#-haunts the narrative with a negative impact

[wyfy-meltdown]

"As much as I wish for the happiness of someone, someone else must be equally cursed."

This is Sayaka's most icon line (next to "I won't regret anything!") and for good reason. It describes herself, but also the entire concept of "magical girls".

Kyuubey grants the wishes, and in return, a girl becomes cursed becoming a magical girl. Every character (*at least in pmmm, not magia record) becomes cursed at the expense of helping someone else.

Madoka(mi) ends the curse for all magical girls and her friends, but she and Homura becomes the most cursed of all. Madokami bears the weight of the whole universe on her shoulders; Homura's love made her into an object of worship.

Homura ends Madokami's reign (therefore un-cursing Madoka) at the expense of becoming more cursed herself, and cursing the rest of magical girls. Homura losses herself, her mind, and Madoka all for the sake of allowing Madoka to become human again. She can't interact with Madoka, but she can watch her inside her gilded cage; and that's "all" Homura needs

Sayaka is the most poignant example of this; with her "role" being to showcase the ultimate curse of all magical girls. She's determined to make a "selfless" wish (disguising her true "selfish" desires) despite how much Mami warns her against it. Sayaka losses the control she wanted to gain, and losses her mind. Mami's facade left such an impact on her she's dedicated herself to portraying herself as the "perfect magical girl" that never existed nor could exist in the first place. She becomes more cursed bearing the curse Mami left for her, and pushing away the one person who could help her because Kyoko doesn't line up with Sayaka's deluded image of how a magical girl should be. Sayaka curses the people around her up until her curse is ended by Kyoko.

Kyoko makes the most selfless wish of them all, and the most people become cursed as a result. The ones she loved and wished for the sake of in a genuinely selfless way had enjoyed her wish for a while, until the wish could not longer protect them. Kyoko's whole family and life went up in flames as a direct consequence of her wish; because of that, she's decided to live only for herself because she understands best the curse that comes with selflessness; the curse that comes with love. I don't know if it's directly confirmed when Kyoko leaves Mami, but I theorize it was shortly after the death of Kyoko's family; the time Kyoko lost her selfless heart and could not longer connect with others as a result. Kyoko stays that way until Sayaka; Sayaka is the antithesis of Kyoko and yet the same as her. Kyoko relieves the curse on herself and Sayaka with their deaths; the only way to end the curse of a magical girl.

Mami's wish is the most selfish (*objectively) and so the fewest people are cursed (one could even argue that the only one cursed by Mami's wish was Mami herself). Mami's curse is a "self-fufilling prophecy" of sorts where she isolates herself and fully dedicates herself to being a magical girl from the fear that she'll end up alone again and/or that anyone she comes into contact will suffer/die. In a sense, this is true, as the rest of the Holy Quintet do in fact suffer, die, become witches, and so on. Mami didn't even really get to make a wish; she simply had an opportunity to survive and took it, and was forced to suffer as a magical girl because of it. The impact she leaves on Sayaka and her trying to convince Madoka to become a magical girl are curses she imposes without knowing the extent of her actions, nor that her actions are in any way bad; she's gotten swept up by the lies of the incubators and has become someone who curses as a result.

Nagisa is an interesting case because she deliberately curses herself and the people around her. She knows that she COULD wish to save her mom, but prefers the idea of making her mom indulge in her revenge: the world's tastiest cheesecake. The cheesecake Nagisa wished for instead of her mother's health. She becomes a magical girl, with the knowledge she'll never not be a magical girl again, all for the sake of revenge.

[ladylightning]

thinking about a version of supernatural in which john is never shown. his echo and looming shadow still impacts the narrative and brothers the same, but we as the audience never see him. he exists only in the winchester mythos, in stories, in legend, in scripture. the one true god of the narrative, the forever absent father, a holy ghost. he seeps into the negative space of the narrative and he haunts his children all the same, but if there was ever one thing the show should have ever held as too holy for the eyes of the audience, it should have been the face of the father god.

[heyclickadee]

I understand that people are going to cope how they are going to cope, and trying to find meaning in the handling of Tech in season three is part of that, but it’s also okay to criticize the show.

I like a good character death. Tech’s departure was not that. My issue is not that he’s presumed dead, my issue is that it and the handling of it is nonsense. So (I once again get very negative about my favorite show under the cut):

1. When you kill off a main character, you really have to kill them off. How you do so can vary from story to story, but you really have to do four things:

One, you need a good reason to kill them off in the first place. (“Stakes” is not a good reason. A secondary character, sure, but not a main one. More on that in a minute.)

Two, you need to make it perfectly clear that the character is, in fact, dead.

Three, you need to show the other characters processing and accepting that death. This is important because doing so will allow the audience to do the same and let the character go. This is especially important if you’re writing for a young audience.

Four, you need to make it explicitly clear that the character cannot come back. This is especially true in sci fi or fantasy. Especially if you’re the Character Resurrection franchise.

And guess what the show didn’t do?

Any of that. Any of it. What it did instead was ambiguously remove Tech from the story (uniquely in a show that loves making us watch characters die on screen; last time we saw Tech for sure he was alive), never gave a good reason for doing so in or out of the show, never showed us any character working through the impact of his loss (even though there was ample opportunity for Omega, especially, to do so), and ripped the “could he come back?” box wide open by parading CX-2 in front of our faces. It is never, at any point, handled like an actual main character death. It’s handled as a plot point from which the narrative moves fairly quickly, and treated by all parties as an absence. By all the rules of storytelling, Tech isn’t dead. He’s just ambiguously gone. And that means the writing team did a terrible job if what they wanted to do was kill him off. We should not be debating this after the show has ended if he’s actually dead.

2. I understand why some fans are trying to find meaning in losing Tech. I am not, because that meaning is not offered by the text itself. And, if the plan was to never bring him back, it should have been.

We are not, for example, offered a lesson about how not everyone comes home from the war. In order for that to have been the case, we would have needed to see someone, probably Omega, working through that. We would have needed to see her refusing to accept that Tech is gone—like we do in Plan 99, by the way—and slowly coming to terms with the idea that her brother isn’t coming home. But we don’t get that, not even as subtext.

Something else we could have gotten that would have worked with all the little visual reminders of Tech, empty chairs, name-drops, and even the CX-2 leading? The batch being so haunted by losing Tech and not really knowing what happened to him for sure that they start seeing him everywhere. But for that to work we would have needed, again, to see that as an explicit subplot where someone, probably Omega, again, gets really invested in the signs that Tech is coming back and even starts assuming that CX-2 is him, only to realize that she’s seeing what she wants to see and having to accept that Tech isn’t coming back, but that she can still keep Tech’s memory alive by following in his footsteps. That’s something you can kind of project onto what we’re given in the epilogue, but you do have to project it, because it’s entirely absent from the rest of the show.

As is, Tech’s sacrifice isn’t given any weight. From a narrative perspective, it was an incredibly contrived set of circumstances that accomplished nothing except punting Tech off a train, and gave Tech no choice but to remove himself from the story—exit, stage down. Losing Tech doesn’t, even sub-textually, serve as anyone’s motivation. It does nothing to move the plot or anyone’s character development forward. The primary motivators of season three were Omega’s kidnapping, Crosshair’s PTSD, and Hemlock needing to get Omega back.

Tech’s absence does nothing to move anything forward and only really serves to slow the plot down and make the others struggle to do anything because he’s not there to carry the team like he did in the first two seasons—and nothing about that would have played out any differently if Tech spent the season in a coma in a bacta tank. The only part of Tech’s sacrifice that has meaning is that he loved his family enough to offer it. And that is profound, but that’s not something that would be negated by a return because the love and the offer remain. As for his presumed death? His return couldn’t have taken meaning away from that, because the show never gave it any meaning in the first place.

And no, Tech “dying” isn’t something I have to accept. Tech isn’t a real person, he’s an idea, and an idea that didn’t come to fruition. I can point out the ways the handling of his departure didn’t work all day if I want.

3. CX-Tech was not an overly online theory. I need people to understand this. It was an assumption made by most of the casual audience. My sister, who has no contact with the fandom and doesn’t like me discussing the show at all until she’s seen it, assumed he was Tech. My brother-in-law, who was a die-hard Tech-has-to-be-dead-shut-up guy for the entire hiatus and the first half of season three, was convinced he was Tech. Every kid I’ve spoken to who watched the show thought he was Tech and is deeply confused that he got speared like that. My brother, who doesn’t even watch the show but who does walk by when I’m watching it sometimes, thought he was Tech. You can’t get more casual and away from the fandom than that.

The thing is, the answer we get isn’t that he’s not Tech. It’s, “We’re not telling.” Which means that as it currently stands, a season-and-a-half of CX buildup amounted to a five minute boss fight and a non-answer. That’s…not something that works! That’s atrocious writing if that was the whole sum of their intent all along.

And you can say, well, that was a clever misdirect! Plot twist! Except, one, misdirects and twists only work if the real answer is more satisfying than the false one, otherwise it just falls flat. Two, if it was a misdirect, it’s not one the creative team is willing to own. No one will touch the Tech-CX-2 parallels with a twenty-foot pole, except the Kiners, who have incredibly meaningful explanations for every musical choice but then say shit like, “that chord just sounds good in brass” about Battle of the Snipers (…before going on to say that the four note lose motif from “Plan 99” is Tech’s leitmotif…which is also all over Battle of the Snipers…and is only there according because the batch is divided in that scene, a scene in which Crosshair’s leitmotif is entirely absent even though he’s just supposed to be fighting his own dark side represented by a guy who’s totally not Tech. Sure. I’m going to go eat drywall.) Because acknowledging that and saying that was supposed to be Tech will just make the audience angrier, and they may not even be allowed to do so, and saying that it is Tech—you can understand why they can’t do that, right? The implications are horrific. But that horrific implication is probably what at least some of the casual audience who will never interact with the fandom or a single interview is going to walk away with.

4. The thing that bothers me most about all of this is the combined toxicity of the fandom and the leading from the marketing and social media. Part of the fandom saying that there were never any signs Tech could have survived (in Star Wars, no less) is starting to feel like gaslighting; and while I don’t think there was any malice in the leading in the marketing and social media—I’m even willing to give a tiny bit of leeway for the creative team maybe knowing something we don’t yet—it was handled badly, expectations for this season should have been set early and clearly, and as of right now it all feels like an incredibly cruel prank at autistic fans expense, whatever the intent may have been or may still be.

5. And finally, here’s the thing: I’m willing to give the writers a bit of leeway on this. I’m willing to grant that some choices may have been out of their hands for unknown reasons. I’m even willing to say that maybe they’re not really done with this story yet, that The Bad Batch could just be the first chapter of a longer show that was split up for stupid business reasons, and that the finale is the way it is because they had to have an ending of sorts without actually resolving anything. I’m willing to grant a lot of grace there. In fact, I actually think there’s a very good chance we’ll still get Tech back alive in canon, and sooner than later, if only because no one (not even the voice actors) seems happy about this, most fans are coping but disappointed at best, the creative team got asked about Tech non-stop for a solid year and a half, and the writers don’t seem at all committed. We know from the rest of the show that they know how to definitively kill a guy, and, frankly, Tech in the first two seasons comes across as something of a writer favorite. They like using him!

But whatever I’m hoping or suspecting, and whatever leeway I’m willing to grant the creative team here, the final product is all we have right now. And I am going to criticize that final product for badly handling a (presumed) character death and straight up breaking the central conceit of the show in doing so.

[espumado]

Guys, you don't know what just happened to me!! I love soundtracks so I stopped to listen to The Bear's, i found the official FX playlist on Spotify and was listening to it when suddenly a podcast starts and I was like???? So i looked and it was about a horror film??? I, tring to understanding, went to the FX site to see the playlist and the episodes and saw that it was the song from the beginning of the ep5- Children (the lullaby) with our beloved Natalie💖...So what happened was that the music is from a horror film and instead of putting the soundtrack they put on this podcast!!! And I don't know if it was on purpose or just a mistake!!! (And all this reminded me of the people here who started a tag, I don't know who, about The Bear being a haunted/ghost story💀)

It's this scene, with this song:

And the Playlist has this podcast:

But i was like Nat why you have a horror movie song playing in your head??? And cause I'm curious, I went to find out more about the film, cause I didn't know the movie (horror isn't really my thing) and I discovered that: 

The Night of the Hunter is a 1955 American film noir thriller directed by Charles Laughton. Despite receiving negative reviews upon its original release, it has been positively re-evaluated in later decades and is now considered one of the greatest films ever made. “The movie is best known for Robert Mitchum's extraordinary performance as serial-killer-posing-as-priest Harry Powell, a menacing religious misogynist who marries widows for their money and kills them off in the name of the Lord. Having been jailed for stealing a car, he shares a cell with father-of-two Ben Harper, soon to be hanged for murder and the theft of $10,000. Before his arrest Harper hides the money in a rag doll belonging to his little daughter Pearl, making her and his 10-year-old son John swear never to tell where the money is hidden. The plot hinges on Powell's pursuit of the money and John's determination to protect his sister and escape from a psychopath whom others assume is virtuous. Hiding his past, Powell woos, then marries Harper's widow Willa (Shelley Winters). When she discovers his motives he murders her, and the children escape on a boat down the river. A tense chase ensues. The film exists in that cinematic no-man's-land of fairy tales for adults, is a children's fairytale – strange and idiosyncratic – but also a noir thriller, laced with the darkest elements of both genres: death, guilt, greed, poverty, cruelty, biblical references and a terrifying pursuit by the scariest of bogeymen. Laughton described it as "a nightmarish sort of Mother Goose tale". John, played superbly by the steely eyed Billy Chapin, is pivotal as the boy who is alone in perceiving Powell's true motives. In a tale of innocence and experience, he must quickly grow up in the most sinister of circumstances; he must resist adult hypocrisy and stupidity, and a new "father" who pretends to be loving, but is secretly abusive. Gripping in its narrative, the film is also frequently and darkly humorous.”

“Thinking of The Night of the Hunter in terms of its visual impact on other filmmakers, there’s a striking echo to be observed between its unseen presence in films by Scorsese, Spielberg, the Coens, even Ari Aster, and the influence of silent cinema on Laughton’s own filmmaking choices.”

“We can notice the importance of one particular scene: the escape of the children in a boat (they are running away from the killer). This scene, being so important, is also one of the most memorable of the entire film. The components that make it so memorable are: setting, lighting, framing, blocking and music. In the river sequence, the usual realistic environment of the film disappears, giving place to such an artificial setting that it seems that we are watching a whole new film.[...] Again, we feel that the children are safe again in the boat, as they run away from their hunter.

“The river symbolise safety – it is what separates (even temporarily) John and Pearl from Powell. In a way, it is a metaphor for the transformation of a past full of terror into a brighter future¹ with Rachel.”

About the music: “Composer Walter Schumann called the heavy four brass chords that often accompany Preacher a “‘pagan motif, consisting of clashing fifths in the lower register,’” which cede to the lullaby “Dream, Little One, Dream” with a shot of Gish. This celestial lullaby foreshadows her adoption of the children after they escape downriver. In the opening and river sequences especially, audio-visions juxtapose fantasy and reality, and good and evil, to propel the children to safety.[...] In these sequences, Laughton’s visual constructions and Schumann’s score establish abstract contours that take root in spectatorial memory. When the overture transitions from Preacher’s pagan motif to a tranquil lullaby, celestial sounds and Gish’s presence seem to safeguard the children from Preacher’s tyranny.[...] Schumann’s pagan motif, Miz Cooper’s lullaby, and the sounds of the children’s river journey mix realistic tropes and emotional flourishes in the manner of 1950s melodrama films, which especially employed music to articulate these opposing poles. For Peter Brooks, music punctuates the wordless gestures of the melodramatic “text of muteness”: its sweeping rhythmic motions render space and time tangible to imbue characters—especially muted victims—with emotional depth².[...] Analyzed through a motivic model that binds characters to themes, Hunter’s river lullabies foreshadow the children’s eventual safety with Miz Cooper even though maternal figures are not visible.”

So there is this important and well-known scene in the film when the song plays. When the kids are finaly safe in a boat on the river (the part of the song they use in the series starts at around 3:55):

So basically: there's a father who hid some money in the kid's toy (which reminded me of the money in the cans of tomatoes- KBL); an orphaned brother and sister; children looking for shelter; during the escape they are they feel safe in a boat on a river (when the lullaby plays) and in the end they are adopted and everything is fine.

I wanted to understand what this means for Nat, what it has to do with her. When the scene starts the song says "fear is just a dream…" then she thinks about her fears: her brother, mother and a mom's funeral (Marcus), then the song continues "so dream, little one, dream", like, it's not real, no need to fear it!

So…this is ep5 called Children, where: 1-Syd and Marcus take his mother's stuff out of the house and talk about their family 2-we find out that Ever is going to close (a funeral will happen) 3-Marcus and Nat talk about his mother and to start a new project to honor her while Nat is resting from pregnancy discomfort 4- it's the ep The Computer appears and Nat defends Marcus 5- there are the Faks, including John Cena, talking about their family and the hauntings 6- Syd and Uncle Jimmy talk and he says he wishes he had done more for the kids (she reminds him that he is there for them) and finally 7- Carmy goes to the basement and finds a box with photos of the family (Donna and Mike and himself too and a baby that could be Nat?!!!) then some riffs of the song Mixed Emotions by Rolling Stones start and it cuts to the credits with the lyrics right in the part: You're not the only one, You're not the only ship, Adrift on this ocean. And that's it! Just these lyrics and then just instrumentals. They cut the song to fit the scene and without any other part of the lyrics!!!

Carmy my man, Nat needs you! And she was the one who reminded him in the first season: "did you know i recently had a brother die too?" She's trying. She wants help, she already told him, "the thing that pisses me of is that you never ask her how i am doing!!!" but he can't ask her that "because he feels trapped, because he can't describe how he feels, so asking someone else how they're feeling seems crazy to him" (like, he literally told her that in S1). They need to talk, they need each other, they need family (a new one probably...the restaurant...uncle Jimmy too?? She talked with him about be a parent last season and he is always there for them, saving them). Nat managed to talk to her mother, even asked for help (it’s not a solution for everything, but it was a start)...but Carmy...there's still a long way to go, a next season thing. But I think it may be a thing they need to do together somehow, i dont know...

Nat is afraid of her past, motherhood and knows family is complicated, she is looking for a brighter future¹. She and Carmy (and Mike) are children of a abusive/alcoholic parent and live with the consequences of that (some people here have already talked better about the subject). So they are like the kids from the movie, who are muted victims—with emotional depth², in a complicated family, going throught the river until they reach a safer place with better people.

And also, last seasons they showed the "pyromaniac tendencies" of the Berzatto brothers, there were these references to setting the restaurant on fire as if that was the solution to their problems...and now in season 3 I thought that had been forgotten...instead, the ep1 already starts with (first a train, and then) a lake, which appears other times throughout the season... Copenhagen Carmy living in a boat on a river!!!, and all happy and safe, drawing on a bridge over a river!!!

We also had a scene with water being thrown on the kitchen countertop and "flooding" the space (with a song by Trent Reznor and Atticus for a war doc! that the director describes as profound, haunting, unsettling and deeply moving!!!) in a moment that the crew is cleaning the kitchen and everyone is tired and overwhelmed; there is Donna talking about the fish tank that breaks in a dream that takes place in a place she doesn't know that looks gray except for the tank (surreal, like a noir thriller maybe). These don't seem so safe, but they seem to be about the past, something to be overcome... And there's even a scene of Syd reflecting in front of a lake... Several water references...and I have no idea if that really means anything...or if i am going to deeper into this?😅

...but Nat, dear, are you okay?!...you feel like in a horror movie with your remaining brother seeking safety together somewhere or with someone, running away from a curse, a haunting in your family??? (in S1 Carmy talks about how she blames the restaurant, not her mother or Mike, she says the place sucks up all the work, money and time and all they get back is chaos and resentment) But seriously, someone help her!!!...and Carmy...She must have felt very lonely this season with Carmy like that...But I guess this all means that everything will be fine in the end, like in the movie!

Seriously, I couldn't come to a better conclusion about this but it left me curious and confused... And of course, it might mean nothing and just be an interesting song from an amazing movie that director Chris Storer likes because he likes great movies and that's all 🙃 But with all the movie references, great directors and hauntings...maybe I'm not so crazy😅 <<<I tell myself to feel better🫠

[group-dynamic]

Script Doctoring(?) Doctor Who Season 1

Here’s how I would fix the thematic and mystery box issues of this season of Doctor Who while keeping almost everything else the same.

This season would refocus on the thematic tension between Ruby with her desire to find her birth mother and the Doctor’s avoidance of finding Susan. By adding a few choice moments in the Tardis at the beginning and end of certain episodes where Ruby tries to convince the Doctor that finding Susan is important, you would add some really nice character development and even tension to Ruby and the Doctor’s relationship and get to more explicitly explore and discuss some of the big thematic ideas that this season ostensibly centered around like family and fear of abandonment /rejection.

I also think that having the god of death in this season doesn’t make much sense in terms of the themes, so I would probably swap out Sutekh for the Trickster as many others suggested. With the Trickster, you could have the narrative-manipulating, story-changing surrounding Ruby make a lot more sense in universe. This could then better match with the idea that Russell already had: that we imbue things with importance and can thus rewrite our own narratives. Imagine Ruby as central to the finale because her desire to rewrite the false narrative in a positive way could directly counter the negative attempts to rewrite the narrative by the Trickster. Thus, she’s still just an ordinary person as RTD intended, but she is learning to overcome her fear of rejection and abandonment by fixing the negative story that both her own mind and the Trickster have written about her life as she knows she is worthy of love, there’s nothing inherently wrong with her, etc. (A great opportunity to make Carla‘s inclusion narratively significant, too, as she actively contributes to this!)

This would also make the moment where the Doctor cautions Ruby against reconnecting with her birth mother a more meaningful emotional payoff, because Ruby isn’t afraid to try reconnecting with her mother and it goes so well despite the Doctor’s own fears. This could serve as a turning point for the Doctor as he realizes that getting over your fear of rejection can lead you to new avenues for happiness and connection.

Then, instead of having a sorrowful “the doctor is always alone” ending to the season, have the last line of this season be the music swelling triumphantly and the doctor declaring that, yes, he’s going to go find Susan. This would show the actual impact that Ruby had on him and allow his character to go through some growth rather than end up where they’ve always been. (Plus, what a fun teaser to leave the audience on haha.)

You could then spend the second season, (which was ordered at the same time as season 1) on the Doctor trying to track down any clues of where Susan is. So, the season-long arc would become the doctor looking for Susan, but getting sidetracked in the typical adventure of the week.

NOW you can justify Sutekh as the big bad for this second season. If the doctor is actively looking for Susan, it makes a lot more sense that Sutekh would use her to lure the Doctor in and more devastating when it’s revealed Susan Triad isn’t her. Thematically, this works because the Doctor claims to have never reconnected with Susan before because they were terrified that they would either hurt Susan or she would already be dead, so the big bad being death this time around would haunt him: The Doctor is too late and it’s all his fault.

In terms of the “I am life, and you are death” theme, this also makes a lot more sense within a context of actively trying to find Susan, because the doctor is so afraid that he brings death, but the fact that Susan exists at all (and perhaps he finds her or some evidence of her life) in addition to the amazing family he’s built across time and space rallying around him (like Ruby, Mel, Kate, and Rose which justifies a unit based episode AND the memory Tardis as the Doctor’s equivalent of Carla’s wall of photos of her foster kids) is proof that he isn’t a “harbinger of death.” That all of us defeat death when we choose love and support for ourselves and offer it to others. Self indulgently, I would love a conversation between the Doctor and Cherry about family and found family, too. Imagine how wonderfully thematic it would be if this ordinary woman gave the doctor what he needed physically and spiritually to save the day: grandmother to grandfather. Heck, maybe she is the one who gives him the spoon. A teaspoon in fact :).

So anyway, those are the big changes that I think you could make and leave literally everything else the same to get a better emotional payoff and prevent the audience from feeling a little robbed by the mystery boxes.

[saffricatrice]

What r ur oc stories about?

OMG HIHI I NEVER HAD SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF MY CURRENT FRIENDS ACTUALLY ASK BEFORE UMMMM OKAY SO. i have 3! main oc stories that i Really care about at the moment but im Deeply fixated on mainly 1 of them but im gonna start with the one ive been liek "promoting" the most in a sense!! under read more cuz im gonna try to exlain all three of them bless. sorry if i seem overly passionate oops i was TRYING to summarise im sorry its so long u rlly dont Have to read All of it

Forgotten Man's Symphony

his (louis manoir) character is basically a spin off from a character mentioned in the novel frankensetin exactly (1) time by name in elizabeth's letter and by far he is the most organised oc of mine cuz we do actually have a clean, understandable summary doc (thought it is a tad bit outdated but its okay). shes like the most Normal narrative-wise i suppose so i'm not exactly sure on how to explain the plot of forgotten man's symphony it's just like??? him ruining his life in front of the reader and then #Healing?? i guess?? the story is an epistolary that starts with louis' Suicide Letter. so like. yeah. BUT!! i suppose i would say his story very much concerns the concept of like identity (including gender and such she would be considred either transfemme/bigender by the modern world but also idfk cuz i made her complicated and confusing on purpose) and also the lack thereof + the negative impact that comes with trying so hard to fit into the societal norms and what people Want you to be but you just Can't be, cutting away bits of yourself to fit through some sort of hole representing the perfect version of you until theres nothing left of Who You Are expect a palatable and small version yk?? and the the endless pursuit of wanting to be loved that leads yourself to changing and changing for people who just wont care or love you for realsies + @rosaniruby 's words "making it even like that so its not YOU who is loving and being loved but the dim visage of a version of you that fits the picture of what society loves; that it's not a love between individuals, it's the love for a society that cannot ever love anything because it was made to hate. and who believes that portrayal of love will not find it and forever be stuck. smth like society loves what it deems as perfect and hates the imperfect, since perfect doesn't exist it can only do the second one. and louis wanted to love perfect victor, hated his own imperfect self. but the perfect victor doesnt exists, and neither does any version of louis."

i like her he's great. sorry if that was less telling u WHAT his story is and more like Explaining the "themes" as theyre called of the story but idrk how to describe nromal stuff so TAKE WHAT U CAN GET!!! anyways,

Domus Carnis: The Transmutation of Guinevere Manor

idk if you're aware but i have a hyperfix on architectural horror and i DON'T MEAN SCARY GHOSTS AND SERIAL ILLERS IN AN ABANDONED HOUSE I MEAN HAUNTED HOUSES THAT ARE ALIVE THAT IS A METAPHOR FOR PTSD FROM CHILDHOOD TRAUMA ETC ETC!! this story By making it started my whole obsession with the House it's crazy... scary even.. (i recommend you watch jacob geller's video essay about houses) i really do like domus carnis but it's. Messy to say the least. i do feel as if i ought to change the time period it's set in to avoid talking about the wars going on in the time period i accidentally set it in without realising but im procrastinating on that rn. it was Suppose to be late 1800s to early 1900s..

in a few simple words: flesh-and-bone made lesbian sex house. does that get your attention yet. bless

domus carnis (which literally means flesh house in latin or something) will be written in the POV of a 40ish year old widowed woman by the name of harriet wren's diary entries, occasionally switching to the POV of her 20-something year old godson percival who is like old timey jake paul and hes like either a journalistt or a radio host depending if i choose to change the time period or not. we follow them after harriet's husband dies of whatever and they find out he has a large property in a foreign country of which they had not known of prior

somewhere in germany there is a house of ex-aristocrats that no longer live there that is Alive. the House becomes alive because it is in a sense "possesed" (not haunted) the ghost of kathryna von guinevere who was the last one to die in the house, who, in life, was incredibly obsessed with The House for reasons that i fear are too long to explain without boring you and going into info pre-story?? anyways, when she "posseses" the house, the materials of the house shift to flesh, blood and bone because it Materially becomes her body. now, it would be hard to accurately label what represents what body part, because it's all strangely jumbled up and isn't like really human anatomy either cuz kathryna Can in fact see inside herself?? anyways whatever. now, the house is now both her body AND her mind. i have taken the phrase "haunted by memories/trauma" and turned it literal. the house IS haunted, but most of the ghosts aren't ghosts, theyre mostly all manifestation of Memory from her life because she actively is replaying the speech and actions of other people IN her mind to process the (typically traumatic) events of which she's seen or experienced. the ghosts CANNOT do as they please because they only exist at all Due to kathryna remembering them in these specific scenes. the hauntings include scenes of people, sounds, and shadows. unless the "scene" has a mirror, you cannot see kathy directly because you are witnessin things through HER eyes, which makes memories from wee childhood interesting because im wondering if i should make the "people" seem wayy bigger than the viewer if stuff is replayed from childhood..

i really like the fact that a lot of this is based on memory because it opens a lot of doors to me when it comes to the appearance of hauntings. my friend showed me this video depicting neurons forgetting how a face looks like, and i feel as if i could use that in the story because well, realistically kathy isnt going to have a Pristine memory cuz she Was just a human before, not to mention the fact shes already suppose to have issues on facial recognition/rememberance (my friend with these sisues suggetsed htis). the alteration of the ghosts' bodies could be fucked with even more if i try to make use and research into the way that people (mostly children) can in fact like.... change the image of something traumatic in their brain and make it less scary bc the brain is trying to protect them? yeah. AND ALSO the fact that a lot of people forgets certain aspects of their trauma due to their brain trying to protect them as well but still have this feeling of Unease when it comes o specific things that they cant explain, i could incorporate this feeling in certain areas of the House, the strange uneasiness. i experience that myself so i hope ill portray it right!!

i Think that's it?? at least that should be the bare bones of the story... i have a pin board tho if u want to check it out!!

The Epinicium

THIS is the stupid fucking thnag thats ruining my entire life rn. i love it i hate it whagever man. THIS ONE ill keep short and simple because im too fucking mentally ill about it to explain in depth without being asked questions

so basically its fantasy world but not like. Completely new high fantasy i very loosely based the countries off of like real countries and stuff bc lazy as shite so its like mid fantasy maybe HOWEVER

basically its set in this world where theres a shit ton of religions and gods and shit and theres three categories of religions (the world is veyr uhnm. Categorical idk): earth, science and the arts. basically the arts religions are the majority and the gods of those religions are called the muses so thats what i'll be calling them from now on. the basic plot of epinicium is about the muses of the music religion declaring that humanity doesnt treat music as "holy enough" anymore and taking it away as a whole (songbirds go extinct as well which is importnat) which also fucks up the other arts religionsdue to the fact that artforms are very connected but they still exist yk and centuries later our main cast attempts to bring it back!!! we have this server with a channel that has the "summary" but its not a real summary its just an already outdated infodump but we are Trying to fill this doc but we're failing really hard but friendship is magic idk.

fin.

anyways thats. pretty much it i think im sorry its too long once again 😭😭 feel free to ask question esp on the epinicium!! id love to hear abt ur ocs btw ive yapped so much oops

[aliensupersyn]

The Cog Narrative

An exhaustive analysis of Yuji's role as a cog to defeat curses, and an explanation for why Gege has not given him any significant power ups, and likely never will. I analyze Mahito and Sukuna alongside one another as foils to Yuji to compliment Yuji's promise to kill curses.

Yuji first comes to the terms with his role within the story after he defeats Mahito. He calls himself a cog meant to kill curses. Yuji's existence as a cog suggests a system that he feels he belongs to, which I will refer to generally as jujutsu society. In the beginning, Sukuna ruled jujutsu society, and his impact still remains, causing a schism between sorcerers. Still, the system has changed since the Heian era; where Sukuna once ruled with might, Jujutsu High now rules with political domination.

Sorcerers by nature wish to save people, and curses juxtapose them. Despite the changes in how sorcerers rule themselves, curses remain the same. Yuji's fight with Mahito helps him understand that a curse's true nature lies in their need to spread misery. While Sukuna isn't technically a curse, he still believes in spreading misery like one.

Mahito demonstrates the hunger for destruction that Sukuna describes as the ingredients for true strength. Uro's comments repeat this same idea. She's witnessed Sukuna's might for herself and saw him cull her squad of assassins before she was executed to deter Sukuna's ire.

Gege has been consistent throughout the series about what makes people like Mahito and Sukuna strong; their willingness to destroy everything and everyone, and the pleasure it gives them, literally and figuratively defines their existence as curses. Both promise to remain negative forces that will haunt humanity until something kills them. When Mahito kills Nanami and Nobara, he relishes in the despair it causes Yuji. The immense pleasure killing and causing despair grants him drives him to spread even more misery. As a result, he gains further understanding of his soul's essence and unlocks more strength. Gege directly ties a curse's strength to how they prioritize their desire to cause and spread misery above anything else.

Like Mahito, Sukuna thrives on the misery he causes. Though, Sukuna sees himself as a divine arbiter who bestows judgement on humans, who he deems to be beings below him. As a divine figure, he condemns humans to misery by his hands. Sukuna's title as the "disgraced one/the fallen," and his talent to forgo a barrier for his domain expansion reflect his defiled divinity. Gege describes Sukuna's domain expansion as a truly divine technique, which adds even more grandeur to his role as the strongest sorcerer in history. Sukuna's undefeated reign of terror ultimately defines his status as a divine sovereign of jujutsu sorcery.

As the symbol of the greatest force in the history of sorcery, Sukuna enforces a schism within jujutsu society. In the Heian era, and now in the modern era, Sukuna spurs the rule of might. By threatening carnage, he forces sorcerers to come and meet him in battle to test their strength and knowledge against his own. To avoid the calamity Sukuna threatens, sorcerers must either kneel to him or hope to defeat him. In the Heian era, most of the sorcerers likely chose the former after failing to succeed at the latter. After armies of sorcerers died against him, jujutsu society was forced to praise him as their divine sovereign.

The Yorozu panel reveals that Uro once led the Sun, Moon, and Stars squad that Sukuna slaughtered. The second and third pages above describe Uro's squad as powerful sorcerers who challenged Sukuna and died. Yorozu also once challenged the Fujiwara clan and they made her one of their nobles*. Uro detested the very same Fujiwara clan who apparently subjugated her.

The manga isn't very specific about what Yorozu's status was, just that she was some type of noble in the Heian capital.

After he annihilated Uro's squads, Sukuna became the supreme divine sovereign of jujutsu society in the Heian era and sorcerers were forced to worship him to avoid his ire. To stress his divinity, sorcerers prayed to him for a good harvest as if he were a God. The Fujiwara clan likely executed Uro, a leader of some of the forces that challenged Sukuna, to appease their new divine sovereign. The fealty that was pledged to him likely made Sukuna extremely bored. He wished to spread misery, but his opponents had all lost the will to challenge him and instead begged and worshipped at his feet.

Sukuna represents a solitary strength that directly juxtaposes Yuji's. As a cog, Yuji depends on others to help him achieve his role as a means to curses' ends. Against Mahito, Nobara's soul resonance granted Yuji an opening, and left lasting damage that was crucial to the curse's defeat. Yuji shamelessly depends on his friends to help him. He hardly ever fights alone and often gets paired with fighters stronger than him, especially against Sukuna. Yuji's team up with Maki, Higuruma, and Yuta drives forth not only Yuji's dependance on others' help, but also his direct contrast to both Mahito and Sukuna.

Mahito was the last of the disaster curses who remained in Shibuya after Hanami, Dagon, and Jogo were killed. Similarly, Sukuna fights alone in Shinjuku. The disaster curses' defeat demonstrates how Gege leaves room for both Sukuna and Yuji to be correct. Hanami, Dagon, and Jogo were all defeated by powerful people who represent solitary and unreachable strength; Gojo, Toji, and Sukuna all occupy the role as the strongest at the time in their respective lanes. Toji, before Maki's awakening, represented the pinnacle of strength beyond jujutsu. Gojo represents the strongest sorcerer of the modern era, and Sukuna the greatest in history and the Heian era. Despite them being alone, all three yielded better results than Yuji working alongside Nobara and Todo. In Jujutsu Kaisen, teamwork does not always work better than one strong person fighting alone.

In Jujutsu Kaisen, Gege allows both teamwork and isolation to breed innovation and evolution. Gege prioritizes a narrative focused on depicting clashing ideas more than anything else. For many characters, like Mahito and Yuji, victory represents the strength and vindication of one's convictions. If Mahito had won his battle against Yuji, that would have provided Mahito proof of his right to slaughter as he pleases. Because for him and Sukuna, might is right. In an interview, Gege reiterated my findings.

Gege allows for both heroes and villains to prove their ideas' worth against one another by allowing a story where both sides suffer similar casualties. Gege will often create a disparity favoring the villains in order to spin a story of triumph over malevolence.

The give and take often suffered by both heroes and villains define the jujutsu society that all the characters belong to. The system includes curses who thrive on spreading misery onto humans, as well as sorcerers who refuse to give into the despair caused by their enemies. The constant ebb and flow between good and evil represents the system that Yuji belongs to as a cog.

Sorcerers and Cogs

Clashes between benevolent and malevolent convictions define jujutsu society as a system built by Sukuna's rule of might. Even in the modern era ruled by Jujutsu High's political leaders, Gojo's strength alone provides him power over the higher-ups; his threats to murder them reflects Sukuna's rule of might and likely his relationship with the Fujiwara clan during the Heian era. The cog's strength determines its worth within the system, and sorcerers represent the wheels sustaining jujutsu society. The strongest sorcerers will determine what their system produces.

Against Sukuna, Megumi's desire to save people regardless of the world's fairness acts as an exemplary demonstration of a cog's attempt to challenge the system. Sukuna himself built the same system that Megumi's cog metaphor alludes to. Saving people directly juxtaposes Sukuna's conviction to slaughter and cause humans to choke on their own misery.

Sukuna welcomes the challenge because it enables him to continue enforcing his rule of might; killing sorcerers and spreading misery act as foundational imperatives for Sukuna's role as a calamity enforcing his will onto humans. Sukuna's righteous cause to destroy as he pleases forces sorcerers to either face him or kneel to him. In the above pages, Megumi spins just the way cogs in the Heian era had when they chose between kneeling and fighting. The choice that Sukuna forces upon sorcerers exemplify the system that his existence causes. Sukuna's system, jujutsu society, exists as that choice between worshipping and challenging him.

Yuji's cog comment connects back to Megumi's and demonstrates Yuji's growth as a jujutsu sorcerer. Many readers think Yuji's cog mentality holds him back, but I argue that it reflects his maturity into a fully realized sorcerer. After Higuruma's death, Yuji immediately takes the Executioner's Sword and tries to finish what his partner could not. Yuji's ability to keep fighting not only juxtaposes his failure in Shibuya, but also his maturity as a sorcerer.

The strength to fight on behalf of his fallen partner exemplifies Yuji's growth. Yuji's new blood manipulation powers will likely play an even greater role in Sukuna's ending, but he's already grown into a more grounded sorcerer. Yuji's strength lies in his team ups with his friends to achieve a united goal. With Maki returning, the two of them will work together to finally bring Sukuna down.

The choice between challenging Sukuna and worshipping him pervades even the modern era. The Jujutsu High political leaders feared Sukuna and his fingers. Even without a real body, Sukuna's cursed energy alone enforced fear and awe into jujutsu society. All sorcerers understood that his return would mean another schism; they would be required to either join him or foolishly challenge as a powerless upstart. Throughout history, sorcerers made binding vows with Kenjaku in order to one day challenge Sukuna, as Uro's squad once did. Others knew better and instead attempted to create a jujutsu society that worked to contain Sukuna in his cursed object form.

Sorcerers exist as cogs, forced to carry on each other's legacies and bear the burden of killing curses. Beyond that initial understanding, Sukuna exists as the craftsman that enforces conflict for his amusement. Sorcerers, ultimately, exist as Sukuna's toys. The final battle in Shinjuku Showdown will determine how the system, jujutsu society, might finally change if he dies.

[raelle-writing]

I’ve been seeing so many complaints about Jin not having enough backstory and that he’s too flat, and I’m curious to know your thoughts. I personally think he’s very developed and believe that a character should be able to stand by their current actions without needing flashbacks to explain them.

We know that he is a kind and gentle person who held (and still holds) idealistic notions, and that he effed up real bad with taking the video, and has been feeling guilty and haunted ever since. We know that he develops feelings deeply for people but always makes sure that they reciprocate. We know that he doesn’t like uncertainty when emotions are involved and wants clear communication and has a bit of a jealous streak. We know that when placed in physically dangerous situations, he will jump in immediately to defend and help people. We know that he loves photography and honestly a lot can be explained by his having an artistic soul.

I guess a recent example I’ve seen of a character that’s very developed with absolutely no flashback backstory is Tong’s character Hong from ManSuang. Obviously very different context and character but I loved how much we knew about his essence as a character and person without needing scenes about his childhood and how he grew up.

Anyway sorry for the length, and thank you for your wonderful DFF thoughts and analyses!

Thank you for sending this ask 💕 I've been thinking a lot about this too, honestly. I have some mixed, complex thoughts lol so let me try and explain them.

Firstly, I agree with you that we get a lot of Jin throughout his actions. I fully disagree with people who say that Jin is flat, or that he doesn't have impact on the narrative, or that he's a side character. Jin's always been a very central main piece of the plot. He's the everyman, reacting to the bullying the way most average people would. Acting selfishly and selflessly by turns. He's the catalyst that drove them into the woods. He's the only person who feels guilt and carries the weight of the past (among the bullies). He tries to be a good person, and fucks up bad by turns.

And as you said, we get tons of personality from Jin throughout his actions. He's naive and idealistic. He associates sex and feelings strongly. He falls hard and fast. He lives in a large house but clearly has no one checking on him when he comes home late or brings a boy over to stay the night. He shows signs of emotional neglect and unhealthy attachments. He has fits of anger which lead him to do bad things he feels awful about for years afterwards.

He calls himself a coward but when faced with a weapon he jumps in front of it to try and protect his friends.

There are a lot of shadows to his character that paint a full picture, to me. I don't find his character to be flat at all, in fact Jin is still one of my favorite characters because of all of this.

However, I do understand why people are disappointed. Because while we do see large pieces of Jin's character, when you compare him to characters like Non and Tee, where we see their home lives and motivations in detail, Jin definitely looks flat in comparison. I was also hoping that we'd get insight into Jin's home life and learn why he is the way he is, like we did with some of the others. And we didn't (and won't) get that. And that's definitely disappointing.

Especially since today, in a Space on Twitter, Sammon said she regrets not writing Jin in more detail and she views that as a failing. I think that's one reason people are being so negative about Jin's character right now.

BUT, I personally think people are entirely overblowing it all. Jin is a very interesting, complex, gray, sympathetic character in so many ways, even if we don't get that extra layer of depth. Especially given that one of the reasons we have less of Jin is because he does less terrible shit within the narrative as some of the others, I'm a bit 🤷🏻‍♀️ about it all.

Anyway! Thanks again for the ask, it was a good excuse for me to actually formulate my thoughts!

[streettealee]

Personally, I don't really like the idea of James having to forgive Grace or anyone thinking that he does and needs to/will at some point.

Characters can be redeemed by the narrative, but that doesn't mean all characters need to forgive them. I do think some of the attitude toward Grace turned quite assholey during ChoT, but James was impacted in a huge way by her. There's a difference between accepting what has happened to him, thereby making peace with himself (who else is guilty of beating themselves up by remembering negative experiences in an endless replay cycle and wondering why it happened or how else it could have gone so you could have avoided it or certain aspects of it?), and forgiveness. You can accept an event happened, or in some cases, a person happened, but that doesn't mean you forgive them or condone or excuse their actions. You simply acknowledge within yourself that you don't need to keep beating yourself up over it and even if things could have gone a hundred different ways, it happened the way it did and there's no changing the past.

Sometimes, we think we've made peace and then an experience comes back to haunt us weeks, months, years later, maybe even decades, and often without much warning. And you're left reeling, lost, wondering what's wrong with you "because I thought I was over this?" You could have undergone incredible healing, but suddenly you're trembling like a leaf in the wind again, short of breath, unable to sleep, unable to think, unable to feel, reduced to a robotic sort of state that a lot of people might not notice you're in. You keep thinking of a situation. It comes over and over, no matter how much you try to block it out, tell yourself you're okay with it now, there's no other way it could have been and you're done.

James Herondale has gone through trauma. I recognise that even canon didn't address it very well. Hell, I don't think even I can do it, but I'm trying where fanfic allows. I've seen others attempt it too, which is something, and more than CC did on the whole. I think some of us need to step back and realise that just because we like characters, it doesn't mean characters need to like or forgive each other. A redeemed antagonist's past does not disappear. Things aren't neatly tied up with a bow. I've done things I'm not proud of to people who didn't deserve an ounce of it, and I have to live with that guilt, and remember that they don't need to forgive me. They definitely don't. Just as I wouldn't forgive some of the people who did wrong by me in life, who leave me for periods of time a shell of a human being.

James doesn't need to forgive Grace. It wouldn't surprise me if, years down the track of his fictional life, he began suffering nightmares of a demon on his back, claws in, again, struggling to pry it off. If he saw silver bracelets and skipped hastily over them immediately because he doesn't want to think too deeply about the doors it might open. If he avoids the area around the ruined Blackthorn Manor or compulsively visits there, trying to unite his past self with who he is now. If he felt mostly indifferent just days ago but suddenly can't think about Grace without imagining methods of revenge, memories of time spent together tinted by bitterness, can't look her in the eye for weeks at gatherings.

James could say he does not blame Grace to ease her mind on one of his better days, but it is unrealistic, in my view, to believe he truly forgives her even if he's accepted what happened. A part of him might always blame her, be despairing at her, because of the years he lost because of her. He can know it was Tatiana's commands, her influence, but it doesn't remove the fact that Grace carried these things out and was the face James attributed to his pain. James can be okay, and still suddenly experience it all again years down the track, and Grace being redeemed does not mean he has to forgive her or never blame her. So long as he doesn't act out of malice or cause some intentional harm to her, James is justified. He does not need to forgive.

I hope all of that made sense. Most of this was just rambling thought.

[samueldays]

Evil Undead, revisited

As a veteran GM, I feel that kids these days complain more about the brute fact or moral law of Evil Undead in D&D or similar games, and I get questions from people wanting to use necromancy for good purposes like having tireless skeletons plow a field. Shouldn't that make up for the [Evil] tag on spells like Animate Dead? Why is that tag there, anyway?

With a caveat that "Undead" in fantasy is a kinda vague category which can reasonably have some special cases and cosmological exceptions like repentant ghosts, here's an attempt at describing how "core" undead like skeletons and vampires still count as evil and can be smote with Smite Evil, and making them is evil even if the necromancer has good intent in contemporary terms. This is mostly written with reference to D&D 3.5, which I like for its SRD, but the principles can be used elsewhere.

TL;DR: Making undead is like a faustian bargain but with Death instead of Mephisto, and every hand you lend to Death in the world is a corrupting influence even if you get something good from it.

The TLDR is inaccurate because the implicit contract is with the negative energy plane instead of a demon or avatar. Now for the long version:

In the example of the plowing skeletons, the questioning wizard is presumably treating the plowed field as an end and the skeletons as a means to that end - he's not doing necromancy for its own sake.

So he could cut out the necromancy part. He could use Animate Objects instead of Animate Dead, and make the plow move itself. (Or build a golem, but that's another story.) But notice that Animate Objects is a higher level spell than Animate Dead, as well as being temporary. Making it permanent requires another high-level spell. Wizards (and D&D players) are prone to optimizing towards Animate Dead, because it seems to be an easier and better way to achieve the desired effect.

But why does this lower level spell work better? My answer is that when casting Animate Dead, something else is providing much of the power, and that "something else" is the Negative Energy Plane. It is the plane of annihilating everything that exists, and is not on your team. You should not be contracting with it for power. Casting Animate Dead is evil because it's teaming up with an omnicidal maniac in cosmological form.

The Negative Energy Plane is arguably not strictly speaking able to power anything, because it's negative. It's a convenient shorthand to speak of "negative energy" when referring to a drain on positive energy. An undead creature produced by Animate Dead or a similar spell contains a tiny portal-conduit to the Negative Energy Plane through which light and life and heat are sucked out of the world (=negative energy flowing in) powering a magic "turbine" that makes the undead go.

Some advanced undead creatures have the power or fine control to weaponize this conduit, thus the various life-drain and energy-drain abilities possessed by vampires and wraiths and such. Different undead have different configurations and need to feed on the living more or less often, while others get by with environmental drain. Even the environmental ones can be deadly in large quantities. The Libris Mortis splatbook hints at this, and I've taken some of my inspiration from a discussion thread on that book:

This has a bunch of fun implications that match up with other narrative roles of undead and horror tropes. That crypt (haunted) which seems unusually cold? Undead are sucking the heat out. Candles suddenly blowing out? Undead!

Even though the minor drain of a skeleton doesn't amount to hit-point-damage on the scale of combat-time (the usual metric of D&D effects), it's still a creature that leaks negative energy/sucks the life out of its surroundings. Using that to plow your field is a bad idea.

That's an immediate and practical impact; in a high fantasy setting you can get more fantastic about it. Perhaps the tiny negative-energy conduits in regular undead also serve as windows for necromancers and negative-energy-beings to look on the living world, or worse, perhaps the portal is two-way. A skeleton contains a tiny hole in the planar fabric through which The Unmaker can reach, whether to affect the world directly or to seize control of the undead.

Note: your players may still insist on trying to find a utilitarian use for this sort of life-draining undead, like a haunted refrigerator that stays cold because the ghosts are sucking the heat out of it. If they're insistent, I suggest saying "Yes, but" instead of "No", and then run with the fun implications and second-order effects of binding a dozen ghosts just to store food (obviously one ghost won't cool it enough) and what normal people will think of the Superhaunted Doomfridge. Maybe the paladins will send a complaint letter. Your PCs are Good enough that the paladins will send a letter rather than showing up to Smite Fridge immediately, right? ;-)

And now I'm imagining the Paladin Job Board posting, with the headline saying "Destruction of Evil Artifact" in big letters and the fact of "it's a fridge" in the small print.

[puertoark]

My experience with each Amnesia game which I need to share with the world

SO UM. Hi. I fell in love with this game series its been a while and I needed somewhere to talk abt it so here I am !

I'll be depcting my unasked opinion briefly for each game bc god I have sm to talk abt every single one of them

Amnesia: The Dark Descent

Everyone loves this game right right I do too BUT I must say it was personally my least favorite of the series which doesn't mean I didnt fucking loved it. Almost everything abt it is nearly perfect - the ambience and sound design specially is something so so special and dear to my heart from this game oh my

I really enjoyed the narrative too its just that.. it didnt impact me like the others did and I think most of the complaints ppl have about Rebirth are applicable here aswell

I personally felt like the pacing was kinda odd too but thats probably just me anyway I rank TDD with 6 Alexanders and 2 Servant Brutes

Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs

Idk how safe it is to say that on the internet after 10 years but I enjoyed this game sm more than I did with TDD

I know why everyone dislikes this one (no inventory + no sanity + no mechanics + L + ratio) but I gotta say I enjoyed the safer walking simulator with occasional danger like gameplay

And I like how they did it too - This was the game to introduce the flickering light mechanic to when you're in danger and I absolutely love it?? Its more subtle and haunting than the roar + music start playing when you're in danger thing. its elegant and superb MY OPINION

Talking about haunting the HORROR aspect of this HORROR game is nailed aswell in more subtle things too! The atmosphere is so fucking bizarre and oppressive sometimes when youre just reading a fucking note and digging lore like christ. how. I really do enjoy Mandus's character as a creppy factor aswell as the manpigs designs too

Not talking abt Jessica Curry's score for this game bc everyone agrees its a masterpiece

I rank this one with both Edwin and Enoch

Amnesia: Rebirth

hey guys pls stop hating on games that are actual masterpieces plss

Ok now. I too have my negatives with this game. The jumpscares in the fear mechanics. And some scripted ones too but thats it.

Tasi as a character is amazing, I love her saur much I loved the mechaninc of dont "die" or else you'll be a ghoul in ten minutes and I love how talkative she is…. ik a lot of people don't like it but I think it works just perfectly with her character - esp since shes not "alone" like the other 3 and I LOVE her relationship with her pregnancy and Amari. By the end, her story had me in pieces like no ending was satisfactory enough and…. and…..

I LOVED the scenarios and atmosphere too Frictional nailed it with art direction and sound design as ALWAYS

Amnesia: The Bunker

My second fave of the series I rank with 9 Makkas and 1 lovely Amari

I am shaking, in tears, in pieces, trembling, floored, literally on your walls

God.

This game had no right in being this haunting and sad, literally… For me this game is the one that stands out the most in the franchise. I loved how most of the storytelling was on the scenarios and events of the bunker. A quiet, superb story. I loved every single detail abt it like I literally cant even describe it

The historical context, setting, ost, gameplay, CHARACTERS LIKE… HENRI AND AUGUSTIN I AM SO SORRY SOSOSO SORRY OMFG I could spend DAYS talking about them, talking about all the nuances of this game

Ofc they nailed the atmosphere and sound design but this time its better than its ever been. Feels so lonely and isolated being Henri on the bunker then you peek outside and theres a fucking WAR ready to take his life. The war that made his bff (prob his only family) a monster and took everything of them both. How scary it is to even use a gun sometimes… absolute masterpiece. Frictional peaked hard

I rank this one with one Henri one Augustin and one rabbit toy

thank you frictional games for ruining my life with horror games that for some reason had some of the best human and existential narratives ive ever experienced

Still have to play Justine tho.

[connectparanormal]

Witch Ghosts

In the realm of supernatural stories, witch ghosts, who are intriguing entities that emerge from the junction of witchcraft and ghostly folklore, occupy a niche that is both fascinating and unique. It is commonly thought that these ghosts are the restless souls of witches who, throughout their lives, possessed mysterious powers and, after their deaths, continued to exert influence from beyond the dead. The concept of witch ghosts is a compelling emblem of lingering power and unresolved conflict; it blends the dread and fascination that surround witches with the haunting presence of ghosts. This creates a powerful symbol for witches. Many different civilizations have revered and feared witches as figures associated with knowledge, healing, and the supernatural. They were also associated with the supernatural. Their connection to nature and unseen forces often clashed with social norms and religious beliefs. The persecution of witches, particularly during the witch trials in Europe and the United States, has left a grim legacy. We can interpret the concept of a witch ghost as a continuation of this history, where the spirit of a strong or wronged witch persists, unable or unwilling to move on.

These ghostly beings frequently appear within folklore, and depending on the context of the story, they might be either vindictive or protective spirits. Throughout certain narratives, they seek vengeance on people who have mistreated them throughout their lives by haunting descendants or communities that were complicit in their oppression. In this specific section of the witch ghost story, the themes of justice and the impact of society's dread and frenzy take center stage. The ghost's presence serves as a reminder of past injustices, as well as the importance of acknowledgment and healing. On the other hand, witch ghosts can also manifest themselves as guardians or guides, use their spectral presence to safeguard loved ones or instruct them in matters of wisdom. The stories depict witches as both feared and beloved individuals, highlighting their paradoxical nature. Like life, death has a positive or negative impact depending on the circumstances and intentions of the deceased. This dual function highlights the complexity of witches in folklore, which frequently defies straightforward categorization as purely good or evil based on their respective roles. There is more to the cultural importance of witch ghosts than just individual stories; they are a reflection of a larger society's ideas on women, power, and the unknown. Throughout history, people have stigmatized and frequently associated witches with women. They represent resistance to oppressive structures. They test the boundaries of nature, supernaturalism, and the living and the dead in their spectral form. As a result of their long existence in folklore and popular culture, it is clear that there is a persisting uneasiness with feminine agency and power, as well as a fascination with the unexplained and the otherworldly.

Literature and the media have tackled witch ghosts in a variety of ways, from terrifying horror stories to themes of redemption and empowerment. These narratives frequently explore themes like unfinished business, the influence of historical wrongs, and the continuing power of the past over the present. As a character, the witch ghost epitomizes the tension between dread and curiosity, the known and the unknown, and is a persona that invites spectators to investigate the issues of morality, justice, and legacy. Ultimately, witch ghosts are more than just supernatural oddities; they are rich symbols that invite meditation on important cultural and philosophical problems. Their narratives, which are rife with enigma and feeling, provide a lens through which we might investigate our anxieties, our pasts, and our aspirations for justice and comprehension. As a result, they continue to linger in our minds, posing a challenge for us to confront the shadows of our past as well as the possibilities of our future.

[polyhexian]

With how little time we have left I wonder if we actually will get any lore on Caleb and wittewife beyond what we already have. We essentially have everything we need to understand the story, I think. Or their impact, anyway. And I kind of like the idea of them haunting the narrative in between the lines. Chara and asriel really do that in Undertale, especially Chara. We only see Chara the one time in one single route. Slash the small appearance in soulless pacifist. But virtually everything we learn about them is second hand. We can infer things from the narrator about them but they never actually talk about themself so we never get that firsthand perspective from them. We only hear from other people, what the people thought happened when they died, the story of how they ended up there, toriel and asgores memories, asriels account, an old video tape and the dust covered evidence they existed at all, macaroni art and an old children's bedroom. The wordless grief the fills the space around where they existed. We only see the shape of them by knowing what surrounds it, the negative space. Caleb and wittewife really have that vibe going, we know about them but only through other people's eyes and words. We have Philips scratched out memories and Masha's old story and then we have implications and themes, del's palisman and the similarities between hunter and the clawthornes, the portal door and the stories around it all. The hainted eyes of angry ghosts. Hunter existing at all.

I really like the haunted narrative. You only know the character by the shape of the space they aren't in. Killing a character doesn't always kill them for the viewer or reader since they still exist in the narrative that you can reread, or they continue to be relevant within the narrative as a flashback or a ghost or letters. They're not really gone. But that's real death for a character, being completely unable to know them at all beyond the scraps given through other people's eyes

[poeedamerons]

It's not just that the book was better; there are movies and series that have successfully brought the book to life. Personally, I'm not a fan of the 'the book is better than the movie/series' argument because it's fundamentally flawed. The book will ALWAYS be better. It has the advantage of being the source material and allows for an in-depth exploration of characters, places, and situations, unlike a movie/series, which is restricted by screen time and budget. While this limitation poses challenges, it doesn't render the task impossible.

Adapting a complex book is no easy feat. While it may not be possible to capture all the intricate prose and rich details on screen, there are ways to work around it. Creating a coherent timeline, incorporating relevant flashbacks, building tension, mystery, and emotional impact are all possible. However, when you end up changing nearly everything from the original, the result is a feeble attempt at adaptation.

In my opinion and that of many others, "The Book Thief" was a satisfactory adaptation. Did they have to make significant cuts? Yes. However, they managed to preserve the essence of the story, its impactful characters, and crucial events. Some may disagree and consider the adaptation unsatisfactory, and that's understandable. Yet, I have yet to come across a single good review of the adaptation of "All the Light We Cannot See.

The book is undeniably brilliant, and there's no argument there, but this adaptation was more of a complete overhaul, incorporating some elements from the book. They completely mishandled the timeline, flashbacks and character backgrounds.

For instance, in the series, they introduce Uncle Etienne as a functional, Hugh Laurie-like character. However, just two (?) episodes later, they quickly unveil his traumatic experiences during World War 1 in a fleeting moment (I dont even remember if they mention the devastating loss of his brother). The fast-paced narrative hardly allows for the emotional impact that the book meticulously builds over time.

Contrastingly, in the book, we encounter Uncle Etienne as a deeply troubled and eccentric man who chooses to seclude himself from society for decades due to the severe post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his experiences in World War I. At first, readers might dislike his grumpy demeanor and distant relationship with Marie Laure, who relies on him as her sole family, especially given the uncertainty surrounding her father's fate. However, as the book unfolds, the profound reasons behind Uncle Etienne's behavior are unveiled, prompting a heart-rending realization that induces regret for any initial negative sentiment.

His reluctance to engage with the events of World War II is completely understandable, given that he is still grappling with the haunting memories of the previous war. His eventual decision to confront the Nazis (whom he despises) and assist the resistance by broadcasting crucial information represents a significant turning point in his character development in the book, and ONLY happens because Marie Laure gives him the courage to do so.

While it's understandable that the show couldn't depict this in detail, they could have easily tried. This aspect of the story could have been effectively conveyed and would have undoubtedly evoked strong emotional reactions. It had the potential to move viewers to tears. However, the series lacked the necessary emotional depth and character growth, ultimately robbing Uncle Etienne of the depth and richness of his life story.

Furthermore, the way the book leaves subtle clues for us to piece together the revelation that Uncle Etienne and his brother were the ones narrating the science broadcasts that Werner and Jutta grew up listening to is truly exquisite. This element could have been gradually unveiled to the audience, allowing us to savor the process of connecting the dots. However, I don’t even remember how this goes on the series as this was more a tale of Werner and his adventures in Saint Malo than anything else.

If you're watching the show and finding it difficult to understand why there are so many criticisms, it might be because they boldly labeled it as an adaptation, even though it hardly resembles one. It doesn't feel like an adaptation at all.

To you, Uncle Etienne might come across as a super cool character, whereas to us, he was portrayed as an utterly melancholic, and reclusive individual. He lived as if he were already dead.

If you're enjoying the show without having read the book, that's perfectly fine. How would you even notice the differences if you had no prior exposure to the story and characters? It's virtually impossible. However, once you do, you'll comprehend why it took Doerr ten years to write and why it was awarded the Pulitzer.

[tomwambsmilk]

Also I'll just say this to put a pin in it now but I think the idea of Logan as a devil figure is very connected to the idea of Kendall as a failed Christ figure. I say "failed" because narratively he's positioned to be a Christ figure, especially in season 1, because he understands earlier and better than anyone else Logan's negative impact on the family so it falls to him to sacrifice himself to break Logan's hold. But he can't actually bring himself to the point of self-sacrifice (in many ways bc of Logan's influence) and that's why he continually fails to fill that narrative role and is consequently haunted by it. The Christ motif of season 3 is an almost-explicit acknowledgment of that. He wants to be a Christ figure he feels he should be a Christ figure and yet he simply cannot go through with it and spirals out of control instead. The closest he ever comes to actually filling that role is the s3 after he tries to kill himself. Which is not the right kind of self-sacrifice but leads to him telling his siblings about Dodds which IS the right kind of self-sacrifice (bc it requires letting go of his ego and leaving himself vulnerable to them) and is what opens the door to them finally uniting.

Meanwhile, Tom himself arguably starts going on a Christ figure arc in season 3 with the whole prison thing, slapped right in the middle of his corruption arc in a way that's fascinating, and it's subtler than Kendall but he also does it better than Kendall EXCEPT we discover in 3.06 that his motives are backwards. His primary motive is to serve Logan his secondary motive is that he loves Shiv. And so we come to 3.07 where both Christ arcs are suddenly aborted by circumstance. And Kendall, who has never ever been able to follow through on this arc, is the one who finally ends up able to fulfill it and Tom, who the entire time looked like he would end up a sort of Christ figure actually makes a deal with the devil, cementing his corruption arc instead. And I think 'why' comes all the way back to this idea of motive, and Kendall's motives becoming 'purified', in a sense, while Tom's become corrupted, and it also ties into this metaphorical Inferno because we have Tom climbing right into the devil's mouth precisely as Kendall (and his siblings) are finally climbing out of it

[zombiesun]

do you have a list of favorite books or something like that? would love to get a few recs, supernatural/spiritual or just in general. hope this doesn’t bother you :)

I love answering questions like this, not bothering me at all. I'm not sure if you're looking for non-fiction occult books or fiction books that have to do with supernatural/spiritual things, but these are some things I enjoyed reading recently:

if you want to check any book lists I have/what I've been reading, my storygraph is mountainzombie

FICTION

the murders of molly southbourne by tade thompson supernatural/horror novella about a girl who sprouts murderous clones whenever she bleeds. very good execution of a concept.

the darkness outside us by eliot schrefer cosmic horror novel about two boys who are sent on a space mission to answer a distress signal. I cried no less than ten times while reading this. one of those once in a lifetime reads.

the family fortuna by lindsay eager supernatural novel about a monster girl born to a circus family who wants to reclaim her narrative. family tragedy done very well with one of the best approaches to monster girls (let them be monsters)

NON-FICTION

existential kink: unmask your shadow and embrace your power by carolyn elliott using masochism as a form of emotional and physical healing. really interesting approach to shadow work/approaching your "negative" qualities that affected my thinking in ways I still use.

I'm looking through you: growing up haunted by jennifer finne boylan one of the most interesting memoirs I've read. it's about a trans woman who grows up in a haunted house. if you want a good supernatural/spiritual read that is also a very touching memoir, would recommend.

the immortal life of henrietta lacks by rebecca skloot this isn't supernatural but the impact of this woman's life on modern medicine makes it feel like it. one of the most interesting (and important) reads on the way that black bodies have been erased from history despite their immense impact.