#I don't like this Nat. I don't!!!

[wistfulwatcher]

#just a knight looking to her queen for approval

[zzztlk]

so so excited for The Ties That Bind, I love keeping up with it's progress and can't wait until the final product!!! Here's a quick question: Is Rabel pronounced Rah-bell or Ray-bell? I keep pronouncing it Rah-Bell but idk if that's correct. Love ur work and have a good day! :)

Thanks! It's the first one, like scrabble

[natroze]

ok star rail. you got me. you made a hot nonbinary god that kisses the protagonist upon their introduction and a weird charming man who a) has access to that god's powers and b) really hates them. it's my exact favorite warlock/patron dynamic come ON

[otrtbs]

this isn't gonna make a lick of sense if you haven't seen the tiktok of the girl talking about the hunger games fanfiction she read where a tribute gets gifted a machine gun but i'm sorry .... i'm rocking with fanfiction that's "implausible" like, wdym??? wdym a tribute with a machine gun makes you want to quit the story because it took you out of the fanfic???? it's just getting good bro. strap in. things are about to go wild in that arena. "it's not believable :( " if i wanted believable i'd read the actual published book. go ahead and throw renee rapp into the arena while we're at it, i wanna see where this goes.

[tothebestofmyabilities]

@seemoreseymoursbay day 4!! Platonic relationship day

I chose Nat and Louise for today! I just love how she looks up to Nat, Louise seems to have a lot of insecurities about her place in the world and how she expresses herself and her gender (being worried about not liking girly things or about her interests being too scary or dangerous and about those things making her bad or wrong) so the way she seems to see Nat as a positive rolemodel for non traditional femininity and aspires to be more like her is just really sweet to me. I also personally hc Louise as a lesbian and I think when she starts to crush on a girl (in this case jessica bc i love them together) she wouldn't want to talk to her family about it for fear of them trying to involve themselves so she starts going to Nat to vent about her crushes and get advice (and hold snakes probably)

[youronebraincell]

I had a dream Nat was teaching Jackie how to drive and it went exactly like this:

[me-sploh-rada-imas]

[lesbianlotties]

adult Laura Lee you will always be famous

[nathaniel-underwood-is-an-intj]

Looong rant about chapter 16 Ptolemy's Gate and how being passive can add to the cycle of ab*se.

oof so I just read when Nat goes to see Ms Lutyens and I can't help but be absolutely furious at her??

I know that's maybe a little bit unfair given she's frightened of him as a magician and is obviously angry when she finds out the department he's responsible for, but honestly it kinda brings up the problem with inadvertent bystanders to child ab*se in my mind.

And I'm definitely not blaming her solely for who Nat becomes but it makes me think of all those people in huge child ab*se cases who give interviews to press about all the things they noticed that were wrong but they just...never do anything?

She stood up for him against Lovelace, and when Nat thanked her- "I wanted to say that I know you were trying to save me, and-"

''Yes, and I'm sorry I didn't" Like girl be for real did you really think that alone would undo the years of indoctrination and abuse he's already suffered and prevent years worth of the same in the years to come? And she won't take responsibility - "My job is with children, not the adults they become" and again while it seems harsh to blame her for who Nat becomes, it's so much easier to pass the blame to people who are more directly responsible rather than acknowledging you also play a part.

I think it hurts so much more because it's her specifically- Nat goes to her in sheer desperation, it almost seems like a goodbye- he wants to thank her, tries to set her up in a job that will pay well and struggles to communicate he's trying to help. At this point he thinks Bartimaeus has been summoned by another magician and his birth name will be revealed. He's sure he's about to die and if not he'll be stood on trial and lose everything.

He goes to her because she represents the peaceful moments from his childhood when he got away from his master. He's scared and feeling lost and really it's call for help; but he doesn't ask for anything he just wants to make her feel proud of him- he's looking for that validation that he's been chasing since childhood.

And that shows he still does have that little bit of childhood innocence in him; he thinks she will be proud, thinks she'll see him as the same little boy in the garden gazing up at his teacher in adoration. He can't quite grasp why she's separated the man stood before her from that little boy. Because in that moment the child inside Nathaniel is seeking comfort AND THAT'S WHY it makes me so angry. She's completely given up on him when he's at his lowest ebb, because she doesn't want to be associated with the magician he's become. As if it isn't a massive step in the right direction that he saught her out in the first place- what other magican would bother? I wonder if that's why she reacted so strongly to seeing him again? Before that moment she could go about her life wondering if /pretending her attempt to protect him was enough, and now she realises it wasn't, of course it wasn't, and the image she had of Nathaniel's childhood innocence is completely ruined in her mind.

Or was her contempt for him even grater than Nat realised? She was naturally disgusted by the rhetoric he'd started to repeat from a young age, and gently tried to correct him although she was clearly angry- was she just resigned to the fact that there is little else she could do to change his future? I always thought- couldn't she have looked for him? The Underwood house fire was in the papers and they mentioned the apprentice was being searched for. Did she ever worry about him? Surely something must have been in the papers since- an announcement of new ministers, ANYTHING! Look at how much research Kitty did to find out about Bartimaeus and Ptolemy. I just don't think Rosanna Lutyens cared enough, realistically Nathaniel wasn't hard to find- but he was no longer her responsibility so she could turn a blind eye.

And sadly it's not just her- I know everyone loves Martha Underwood including Nat; but I think her submissiveness to her husband has a negative effect on Nathaniel as well. In AOS when Nat is locked in his room for ages after setting the mites loose, and is forbidden to have any contact with anyone and she won't talk with him. I know she's been told by Mr. Underwood she can't, but it still boils my blood. She's an adult and going along with ignoring Nathaniel because her husband told her to...I can't even begin to imagine the psychological damage that would do to a 10 year old child. (It could be argued she's frightened of the consequences if her husband finds out she's disobeyed him which is fair, he could always be watching through magic- but this is Arthur Underwood we're talking about. He's lazy, oblivious and weak I doubt he'd expend all that energy each day to check up on her.)

And It's even more painful that Nathaniel is often described as fiercely loyal to her and I think to Ms Lutyens as well- he doesn't expect to be treated well by Arthur Underwood but he loved Mrs Underwood and Ms Lutyens so much he started to view them through a rose-coloured lense. He never feels betrayed by either of them, even though they absolutely let him down, because the pedestal he's put them on is too high AND THAT ABSOLUTELY DESTROYS ME.

Would things with Nathaniel have been any different if Mrs Underwood hadn't died? I don't really think so. Do you think she'd see Nathaniel's temper at 14 years old and be reminded of Arthur Underwood? He was awful, absolutely awful to Nat and to her; but he was under so much stress in an underfunded departement, where pressure was being put on him by superiors to accomplish far more than they knew him to be capable of, and he took it out on the easiest target. Nathaniel ends up in exactly the same place and he starts to take it out on the only person around him- Bartimaeus. Would he snap at Mrs Underwood all the time if she were still there? Because he's learnt that behaviour from his father figure, and subconsciously learnt from his mother figure that she'll put up with it. He learnt from the woman he loved so deeply, that if you don't resist, people will walk all over you. So you have to maintain control even if it ends up hurting people you care about because no one will step in to stop the suffering no matter how much you love them, no matter how much you want them too.

It's easy to blame Arthur Underwood and Simon Lovelace and the magicians that actively hurt Nathaniel but I just feel like it's a bit disingenuous not to acknowledge the role of those doing passive harm. It's really mean to say it but even Bartimaeus plays a role- he knows Nat is clinging on to him because he can't 'bring himself to break this last connection' (to his childhood) but instead of bringing it up properly he 'taunts' Nathaniel- a boy who has been taunted for his weakness by his master for years. And even in AOS when Nathaniel tells Bartimaeus he was beaten for the mites incident Bart just kinda shrugs it off. Like I get it, why should Bartimaeus do anything, he's suffered way worse due to the system so he doesn't owe Nat anything right? But from Nat's point of view this is the first and only time he's mentioned to anyone what has happened to him and nothing changes. It's like another lesson learnt: telling someone about it doesn't help. Another nail in the coffin.

And I like all these characters, I feel bad for them. They're all victims of the system, I think the chapter with Ms Lutyens is just the straw that broke the camel's back for me. All of those little opportunities that are insignificant to the narrative over all; the commoners have it worse, Nathaniel is in a privileged position in society, exerting control over others. He's very morally grey, crossing over into objectively bad person territory but I love him with my whole heart and all of those insignificant moments would have been massive to him whether he was conscious of it or not.

And it goes all the way back to the beginning with Nat's parents giving him up to the magicians at 5 years old. I can't get the image of that little boy sat crying all alone in the government building. And he's not going somewhere safer, or somewhere he'll be happier and more loved. Giving your child over to a total stranger, oh he'll be totally fine won't he? He'll grow up to be a magician and far richer than you'll ever be, he'll be happy and comfortable and be grateful he got to grow up in luxury. There's no way a stranger you've never met, who the majority of society is terrified of would ever hurt a vulnerable little kid right? And if they do? Well you aren't responsible anymore, how could you know? What could you possibly do against the magician taking care of him?

Every little thing is another grain of sand tipping the scale. Did anyone else have to analyse An Inspector Calls in school? It feels like that to me- those BIG moments and all the little moments in between that add onto the pile.

And it goes on to cause problems in wider society too- ab*se is so normalised to the magicians, they casually ask Underwood if he hits Nathaniel like it's nothing. Because to them it is nothing, they've all grown up in the same circumstances and are repeating what they've learnt as children. I can't help but feel a little sorry for them all, especially when they aren't looked at through the black and white lense of 'argh these people are the evil arseholes look at how they treat everyone around them, screw these guys.' When we see those little glimpses of humanity like Simon's anxiety with the amulet; looking to his master and father figure Schyler for reassurance, and what's sad is that Nat is "reminded...of his own master's cold impatience" It's clear Simon looks up to his master, wants to make him proud and loves him. But it seems like Schyler has just trained Simon up so he can get power through him later on. I love the little hints of similarities between Simon and Nathaniel; the anxious mannerisms like fiddling with his hair that Nathaniel starts to develop, the way their master's talk to them. Even though they're actively working against each other in AOS and Simon is placed firmly in the baddies category and Nat in the goodies category at this point in the series; these things always hinted to me they had similar childhoods, how was Simon treated? When he had the imp beat Nat into unconsciousness, was it because he'd had the same punishment used against him? Did he know the magicians in the room would do nothing to stop him because no one stopped it from happening to him? Did he ever have a teacher stand up for him only for it to change nothing in the end because all the negative influences were so much stronger? Is the reason he loves Schyler like a dad because he's almost developed Stockholm syndrome? It looks like love because he's never known anything else.

And Arthur Underwood- who doesn't think his upbringing, and being taken away from his family ever did him any harm- doesn't realise the harm done is that he doesn't even know another way of raising Nathaniel, because he was never shown another way. His childhood may also have been filled with people who hurt him and the people that didn't do enough to intervene.

There are so many psychology studies that show children copy everything they see the adults in their life doing. Nathaniel copies the magicians behaviour towards spirits and on a subconscious level I think he copies all the submissive people in his life. How many times does he end up upset and frustrated with the fact he seems to be going nowhere and how many times does he just hope things will be different rather than taking postive action.

I dislike the actions the magicians end up taking but I also find them fascinating to analyse. I tend to prefer villains in media because they're usually slightly more complex individuals and I love to think about how they ended up that way. They can all be seen as victims of their circumstances in a way, despite all the power and privilege they have had terrible and traumatic childhoods, and if the commoners had no valuable worldy possessions at least they had a sense of togetherness; of love and understanding and selflessness. I wonder if the magicians hated them at least partly because of that. Because out in the sea of faces of the commoners talking about nothing important, doing nothing great and noble- could be the parents that abandoned them. And when your life is on the line daily because of working with spirits, and your colleagues want to stab you in the back, sometimes not being responsible for anything important looks good. But you can't leave your life as a magician, it would be too difficult; you have nowhere to go, no real friends, no one who really loves you. So it's better to stay and be a submissive bystander in your own life because it's so much easier.

Doing nothing is doing something- being passive can be just as harmful.

[jq37]

I'm like genuinely interested as someone who thinks a lot about the craft of critique and fandoms the ways in which the current Rat Grinders discourse shows why you can't really apply the same lens you use to critique a pre written story vs an improvised actual play show by a bunch of comedians who are first and foremost concerned with committing to the bit. Like Porter's a great example of this, he went from a nothingburher to secretly evil with a whole lore and backstory!

In the same vein the Rat Grinders probably could have turned out to be not as culpable in all of this had the Bad Kids really tried to bond with them, but instead they focused on other things with the way downtime was structured! And because they did that they could pass the Last Stand, and are safe from Porter's rage thing! Like legitimately I really liked the mechanics of downtime this season, it just also came at the cost of developing the Rat Grinders!

(Though to be entirely fair, the BKs did try to engage with Oisin, Ivy, and Ruben and then Oisin launched the house, Ivy was racist, and Ruben still attacked Wanda so)

I think it's really fascinating from a storytelling/game design perspective! The downside is the Discourse is so tiring

Yeah it's interesting. I covered some of this in other asks so I'm gonna hit on the stuff I haven't yet.

If you're telling a story that is based partially on user input, it's not entirely fair to be like, "This subplot was underdeveloped" if the reason for that was that the players didn't make choices to facilitate that development. When DM's push hard for the players to care about things they're not interested in, they get hit with railroading accusations.

And even outside of the player choices, there are also the rolls. A BIG part of D&D is the randomness of the dice. Even if the players care about something, it doesn't mean they'll get it. I'll mention again that Kristen tried to roll Insight on Buddy before the final fight and got a Nat 1. What is she supposed to do? Roll again until she gets a good read on him? That's not how that works. If the dice aren't cooperating, there's not much you can do. And you can make sure your big story beats don't rely on dice but at the end of the day they *will* shape your story in ways you can't control.

Another key thing about the medium, as you pointed out, is things can change on the fly. The confluence of high rolls and serious interest can change things that were behind the screen canon in an instant. In Burrow's End, Aabria planned for Bennet to have a family but as soon as Tula/Brennan expressed interest in romancing him, she Thanos snapped that family out of existence. I don't know how much Brennan wanted the Rat Grinders to be recruitable but even if he'd planned them all to just be foils and evil and nothing else, I can totally see him flipping one if they'd really wanted to and it would have made for a good story beat.

Anyway, yeah! Interesting stuff to think about. Even though D20 often feels like a TV show, it's important to remember that it's a different beast in many ways.

[spywhitney]

How I sleep knowing I'll never trust anyone that hates Sydney but worships Richie:

[whitestopper]

[wistfulwatcher]

misty quigley is a lesbian; a comphet reading of her deprivation tank "realization"

in rewatching misty's deprivation tank therapy, i'm more convinced than ever that misty is a lesbian suffering from compulsory heterosexuality. the entire scene, from start to finish, is about misty accepting that walter has feelings for her (not the other way around), and learning to push through her discomfort with that fact.

the deprivation tank scene begins by establishing that misty is afraid. we see quick transitions and hear bubbling water and see a terrifying fish coming at the camera with sharp teeth. followed by a slightly softer stream of images of walter, interspersed with memories of crystal, and of caligula. misty is thinking about three key relationships in this moment: walter, who is actively pursuing her; crystal, whom she loved and hurt and misses; and caligula, who is the only creature that both loves her, and she loves back.

love is the concept that ties these three together: walter is who she could love, crystal is who she did love, and caligula is who she does love.

and so the memories fade into her fantasy sequence, led by caligula, and he begins to soothe her. this creature that represents real (platonic, obviously) love to her (in that it is true and reciprocated, more than she feels it is with any human) tells her "shake off your blues/i'll set the mood for ya". caligula is acknowledging her fear and her loss, and telling her that he can fix it. that he has an answer that will make all of her problems go away.

which is when walter appears, looking like the leading man in a classic musical; an idealized romantic interest, one her fantasy has turned from a real man into a fictional character. and what does he do? performs for her. misty (per the directions of the song, to just "sit right down") sits and watches. she does not interact with him, because she (and her attraction) is not a part of this. one element of comphet is the inability to picture yourself in a fantasy with a man; misty does not put herself with walter, she does not join him.

and while he and caligula perform, three items float around the screen: the plane axe, a syringe, and the black box (which fluctuates between intact and exposed). these three items are such a fascinating choice, because they, 1) all relate to the actions she took in her need to be useful and appreciated, but 2) also represent some of the ugliest things she has done (at a time when she has recently been thinking about what kind of person these things make her). she is thinking about these moments (her behavior with ben, murdering jessica, and stranding the team/breaking crystal's trust) that cause her great discomfort, at the same time she is trying to convince herself that walter is what she needs. she is comparing the discomfort she has with walter's interest and the validation she would feel from a relationship, to the way she's felt about all of these other bad things she's felt compelled to do.

while these items float, caligula sings, "now sit right down/let your troubles melt away/and you'll be sitting pretty in the moonlight gaze". continuing to tell her to push through the discomfort; just let it go. and if you do? "moonlight gaze" is such an interesting choice, because the moon is most strongly symbolic of women. if she lets go and has this relationship with walter, the other women will think she's normal. (especially after just a few hours prior to this, natalie had said, "we're all like this, aren't we?" this is her chance to prove nat wrong, for misty's own sake and/or for nat's!) this is not the first time misty has displayed behavior suggesting that it's important to her that natalie (and other people in general) see her as desirable as a romantic/sexual prospect: telling natalie about her dates on the road trip to travis, "i bet he thinks we're hookers!" said with glee in the jail, "i have a secret boyfriend, too," whispered to natalie in '96. if she decides to accept walter's interest (a man who is so into her that he is literally fine with her being a serial killer!), then maybe the other girls will see how worthy misty is of affection and attention.

once the dance number is over, misty immediately goes to speak with caligula; again, in her fantasy about loving walter, she doesn't interact with walter. instead she seeks caligula out, because he is the one she feels a real connection to; he is the one who knows her and can reassure her - the one whose reassurance will mean something. (walter, a man she barely knows, has been nothing but a concept to her in this fantasy, and that doesn't change.) misty's conversation with caligula is emotional; she is clearly bothered by the idea that other people see her as a murderer. but caligula doesn't give her an emotional response or solution; instead, he tells her she's a "closer". he points out that, even when things are rough (i.e., even though she doesn't like how walter makes her feel), she can persevere and accomplish her goals. it is this reminder that causes misty to transition the scene to to the final piece.

and oh boy, is that final scene a goldmine. because it begins with a close-up on misty's childhood phone. the phone that becky called her on back in 1992, to tell her that she was disgusting. that no man would want her, and that she would never find "a victim" to sleep with. that moment was foundational for misty's issues, for her desire to be wanted and needed in '96, and her deep need to receive validation from men in '21. this scene is so crucial to understanding misty's relationship to comphet, because one of the key facets is wanting a man to see you as desirable, because that is a woman's value in a misogynistic society. this hits misty so especially hard because she's not just lacking interest and validation from men in school; she hasn't been getting recognition from anyone. (for her to break the black box after just a few hours of receiving positive attention? she was starving for it.)

and so walter calls her on the phone - their backs to each other, literal and emotional distance between them - and starts to tell her that he loves her. but he doesn't say the words. instead he uses morse code to send "uoyevoli": "i love you", backwards. a fascinating choice, because it could be argued that the morse code is representative of their shared love of puzzles as crime solvers. but why backwards? surely the symbolism of the puzzle connection has been satisfied by the morse code.

it's because misty doesn't want to hear "i love you." she wants the implication of walter's desire, she wants to know she has value, but she doesn't want the actual feelings. she wants him to say i love you in a way she can't feel. she wants him to call her and turn his back so she can do the same. she wants to "get the ball over the goal line" and to do that she needs this level of distance.

so this scene with walter? it isn't about walter; it's about recreating that brutal memory. it's about rewriting her past. in her fantasy, walter calls her to prove that becky was wrong, that he is choosing misty because she is desirable. that he does want her. and this is so key because this whole scene is about how walter feels. that walter wants her. in misty's "realization" that she wants to be with walter, it isn't about her feelings at all. the purple flowing line of love comes from walter, the words "i love you" - twisted as they may be - come from walter. misty's only role in her fantasy is to "sit right down" and accept her role; surrender to the fact that walter is the right choice.

and when she does, when she finally, finally comes to the end of this moment, she still doesn't interact with walter. the natural progression of a love confession is physical contact. a kiss, or a relieved embrace. misty seeks neither! in this fantasy of hers where she can have anything, she makes no effort to acknowledge walter at all. instead, she turns to caligula, representative of her real connections. and she celebrates her victory with him. misty can close this deal, can get through this decision she's made, by clinging to the people she does actually care about.

[nsewell]

dreams that dog through every past.

ava du mortain/natalie sewell / ~2.6 words / rated M

Ava and Nat both have their nightmares. No one helps them weather the tempest of their minds better than each other.

(on ao3)

[dirchristophernolan]

Jihyun Yun, from Some Are Always Hungry; “Reversal”

[cxlandine]

extra courseload is too much for me but killing a god and reviving some ancient force of rage??

im a sick puppy and this excites me.