing to confront why they maybe the ones in their own way of gaining more money, getting a raise, etc.

blocked 18s often refuse to acknowledge that they are in a career that is making them unhappy or is not compatible with their monetary lifestyle. they might be the type to ignore their debts for awhile or to the point where it gets bad and they struggle to catch up / recover. they are also prone to falling for "get rich quick" schemes; they also might struggle with gambling - the might not know how to walk away when they have made money back / are gaining. they hate failing at things or having weaknesses in the workplace. they are prone to staying in a job that is comfortable for them without growing or accepting promotions. don't be afraid to break free.

careers for the moon are night club owner/manager, psychic, doggie daycare center management, dog kennel owner, dog breeder, night club performer, professional water sport athlete, alcohol vender, sommelier, marine biology, art therapist, artist, bartender, mental health professional, chemical engineer, detective, drug manufacturer, life guard, prison guard, private investigator, relief worker, writer, and other related fields.

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my "suggest a post topic"! button if you want to see a specific pac/pile next! if you'd like my input on how i read a specific card or what i like to ask my deck, feel free to use the ask button for that as well.

click here for the masterlist

click here for more web of wyrd related posts

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading options and prices!

© a-d-nox 2023 all rights reserved

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

How reckless could a race of people be if they could heal rapidly? If someone got hit by a car in real life and needed a few months to start walking again, and over a year to do anything like martial arts again, for these people, they'd be walking in a few days and doing martial arts in two weeks. If they would die on impact, then yes, they would die. If they would die in an ambulance, it depends but they would still have a chance. In real life, cuts that take a few days to heal will be healed in several minutes. They definitely do feel pain of course, but as a whole, the general populace has pain tolerance just below those of elite athletes in the real world. I'm imagining these people might be the daredevil type.. could it be very common to get cuts and bruises, not strange to see some of the worst kids or teens getting cut nearly every single day, multiple times a day. I mostly want to focus on the injured = not a big deal bit. Or getting injured as part of normal daily life. But what else might this affect? More surgeries happening because people decide the recovery time isn't an issue (doesn't eliminate other factors of course) How about piercings? If someone goes half a day without piercings, their hole would close. Maybe... medicine that stops the healing process? But how expensive could those medicines be vs getting pierced again?

Tex: So there’s this plant, called plantain. One of the common varieties is known as Plantago major. One of its primary uses in herbal medicine is to heal wounds - and it’s very good at it!

A little bit too good, unfortunately, and it often comes with a warning to clean out wounds first before applying it, because it has the tendency to work so quickly at encouraging skin to knit back up that infections can easily be sealed underneath. This is a problem, because in order to heal the infection, the skin must be cut back open, lest someone risk the infection spreading to the blood and causing sepsis (if not, in bad cases, necrosis).

“Super healing” has many of the same flaws. In practice, the process of healing is rather complex, and while there is some overlap in steps (excess blood cleared away, immune system response to pathogens, phagocytosis, signals sent to regenerate broken tissue or other affected organs), doing too much of only one process can have detrimental effects on the patient in question. It’s the reason why in first aid you clean a wound first, then apply medicines, then apply bandages.

Things like bones, and the squishier bits called organs, take time to heal, because they’re not only reallocating resources to grow new cells (i.e. neurogenesis, osteogenesis, etc), they’re also going through the entire pathway of fighting infections (i.e. B cells, T cells, etc) and checking for cancerous markers of cells that duplicated incorrectly (uncommon, but non-zero possibility). It’s a lot, lot more than “add calcium to bone” or “make skin whole”.

Regeneration of tissue is also rather itchy, and uncomfortable. That, barring anything else, is going to make a lot of people think twice about how many injuries they’re willing to risk. Compounding injuries compounds the discomfort, and most people wish to avoid being uncomfortable if there’s any other option for a situation.

On top of that, rapid regeneration would require a large amount of resources for both calories and micronutrients. This translates to being hungry all the time. Humans can generally heal quickly with a good diet and enough sleep (the brain regulates the flushing of metabolic waste during sleep, Patel et al.), which is why it’s seen as a good sign for hospital patients to have an appetite and also to have a regular sleep schedule.

You can handwave as much of this as you like in your worldbuilding, but to borrow SAW’s general rule, “you break it, you bought it” in terms of internal consistency.

[chubphoe-linkclick]

Link Click Superpower Mechanics: Time Travel and How to Change the Past

and why neither Cheng Xiaoshi nor Lu Guang can do it alone

Tl;dr: the past CAN be changed, but you have to know the secret cheat codes to do so because the cause-effect relationship of events is mad complicated and conditional on borderline random factors. Only Lu Guang's supernatural observer powers can see these 'cheat codes' to safely direct Cheng Xiaoshi's actions to end up at the correct state. Moreover, Cheng Xiaoshi's autonomy when diving allows new possibilities to occur in the past that would otherwise have been impossible.

In Season 2 Episode 2, we see Lu Guang use his powers on all the camera feeds in the hospital and it gives a node-link graph visual in the background as his powers activate along with the more concrete visual of the hospital, CXS and QL's locations (presumably), and the person they're tracking. This graph representation in the background could actually be a hint on how Lu Guang's powers work, and it could explain why he talks about death as 'unchangeable nodes.' It's not an unusual way to think about things, but maybe there is a reason he uses the word "node" specifically.

Maybe the way Lu Guang experiences his powers is like an insanely complicated graph with multiple paths and outcomes that then also move in a bizarre chronological way, rather than seeing specific events unfold on a simple and neat line or a tree of possible events and outcomes. [Based on the visual below, the graph that Lu Guang sees is cyclic i.e. not a tree, so you can go around in circles without changing the outcome if you're not careful even if the actual events change: the meaningful causality is missing.]

If timelines are actually graphs, this affects how we can interpret how timelines work because it essentially bundles actions together in nodes, which is much more limited than allowing a near-infinite combination of any actions and outcomes. It also means that moving from Point A to Point B via Action X could be conditional on factors unforeseeable in real time (or unrealistic to account for in real time) because they've been bundled together in these nodes.

This fits with what we've seen of the missions so far and fits with Season 2's themeing of unchangeable fate while explaining why Cheng Xiaoshi couldn't change events when he dived by himself. Lu Guang to direct Cheng Xiaoshi to choose the correct series of action-bundles for a specific outcome, since which actions are bundled together isn't clear in real time as the actual timeline changes.

Okay, but couldn't we know this while using the regular framing of time as a line?

Maybe (?), but-

Thinking of time as a timeweb rather than a timeline explains more about Lu Guang's experience as well as why he does what he does and keeps Cheng Xiaoshi on such a short leash without explanation: it's just an insane amount of information that's hard to comprehend let alone explain to fucking Cheng Xiaoshi.

It tells us about Lu Guang's predictive abilities when looking at the 12 hour time frame of a photo, since he can see branches of possible actions and outcomes that are quite different from what actually happened (something that'd be impossible if he's just seeing the raw events of a photograph).

This explanation also explains why they're able to change the past without rewriting the present: because the critical path from Point A to Point B wasn't changed.

This also tells us that Cheng Xiaoshi's powers opens up new possibilities that Lu Guang could not see on his own (cough cough end of S2). Consider when Lu Guang couldn't tell what would happen if Cheng Xiaoshi won the basketball game: because it was a section of the graph that was never supposed to exist. Lu Guang can (likely) only see nodes that were realistically possible to occur in the original timeline. So Cheng Xiaoshi's influence can completely disrupt his ability to read events because it forcibly creates a series of nodes/action-bundles that were not supposed to exist thus forcing Lu Guang to re-use his ability from scratch, re-expend the energy to read a photo's timeweb, and completely recalibrate his planning to make sure Cheng Xiaoshi stays safely on course (which also takes time).

There are likely future implications that we're unaware of and need to be considered. For example, the fact that CXS, QL and Xiao Ma are all represented as nodes in his view could be used to work backwards on the limitations of his powers and the knowledge he's able to glean from them.

Suddenly Lu Guang's controlling attitude when they're diving makes a lot more sense, and I know I'd be pissy with Cheng Xiaoshi too if I were him.

[suresne]

wondering how much harry actually knew about kim pre-amnesia (and vice versa) and why harry seems to have accurate knowledge of so many RCM officers' stats

if you have a high enough encyclopedia skill (approx. 6), you can find out through kim's dialogue after he joins your party that harry knows kim's name and nickname, cases solved, and confirmed kills off hand:

[Og] *672. ENCYCLOPEDIA - Somewhere in your mind hangs a dark green blackboard. There are two columns. One says: "cases solved", the other: "confirmed kills". [Og] *149. YOU - Close your eyes. [Og] *367. ENCYCLOPEDIA - The rows are endless. [Og] *423. YOU - Look for: Precinct 57 -> Lieutenants -> Kitsuragi, Kim. [Og] *201. ENCYCLOPEDIA - The name "Kim 'Pinball' Kitsuragi" appears before you. [Og] *673. YOU - Cases solved? [Og] *202. ENCYCLOPEDIA - One hundred and four. Og] *477. YOU - Confirmed kills? [Og] *849. ENCYCLOPEDIA - Six.

since encyclopedia says "the rows are endless" in harry's weird RCM blackboard mind palace, this would seem to indicate that harry somehow keeps track of the cases solved and confirmed kills of the foremost RCM officers, of which kim is clearly one, since both harry and jean know him by reputation

which is a...concerning and obsessive behavior, i think, to put it mildly. it's not clear why he does this. it could be out of competition, but i kind of doubt it. i think harry measures himself against the other foremost RCM officers not as a way to compete with them but as a way to measure whether he's "good enough," i.e., whether he's performing well enough as a "world detector" to be worthy of some delusional goal, like turning back time and winning dora back

i also wonder (and this was brought up in a convo with @1tbls) whether harry specifically looked up kim's stats in advance of going to martinaise. maybe they had even seen each other before, at a distance? what would harry have thought of kim before martinaise, based on his stats and knowing about him based on reputation?

possibly that's kim's a bit of a lightweight based on his case load, despite having a good reputation. that he's a bit trigger happy (which he is), based on his kill count to completed case ratio. i think harry would be a bit puzzled and curious about kim, even without his knowledge of the undercover pin ball operation or the fact that kim is seolite:

can you really be a good detective without having a back-breaking case load? how do you manage to get as good a reputation in the RCM as kim has without running yourself completely ragged and succumbing to despair? (as it turns out, it seems to be a combination of not working at the "bloody murder station," precinct 41, being under more scrutiny from your superiors because of your race, and having a godly ability to compartmentalize and distance yourself from the harm you cause to the people you are policing)

i imagine harry would want to can-open the shit out of kim to try to figure him out and turn himself into a more effective (read: less unstable) detective, but, because of who harry is, that would be impossible

[thinkingisadangerouspastime]

good things about ep. 7:

this episode was by far the best at working with film as a medium. there were still issues, to be mentioned soon, but this ep did a lot of things that impressed me on a level of cinematic structure and format:

some actual tension!! simply showing the trio running from cerberus created investment and stakes for me in a way no monster fight or other obstacle had before (a matter definitely enhanced by the music)

the use of flashbacks!! now, i have some issues with the content of those flashbacks, but since im basically getting two degrees in assessing media i know how to give credit where credit is due lmao. these flashbacks were doing interesting things cinematically, creating parallels with percy's experiences in the present, especially that last flashback where they continued poseidon's voiceover into the present moment. fuck yes!! use the medium of cinema to your ADVANTAGE!!

related to the use of flashbacks, the match cuts!! they were so good, as they helped make visual those narrative and characterological parallels being constructed through the flashbacks. film is an inherently visual and auditory medium, and it was so refreshing to see the show experimenting and making effective choices with those tools

some issues with ep. 7 and the series as a whole:

i'll admit it. im tired of the trio already knowing everything about every obstacle they face (having to improvise in the fight with cerberus was so refreshing and retained more of the spirit of the book as opposed to uh. every other obstacle). and i think this connects with show's overall struggle with writing, adaptation, and the medium of film. these writers have committed the cardinal sin of assuming their audience always needs explanation. in any writing class (fiction and screenwriting are my personal expertise), you are told to assume your audience is smarter than you think, bc a writer's instinct is to assume they need to be clear about action and themes out of a fear of confusing their audience and the end result of that situation is a boring, overly explanatory piece of work. (an re the young viewers, kids are freaking smart!! i literally teach kids of the age range these books are directed for and they are so quick-witted. kids don't need stuff handed to them on a platter, they know how to put puzzle pieces together.)

example of the aforementioned "too much knowledge" issue: the pearls. (people have already explained the issues with medusa, the casino, procrustes, etc., so im going for a new one that's been bugging me a bit.) after percy received four pearls, the general conclusion people came to was that one pearl would break, forcing them to have to choose three people to go/one to stay and thus making the choice more "meaningful" (i.e. bc the opportunity to save everyone had been stripped). it's a fair choice, a fair reason, a fair analysis, and this is a change that bothers me but much more minimally than other changes to the show. here's the deal: the reason they had to give four pearls in the show was bc the trio already knew exactly what the pearls would do. there was no reason to give only three pearls bc that would force a character (probably percy) to raise the question of like "hey, that's not enough to save four people!" so where am i going with this?

in the books and the musical, we get the alluring line of what belongs to the sea can always return to the sea. percy gets three pearls in the book and a seashell in the musical, where he doesn't know right away the specifics of what this gift does (the seashell is an excellent example of adapting a story to a new medium, as a low-budget theatrical production can't afford the effects of smashing three pearls and causing people to vanish from the stage, so blowing the seashell to open a portal was a great move that worked for the new medium and retained the spirit of the source material - percy having an epiphany well after receiving the gift about what, exactly, the gift did and how it would help him). in the show, they issue is that they already know, thus creating the dilemma of there being no reason not to give four pearls. again, not the worst choice the show has made, but it's another example of how the show's most pervasive issue is over-explaining and giving too much information to its characters.

in short: the pjo show doesn't understand "show don't tell." they love telling even though "showing" is Most Important in film as a medium, like it's even more important to show what's going on in film than it is in prose because cinema is an inherently collaborative medium that generates a visually-dominated product. the show clearly lacks a fundamental understanding of the medium it is working with!! and that is bad!!

another issue: the lighting. this show suffers from the current trend in film to make dark scenes impossible to see in.

more characterological problems: the gods are not imposing. just to speak of ep. 7 alone, why was hades so... banter-y? in the book he literally makes percy's hand "move... against [his] will" to show him the pearls. there was none of that power and domineering energy in the show!! the pjo show keeps hammering us over the head with what should be a series-long revelation about the gods' flaws and pettiness and spite and misuse of their incredible power, and yet all of the gods seem almost like... caricatures. where is their ability to be charismatic and threatening. to be lax and powerful. to remind us that they can, have, and will kill demigods.

core thematic issue: the show lacks the humor and fun and adolescent spirit of the books. i've seen a lot of people insist the show is directed for young readers of the book, which i don't disagree with, but the lack of humor and energy and vitality is undoubtedly turning off a lot of younger viewers. in a lot of instances, everything feels so gritty and angsty, lowkey like the winx adaptation (but on a less severe scale). we have moments of sass/sarcasm, moments of levity, but it doesn't feel like a core trait of the show (much less of percy) like it does in the book. and honestly, i think that's a loss! if rick wanted a grim pjo adaptation, fine, but i wish the show hadn't been advertised as something perfectly attuned to the spirit of the book bc it's just not. if it was, i'd be laughing a lot more.

now, let's talk about sally...

i don't love how they've characterized sally in this show. i respect that they wanted to "modernize" her character and more accurately demonstrate the struggles of a single parent raising a child with learning (and in percy's case, also magical) difficulties. i genuinely do respect that choice, and i can follow the thorough-lines created in the show that illustrate this revamping of her character. similarly, i can respect that they didn't want sally to seem like a stereotypical "passive" victim of abuse re gabe, hence her explicitly pushing back at him. that said...

i still don't think these are effective or necessary changes, because i don't think sally was portrayed as overly passive or as a perfectly equipped parent in the book. i understand the argument that gabe is still presented as abusive, i.e. that he checks her phone without permission and controls access to the car, but those moments feel so technical. when i rewatch those scenes and examine the acting (both line delivery and bodily cues), sally is outwardly derisive toward gabe ("who's yancy?" / sally sighs and shakes her head, exasperated, has the long blink to give an extra beat before responding: "the school."), yet at the same time there's a banter between them, where sally insists that she's going to go to montauk no matter what, and if gabe disagrees then she won't bring back both their sandwiches for the knicks game that they apparently watch together often (implied by "you know i hate watching the knicks alone!" "so do i!"). sally holds herself confidently in this scene (hands on her hips). gabe is forced to actually ask politely for his sandwich order (and notably holds his shoulders slightly inward, visually closing himself off in a physical representation of surrender). two of my friends, diehard pjo fans who are not literature or film scholars, were both confused as to why sally and gabe seemed to be bantering within a seemingly standard relationship dynamic - not necessarily the happiest of couples, but a standard married couple (as opposed to clear imbalance of power between them in the book).

to be clear, it's not that sally needs to be a "passive victim of abuse," and it's certainly not that the show needs to explicitly depict gabe hitting sally or percy for us to understand that he is abusive. my issue is that the show seems to have not understood what made sally a strong character initially: her willingness to endure anything for her son, including marrying an abusive man who smelled so rankly human in order to prevent monsters from finding them. like, sally resisted gabe's abuse in the book! the reason blue food is a major motif in the first place is because sally and gabe had a fight where gabe insisted blue food wasn't a thing, and thus percy observes that "ever since, my mom went out of her way to eat blue."

in other words, verbally standing up to one's abuser is not the only way to demonstrate that a character is not a stereotypically weak, helpless, passive victim. it's definitely an easy choice with regard to cinematic staging (and the show has a pattern of taking the easy way out of conflicts and nuance), but i think the real issue is that sally's vocal protests come in tandem with the defanging of gabe. why does his body language and tone falter in arguments with sally? does he not have the upper hand? where is the evidence of an imbalanced power dynamic? there is no one way to write abuse bc the tragic reality is that abuse happens in an infinite number of ways, but nonetheless i am frustrated with the route the show went down in the first ep bc it feels reductive to the core of sally's character and her strengths: her endurance, her implicit but present rebelliousness, and her love for her son.

im also not a fan of some of the flashbacks we're getting with sally. it's not that sally shouldn't be "allowed" to get frustrated ever, but a major element of her characterization in the books is that she didn't take that frustration out on percy. i just don't see sally jackson getting upset that percy doesn't want to swim (beside that, i can't imagine percy not wanting to swim lmao). i just don't see sally jackson almost aggressively telling percy that he is the one making their goodbye ugly (because he's being a kid?? who doesn't want to leave his mom?? you're telling me sally wouldn't recognize the root of his anxiety immediately??). i just don't see sally speaking vaguely to percy about there being things she has to do that he doesn't understand instead of doing her best to meet percy where he's at with her explanation. if someone is coming to this show without having read the books, i genuinely think they might be starting to question sally's parenting, i.e. if she was really as wonderful a mom as percy insists or if he simply sees her through rose-tinted glasses. bc here's the thing: percy does see sally and his mom's struggles through rose-tinted glasses, and it's because sally bottles up and hides her struggles and frustrations from him. she doesn't let percy witness those frustrations. as such, there's an incongruity between book!sally and show!sally that doesn't mesh for me.

in short, show!sally feels like a new character to me. that's fine if that's the route they wanted to take, but again: why advertise it as a faithful adaptation if you're not going to be faithful to the core elements of central characters?

im also disappointed by how much the show has stripped annabeth of her character besides her intelligence. i have some thoughts about the adultification of young Black girls and the fact that annabeth is Black in the pjo show, mostly that i can't tell yet whether the show has the self-awareness to offer commentary on this reality for many Black girls through annabeth's character being seemingly defined by her intelligence and maturity or if they're simply unwittingly replicating this circumstance. i need more material before i can make a concrete assessment here, but all the same, i wish they were allowing these kids and especially annabeth to be kids - to make mistakes, to fall into traps, to have little crushes and get flustered, and to not know everything about every monster/obstacle before they come to face it.

people have talked to death the issue of the pacing so i won't belabor it but in general this show has terrible pacing. the first two eps are rushed (we got so little luke that im concerned his betrayal won't have much heart/meaning/oomph in the final ep), the constant unnecessary exposition creates periods of narrative drudgery, most of the fights lack tension bc the choreography is effectively nonexistent, them missing the solstice deadline has so far sucked the wind of the energy of their quest (of which there wasn't much in the first place bc the show did a poor job establishing the looming threat of a globally destructive war being on the horizon), and in general there's no sense of stakes. sigh.

i probably have more thoughts, but i'll stop for now bc i've got a shit ton of assignments to work on. in sum: the show lacks an understanding of how film operates as a medium, and while the merit of the show as an adaptation can be debated, it's simply a poorly constructed and lackluster piece of tv.

(but on the bright side? the trio is killing it even with the weak material they've been given, and their acting talent is the only reason i and many of my friends have kept watching)

[according2thelore]

But what if we didn’t want to be spared? What if we wanted to hear all your thoughts about Dean and him talking to Sam about Dean getting shipped off when he pissed off their dad?

Would you tell us then!??? ;)

in reference to this post here!

omg, hello friend!

well if you insist 👉👈 

talking from a meta perspective, this is so fascinating to me! because a lot of john's control in the show is enforced by his absence.

in "bad boys," dean is punished by john's absence, and he has to face the legal ramifications of his theft. in all of season one, john's control is exerted over his sons by his absence--they follow his text almost religiously, and dean has become more loyal in his absence, not less. his intentions have to be assumed, so they are assumed pure and for the benefit of his sons.

we see multiple times (but off the top of my dome, in "the girl next door") that sam is controlled from afar by john (i.e., in john's absence) from having and maintaining "outside" social relationships. he keeps him working almost 24/7 for research (triple red eye, anyone?), and controls where and how he can spend his time (sometimes using dean as an enforcer of these rules).

it's like john is most effective when he's not there. the threat of him looms over the narrative in season one, and the shadow of him is lingering around every corner until the show ends. i mean, hell, this conversation happens in SEASON FOURTEEN. TWELVE YEARS after john dies in canon. the things that sam and dean kept secret from each other on behalf of their father, and the things we are still finding out about their relationship with him never end.

he is THE absent father, but john is absent in the way that sound is absent in a party when the music is cut off--it's oppressive, it's disorienting, and someone hits you in the stomach with their elbow because their groove has been thrown off.

and so i think it is SO INTERESTING that john also controls both sam and dean with dean's absence (or, really, his exile).

dean is the obvious one, because it's a punishment. in my head--although i guess we never get this confirmed--john sends him on individual hunts that dean could take care of solo. that way, dean has to work hard for his penance, and it's another way to keep him in check, instead of sending him off to...idk...organize bobby's sock drawer.

but also sam! john is inserting himself into and causing friction within their relationship. "i think you knew that" means that john did not tell sam that he sent dean away. it means that john didn't even tell sam what dean was doing while gone, because "it wasn't because i ran out on you."

the fact that sam does not correct dean here--or after--that he knew dean was doing something else, or doing something important, implies that john a) left out information [i.e., not giving an explanation at all for dean's absence] or b) LIED and told sam that dean ran out.

sam acknowledges that this is an apology. so john actively causes friction in their relationship (as we also see in season one) through controlling access to the truth, and controlling through exile.

i also like the fact that dean is bringing it up, in sam's words, as a "deathbed apology." UNTIL THE END, this is one of the things that dean wants to clear the air on. he knows that this hurt sam, and he is still thinking about it. it haunts him. which means he also never told sam the truth, himself.

if he comes back, and sam is furious like "hey man, why did you run off?" dean just grins and accepts it and either goes along with the lie or dodges the question. sam's disapproval and pain are part of the punishment.

it also has fun implications for stanford, because what is "if you walk out that door, don't you ever come back" if not "sending away"? while i'm sure the words were spoken in anger and pain (as seen by dean in S4), john's control has always been absences and exiles and that stays true here. he is able to control both sam AND dean through sam's exile, because now dean can only depend on john, and sam completely cut off from everything he has ever known. it's a punishment for leaving, and a last minute (effective) method of controlling his departure. sam doesn't have any agency over whether he can come back, or if he wants to keep contact with them. he turns sam's act of agency into a punishment.

(not to mention, it's all very biblical in the michael & lucifer-ity of it all. the good son is exiled and proves his worth, being ultimately accepted into the fold. while the bad son is cast off for disobedience, and the good son accepts his exile and turns away from his brother. the father becomes absent. god and john are both more powerful in their absence, and the resulting power vaccuum is still about god, even when he's not there. who is most loyal? who is right? does this man/being deserve our loyalty? if he hurt us sometimes, does that make him bad? was he ever good? should we lie to ourselves and say an unequivocal yes, anyway? because if we tell the naked, scary truth, that means that we hurt each other for no reason, and will keep choosing to do so. because that's what he taught us to do.)

all this to day, THE IMPLICATIONS! THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND IN MY BRAIN! this scene is SO fascinating to me because it reveals an interesting new facet of their relationship to john and each other. do i think some of john's control was exerted as an act of love for his sons during some pretty intense extenuating circumstances? yes. do i also think that things like this were an insane power play meant as a punishment because john was an angry man? also yes.

(i didn't even get into the "you practically raised me" and "you were the one that was always there for me. the only one." which are also INSANE and i'm eating those words rapidly.)

thank you for this ask, lol!! it was so nice to see! i'm so lucky i have folks who love to scream and shout w me about these fellas! i hope my thoughts made at least a little sense. i am stirring this scene in my brainrot cauldron rn.

-lizzy

[magical-misfit]

OKAY STEPMOTHER THEORY TIME

1. When she eats people she effectively takes over their role in the story (i.e when she ate the second version of Pinocchio and shoved Lou’s Pinocchio in his place in episode 4) 

2. This means that the woman with a crown trying to come out of her cheek is potentially the Evil Queen from Snow White and that’s why the Mirror is trying to get back to her, because when she ate the Evil Queen she replaced her in the story. (I also have a theory it could be Elody but that’s not related rn)

3. When she devoured Ylfa’s Grandmother and said “Grandmother, close enough” it means she effectively took the place of Ylfa’s Grandmother in the story, which means Ylfa’s story could potentially be a lot darker and her memories of her Grandmother corrupted.

4. The reason she’s so obsessed with Rosamund and why the Wicked Fairy screamed in terror upon seeing The Stepmother is because The Stepmother is trying to devour the Wicked Fairy so she can take her place in Rosamund’s story. (which could also potentially elevate her to the role of Archfey and make her the eighth fairy that Timothy saw)

5. I think her endgame is to become a Fairy Godmother (or Fairy Stepmother?) and have certain control over both The Neverafter and stories themselves. If it’s not that, I have no idea what it could be. But it’s very clear that her agenda is different from the Fairies and Princesses.

6. This is what the Fairies mean when they say they’re “trying to make it right” because The Stepmother essentially becoming an Archfey/Fairy Godmother would fuck up so many stories and could be the catalyst for The Times of Shadow

7. If the woman coming out of her cheek is Elody, then The Stepmother is deliberately fucking with the stories of The Neverafter, particularly those that have already ended in a happily ever after, possibly as revenge against Cinderella. (other food for thought, perhaps Cinderella turned and killed the Fairy Godmother because of something the Stepmother did).

8. The Stepmother and Timothy have almost oppositional powers. Timothy placing people in the book gives him spells and power but also creates new good worlds for people to live in, he can also take people out of the book during combat at least. The Stepmother devouring people causes worlds to disappear and gives her some level of power, in turn, they are erased from that world forever. 

9. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN BRENNAN? WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS ALL MEAN? WHY DID REALITY SHATTER? HOW DID SHE DISCOVER PINOCCHIO AFTER THE WICKED FAIRY VISITED HIM? WHY DID THE WICKED FAIRY VISIT HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE? GDI I NEED ANSWERS

[gulfiya007]

It was clear from the get-go that Nicola was going to be held to a different standard. Not that I care about age.

I do not partake in this infantilization of grown-ups and the stupid excuses of frontal lobe development. Even if the brain development stages are scientifically established, this shouldn’t be treated and exploited in the extreme manner that it is. Humans develop and evolve their whole life, and, whether they want it or not, there comes a time when one should simply assume a responsibility for their own life and the ones around them.

Somehow, Alexander the Great was mature enough to conquer at 18, or Napoleon to command armies by 24 and become a general by 26. Jane Austen was freaking 21 when she wrote Pride and Prejudice. Mary Shelley published Frankenstein at 20. Let’s not play this dumb game that’s so popular with Gen zedders.

For me, if parties in a couple are 18 and above, the age difference could be over 80 years for all I care. What kind of dynamics and reasoning go into relationships with age differences are so unique for each couple that I never make judgements, especially if I don’t know the people involved.

Whether Nicola is dating that 24 year old or he’s just a friend (I have no idea to either effect), she’s within her full rights to do as she pleases. However, I was not the least bit surprised that half of her “fans” (i.e. the lukola shipper sort) are happy for her happiness and understanding, what with the self-insertion and projection underlying the sentiment. Somehow this generosity is not applied to Luke. I suspect that, if there is a confirmation of some no name, over 40, plain looking, SO for Nic, 95% of her newly found fans will drop off like flies. Unless he's a hot guy of course, similar to Luke, with some public profile, then maybe they'll linger a little longer, cause Nic is a self-insert for a reason for those who live vicariously through her.

At the other extreme, there are those who, hostage to their own virtue signaling inanities, will turn against her, if that relationship with the 24 year old is confirmed. Which is stupid too. And unfair towards her.

Both ways, it’s IRL shipping that is the common denominator for both kinds of fan behavior.

And then there’s Luke, the one variable that’s truly desired in this fandom and so wished to remain in the equation. For this reason, he will never escape the oscillation of being the darling of the shipping fandom and the punching bag for its unfulfilled fantasies. And his actual loved ones will always remain the target.